Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: Bullseye on January 18, 2019, 12:13:AM
-
Hi everyone my first post, lots of questions sorry!
It’s been years since I caught up on the case. I use to read the old site til the thread was all removed. Ive always had doubt over the case, but still don’t know if he is guilty or not hoping you guys can help me gets my facts right and clear up a few things that don’t make sense to me.
Everything seems to be centred round that 45 minute timeframe 1700 - 1745, what evidence is there that was the time of the murder, all I could find from the court records was “Although the pathologists were unable to fix a time of death, the untoward sound heard by Leonard Kelly as he cycled along the Roan's Dyke Path would fit with the attack upon her having taken place behind the wall at that time” surely that’s not all they are going by? Also the way she was treated after she was found how reliable would a time of death be, anyone know?
Was any dna found with full dna profiles other than the sisters bf? And yet to be identified?
Was there a blood stained shirt found in the area that was not tested or examined? Find that hard to believe
Was Luke’s dog training to be a tracker dog?
How long does it take to walk from Jodie’s house to the top of the lane? From the top of the lane to the v? The v to the bottom and the bottom to Luke’s house? I believe it takes around 15mins to walk length of the lane.
Was there proof Luke’s mum got home at 1715.
The call about putting the pie on for tea, what time was that, was it on the house phone or mobile, was there a log of this call?
Luke’s brother could not confirm he saw Luke in the house, but did he confirm he had pie and mash, how long after his mum got home did he come for tea? Was his room on the same level or upstair?
Is it correct he had not showered, hair and hands dirty (if I killed someone first thing I’d do is shower)
A lot of confusion over clothing I found. Witness one, green fishing type hip length jacket, witness 2 green bomber style with orange lining. So why were the police looking for a Parker style jacket and a combat shirt (which I believe Luke said he only purchased after the murder) Did they suggest there was footwear missing too, as lads that age don’t usually have a load of shoes, generally they wear the same pair most days, were any missing? What did the 2 lads that knew Luke and seen him sitting on the wall say he was wearing?
JF and GD on path at 1700 to 1720, around same time as LK, motor bike parked at v did not see or hear anything or anyone. (Who was the witness that said they saw the bike parked at v with nobody else around?) LK heard noise behind wall but saw nobody, and did not see or hear any bike, is that correct?
What time did Luke leave to meet other friends and what time did they meet at. How long would that journey take
I’m hoping the answer to some of these might help me make a bit more sense of the case, or maybe give me more questions lol
-
are good to see you agian bullseye there did used to be a timline of the events
from memory i belive lukes met up with his mates at 7pm,
theres 4 difrent times fr when jodi left her house.
-
Hey nugnug, it’s been a few years, hope you are well.
I’m just reading through all the info on here, refreshing my memory. On page 200 so getting there. Finding a few answers to some questions I’ve had over the years. But I’m sure I will have more lol
-
Hi, Bullseye, I'm stuck on a train at the moment, so I have some time to answer your questions!
Everything seems to be centred round that 45 minute timeframe 1700 - 1745, what evidence is there that was the time of the murder, all I could find from the court records was “Although the pathologists were unable to fix a time of death, the untoward sound heard by Leonard Kelly as he cycled along the Roan's Dyke Path would fit with the attack upon her having taken place behind the wall at that time” surely that’s not all they are going by? Also the way she was treated after she was found how reliable would a time of death be, anyone know?
There was no evidence whatsoever that this was to time of death. No medical, pathologist or forensic evidence and no eyewitness (or even deduction from eyewitness accounts) because the time of leaving was never confirmed. If, as earlier statements suggested, Jodi left at 5.05 or 5.30 ToD could not have been 5.15
Was any dna found with full dna profiles other than the sisters bf? And yet to be identified?
Yes, there were five male DNA profiles unaccounted for. One of this was eventually identified as Falconer (condom man), the others remain unidentified. Other, partial profiles on the clothing also remain unidentified but cannot be Luke's.
Was there a blood stained shirt found in the area that was not tested or examined? Find that hard to believe
There was a hoodie and jogging bottoms that were never tested (no indication that they were bloodstained. A shirt found on the wall was bloodstained -from memory, there were no positive results from testing, but again, partial results indicated nothing of Luke's DNA - i' d need to go back and fact check this, since I don't remember the exact circumstances
Was Luke’s dog training to be a tracker dog?
yes
how long does it take to walk from Jodie’s house to the top of the lane? From the top of the lane to the v? The v to the bottom and the bottom to Luke’s house? I believe it takes around 15mins to walk length of the lane.
There's the entrance lane then the path. Jodi's house to entrance lane, 2 mins 40:seconds, entrance lane to top of path, 2 - 3 mins, top of path to V, 7 -8 mins, v to bottom, approx 4 mins, bottom to Luke's house 7mins.
Was there proof Luke’s mum got home at 1715. [/]quote]
Other than Luke and Shane,s accounts, CCTV showed Corinne leaving work just after 5pm and in a shop 5 mins from Her home at we ar around 5.08, but nothing else to say she went straight home from there.
[qute]The call about putting the pie on for tea, what time was that, was it on the house phone or mobile, was there a log of this call?
From memory, 4.23pm, house phone to work landline, yes, it's in the phone records.
Luke’s brother could not confirm he saw Luke in the house, but did he confirm he had pie and mash, how long after his mum got home did he come for tea? Was his room on the same level or upstair?
He did confirm he saw Luke, but the police would not accept it because he couldn't remember in his first statement. He confirmed what he ate and said it was just after his mother arrived home around 5.15pm. He was upstairs until he was called down for tea, came down and collected his dinner, poke to like and his mum, the took his meal up to his room to est. The police said Corinne put him up to saying all of that.
[qute{s it correct he had not showered, hair and hands dirty (if I killed someone first thing I’d do is shower) [/quote] Yes, that is correct. The dirt on his ankles and neck were described as having the appearance of having been there for some time.
lot of confusion over clothing I found. Witness one, green fishing type hip length jacket, witness 2 green bomber style with orange lining. So why were the police looking for a Parker style jacket and a combat shirt (which I believe Luke said he only purchased after the murder) Did they suggest there was footwear missing too, as lads that age don’t usually have a load of shoes, generally they wear the same pair most days, were any missing? What did the 2 lads that knew Luke and seen him sitting on the wall say he was wearing?
Only one witness mentioned a parka jacket (the witnesses who may have seen someone else entirely but assumed it was Luke) - she said it "could have been s parka" but "only because of the length. Initially, she described it as " dark" and possibly green". No questions about missing footwear.
JF and GD on path at 1700 to 1720, around same time as LK, motor bike parked at v did not see or hear anything or anyone. (Who was the witness that said they saw the bike parked at v with nobody else around?) LK heard noise behind wall but saw nobody, and did not see or hear any bike, is that correct?
I can't name the person who saw the bike, but her other confirmed movements and evidence make it an extremely credible and reliable account. JF and GD admitted the bike was there without them at 5.15pm
What time did Luke leave to meet other friends and what time did they meet at. How long would that journey take
After waiting for Jodi until about quarter to seven, Luke crossed the road into the abbey to wait for his other friends arriving - it would have taken him no more than 2 minutes to get into the abbey grounds -it was right opposite the wall where he was sitting in full view waiting for Jodi at the end of his street.
I’m hoping the answer to some of these might help me make a bit more sense of the case, or maybe give me more questions lol
All of this and much more is in my latest book 'Innocents Betrayed' - available on Amazon
-
Thanks for the information Sandra, I will check out the book, still to read the first one too sorry! :-[ I sent you a PM hope you got it, I’ve no idea how to use these sites lol
So there is nothing other than a guy on a bike that heard a noise behind the wall at 1715 , to say that this is the time of the murder 1700 to 1730? So it really could have been anytime? And there is a credible sighting of the bike at 1715 at the V (sorry I wasn’t asking for a name, I just wondered if someone else on the path to see them) Then it’s very unlikely to have been then, as they would have heard or seen something or scared anyone away I’d have thought? So it would need to be after that. Timing just doesn’t fit for me to think it’s Luke. Then he is just sitting meters away from her body minutes after he has meant to have killed her for an hour, she could have been found at anytime, he would have no idea if there was any blood dna etc on him.
Turnbull said there where 3 key points that showed Luke’s guilt.
Shane’s statement
AB sighting
Luke finding body, not the dog
Shane’s statement - someone has to have made the tea, just because he could not confirm he seen Luke does not mean Luke was not home. His mum confirmed Luke was home, only she and Luke know the truth on this but to give an alibi for such a horrendous crime, and continue to stick by this and show full support make me tend to believe her. Only thing that I don’t understand is why Shane has never spoken out to clarify this over all these years and also show his support. I know I would.
AB sighting - In my opinion the clothing does not match Jodi so i would not have taken that as a positive sighting, also she did not confirm Luke being the boy she saw.
Luke or the dog find the body - Only Luke and the family know the truth to this one. But I’ve never understood this really. Why the family statements all changed. First they all confirmed in more than one statement over a few weeks that the dog alerted them to the wall, there was no question to that. Then the statement changed, why, I’m not sure how that can be mistaken as they said they saw the dog jump at wall originally. But why would they change this, did they remember later they didn’t actually see the dog alert, they had just taken Luke’s word for it? It makes me uncomfortable to think how much of an affect this had to the trial, it wasn’t just a bit of evidence, it was a key point, one of the 3 key points Turnbull raised with the lack of any dna, etc. As I said only Luke and the family know if the original statement was correct or mistaken. if the dog was a trained tracker I would tend to believe the original statement that the dog alerted them to the wall. But just my opinion guys!
-
i never i understaood why the family wre looking for a tennager who was late hom in the woods i mean why would a teenage girl of been hanging around in the woods in the dark and why the hell wold you think they were.
and why did they not phone any of jodis friends how did they know jodi wasnt around a friends house..
-
I thought they were just following the route they thought Jodi might have taken after she left home for Lukes. Just so happens the first place they looked the dog found her. I didn’t think there was anything strange by that but I didn’t realise no other calls were made to friends. That would be the first thing to do, or was Jodie mum maybe doing this when the search party left?
I remember reading that Jodi had gone missing a few days or weeks before, she was at her friends til early hours of the morning. What action did the family take that time?
I assume this was a weekend she was missing before? the night Jodi was killed was a school night so can understand them being extremely worried and setting out looking for her, but There should still be lots of calls made to friends also, checking if she was there, maybe even before a call to the police?
-
I thought they were just following the route they thought Jodi might have taken after she left home for Lukes. Just so happens the first place they looked the dog found her. I didn’t think there was anything strange by that but I didn’t realise no other calls were made to friends. That would be the first thing to do, or was Jodie mum maybe doing this when the search party left?
I remember reading that Jodi had gone missing a few days or weeks before, she was at her friends til early hours of the morning. What action did the family take that time?
I assume this was a weekend she was missing before? the night Jodi was killed was a school night so can understand them being extremely worried and setting out looking for her, but There should still be lots of calls made to friends also, checking if she was there, maybe even before a call to the police?
well i wouldent you wouldent want to call the police untill you wre abslutly sure she was missing so i think you would want to phone her friends up first.
becouse if she hadent gon to lukes there wsnt really any reason to think she took that route.
-
If it was my kid I’d have called Luke first, sent people out to look and called the rest of her pals only after that would I call the police.
If I was searching I’d start by following the route she would take to Luke’s, then searching surrounding areas she was known to hang out.
Been wondering about her smoking habits, anyone know if she bought her own hash? Could she roll a joint, was she known to have a smoke by herself?
I know about an 8 bar was picked up that night, was this at Jodi’s home, did she have a smoke with her bro before she went out?did Luke get his weed of jof usually?
Nugnug I sent you a pm too, again not sure if I sent it right, not use to using these sites sorry lol
-
Just to clear up a couple of points. Jodi's mum told police she was certain Jodi and Luke were going to be "mucking about up here" - Mayfield and Easthouses. There was no suggestion at all that Jodi was going to Newbattle (where Luke lived). When she called Luke asking for Jodi, she didn't ask where they were supposed to be meeting up - Luke told her he hadn't seen Jodi all night and she hung up. That's confirmed by both Luke and Judith's statements. So the family search trio (already in Mayfield) would have had no reason to believe Jodi might have gone to Newbattle. They didn't check anywhere on the way to the path, including places Jodi often spent time in Mayfield (Scotts Caravans, Luke's mum's business premises) or Yvonne Walker's flat, just yards from Alice Walker's home. They weren't even looking for her or calling out for her on the shortcut from Mayfield via the Complex) which was also surrounded by trees. They only switched on their torches and started calling out Jodi's name when they reached the entrance to the path.
It's not so much the going to the path that's strange (although it is, in view of the fact that everyone believed she intended to be in Easthouses or Mayfield that evening), but that they didn't look anywhere else at all for her.
Also, Janine told the court the trio had no intention of continuing down onto the Newbattle road if they didn't find Jodi on the path. (There are lots of places on the Newbattle Road where a young girl could be dragged into the woodland either side) - the path, and only the path - was their only /focus.
-
The 17:15 sighting of the bike at the V. Six independent witnesses saw the boys and the bike driving "erratically" through the yard of their workplace at closing time - i.e. 5pm. Two of them saw the boys pushing the bike up the Newbattle Road after it cut out and turning into the Newbattle entrance to the path, as did a passing motorist. That places the boys and the bike at the entrance to the path, with a bike that had cut out, at approximately 17.05. Walking normally to the V point from there would have taken 4 - 5 minutes, so it's reasonable to suggest they'd need more time because they were pushing the bike, but the timings strongly suggest they would have been at the V point, with the bike, at around 5.15pm. The best evidence of all is their own statements - the admitted that it was their bike, propped against the wall without them at that time (although they initially lied to the police to have themselves off the path an in GD's house prior to 4.30). The lie was exposed by the evidence of 7 other witnesses who saw them at 5pm on the bike, a call from GD's phone at 4.30 asking JF to pick him up in Dalkeith and GD's appointment at the Jobcentre - all of that proved they were not back in GD's house before 4.30pm nor, more importantly, before 5.15pm.
The AB sighting of the guy at the Easthouses entrance to the path was nothing like Luke - an older guy, late teens to early twenties, thick messy hair sticking up in a clump at the back, fisherman's clothes - matching trousers and jacket with a bulging pocket. He was too far away for her to see his face and she was clear at the beginning that she could not tell investigators what he looked like facially - she couldn't make out a single feature.
The dog's tracker training records were in police hands and they also interviewed the trainer, who said her tracking abilities were "excellent" - he said she was a "natural". He was never asked to give evidence at trial. There would appear to be no doubt, from the records and the interview, that if the dog was in tracker mode, she would have alerted by reaching to the highest point she could find and "air-sniffing" in the direction of the thing she was alerting to.
-
Just to clear up a couple of points. Jodi's mum told police she was certain Jodi and Luke were going to be "mucking about up here" - Mayfield and Easthouses. There was no suggestion at all that Jodi was going to Newbattle (where Luke lived). When she called Luke asking for Jodi, she didn't ask where they were supposed to be meeting up - Luke told her he hadn't seen Jodi all night and she hung up. That's confirmed by both Luke and Judith's statements. So the family search trio (already in Mayfield) would have had no reason to believe Jodi might have gone to Newbattle. They didn't check anywhere on the way to the path, including places Jodi often spent time in Mayfield (Scotts Caravans, Luke's mum's business premises) or Yvonne Walker's flat, just yards from Alice Walker's home. They weren't even looking for her or calling out for her on the shortcut from Mayfield via the Complex) which was also surrounded by trees. They only switched on their torches and started calling out Jodi's name when they reached the entrance to the path.
It's not so much the going to the path that's strange (although it is, in view of the fact that everyone believed she intended to be in Easthouses or Mayfield that evening), but that they didn't look anywhere else at all for her.
Also, Janine told the court the trio had no intention of continuing down onto the Newbattle road if they didn't find Jodi on the path. (There are lots of places on the Newbattle Road where a young girl could be dragged into the woodland either side) - the path, and only the path - was their only /focus.
but why would be certan that they wre both jodi had lied to her about her whereabouts before.
-
Thanks a lot Sandra, you book answered most of my questions and opened my eyes up to so much more on Scottish law that I thought I knew, turns out I had no idea of my rights!!
Couple of Question arised from the book
Bit confusing on the 9 bar, was it the brother or the cousin that owned this, was the brother a dealer also, don’t see how he could afford to buy it unless he was selling most of it. Did the police find this when they searched jj house, I assume this search was done! The knife used to cut the 9 bar, was it found, it would more than likely have been heated up very hot in order to cut through the cannabis, that’s was how bars were usually cut up.
Luke got his weed of the cousin, was he due to get some of the 9 bar that day/night. Did he have anything on him when he was taken by police that night, how much did he usually buy from the cousin if he was meant to be some big time dealer I assume quite a bit??
Only place I can see jj having a smoke is in the house with her bro before she left or with yw which sounds plausible, do webknow much about yw statements or movements that night?
The 2 other occasions jj was late, was this at the weekend or a school night also?
1118 call, was there was no mention of being with Luke? Does that mean he took over 20 mins to walk the path?
Is there dna evidence still available to retest or have they all now been destroyed? Can this be done independently or is there red tape making this difficult? I think some answers are there!
You said a few times in the book there may be tests statements, phone call logs, etc that were carried out but not given to the defence, I always assumed the defence were entitled to all information obtained not selected evidence, can you clarify this?
-
Bit confusing on the 9 bar, was it the brother or the cousin that owned this, was the brother a dealer also, don’t see how he could afford to buy it unless he was selling most of it.
The brother owned it, according to statements attributed to him. I've no idea if he was a dealer - the case files are silent about that.
Did the police find this when they searched jj house, I assume this search was done!
No and No.
The knife used to cut the 9 bar, was it found, it would more than likely have been heated up very hot in order to cut through the cannabis, that’s was how bars were usually cut up.
No. To my knowledge, no attempt was ever made to recover either the bar or the knife used to cut it. You have to remember, the police didn't even become aware of all this until nearly 2 weeks into the investigation.
Luke got his weed of the cousin, was he due to get some of the 9 bar that day/night. Did he have anything on him when he was taken by police that night, how much did he usually buy from the cousin if he was meant to be some big time dealer I assume quite a bit??
No, there was no plan for Luke to get any from the cousin that night/day - he had no plan to be in Easthouses/Mayfield at all. He had nothing on him when the police took him to the station after Jodi was found. Prior to the murder, he bought £10 - £20 worth at a time. There was reference in the case files to one occasion where more than that was supposed to be bought - around £100 - because a group of friends had "clubbed together." However, it's interesting that that story didn't come from Luke or any of his friends, but from someone who was connected with supplying cannabis to the wider group. There was never anything to support it.
Only place I can see jj having a smoke is in the house with her bro before she left or with yw which sounds plausible, do webknow much about yw statements or movements that night?
Smoking at home was outright denied by the family members. Jodi never smoked at home, with anyone or by herself, according to all of their statements. There is nothing to account for YW's movements that evening. Her statements in that regard (if they exist) were not released to the defence.
The 2 other occasions jj was late, was this at the weekend or a school night also?
Weekend, both of them.
1118 call, was there was no mention of being with Luke? Does that mean he took over 20 mins to walk the path?
I know the timings section of the book is very confusing, but the 11.18 call is disputed, both in where the search trio was when it was answered and what was said in the call. In short, the walk from the junction of the paths to the V point at a "brisk pace" in daylight was timed at 7 minutes. Allowing a couple of minutes extra for the discussion when the trio met with Luke at the junction of the path (no more than 2 minutes, according to the statements) and another couple of minutes for the slower walk in the darkness (all of the statements referred to the slow pace), the return journey down the path required at least 11 minutes. If the trio were in the "complex" at 11.18, they would not have reached the junction of the paths until 11.23 - add the 11 minutes required to get to the V point and the time is 11.34 - almost the exact time Luke called 999 the first time. But there's no time for the three members of the search party climbing over the wall, one at a time, finding Jodi, getting back to the V point and climbing back over etc. Even allowing 2 minutes each (and all of the searchers spoke of the struggle AW had getting over the wall, so it's likely to be more than that), the first 999 call would have to be around 11.40pm, based on these timings (which are, in turn, based on the search trio's own statements). That's after the police call back to Luke. There's a lot to take in about this aspect of the case - might be better as a stand alone question!
Is there dna evidence still available to retest or have they all now been destroyed? Can this be done independently or is there red tape making this difficult? I think some answers are there!
Sorry, I can't answer that question because of the ongoing case review.
You said a few times in the book there may be tests statements, phone call logs, etc that were carried out but not given to the defence, I always assumed the defence were entitled to all information obtained not selected evidence, can you clarify this?
Sadly, that's a mistake many people make. The defence is entitled only to what the "Disclosure Officer" (working for the police) deems worthy of disclosing to the defence. Officially, that is information that might undermine the Crown case or assist the defence case. In reality, those re the very things least likely to be disclosed. Everything else that the prosecution is not relying on goes onto an "unused evidence" schedule. The defence can request items from this schedule, but they must (a) know what it is they're asking for and why it's relevant and (b) give "good reason" for requesting it - once again, if the disclosure officer doesn't agree that it's "good reason," s/he can refuse to release it.
Two examples from other cases:
(1) An item on the unused schedule was labelled "fibres" found on the palm of the victim's hand. Years later, it was discovered there were actually human hairs, clutched in the victim's hand, almost certainly from the killer.
(2) The defence requested phone log records of other potential suspects, because the phone records of the accused were being relied on by the prosecution. The request was refused because the disclosure officer deemed it irrelevant to the defence case. The accused was convicted.
-
i read a very intresting interview with gorden dicky ill try and find it agian.
-
That’s unbelievable her house was not searched, surly that should have been done the same night, or ASAP after she was found. Not for evidence as such but for any clues to her movements that night. Also the defence documents, I really am shocked, you just take it for granted the defence get given everything police had in order to decide what is relevant or not. The more and more Iearn about this case and Scottish law worries me so much.
I’ve been smoking cannabis since I was 14, over 25 years I have never in all my life heard of someone buying a 9bar for personal use, not unless they had plenty money and even then! Also how anyone can say Luke was a dealer when he spent 10 to 20 at time, unless he dealt by the joint lol. Big time dealer my a$$.
It’s this joint she had in her system that’s bothering me. If she did not have it on way home, or in her house she must have had it after she left and before she was killed, how long does it take to get into your system as this is only around 45mins to an hours before she died, at the longest. Meaning she had it somewhere first before walking the path, or had it with someone at the v. If it was Luke then that’s even more time taken before he kills her, his time frame for the actual assault and murder keeps getting dwindled down to less and less. This must be one of the most brutal sustained attacked at record speed! Also if they were there having a smoke and the cousin and friend were At the v at the time they might have smelled something.
I can only assume a statement was taken from YW as she was so close to family, if there was one taken and not given to the defence do you know if this (and other info obtained during investigation that was not used) still exists or has it all now been destroyed never to be seen again?
I wish you all the best on the ongoing review, really hope the DNA is there to be retested, I honestly think this holds the key, either Luke dna is there after all or someone else. The people’s dna found on Jodi that were eliminated from the enquiry is a joke. Not sure how they were eliminated so quick, should have been treated as a suspect the exact same way Luke was, house searched etc. Makes you wonder if they had been given SK name rather than Luke as being the only one on scene with the body, would he now be locked up trying to prove his innocence? But I suppose there was no need to check out anyone else no matter what evidence cropped us as the police stated many times they have their man the just have to prove it, and here I thought police investigations worked the other way, we have the evidence now to find our guy?? Hey ho. I know nothing it seems.
-
SIO Dobbie confirmed in court that no other house was searched under warrant during the entire investigation (other than Luke's mum's and dad's house). He then went on to say that police could only search people's houses if those people would "let them."
According to Judith's statements, she was simply asked for items from the house, which she handed over to investigators. There was, eventually, a "search" of Jodi's room, but it was several weeks into the investigation and appeared to have no specific purpose or goal - they took pictures of the room and logged them as "evidence," although it's not clear what they're supposed to be evidence of, other than that Jodi had a bedroom.
I've been trying to get the word out for years that what the defence gets is extremely limited - so many people have argued "He had the best defence lawyer in Scotland" and "the jury heard all of the evidence" - Innocents Betrayed is 140,000 words of proof that the defence was fighting with one hand behind its back and the jury heard only a fraction of the available evidence.
Smoked cannabis is detectable in the bloodstream very quickly - less than 20 minutes - but it also breaks down quickly - within a couple of hours, so there is really only a very small timescale for Jodi to have smoked the joint.
We know there was a statement taken from YW, because she told police that Ferris intended to go to the police on July 1st and tell them he was on the path ... but something changed his mind. However, the statement wasn't in the defence and we have no idea whether or not it covered YW's movements on the day/evening. There is also a claim that YW corroborated Ferris's claim that he arrived at her flat at 10pm, but again, I haven't seen the actual statement.
The point you make about SK could, in fact, apply to many of the others connected to the case - the police could have chosen any one of them and built a case against them (in some instances, and even stronger case than they built against Luke). That's not to say any of them were involved - just that the police have the ability to construct cases that way and it's only pure luck on behalf of the others that they, rather than Luke, are not rotting in a prison cell today. Once someone's been targeted, any evidence pointing away from them is ignored, discounted or given a plausible explanation (like the ludicrous DNA transfer theories for SK's DNA).
There are still avenues of investigation that can be pursued, the big question is, will the authorities be willing to release samples for testing, or will they say everything's been lost, destroyed, or degraded to the point of uselessness? Even as they announce the launch of 30 year old "cold case reviews" for unsolved crimes. Do they really think we're all that stupid?
-
SIO Dobbie confirmed in court that no other house was searched under warrant during the entire investigation (other than Luke's mum's and dad's house). He then went on to say that police could only search people's houses if those people would "let them."
According to Judith's statements, she was simply asked for items from the house, which she handed over to investigators. There was, eventually, a "search" of Jodi's room, but it was several weeks into the investigation and appeared to have no specific purpose or goal - they took pictures of the room and logged them as "evidence," although it's not clear what they're supposed to be evidence of, other than that Jodi had a bedroom.
I've been trying to get the word out for years that what the defence gets is extremely limited - so many people have argued "He had the best defence lawyer in Scotland" and "the jury heard all of the evidence" - Innocents Betrayed is 140,000 words of proof that the defence was fighting with one hand behind its back and the jury heard only a fraction of the available evidence.
Smoked cannabis is detectable in the bloodstream very quickly - less than 20 minutes - but it also breaks down quickly - within a couple of hours, so there is really only a very small timescale for Jodi to have smoked the joint.
We know there was a statement taken from YW, because she told police that Ferris intended to go to the police on July 1st and tell them he was on the path ... but something changed his mind. However, the statement wasn't in the defence and we have no idea whether or not it covered YW's movements on the day/evening. There is also a claim that YW corroborated Ferris's claim that he arrived at her flat at 10pm, but again, I haven't seen the actual statement.
The point you make about SK could, in fact, apply to many of the others connected to the case - the police could have chosen any one of them and built a case against them (in some instances, and even stronger case than they built against Luke). That's not to say any of them were involved - just that the police have the ability to construct cases that way and it's only pure luck on behalf of the others that they, rather than Luke, are not rotting in a prison cell today. Once someone's been targeted, any evidence pointing away from them is ignored, discounted or given a plausible explanation (like the ludicrous DNA transfer theories for SK's DNA).
There are still avenues of investigation that can be pursued, the big question is, will the authorities be willing to release samples for testing, or will they say everything's been lost, destroyed, or degraded to the point of uselessness? Even as they announce the launch of 30 year old "cold case reviews" for unsolved crimes. Do they really think we're all that stupid?
I wonder wht thy would of found hd othr huses been searched probely the murder weapon
-
I don't know, nugnug. I'd have thought, with Ferris and Dickie at the murder scene at the claimed time of the murder, lying about the time to all and sundry before the claimed time of the murder was decided, taking almost a week to come forward and then claiming not to know what they were doing or where they were when their bike was seem propped at the wall without them would have warranted a bit of a closer look.
But, of course, it was 5 - 6 days before the police even got to them (thanks, in part, to the claimed helpful family advice not to go to the police earlier), so would there have been anything to find that might have shed light on where they were and whether they were telling the truth about seeing and hearing nothing?
The failure to search Jodi's house is baffling. How did anyone know she wasn't, perhaps, in contact with someone on the internet and had made plans to meet them? Her mother spoke about the family's use of chat rooms. There might have been crucial evidence in her schoolbag or bedroom that may have provided clues to people who wouldn't otherwise have come to the attention of the investigation - the point is, they didn't know and, because they didn't check, now we never will.
-
I don't know, nugnug. I'd have thought, with Ferris and Dickie at the murder scene at the claimed time of the murder, lying about the time to all and sundry before the claimed time of the murder was decided, taking almost a week to come forward and then claiming not to know what they were doing or where they were when their bike was seem propped at the wall without them would have warranted a bit of a closer look.
But, of course, it was 5 - 6 days before the police even got to them (thanks, in part, to the claimed helpful family advice not to go to the police earlier), so would there have been anything to find that might have shed light on where they were and whether they were telling the truth about seeing and hearing nothing?
The failure to search Jodi's house is baffling. How did anyone know she wasn't, perhaps, in contact with someone on the internet and had made plans to meet them? Her mother spoke about the family's use of chat rooms. There might have been crucial evidence in her schoolbag or bedroom that may have provided clues to people who wouldn't otherwise have come to the attention of the investigation - the point is, they didn't know and, because they didn't check, now we never will.
its not just there alure to come forward but also when a description was given of the 2 lads on the bike ther must f been a fair few people who knew exactly who they were and thy didentcome forward ethere or encourage dickie and rris to come forward.
-
According to the statements, there were at least 5 family members (other than Ferris and Dickie themselves) who knew, from early on July 1st (fully 4 days before the police appeal for the boys on the moped) that they were on the path. Given all the stories being carried back and forth amongst family members and friends between July 1st and July 4th, it would be surprising if others didn't know during that period.
Two school kids (teenagers) who spoke to Ferris as he made his way down Lady Path between 4.20pm - 4.25pm didn't come forward until after Ferris named them in his statements of July 6th onwards. There were, in my opinion, many people close to the investigation who knew who the boys on the moped were and who knew they were on the path late on the afternoon of June 30th and all of them said nothing. The question is, why?
Why was Ferris never questioned further about his claim that his Gran told him, on July 1st, not to go to the police? Why were AW and the other adult male said to be present when this advice was given, not questioned about it? Why did it never come up in court? Why did police accept Ferris's word that YW was lying about him saying he intended to go to the police on July 1st? It was at least possible he did tell YW that (since he was with her when they heard the news about Jodi) and changed his mind after the claimed conversation with his Gran?
-
According to the statements, there were at least 5 family members (other than Ferris and Dickie themselves) who knew, from early on July 1st (fully 4 days before the police appeal for the boys on the moped) that they were on the path. Given all the stories being carried back and forth amongst family members and friends between July 1st and July 4th, it would be surprising if others didn't know during that period.
Two school kids (teenagers) who spoke to Ferris as he made his way down Lady Path between 4.20pm - 4.25pm didn't come forward until after Ferris named them in his statements of July 6th onwards. There were, in my opinion, many people close to the investigation who knew who the boys on the moped were and who knew they were on the path late on the afternoon of June 30th and all of them said nothing. The question is, why?
Why was Ferris never questioned further about his claim that his Gran told him, on July 1st, not to go to the police? Why were AW and the other adult male said to be present when this advice was given, not questioned about it? Why did it never come up in court? Why did police accept Ferris's word that YW was lying about him saying he intended to go to the police on July 1st? It was at least possible he did tell YW that (since he was with her when they heard the news about Jodi) and changed his mind after the claimed conversation with his Gran?
well daid dicki must of known it was them he said nothing and as jodis mum had cliamed ferris was at her house im ver suprised that she did not recognise his description.
-
In fairness to Jodi's mum, the description wasn't issued until late afternoon on July 4th and again on the morning of July 5th. Dickie contacted the police on the afternoon of July 5th, so there wasn't really time for Judith to do anything.
David Dickie, however, not only knew his son was on the path, but he, himself was on the path later that evening and failed to come forward about his own presence there - as I understand it, his presence only became known after his son spoke to the police on July 5th.
So, descriptions aside, he knew Ferris and Dickie were on the path for 5 days and he knew, for the same time period that he was on the path that night, and failed to say anything.
The stories surrounding DD's presence on the path are mind blowing. He might have been home when Ferris and GD got back to the house, but he might have been walking the dogs (which meant he was in the woodland strip directly after the murder). But, according to other statements, he might have walked the dogs later in the evening - maybe 6 o'clock, maybe around 8 - 8.30pm. He did, definitely, walk the dogs, in the woodland strip on the afternoon/evening of June 30th, sometime after 5.15pm. He did, definitely, go through the V break in the wall with 8 dogs, it's just that nobody can remember exactly what time that happened, other than it was after 5.15pm.
A couple of other interesting connections. If he walked the dogs at 8.30pm, it's a tad surprising he didn't stumble across one James Falconer having his solo intimate moment, or on his way to do so, or on his way back, since JF claims to have been in the woodland strip, doing his thing, around 8.30 - 9pm.
If it was just after 5.15pm, it's surprising DD didn't stumble across the kids playing in the woodland strip, heard shouting and laughing with each other, between 5.10pm and 5.25pm. Or the dog walkers who reached the junction of the paths at around 5.15pm, who changed their minds about walking their dogs in the woodland strip and turned around and headed for home.
It was a busy area that evening, no doubt about it.
-
In fairness to Jodi's mum, the description wasn't issued until late afternoon on July 4th and again on the morning of July 5th. Dickie contacted the police on the afternoon of July 5th, so there wasn't really time for Judith to do anything.
David Dickie, however, not only knew his son was on the path, but he, himself was on the path later that evening and failed to come forward about his own presence there - as I understand it, his presence only became known after his son spoke to the police on July 5th.
So, descriptions aside, he knew Ferris and Dickie were on the path for 5 days and he knew, for the same time period that he was on the path that night, and failed to say anything.
The stories surrounding DD's presence on the path are mind blowing. He might have been home when Ferris and GD got back to the house, but he might have been walking the dogs (which meant he was in the woodland strip directly after the murder). But, according to other statements, he might have walked the dogs later in the evening - maybe 6 o'clock, maybe around 8 - 8.30pm. He did, definitely, walk the dogs, in the woodland strip on the afternoon/evening of June 30th, sometime after 5.15pm. He did, definitely, go through the V break in the wall with 8 dogs, it's just that nobody can remember exactly what time that happened, other than it was after 5.15pm.
A couple of other interesting connections. If he walked the dogs at 8.30pm, it's a tad surprising he didn't stumble across one James Falconer having his solo intimate moment, or on his way to do so, or on his way back, since JF claims to have been in the woodland strip, doing his thing, around 8.30 - 9pm.
If it was just after 5.15pm, it's surprising DD didn't stumble across the kids playing in the woodland strip, heard shouting and laughing with each other, between 5.10pm and 5.25pm. Or the dog walkers who reached the junction of the paths at around 5.15pm, who changed their minds about walking their dogs in the woodland strip and turned around and headed for home.
It was a busy area that evening, no doubt about it.
well acording to jodis mum fesrris was at her house he was aprently in places at once.
-
Again, it's unbelievable that this wasn't checked out properly. Here's a guy who was very close to the crime scene at the exact claimed time of the attack, who failed to come forward, changed his appearance immediately afterwards and lied about the time he was at the V point and on the path.
Not only was none of that considered remotely worth a second glance, but his whereabouts in the lead up to the point where he and Dickie were seen on the moped is also unconfirmed to this day.
It's interesting, though, that he wasn't needed to provide an alibi for Dickie earlier in the afternoon- there were others who could do that. But he was needed to support an alibi for JoJ, since Judith's accounts were contradictory. But, if he left Judith's house at lunchtime (by 1.30pm at the latest), which is what Ferris and JoJ said (other witnesses said he was in Dickie's house well before 3pm), he wasn't in Judith's house all afternoon, and definitely not when the cancellation call to the doctor was made. But, according to Judith, the main reason for the cancellation call was that JoJ wanted to continue smoking cannabis in his room with Ferris, who was still in her house when she made the 3.25pm phone cancellation.
It's clearly a myth that those closest to the victim come under the greatest scrutiny - in this case, their accounts were pretty much accepted at face value.
-
Again, it's unbelievable that this wasn't checked out properly. Here's a guy who was very close to the crime scene at the exact claimed time of the attack, who failed to come forward, changed his appearance immediately afterwards and lied about the time he was at the V point and on the path.
Not only was none of that considered remotely worth a second glance, but his whereabouts in the lead up to the point where he and Dickie were seen on the moped is also unconfirmed to this day.
It's interesting, though, that he wasn't needed to provide an alibi for Dickie earlier in the afternoon- there were others who could do that. But he was needed to support an alibi for JoJ, since Judith's accounts were contradictory. But, if he left Judith's house at lunchtime (by 1.30pm at the latest), which is what Ferris and JoJ said (other witnesses said he was in Dickie's house well before 3pm), he wasn't in Judith's house all afternoon, and definitely not when the cancellation call to the doctor was made. But, according to Judith, the main reason for the cancellation call was that JoJ wanted to continue smoking cannabis in his room with Ferris, who was still in her house when she made the 3.25pm phone cancellation.
It's clearly a myth that those closest to the victim come under the greatest scrutiny - in this case, their accounts were pretty much accepted at face value.
what ive allways wondered is weather th whole thing was a lie weather he actully was with jodis brother as jodis mother cliamed and for some reason him and dickie to protect somebody else.
when you think about it it would be rather daft for judi jones to cliam he was at her house when she knew full well there was ee witness evdence that put him somwhere else.
that leads me to think he must of been at her house and somone else was on the bike.
-
Sandra the boys ferrissmentioned would we have hard of them before.
in any other capacity.
-
It wasn't until several days into the investigation that the story about Ferris and Joseph being at Judith's house appeared, so there was time for everyone to check with each other what they thought they were doing that day.
One bit that I've never been able to make sense of is an account by Alice Walker. According to her, Janine and Kelly Alice went out for a walk around 10 o'clock (Janine called her on her mobile to ask if it was OK to cook some stuff in the fridge for breakfast). Joseph and Ferris didn't want food and left from Alice's house "about 11 o'clock."
Alice then said she went to Judith's house at "about 12 o'clock", still on her walk, because she needed to use the toilet. She made no mention of Joseph or Ferris being there and Judith never mentioned her mother stopping by. But what made Alice think there would be anybody home? Judith would ordinarily have been working and there was no car in the drive (because Alan Ovens had taken it to work).
So 67 year old Alice took a 2 hour walk that brought her back to Judith's house (half a mile from her own home) and Joseph and Ferris, who set off from the same place (Alice's house) an hour later, for Judith's (a half hour walk) also took 2 hours to get there.
Alice was never asked to reconstruct her walk that morning, or even asked where she went - another statement seemed to imply that she and a friend would take a stroll around the perimeter of the park in the mornings when the weather was nice - that's not a 2 hour walk! I always wondered where this part of the story came from.
Nugnug, I'm not sure what boys Ferris mentioned that you asked about? There was the teenage couple on the path when he left on the moped to pick up Dickie from the jobcentre (boy and girl) - we'd never have heard of them because they were just a young couple walking along Lady Path around 4.30pm and appear to have no other involvement whatsoever. The kids playing in the woodland strip were mentioned by another witness - the kids were traced and questioned, but said they saw and heard nothing (even though they, too, were there at the claimed time of the murder).
Either Ferris or Dickie (I can't remember which one, now) said there was a yellow pushbike against the railings at the top of the path (Easthouse end) - nothing was ever done with that (presumably because it couldn't be connected with Luke)- I can't think of anyone else Ferris mentioned, apart from the male relative in Alice's house who allegedly told him not to go to the police (I know who he is, but he's never been publicly named in relation to the case).
-
sorry the 2 teenage school kids ferris mentioned in his statement.
-
There were a few reports of Luke with knifes and threatening someone with a knife also. Was this just media reports or did anyone take the stand to confirm this?
The police went to America to get a murderer profile. Was this ever released? Did the defence team get s copy?
-
Those who gave evidence about Luke and knives (e.g Ferris, Dickie, Kelly) had a vested interest in doing so and their evidence wasn't corroborated - for example, Ferris identified a knife as Luke's "because Dickie told him it was Luke's." One girl who claimed Luke threatened her with a knife didn't give evidence, but gave her story to the media. The other's story was dismissed when the other girl who was present the whole time said it didn't happen.
The FBI profile was never released to the defence - it was obtained by an independent journalist, but was so heavily redacted there was no readable information at all. I've always said that, if there was anything implicating Luke in there, they'd have used it.
Nugnug, the two kids never gave evidence and were never named - to my knowledge, they're not linked in any way to anyone who's been discussed in connection to the case.
-
Tomorrow at 5pm, James English's Anything Goes Show will be broadcasting an interview with me about the Luke Mitchell case.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkdiBNdMSiQeT8aD7gXWgvA
-
The interview is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQ7lnucUMI&fbclid=IwAR104WmMG6paFUGazVwm2BkAeGx7atdhFBZrhePXhEkc8Fl4fOjbBSqbWe8
-
thankyou sandra im glad sothing new has happend
-
It's getting a lot of interest, Nugnug - might be the right time to set up the new discussion forum?
-
It's getting a lot of interest, Nugnug - might be the right time to set up the new discussion forum?
yes i wondred that.
-
Sandra can you please provide a source for JF masturbating with the condom in the woods on the night of the murder?
ive never heard him deny it.
-
Also how can you tell the viewers, with a clear conscience, that Falconer would have to step over the body to have a wank 50 yards away from it?
well i suppose it would depend what route he took as it was still daylight i am suprid he couldent see the body.
-
Sandra can you please provide a source for JF masturbating with the condom in the woods on the night of the murder?
Certainly, Lithium. The condom was found in the early hours of July 1st - within hours of Jodi's body being found. Forensic reports referred to its contents as "fresh" - i.e. there was no evidence of breakdown or degradation of cells. James Falconer, himself, said in his statement that it was the night of the murder that he took a stroll down behind the wall to masturbate because of the lack of privacy at home. It was James Falconer himself who said it was around 8 - 9 pm that night. Can't really argue with the man's own words, can we?
Also how can you tell the viewers, with a clear conscience, that Falconer would have to step over the body to have a wank 50 yards away from it?
What an interesting question, Lithium. Firstly, I didn't say he'd have had to step over the body to "have a wank" - I said, "If his own account is correct, he'd have to have almost literally stepped over the body on the way down and on the way back up." He said he went down behind the wall, did what he said he did and discarded the condom, which was found 20 yards from the body, not 50 yards. Now, here's the thing - he didn't say what the order of events was and I've never publicly stated where the condom was in proximity to the body. So he could have masturbated before reaching the body, then carried on down the woodland strip, discarding the condom westward of the body, or he could have gone past the body, masturbated and left the condom westward of the body, or he could have masturbated past the body (westward) and discarded the condom on the way back up, or finally, he could have masturbated before the body, discarded the condom then (eastward of the body) but for some reason then continued down the woodland strip before returning the way he came.
There's no point in shooting the messenger on this one - it's in his own statements.
-
Some ridiculous misinformation doing the rounds now. So job done I guess, Sandra.
well if you blive there is misinformation would you like to correct it with your own version of events.
-
Hi, I was watching the James English podcast and have a question.
It was said that Corrine and Shane were out of the house at the time of the murder. I always thought that Shane was in the house supposedly watching porn as the phone lines had been busy with the old dial up system. I thought that they had just never seen each other.
-
Luke was at home, alone, making and answering calls prior to the claimed time of the murder. Two points to be made about this - (1) it refutes any suggestion that he didn't go home from school but went to lie in wait for Jodi in the woodland strip (as has been claimed at certain points). (2) In conjunction with the texts with Jodi's mum's phone, it supports the statement that he would not have had enough time to get from his home to the top of the path in time to be the person seen by Andrina Bryson.
His brother called ahead to say he might be late for dinner - in the event, he wasn't late (but did get home later than he would have if he'd come straight home from work). Brother came home, then mum came home. Both said Luke was in the house by the time they both got there (4.50 and 5.15 respectively.
The nonsense about Shane saying he didn't see Luke was brought about by police manipulation of the entire family - even the appeal judges agreed the "evidence," as it was manipulated, would not have been admissible if Shane had been a suspect, but because he was a witness, the same protections didn't apply.
-
Hi, I was watching the James English podcast and have a question.
It was said that Corrine and Shane were out of the house at the time of the murder. I always thought that Shane was in the house supposedly watching porn as the phone lines had been busy with the old dial up system. I thought that they had just never seen each other.
I was asked if there was anything (other than his mum and brother's testimony) to support Luke's alibi and I said, "to a degree." The timings of the calls made and received on the landline, when they were both out, support his alibi that he was at home prior to 5.15pm (the police suggested at one point that he hadn't gone home from school at all that day). It also makes the claim that it was Luke who was at the Easthouses end of the path much less credible because of the timing.
The phone line was busy from 4.50 - 5.05 (approx) because when Shane came in from work, he went straight upstairs to use the internet - he didn't see Luke at that point because Luke was in the kitchen. He did see Luke when he came down for his tea at 5.15pm when his mum came in.
The time of the murder was 5.15pm - both Shane and Corinne were home by then (there's never been any question about that) - the phone records demonstrate that Luke must have been at home up to 4.30pm, he would have had no reason to go out to meet Jodi prior to 4.38 (at the end of the exchange of texts, so there wasn't enough time for him to have been the person seen by Andrina Bryson at the Easthouses end of the path.
The busy phone line only came into the story at all because it was claimed Luke called the speaking clock on his mobile at 4.54 and must, therefore have been out of the house. The Andrina Bryson sighting never mentioned any mobile phone, even though it was claimed to have happened at the exact time Luke was calling the speaking clock
-
Not to mention Luke was wasting his top-up credit calling a premium rate talking clock phone number from his mobile phone around the time of the murder when he was supposed to be at home.
No evidence, ever, for "time of murder." Plenty of evidence that Luke regularly called the speaking clock from his mobile.
[/quote]Perfectly normal thing to be sitting in the house doing. Surrounded by clocks, also a landline sitting there since he apparently just had to know the exact time at that moment. [/quote] Landline was busy (internet), kitchen clock was unreliable, microwave clock was never set. Time of death wasn't even suggested until three weeks later after an expert was brought in to identify a window of opportunity for Luke to have been the killer.
Funny he didn't use this same phone to once attempt to call Jodi who he was so infatuated with to ask where she was?! Considering they had plans to meet??? Strange that.
He did! He called her mother's landline twice. Jodi's phone was broken - he couldn't have contacted her if she'd decided to go elsewhere.
He just forgot about it and went to bed that night without wondering "wait, wasn't Jodi supposed to come?" They were inseparable according to Corinne but Luke wasn't concerned about her no-show and lack of explanation or texts.
No. He never got to bed that night, remember? He called his mum at 7pm to say if Jodi turned up at the house to send her over to the Abbey - Jodi had no phone, remember. As late as 7pm, he was still hoping she'd turn up - there were two possibilities - she'd been unexpectedly grounded again (which even her mum agreed could happen at the drop of a hat) or she'd decided to do something else. They were 14 year old kids.
Before you come back with "he was told she'd left to meet him," no, he wasn't. Jodi's mother's partner told him Jodi had "just left" at 5.38pm. He didn't say "left to meet you, Luke" - that was added to the statements later. So she could have been nipping out to the shop, got to the end of the path and been called back by her mother - anything. Luke called asking if Jodi was there, AO told him "she's just left" - those are the only reliable facts we have.
-
😂😂😂😂
"Corinne and Shane were both with Luke at the time of the murder"
"Well phone records prove the house phone was being used, and we know for certain Shane wasn't home, and we know for certain Corinne wasn't home. So it must've been Luke"
The Mitchells can't ever really seem to keep their story straight when it comes to Luke's alibi.
Luke was burning a chicken pie. Shane wasn't home. Shane was home watching porn so Luke must not have been in. Wait, Shane was at work... But Luke made dinner for them though. Wait Luke burned the dinner. So what did they eat? Corinne was at work. But wait Corinne was with him lol.
he was uusing the internet so he must of been home.
if shane wasnt home who was using it.
-
a bit from websslueths.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/uk-jodi-jones-14-dalkeith-scotland-30-june-2003.3863/
-
i wonder why they went to amerca was it just for a free jolly up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3378781.stm
-
Luke was at home, alone, making and answering calls prior to the claimed time of the murder. Two points to be made about this - (1) it refutes any suggestion that he didn't go home from school but went to lie in wait for Jodi in the woodland strip (as has been claimed at certain points). (2) In conjunction with the texts with Jodi's mum's phone, it supports the statement that he would not have had enough time to get from his home to the top of the path in time to be the person seen by Andrina Bryson.
His brother called ahead to say he might be late for dinner - in the event, he wasn't late (but did get home later than he would have if he'd come straight home from work). Brother came home, then mum came home. Both said Luke was in the house by the time they both got there (4.50 and 5.15 respectively.
The nonsense about Shane saying he didn't see Luke was brought about by police manipulation of the entire family - even the appeal judges agreed the "evidence," as it was manipulated, would not have been admissible if Shane had been a suspect, but because he was a witness, the same protections didn't apply.
Who did Luke make and answer calls to and from prior to the claimed time of the murder. Talking clock would be one.
-
Who did Luke make and answer calls to and from prior to the claimed time of the murder. Talking clock would be one.
Speaking clock call was made from his mobile. Call from his brother's mobile to the landline and call from the home landline to his mother's work landline are registered in the phone logs.
-
Plenty of evidence that Luke regularly called the speaking clock from his mobile while at home?
I'm all ears.
Calls prior to 8.30am (when he left for school) and between 4 and 5pm (when he was home from school cooking dinner on all the evenings it's never been disputed that's where he was)
-
Calls prior to 8.30am (when he left for school) and between 4 and 5pm (when he was home from school cooking dinner on all the evenings it's never been disputed that's where he was)
i never saw the relvance anyway what the hell is so sinster about phoning the speaking clock.
-
updates will be posted here i belive.
https://www.facebook.com/jamesenglish11/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkdiBNdMSiQeT8aD7gXWgvA?fbclid=IwAR0dBDt4tCAOCM3snzB-T_UsHH-hEB8ajmzEUEuK2aIJGbV1Vfh0w1RvaHI
-
Yes, updates coming soon!!!
-
Speaking clock call was made from his mobile. Call from his brother's mobile to the landline and call from the home landline to his mother's work landline are registered in the phone logs.
Thank you, just getting the sequence of events clear in my mind.
-
3:30 - school finished
4.15 - Luke called his mother from the home landline to her work landline (his grandmother answered the call before passing it to Corinne, so there are two witnesses plus the phone logs).
4.25 - call from Shane's mobile to the home landline connected for just over a minute. Neither Luke nor Shane remembered this call initially - it wasn't until the phone logs showed it and Shane remembered he'd stopped at a friend's on the way home from work that they realised the call was Shane letting Luke know he might be late home for dinner.
4,34 - 4.38 - exchange of texts between Luke's phone and Jodi's mother's phone (Jodi's phone was broken)
4.54 - Luke called the speaking clock from his mobile. Shane was on the internet, so the landline was busy.
If the claim was that the call to the speaking clock placed Luke outside his home and the Andrina Bryson sighting was of Luke, why did she not mention a phone in her description? She said the youth had both hands at his sides, palms facing forward, at exactly the time of the call to the speaking clock.
And, if Luke left home immediately after the final 4.38 text from Jodi, there would not be enough time for him to be the person at the Easthouses entrance to the path, which is why the suggestion arose that he didn't go straight home from school but, instead, went to the woodland strip to lie in wait for Jodi.
That then unravels because he wouldn't have known about the sudden decision to "unground" Jodi at 4.34pm - why would he be "lying in wait" for her if she was grounded?
-
The Legal Aid Board refused funding, saying the expert was "too expensive." But why didn't the police do it? It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt - the eyewitness evidence was extremely weak - if they were sure the guy seen at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 4.54 was Luke, why didn't they use cell site evidence to back it up?
I suspect they probably did get cell site analysis and, when it didn't show movement of Luke's phone, they buried it - wouldn't have been the first or only time it happened in this case as we now know. They didn't release the FBA profile or the information about the identification of Stocky Man at the time - just makes me wonder what else they have that the defence never saw.
-
The Legal Aid Board refused funding, saying the expert was "too expensive." But why didn't the police do it? It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt - the eyewitness evidence was extremely weak - if they were sure the guy seen at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 4.54 was Luke, why didn't they use cell site evidence to back it up?
I suspect they probably did get cell site analysis and, when it didn't show movement of Luke's phone, they buried it - wouldn't have been the first or only time it happened in this case as we now know. They didn't release the FBA profile or the information about the identification of Stocky Man at the time - just makes me wonder what else they have that the defence never saw.
well i think i can easly answer that qustion they dident want to know
-
https://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=4978
-
the podcast seems to havgot a suprisingly postive reception.
-
I think you'll find the interview, and the case, is being talked about in many more places and by many more people than just this form, Lithium. And will be for some time to come.
There are over 33,000 views on youtube and almost 400 comments, the majority of which are supportive. Similar response on twitter (can't say how many comments because I'm just learning to use twitter), but many people have commented positively. Many shares and positive comments on facebook.
Maybe you didn't know all of this?
-
I think you'll find the interview, and the case, is being talked about in many more places and by many more people than just this form, Lithium. And will be for some time to come.
There are over 33,000 views on youtube and almost 400 comments, the majority of which are supportive. Similar response on twitter (can't say how many comments because I'm just learning to use twitter), but many people have commented positively. Many shares and positive comments on facebook.
Maybe you didn't know all of this?
This is the video. I don't think it's been posted before. https://youtu.be/fqQ7lnucUMI
-
Yeah a brief discussion between 3 guys (one being you) on an unknown forum. Luke's case is really taking the world by storm.
how would you know one of them was me wich nes me then.
-
I think you'll find the interview, and the case, is being talked about in many more places and by many more people than just this form, Lithium. And will be for some time to come.
There are over 33,000 views on youtube and almost 400 comments, the majority of which are supportive. Similar response on twitter (can't say how many comments because I'm just learning to use twitter), but many people have commented positively. Many shares and positive comments on facebook.
Maybe you didn't know all of this?
yes you only have to google it
-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-i-would-rather-stay-behind-bars-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodie-jones/?ref=fbshr&fbclid=IwAR0I2WIfy8OgYUe7tcTrBUtsJfti1A6_0qe1BMUwVotf6edA1vBT9oRjQPQ
-
Just seen the interview, good job Sandra. I’ve seen quite a few people taking an interest in the case. Be great to see one of these crime shows pick this up
-
when jaf got his job coaching a ids football team i asume the team dident know about the statement he had made.
-
In fairness, I don't think a youth masturbating should preclude him from working with kids later in life - if it did, there'd be very few men working with kids!
Men with convictions for violence, however, are a different matter, especially if kids were caught up in that violence. I know these days, anyone who wants to work with kids has to have a background check (I'm not sure about volunteering) - such a background check would have meant he wouldn't be allowed to work with kids - either the safeguards have changed or something slipped through the net.
I know of three instances of violence (involving weapons) prior to 2006, when his DNA was identified via the database check. I've never been able to discover what happened in 2006 that brought his DNA into this case, though. One of those instances involved trying to break down the door of a house with a young child inside, armed with an iron bar, screaming threats of serious assault at one of the adults in the house.
-
https://youtu.be/t6ysPeri0O4
corines interiew
-
That poor woman. This is all so unfair on her. I for one wish her all the very best and hope some fantastic lawyer takes the case and gets him out. I really don’t know how she has endured it all. Very sad ??
-
That poor woman. This is all so unfair on her. I for one wish her all the very best and hope some fantastic lawyer takes the case and gets him out. I really don’t know how she has endured it all. Very sad ??
She does come across as telling the truth. Shane's evidence is neutral rather than damnatory I would have thought. Is there a timeline of the murder somewhere? Could Luke have slipped out of the house unbeknownst to his mother?
-
Was good to hear corine tell whats happened, I think she came across great. She has had so much to put up with over the years and still manages to stay strong.
I think it would be great to hear from Shane next, there has been a lot said over the years about his statement in court and how he did not provide an alibi for Luke (that was accepted) also the fact he has never spoken out since or clarified what actually happened. It would shut up so many people if he was given the chance to tell his side once and for all. If he confirms Luke was there cooking dinner then for me it’s case closed!!
Fingers crossed you get a lawyer with some balls this time, willing to get their teeth right in about this case. All the best.
-
it wa good tohear corine agian.
-
The response to the two podcasts has been stunning - there's never been so much positive interest in the case in almost 16 years. One really interesting outcome is that people who were kids at the time, but are adults now, are coming forward with information we've never previously had access to. Three of them, so far, have revealed some potentially significant information.
-
It’s taken 16 years but people are now starting to take notice. I think people in the past were a bit scared or embarrassed to admit they were not sure if the police got the right person. Everyone KNEW back in 2003/2004 and beyond, that Luke was the killer, after all it was in the papers, clear they got the murderer. That is until you start to look a bit closer and realise it’s all crap, there is no evidence, how the hell did he get found guilty. Now people are staring to realise this, it’s taken time but now on the right path.
Sandra do you think Shane might be willing to have a short interview also?
-
i notice i dident see the stream of negative coments that i used to see.
-
I noticed that too, also on the other forum (the red forum I think you call it) which I have found to be VERY negative to this case, seems a bit quiet over there too, thought they would have lots to say but seems not ....,
-
Yeah that’s what I mean, I heard he does support luke but in the background. That’s why I think it’s so important for him to do a quick 5 minute interview to tell his side. I don’t know about the dad, never heard anything about him in all the years, do does he think Luke is guilty then?
-
Really, that would explain the silence over the years. Does put a lot of shade over the case if both the dad and bro think he did it, who knows him better than his own family. Plus Shane was his alibi. But I thought Shane support Luke? If that’s the case it does look bad!
-
It’s quite simple, if Shane seen him in the house between 1700 and 1730 or when they had tea it could not have been Luke. If he could not confirm for sure he ‘seen’ Luke then all he need confirm is that tea was cook and ready when his mum got home. If Shane did not cook, his mum was at work then again Luke must have been home cooking the dinner and it could not be him.
I read over the years Shane has supported Luke, just not publicly which I can fully understand going by all the stuff that’s happened to his mum and Sandra over the years.
I’ve never read or heard anything about his dad.
Now things are picking up pace I’d hope they would show there support, if they do indeed still support Luke.
-
I have it on good info Shane and Dad both do.
you havent exactly got a good track on this.
-
Really, that would explain the silence over the years. Does put a lot of shade over the case if both the dad and bro think he did it, who knows him better than his own family. Plus Shane was his alibi. But I thought Shane support Luke? If that’s the case it does look bad!
in most campaghns the whole family doesnt speak its normally left up to one relative normally a mother or a sister
-
They can still show support without speaking. But like I said I can understand why Shane would not be so public due to the backlash.
I just think they need to use all their cards if they want to prove his innocence and Shane could be holding the ace card, for me a whole lots depends on what he remembers. If Luke was there he is innocent if he wasn’t he could be guilty and his mum has definitely lied. He may not even remember for sure.
For the record I think she is telling the truth, but some back up would go a long way.
-
The personal circumstances of Shane and Luke's dad (which will remain private, since enough lives have already been ruined by this case) make it difficult for them to be publicly involved.
I don't think people really understand the damage these things do to family relationships - it's not as simple as whether people "support" the convicted person or not - there are many other factors which come into play. Corinne is fully supportive of Shane staying out of the public eye - as she has put it on many occasions, they have wrecked one of her sons' lives, if they can possibly avoid it, they're not giving them the chance to wreck her other son's life. Shane had to move out of the area at the time because the threats were so bad.
Corinne has publicly served Luke's sentence with him - asking his dad and brother to do the same is akin to saying everyone in the whole family should be put up as targets for a baying mob, the vast majority of which, for 16 years, have been 100% negative to suggestions that Luke is innocent. Should his dad's business be trashed? His brother's? Is that what people mean by "showing support"? For them to comment publicly would put them at the same risks as Corinne has faced all these years.
-
It’s quite simple, if Shane seen him in the house between 1700 and 1730 or when they had tea it could not have been Luke. If he could not confirm for sure he ‘seen’ Luke then all he need confirm is that tea was cook and ready when his mum got home. If Shane did not cook, his mum was at work then again Luke must have been home cooking the dinner and it could not be him.
Which is exactly why the police refused to accept the statements of the burnt pies. Looking back at the interviews, it's clear that, from the moment the Family Liaison officer stepped foot inside the Mitchell house, she was there to destroy Luke's alibi. She was telling Shane to "picture" things in his head just a few days after the murder - if that's not a blatant attempt to influence recall, I don't know what is. The trauma of the police treatment of Shane (in particular the interrogation on 14th April 2004) would have been enough to break any man - a point DF made very strongly at appeal. His treatment on the stand compounded that trauma - right up to the point where they thrust pictures of Jodi's naked, mutilated body in front of him (without warning) Shane was very clear that he did see Luke that evening, but the police wouldn't accept his statements and kept "putting words in his mouth." After the shock of the photographs, he was forced to carry on giving evidence - any psychologist will tell you that a witness will become extremely manipulable immediately after such a shock because they can't think straight.
It is utterly disgusting that this sort of treatment is allowed. Having caused such shock and distress, the prosecution QC moved straight onto questions about masturbating to pornographic images on the internet - can you imagine trying to make any sense of that in those circumstances?
And, before the inevitable comments about him "admitting" that he was masturbating, he didn't. I have the court transcripts - it was put to him that he might have been "doing something else" whilst looking at the images ... Shane agreed that he "may have been" - that's it. We now, know, of course, that the "pornographic images" were almost certainly pop-ups, on screen for a few seconds, so he wasn't "watching porn" as has been claimed for all these years.
That said, is it any surprise that Shane just wanted to disappear and have the whole thing go away? It's not about believing Luke to be guilty, it's about self-preservation - Shane's life still had to go on out here after such intense media coverage and such personal trauma and humiliation.
-
Forgot to say, Luke's dad has always supported him.
-
I have always said I completely understand Shane keeping out the public eye and did think he supported Luke. What I meant by showing support is things like helping out now and again behind the scene with the campaign, visiting Luke etc not standing up in front of the news papers making statements. But I just think now would be a good time for him to clarify the mess that has been made with his statement, they were totally out of order the way he was treated on the stand and he didn’t get the chance to tell his side like he wanted. There was no evidence against Luke, in the jury’s eyes his brother could not confirm he saw Luke, I think this had a lot to do with him being found guilty. Also all the armchair detectives I’ve encountered over the years always use this as their ammunition, be good to disarm them once and for all. He wouldn’t even need to go on camera, a written statement that James English could read out now that he has more people interested. But again I fully understand if he was not comfortable doing that. Safety first.
As for his dad, thanks for clarifying he does support Luke. Again I understand him keeping out the campaign, enough life’s have been pulled apart.
-
See, this is how it’s been since Shane left the stand. now I don’t know what to think. Either he got harassed on the stand and was not able to provide his side correctly or he saw the pics and would no longer lie believing his bro to be guilty.
2 totally contradicting sides here, Shane has always supported Luke or Shane openly confirms his brothers guilt.
Even more reason for him to provide a statement of fact I’d say. If you say he is that open perhaps it’s best to get it from the horses mouth.
-
Yes I do. Shane was virtually disowned by Corrine for not going along with it. Dad doesn't even visit. Also pornographic "pop-ups" don't pop up unless you're viewing pornographic websites. He was at home watching porn and masturbating, and admitted to it. Unsure why Sandra is now trying to argue that Shane wasn't watching porn when he openly admitted that's what he was doing? Had his bedroom door open to listen out. Luke wasn't there. Luke has no alibi and his attempt at one was torn apart at trial. It's not rocket science.
-
Yes I do. Shane was virtually disowned by Corrine for not going along with it. Dad doesn't even visit. Also pornographic "pop-ups" don't pop up unless you're viewing pornographic websites. He was at home watching porn and masturbating, and admitted to it. Unsure why Sandra is now trying to argue that Shane wasn't watching porn when he openly admitted that's what he was doing? Had his bedroom door open to listen out. Luke wasn't there. Luke has no alibi and his attempt at one was torn apart at trial. It's not rocket science.
I’m a bit confused, do you know shane and the family and what are your sources for knowing his dad doesn’t visit.
We’re you at the trial?
-
He cried in the witness box at what his brother had done when he seen the images. Luke never shed a single tear at any point. Not at images of his murdered girlfriend or even at the sight of her body. Don't take my word for it. Feel free to get in touch with Shane. He openly tells people his brother is guilty lol.
Maybe he cried because of the awful scene he was being made to look at.
I think Sandra has more than explained why Luke didn’t show any emotion . None of what you says has any baring on wether he’s guilty or innocent.
Umm where we would ask Shane anything. As far as I can tell he is protecting himself from people like you by not getting involved in what other people think or say.
-
+ Shane also admitted that Corinne coached him to say he seen his brother in the kitchen mashing potatoes.
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".
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.’"
Yes she was reminding him of what happened. He was a young lad and probably could t have remembered half of what happened that day until his mum reminded him
You are distorting the reality
-
This is the problem with people misquoting or selectively quoting from various documents (especially media reports). What Shane said on the stand had already been massively influenced by police officers determined to destroy Luke's alibi. Shane had no recollection of "watching porn" - it was only once the police took the computer and searched the history that they went back to him and told him that's what he was doing.
"How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies."
When he was first asked, on the Wednesday, he couldn't remember anything about the earlier part of the Monday evening - he said he probably came straight home from work, had his tea and went out again. Corinne reminded him Monday was the day Luke burnt the dinner - it was the only thing that made the day in question stand out. It was also later shown that Shane actually stopped off at a friend's on the way home from work to have a look at his car (phone records and receipts for parts for the car) - that wasn't considered "suspicious" and the police accepted that he'd simply forgotten about it.
It's the prosecution's job to make even the most innocuous things appear suspicious.
Shane was more than harassed from the off - the police were constantly bulldozing him to say what they wanted to hear. The day he was arrested "on suspicion of perverting the course of justice," they let him leave the family home in order to drive into a police road-block just yards from the house. He was dragged out of the car, laid flat out on the ground then bundled into a police car without being told why. They then held him for a 6 hour interrogation, during which they absolutely refused to accept any of his answers, just as they'd done for the previous 9 and a half months. They also told him he'd be looking at a long prison sentence unless he told them "the truth" (the one that they wanted to hear). When Shane re-iterated that he was telling the truth, the response was, "you're not. You're lying. We know you're lying and we've got witnesses to prove it." They didn't have witnesses.
Corinne didn't "virtually disown him."
I'm sorry I can't properly address aspects of Luke's brother's and his dad's stances because of the need to respect their privacy - their lives have moved on in the last 16 years and they have other priorities that have to be taken into consideration.
-
https://youtu.be/ItQvr1lei_k
-
back then and even now you don’t need to be on a porn site or searching for porn for a pop up to show, you only needed to have used the computer at some point to view porn, then pop ups can come at any time.
I see what the lawyers did there, if he was watching porn it would be when nobody was home and he would leave the door open to listen for anyone coming home, then made out he was watching porn but appears these were was only pop ups.
Luke was on medication which could explain his lack of tears etc
When it comes to remembering stuff you do sometimes need a reminder. I asked my bro what he was doing at tea time 2 days prior, he could not remember until I said it was the day we were trying to decide if we should get a take away, he would not have remembered otherwise, there is a huge difference between coaching someone a load of lies to tell and reminding someone of an event to refresh their memory, just seems like the police and lawyers accept some changes as stuff he remembered after help and stuff he was being coached to lie.
Lithium where are you getting your info from, is there anything you know as a fact like Sandra does, or are you just saying stuff you have read or heard elsewhere, which is how it seems. Have you any connection to the case or people in it, or like me just someone with a keen interest? Just we all need to be clear and careful what is said and be able to back it up, Sandra has done this on numerous occasions but so far I’ve not seen anything to back up what you have stated, please correct me if I’m wrong.
-
Here's another example of remembering and reminding.
For the first 11 days of the investigation, Stephen Kelly's statements said he left Alice Walker's house either at lunchtime or early afternoon, had his tea in his own house and returned to Alice's around 7pm. Janine appears to have remained in her Gran's house throughout (meaning Kelly didn't have an alibi for the crucial hour between 5pm and 6pm).
Then, on July 12th, their statements changed (again). Now both Kelly and Janine "remembered" they had dinner at Kelly's dad's house (with his dad) and Janine wanted waffles and ham for dinner. The dad's statement was not in the defence files - the SCCRC said there was one, but we have no idea when it was taken. Also, we don't know if the dad's statements changed or if there were none to support Kelly's original story and the one in the files only appeared after the change of story.
So, 12 days ago from now was Wednesday 29th May. I invite anyone reading this to remember what they ate and with whom, on Wednesday 29th May and what reason you have for remembering.
But it's yet another example of one rule for the Mitchell family and another for everybody else. I've heard many times that Kelly and Janine were each other's alibi - not before July 12th, they weren't - neither had an alibi. They became each others' alibi on July 12th (because there was no statement from Kelly's dad to support or otherwise the suggestion they were together in his house).
If lack of alibi was a driving factor in this case, someone without an alibi, whose DNA turned up on the victim's clothing wasn't considered suspicious and was allowed 12 days to come up with an alibi!
I'm not saying Kelly had anything to do with it - what I'm saying is, in any other circumstances, these events would definitely have warranted closer scrutiny and it's only because of the police conviction that Luke was the killer that they didn't conduct that scrutiny.
-
It’s clear the police did a piss poor job, from start to finish, even the courts agreed to that. They had Luke as the only suspect within the first 30 minutes. To be fair he was not a suspect, the police KNEW he did it and just had to prove it, as they stated on a number of occasions. If it was Luke then no harm done but if they are wrong they let the killer go.
All the statements are sketchy, nothing to say it was Luke at the top or bottom of the path. For me the only credible sighting is the 2 boys that knew Luke and seen him at the end of his street, which he has never disputed. I can’t honestly say one way or another if Luke was home going by what his bro says and the way he was questioned on the stand. His mum clearly says he was home but that’s not accepted by police or court.
Luke finding the body is clearly incorrect the body was found by the dog and she passed all the tests for tracking that the prosecution had her do. Luke’s mum burning the clothes in that tiny wee burner is laughable and the whole Manson line another joke.
As for any forensic evidence at all, murder weapon or motive there was NONE.
Out if interest what does it take to get a retrial in Scotland. I assume new evidence. I really can’t see any new evidence being found in this case apart from new dna techniques over the past 16 years that might find something of interest. I hope the defence team have access to carry out any retesting that may help in order to keep things moving.
I’ve read a couple of things about knifes recently but no idea how accurate they are. Firstly that Findlay was sent a knife in the post, was anything done with that knife as may be a murder weapon from a case he was connected to. Also that a knife was found very close to the murder scene a few years ago with the name Luke on it?
The person that confessed, I know we can’t talk names but what do you know about him, what was said, how credible is this, does any of it add up?
-
Sorry, huge post and I still don’t know how to use the quote properly lol
I’m not from the area but live close by. I don’t know anyone connected to the case on either side. I don’t know if Luke is guilty or innocent (hope to god he is guilty) I worked with the police at the time and read all the papers and from what they said it was a clear cut case. I never doubted it and believed him to be guilty from all id heard and read like so many people. Then a few years later I read somewhere how there was no forensics evidence linking Luke to the case and that tweaked my interest as he was only a young laddie at the time I thought there must have been loads of solid evidence to send him down and started reading all I could about the case. It’s worried me since, how someone, especially so young, can be found guilt with such little evidence (not the gossip and hear say, but just what was used in court) so far I’ve not heard anything that I would have found him guilty on, other than the brothers statement. But there is so much been said from both sides on that it’s such a mess, is there a court transcript available that would have what was said?
Luke was a suspect right away, only he was taken into the station for questioning at that time and the only person who’s clothes were taken that night, even tho the granny touched her. The police thought Luke and Jodi left her house together when they started searching for her I believe. Over 3000 people interviewed but these were not suspects, but even the police admit Luke was the only suspect they were not looking for anyone else and they knew he did it, or they did to me at the time, which was before Luke was arrested and before the tv re-enactment
The dog did not alert to her body on the way up as Luke would be pulling her up the lane and not allowing her time to search also she was not in tracking mode, she sounds like a well trained dog who did as she was instructed, if she was told to move and not “mess around” I think she would do as she was told, on the way back down she was told to look for Jodi and given the space and time to do so. I believe the dog alerted Luke to the spot (if he knew she was there and led the dog there knowing she would react is also a possibility)
I don’t know who the couple where, maybe they don’t even know themselves it was them and are oblivious ie the don’t remember passing at that time which is totally understandable. It may have been Luke and Jodi but from what they were said to be wearing it did not match what Jodi was found wearing (or around her body) therefore it’s not a positive sighting for me, unlike the 2 boys who knew him.
I said no motive sorry I should have been clearer, no known motive.
Ive always believed it was a partial dna for Luke, but not a match, this could be a partial for a number of people not just luke. so that’s why I said no forensics found at the scene. But if there is a full match for Luke on Jodi or Jodi on Luke then that’s not something I’ve heard and changes things a bit.
I use to love knifes when I was a kid too, I now have a collection of all kinds of swords and knifes, I’m not a murderer. So his love of knifes and messing around is something I did. You said he threatened his ex, With this information being extremely relevant I assume the ex gf took the stand to confirm this, if so that would go a long way. If not why not? I’m never sure who the actual witnesses are that were at court and what is from interviews and comments from the papers, and gossip. All a bit mixed up which I think is half the problem. It’s what was used in court that interests me most.
She didn’t meet him so he assumed she was not coming but told his mum where he was incase she did turn up. Went to meet pals no longer expecting her. Not calling to see where she was, they were 14, she didn’t turn up, he was not worried she must have got caught up with something or someone or changed her mind, maybe even got grounded, he would find out at school tomorrow. Or that’s how Id have thought at 14.
I use to call the speaking clock all the time, I enjoyed it lol plus it gave you the exact time if doing something your timing, ie cooking dinner, I never found that suspicious.
I always found info related to Shane to be really mixed up and confusing between what he told the police and what he said in court. I do remember thinking if he says he did not see him but remembers the tea being burnt, could it be burnt as Luke put it in the oven to cook then went out and left it for his mum to take out, hence it got burnt? But as I said I’m really not sure of what was said in court and in his statement. For me what he actually remembers is the clincher so want to be 100% but getting contradicting info. I’d love to ask him direct on FB but to be honest I would not feel I have the right to invade his privacy, this is an open forum if he wanted to say he could do it here and plenty other places. I know I would not want some random(s) bothering me and I’d just ignore them.
-
It was her Satanist boyfriend (yes he was writing about satanism in school essays which worried teachers, none of these could be attributed to video games or fiction like Sandra claims. He was also requesting books on Satanism a few years ago in jail) the same bf who was known to always carry knives and who threatened/assaulted a previous girlfriend with one in a tent, who she was arranging to meet that night, who she was spotted arguing with at her end of the path, who was then spotted 50 mins later by 2 different people alone at his end of the path "acting suspicious". Who didn't follow up to find out why she didn't turn up. Who told mates she wouldn't be coming out when he didn't know that. Who was ready to go to bed without wondering why his gf didn't turn up. Whose "dog" led him to the body only on the 2nd time he passed it. Whose alibi fell apart. Who other than her bf would she climb over a wall to a secluded area with? cmon. The list goes on. Regardless of the endless circumstantial evidence... it's really not rocket science.
Not a single one of Luke's friends believe he's innocent. Not one. They knew him and seen how he was with knives and knew about the Satanic crap. His violent behaviour got him referred to the school psychiatrist ffs.
i have yet to see you pruduce any evdence to back up this statement.
you have previously cliamed that sandra lean had changed her mind abut lukes guilt wich is clearly untrue.
-
The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.
The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included. There was, however, a report that suggested the other DNA deposits on the T-shirt and bra "could have originated from the same person" as the full profile recovered (which was not Luke's). Indeed, the police "rainwater transfer theory" seemed to suggest exactly that - DNA from one deposit was carried by rainwater to other parts of the t-shirt and soaked through to the bra. But the full DNA profile from the t-shirt wasn't Luke's, it was Steven Kelly's.
There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.
The information about the possibility of all the DNA deposits on the t-shirt and bra being from the same person was not used at trial (and rightly so, because none of the other samples were full profiles), yet Susan Ure was allowed to make the outrageous suggestion that one of those partials "could have been" Luke's DNA.
-
In spite of all the hype, there was no "missing knife." The knife which belonged to the pouch was handed to Luke's solicitor by Corinne (who couldn't remember where she'd put it when the police raided the house). The solicitor's statement, confirming the handing over of the knife to the police, is in the case files.That knife was bought six months after the murder, so could not be in any way connected to the crime.
The knife that was found in 2010 was found near the new St David's High School, not the one that existed at the time of the murder. The distance from the old school to the new campus is 1.7 miles. it was completely ruled out as having any connection to the murder.
I don't have the time (or inclination) to go through every aspect of misinformation in Lithium's posts which, I believe, is exactly his/her intention - swamp people with the same misinformation over and over again and people will get tired of correcting it endlessly.
I'll just point out the blindingly obvious again - why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age, work so hard to point out the fact that this lad was convicted without a shred of reliable evidence, knowing if it had been properly acknowledged, he could be released into the very community where my girls lived their lives? Why would I want to "make him look innocent" if there was even the slightest doubt in my mind that he did what was done to Jodi?
-
Age restrictions on knives weren't introduced in Scotland until 2006. It's not illegal to own or carry a knife with a folding blade less than 3" long. Luke worked at his mother's caravan business and the family owned horses. There are several perfectly legitimate reasons for Luke having a knife, none of them remotely related to the fact that Jodi was murdered with a large bladed instrument (the pathologist's description).
No such "large bladed instrument" was ever found in his possession or in the family home or business, or described by any witness as having been possessed by him.
I didn't know the people at the time, but I know which knives the police were looking for and they (the police) had them all, so from the police perspective, there were no missing knives except the murder weapon, the description of which could not be matched to any knives attributed to Luke.
-
I didn’t think it was ever illegal for a child to own a small knife, only for it to be sold to them. If a parent buys it as a gift there is no law being broken is there? Scouts own knifes. Carrying a knife for scouts was also legal if going to camp or if they had a good reason. But I’m no expert just going by my understanding of what I’ve read so could well be wrong lol
-
Also I started my collection when I was 12. I got many a pen knife or Swiss Army knife for Xmas and birthdays from lots of different people, friends and family before I was 16. Hope they were not all breaking the law.
-
Not true. The age was increased from 16 to 18 in 2006. It was illegal to own a knife at 15 and illegal for Corrine to buy him one. Much like it was illegal for her to get him a tattoo and lie about his age, and let him smoke cigarettes and god knows what else. Let's not pretend this was a normal relationship with normal boundaries.
Smoking cigs at Jodi's grave. Walking their dog through the graveyard.
(https://i.imgur.com/kzjkEWf.png)
Well that’s it then!!! guilty as charged because he smoked a fag and took his beautiful dog to the graveyard. Heist why didn’t I think of that before . Good god man I am lost for bloody words .
-
Also I started my collection when I was 12. I got many a pen knife or Swiss Army knife for Xmas and birthdays from lots of different people, friends and family before I was 16. Hope they were not all breaking the law.
maybe you did it then.
-
Much like it was illegal for her to get him a tattoo and lie about his age, and let him smoke cigarettes and god knows what else. Let's not pretend this was a normal relationship with normal boundaries.
Let's take this bit by bit. It is not, and never has been, illegal for anyone under 18 to have a tattoo. What is illegal is for a person to tattoo someone they know, or believe, to be under eighteen. You see the difference there? The offence is on the tattooist who, incidentally, went on to give evidence against Luke.
"For her to get him a tattoo and lie about his age..." There's no evidence she lied about his age. The claim in court was that Luke provided "fake ID" showing him as over age (that ID, had it ever been produced in court, would have shown a picture of a man 40+ years old, but we'll leave that for the moment). It was Luke who signed the form in the shop. So all Corinne is guilty of is being there. Think about it - what 18 year old would take his mum along to "confirm" his age? Just a few years after the murder, the same parlour carried out a body piercing on one 14 year old girl I know and tattooed her 14 year old friend. That's why they used that particular parlour - because they knew no questions would be asked about their age.
The "fake ID" that was never produced in court, Corinne and Luke always denied the existence of. Like I said, it would have depicted a man of 40+ years old - the tattoo staff would have put themselves right on the line if they tried to claim in court they accepted that the person in the picture was the 15 year old boy standing in front of them. By the time of the appeal, the person whose name (not ID) Luke used on the form had given a statement saying Luke had never had access to his ID in any format. The statement wasn't used by the defence.
I smoked from the age of 13 - my parents didn't know. I was still under 16 when they found out but that still didn't stop me smoking. I knew loads of kids who smoked under the age of 16, both in my own generation and my daughters' generation.
"And god knows what else..." There we have it again - speculation and insinuation with nothing to back it up. What about, making him work for his pocket money? What about supporting his interests in outdoor activities - motorbikes, camping, tracking, etc? What about encouraging him to keep up his grades in school, setting a curfew time for him to be home both on school nights and weekends?
What about being a responsible enough parent to call Jodi's Gran to confirm Luke and a few others would be having a sleepover at her (the gran's) house ... even though the Gran lied to her, saying the teens would be in her house, knowing full well they were all going to sleep over at Yvonne Walker's flat?
What about Judith's own statement saying that, when she found out about the sleepover being at Yvonne's, she was so angry (because Jodi was banned from going to Yvonne's flat) that she threatened to tell Corinne. Jodi begged her not to because Corinne was "quite strict" with Luke and he'd be in deep trouble?
It has to go both ways. Either Luke, Jodi and the others were teenagers doing what teenagers do and their parents were doing the best they could, or everyone whose teenager was doing things they shouldn't have been doing was a bad parent. I know which one I believe.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/kzjkEWf.png)
[/quote]
Smoking cigs at Jodi's grave, yeah? Why did they change Jodi's name to Andrew Paxton on the headstone? That's the extent of the disrespect of the media in this case - that poor man's family have to see pictures of his headstone connected to such a dreadful case.
That is clearly a picture of Luke, Corinne and another friend walking through the cemetery, not standing at Jodi's grave, but why let the facts get in the way of a good lie?
-
maybe you did it then.
Going by these forums it must have been me, I’m clearly a danger up the public and have been since I was 12. For the record I smoked weed since I was 15/16 and loved nirvana. I must be a serial killer by now 🤣
The dog is gorgeous by the way!
-
Normal teenagers dont threaten girls with knifes
Its no secret that shane mitchell
Luke mitchells brother runs his own company smd technical services in Livingston
http://www.smdtechnicalservices.com/ so why does sandra make out thats why we dont hear from.
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont because he knows his brother is guilty
-
Sandra lean, they were seen smoking at jodis grave and left cigarettes ends?
-
Sandra lean, they were seen smoking at jodis grave and left cigarettes ends?
erm he knew her she was girlfriend so i think might what was respectfull and not respectfull better than a complete starnger.
-
Normal tenagers dont threaten girls with knifes
Its no secret that shane mitchell
Luke mitchells brother runs his own company smd technical services in Livingston
http://www.smdtechnicalservices.com/
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont because he knows his brother is guilty
if we getting into the stalking business im pretty good at that myself.
-
Who took us off topic ... oh yes,, a ridiculous poster making ridiculous allegations about the identity of other posters. Sit down, Guiltyascharged, you're making a show of yourself.
-
Normal teenagers dont threaten girls with knifes
Its no secret that shane mitchell
Luke mitchells brother runs his own company smd technical services in Livingston
http://www.smdtechnicalservices.com/
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont because he knows his brother is guilty
OMG he left a ciggy butt in the graveyard and that makes him a murderer. Normal teenage stuff. For goodness sake if yoh cannot be seriously asking us to consider this as part of the reason he is guilty in your opinion.
Instead of telling us why you think he’s guilty let’s hear why you dont think the other suspects are. Now that might be a good debate
-
Would you do the same on someones grave you claim to love and who had recently passed? One of you mention respectfull the other normal teenage stuff , another made out it didnt happen, what one is it,?
Luke was far from normal a teenager
My point was to correct sandra, who was rubbishing another poster
-
Would you do the same on someones grave you claim to love and who had recently passed?
My point was to correct sandra, who was rubbishing another poster
yess and I have done.
-
Here's what trolls do. They post something and elicit responses to it. Then they edit or delete their posts so that the responses make no sense. Then the whole conversation gets so confusing, people get fed up and stop participating.
Best not feed the trolls!!
-
Nice try sandra, i had to edit other because the post about your other usernames was removed.
-
Sandra how often have you spoken to luke since the failed appeal. Have you guys resolved your problems?
-
If you mean the refusal of the SCCRC to refer the case back to the court of appeal, I've communicated with Luke several times since, the most recent being this week.
In mid 2014, I took a break from the case after 11 years solid involvement. 18 months later, at the beginning of 2016, I became officially involved again and have been ever since. I had continued to work privately on the case during the 18 months "break," just not at the same level or with the same public exposure.
So that everyone reading this forum, new and old, is absolutely clear, I posted under one username that was not my own at the very beginning of this case for my own safety and that of my children. My identity was outed by a troll with no concern for the potential consequences. I have not posted using anything other than my own name (or variations of it, depending on the protocols of various sites - so, Sandra L, Dr Sandra, Sandra Lean, etc) in over a decade.
-
No falling out/disagreement between luke and you at all ?? You had to keep going, had a book to finish.
What other username do you admit to using?
You were also aware others on your side/forum/pro luke were also posting under different usernames to, one of the main ones being your ex partner billy middleton?
-
Out if interest what does it take to get a retrial in Scotland. I assume new evidence. I really can’t see any new evidence being found in this case apart from new dna techniques over the past 16 years that might find something of interest. I hope the defence team have access to carry out any retesting that may help in order to keep things moving.
I’ve read a couple of things about knifes recently but no idea how accurate they are. Firstly that Findlay was sent a knife in the post, was anything done with that knife as may be a murder weapon from a case he was connected to. Also that a knife was found very close to the murder scene a few years ago with the name Luke on it?
Sorry, Bullseye, I missed this.
Yes, it would need new evidence and the definition of new evidence is "that which was not, or could not reasonably have been available at the time of the original trial." That means if anyone came forward now who could have given a statement at the time, their information can be rejected by the courts as not new evidence. It's an uphill struggle. New forensic evidence is different, because the science is being continually updated, so modern tests could produce results that older tests couldn't.
Getting access to items for re-testing is notoriously difficult, especially now, with the Scottish Courts' emphasis on certainty and finality. They can refuse to release stuff and refuse to hear new evidence on the basis that it's "too late." I know of one case where the defence found evidence to prove who the real killer was and the court refused to hear it because it had taken too long to find.
I don't know anything about Findlay being sent a knife in the post. I know Corinne handed a knife to Luke's solicitor, Nigel Beaumont (this was the claimed "missing knife") and he handed it to the police - his statement about that is in the case papers.
I think I answered the bit about the knife that was found years later with the name "Luke" on it. It wasn't found anywhere near the murder scene - it was over a mile and a half away on the new Dalkeith Campus. It was eliminated as the murder weapon (but not before the media had had a field day with it!!)
-
Thanks Sandra. The knife in the post is on Wikipedia so maybe not the best place to be searching facts lol
In May 2011, Findlay was sent a parcel in the post to Cowdenbeath football club where he is chairman.[10] Initially it was thought to contain a bomb but it was later revealed to contain a knife.
-
sandra youtube keeps notfing me that you have uploaded a video but when i clic it says not avilable.
-
sandra youtube keeps notfing me that you have uploaded a video but when i clic it says not avilable.
Sorry, nugnug, it'll be available later today.
-
Corinne's fingerprints were on the consent form. She told the girl in Whiplash Trash it was a late birthday present for her son and mentioned a "dark" tattoo that she had which was similar to the flaming skull the little emperor of the Mitchell household got that day.
Nope! It was Luke's thumbprint that was on the consent form. We only have the girl in the tattoo parlour's word for what Corinne said. Corinne didn't have a "dark" tattoo, so it would be an odd thing for her to say, don't you think?
-
Oh so they weren't there to see Jodi's grave? Get a grip Sandra. Their fag doubts were found at the grave. The same grave the grieving family told them to stay away from.
They weren't told to stay away from the grave, they were told not to attend the funeral earlier that day. Different thing. It was you who posted the picture giving the impression that it was of Luke smoking at Jodi's grave. "Their fag doubts"? Really? If (and I emphasise IF) cigarette ends were found at Jodi's grave, there's nothing anywhere to say they came from Luke and Corinne. Several members of Jodi's family and friends smoked - they were all at the cemetery earlier that afternoon - how would anyone know whose cigarette ends were dropped there?
-
Were you asked by the deceased's family to stay away but instead of respecting their wishes turn up with a muzzled dog, dressed like a couple of fuckin weirdos and flicking fag doubts all over the place? Was your mum grabbing your face towards hers too and rubbing noses with you?
Getting desperate now, Lithium!
-
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40745000/jpg/_40745981_joditree203.jpg)
A tree from Roan's Dyke that Luke carved into with a knife.
Jodi Jones was murdered on Roan's Dyke path with a knife.
She was meeting her boyfriend, the one who evidently carried knives, on Roan's Dyke path no less.
She was in a secluded area behind a wall because she climbed over there with someone she trusted.
Is it really too difficult to see what happened.
Two boys on a moped were at the V point on Roan's Dyke path at exactly the time the police claimed Jodi was being murdered with a large bladed weapon. Both carried knives. Jodi would have trusted both to climb over the wall with because that's where one of them sold cannabis to others. He was her cousin.
Your move.
-
Nope! It was Luke's thumbprint that was on the consent form. We only have the girl in the tattoo parlour's word for what Corinne said. Corinne didn't have a "dark" tattoo, so it would be an odd thing for her to say, don't you think?
All these people who are whiteness , is every single one lying sandra. Cmon, hes guilty. Just like others you said were miscarriage of justice and later confessed
-
Hasnt a court or appeals covered all sandra trys to argue. Top lawers, top qc, nearly 600k in defence. Theres a reason hes still in jail.
-
I've just been reminded by a very kind poster on the red forum that I did, in fact, use another username way back - "Angeline" - I'd completely forgotten about that. However, now that I've been reminded, I believe I made it clear who I was and was using that username because I couldn't get into the account under my own name for some reason. So, no suggestion that I was trying to hide my identity there!
For several years, there were a number of people who called me Angeline (it started at work where people misheard "Sandra Lean" and thought I'd said Angeline and it carried on from there).
I'm fully aware that all this nonsense about usernames (from people who do not reveal their own identities) is designed simply to derail conversations, but in the spirit of transparency, I'm correcting my earlier error.
-
Hasnt a court or appeals covered all sandra trys to argue. Top lawers, top qc, nearly 600k in defence. Theres a reason hes still in jail.
There's a reason that Jeremy bamber is still in jail after 33 years but he didn't commit any murder---it was the police who cocked-up the case from start to finish like they did with the Birmingham 6, Eddie Gilfoyle et-al the list goes on and still does to this day.
Police will rarely admit defeat and as in Luke's and Jeremy's cases it'll remain to be seen.
-
What about the ones sandra was supporting who later confessed. Dr sandra leans track record so far is 2 confessions 0 freed.
A jury heard both sides of the argument for months, much more qualified people than sandra tried to defend him. After months the jury found him guilty. Appeals failed, remember sandras big box? Nothing else has happened in 16 years because the police caught the right person.
IF corrine is telling the truth, maybe the real reason a lawer wont touch them is because they all believe hes guilty?
-
What about the ones sandra was supporting who later confessed. Dr sandra leans track record so far is 2 confessions 0 freed.
A jury heard both sides of the argument for months, much more qualified people than sandra tried to defend him. After months the jury found him guilty. Appeals failed, remember sandras big box? Nothing else has happened in 16 years because the police caught the right person.
IF corrine is telling the truth, maybe the real reason a lawer wont touch them is because they all believe hes guilty?
I haven't followed Sandra, though I'm sure many followed those higher up in the echelons of law who've made huge mistakes ! Judges/QC's. They can be wrong too you know !
It's sometimes best to step aside when there are families such as in Luke's case for I'd take what they said with a large pich of salt.
-
* pinch.
-
What about the ones sandra was supporting who later confessed. Dr sandra leans track record so far is 2 confessions 0 freed.
Simon Hall confessed in circumstances that have never been fully explained. The confession was never made public. Thousands of people supported Simon Hall.
I discussed the Adrian Prout case on an open forum - I was never involved with the case personally - never saw a single case paper.
A jury heard both sides of the argument for months, much more qualified people than sandra tried to defend him. After months the jury found him guilty. Appeals failed, remember sandras big box? Nothing else has happened in 16 years because the police caught the right person.
No, they didn't! Potential jurors heard prejudicial media coverage for months - the actual jurors heard 42 days of evidence that most certainly didn't cover "both sides of the argument." After 5 hours deliberation, the jury found him guilty. Are you suggesting there have been no murders of young females in Scotland (or, indeed, the UK) in sixteen years?
IF corrine is telling the truth, maybe the real reason a lawer wont touch them is because they all believe hes guilty?
What makes you think a lawyer "won't touch them"? You're wrong, btw!
-
Simon Hall confessed in circumstances that have never been fully explained. The confession was never made public. Thousands of people supported Simon Hall.
I discussed the Adrian Prout case on an open forum - I was never involved with the case personally - never saw a single case paper.
No, they didn't! Potential jurors heard prejudicial media coverage for months - the actual jurors heard 42 days of evidence that most certainly didn't cover "both sides of the argument." After 5 hours deliberation, the jury found him guilty. Are you suggesting there have been no murders of young females in Scotland (or, indeed, the UK) in sixteen years?
What makes you think a lawyer "won't touch them"? You're wrong, btw!
Same old sandra, his wife/famiy can accept it but you cannot or trying to find a way of not admitting your wrong.
Why didnt luke hire you for the trial instead, your skills are being wasted on the Jeremy bamber forum.
What was the falling out/disagreement luke had with you about?
I never said that, corrine did. Not the first time shes lied eh
-
Jodi was spotted arguing with Luke on one side of the path,
The girl was never identified as Jodi - even the appeal judges could only say the jurors were entitled to infer she "may have been" Jodi. The descriptions were nothing like Jodi or Luke. The "identification" of Luke from the polaroid photo has been criticised by top experts and lawyers. The witness who "identified" Luke from the polaroid failed to identify him in court. Before the argument that Luke looked completely different by the time it got to court, this witness said she never so the guy's face and would only be able to identify him by his clothing. The clothing in the polaroid was nothing like the clothing she described the guy she saw wearing.
Stocky man, seen following Jodi just after she left home, was identified (he wasn't Luke), but the police never released that information to the police. One of the witnesses to stocky man knew Jodi. If the stocky man sighting is correct, the people seen at the entrance to the path couldn't be Luke and Jodi because Jodi hadn't left home by then.
Luke was then spotted by more than one person acting suspicious alone on the other side of the path after the time of the murder.
A youth was seen standing against a gate, looking at the pavement. What's "suspicious" about that? He wasn't agitated, trying to flee or covered with blood - just standing there looking at the pavement. If he was the murderer, how and where did he get cleaned up within half an hour of the murder? (And that's not allowing any time for the stripping and mutilating of Jodi's body). The witnesses said they never saw his face but were taken pictures of Luke in the media, by the police, and asked if he was the person they saw. We now know there was another youth on the Newbattle Road that evening and he is probably the person the witnesses saw - a simple case of mistaken identity of another youth who was acting perfectly innocently.
Luke was seen at the end of his street (also on the Newbattle Road, sitting on a wall, acting perfectly normally. The people who saw him there knew him and positively identified him.
He phoned Alan Ovens who told him Jodi was on her way to meet him,
Who told him either Jodi was "out" or had "just left" according to his own statements. No mention of going to meet Luke.
but despite this still went and met a friend and told the friend Jodi wouldn't be coming out because she was grounded.
Met a friend who says Luke told him "Jodi's not coming out." (Nothing about being grounded). The other two friends who were there deny that that was said.
Why would he say that?
The friend? Because, like so many of the kids involved in this case, he was bullied, browbeaten and threatened until he said what the police wanted him to say.
-
Patience, Lithium! You'll have your proof in the not too distant future.
-
Maybe her memory isnt as good today or maybe shes misleading once again, sandra has a history of that.
How many times have we read comments like that and shes failed to deliver, shame they deleted old forum eh, the stuff they come out with on there!!! remember the big box? Remember the stuff she came out with in the build up to that and the big attempt for sandra and corrine to arange press to see her walk/deliever it that failed, sandra trying to make a name for herself, hows that going? Corrines mums attempt to sell her story for 10k.
Theyve now found someone else whos trying to make a name, mr english. Watching his interviews i thought he looked like he was thinking wtf at times, doubting stuff coming from corine especially. But its all about the views for him, some people will do/use anything to try become famous.
-
I notice on the red forum, there's a discussion about the QC at the appeal saying the DNA in the condom was "no match whatsoever" to James Falconer.
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.
How did he ever get away with that? It was the Crown that discovered the match (when Falconer's DNA was run through the database in relation to another matter) and alerted the defence - what Beckett did in court was deny the Crown's own evidence. Falconer wasn't "identified by Mitchell's defence team" - they were told his DNA matched the DNA from the condom by the Crown!
The defence didn't just "claim" Falconer made false statements to the police - when the police went back to him after finding out the information he'd given them was untrue, he is on record as saying, "I had to say something."
Findlay never explained why he "dropped interest" in Falconer - the first we heard about it was in court that day.
-
How many people have you pointed the finger at over the years sandra, 8-9? Only one person who has so much evidence against, hes not on that list, hes in jail.
-
I notice on the red forum, there's a discussion about the QC at the appeal saying the DNA in the condom was "no match whatsoever" to James Falconer.
How did he ever get away with that? It was the Crown that discovered the match (when Falconer's DNA was run through the database in relation to another matter) and alerted the defence - what Beckett did in court was deny the Crown's own evidence. Falconer wasn't "identified by Mitchell's defence team" - they were told his DNA matched the DNA from the condom by the Crown!
The defence didn't just "claim" Falconer made false statements to the police - when the police went back to him after finding out the information he'd given them was untrue, he is on record as saying, "I had to say something."
Findlay never explained why he "dropped interest" in Falconer - the first we heard about it was in court that day.
it wasnt just lues defence that thought falconers story might be untrue more or less everybody who has heard it does.
even people who think lukes guilty.
-
It's certainly a strange story, nugnug!
Someone commenting on the James English podcast asked whether Luke was on any anti-psychotic medication (he wasn't) and that got me thinking. How many people would think psychosis, or people close to the victim or her family, on medication to control psychosis, should have formed part of the police investigation?
Is it ok to say, well, we're focusing on this guy here, so we're not at all concerned about this guy over here with serious psychosis, on the highest dose of anti-psychotic medication (that's not working) whose mental health has been deteriorating in the months leading up to the murder? Especially if that was someone with direct access to the victim?
Just asking!!
-
falconer said i had to say somthing so why dident he just tell the trth instead of making up a ridcluss story unless the truth he couldent say to a policeman.
-
How many people have you pointed the finger at over the years sandra, 8-9? Only one person who has so much evidence against, hes not on that list, hes in jail.
I’d give up if I were you. Your arguments contain no facts or truths unlike Sandra’s . It’s obvious she knows this case inside out and has thoroughly investigated this case and has seen all the documents.
As for James English bravo to him for letting them have a voice.
We must allow prisoners protesting their innocence to follow through with appeals etc. Its called human rights. If any one of us were in the same situation we would expect the same . Unfortunately the system is not fair and there is a killer walking the streets. Who is that and where is he. He/she/they should man up and confess as far as I’m concerned he/she/they are bloody cowards on top of being a cold blooded murderer. Someone knows who he/she/they are and they too are cowards. When the truth finally prevails I hope they throw the bloody book at them. They just like Luke will deserve a fair trial and appeal just like Luke.
-
How many people has she tried to blame, for someone who knows all the facts and truths why cant she make her mind up or convince the people who really matter?
-
How many people has she tried to blame, for someone who knows all the facts and truths why cant she make her mind up or convince the people who really matter?
There you go again. She isn’t trying to blame anyone. If for example it’s a fact that it was a known persons dna near the scene, how is her questioning the police and what they did with that information blaming anyone. Truth hurts but needs outing. What would you like to do with information like that. Oh well someone jacked off very near the scene and we know who that was but heyho he wouldn’t have done anything so let’s not talk about it. If someone known that had been on or near the scene changed their appearance immediately after the event shouldn’t we be questioning these things.
I dont get what your motive is for trying to make Sandra into something she isn’t. She has kids Jodie age. Are you seriously asking us to consider that she’s doing this for some other motive.
-
Sandra and others are seeking justice for what they believe to be a miscarriage of justice. And by the information that she has bought to light ought to make everyone sit up and take notice that Luke did not get a fair trial.
-
The poeple in the area that have burnt corrines business down and made her life a misery should hang there heads in shame. How many were convicted of that offence. Mob justice is a disgrace and I don’t hear anyone of you supporting this argument. Its a complete joke that because she put an arm around her son or slept in The same room As Luke For his safety that she has been treated this way. To be quite frank it’s about time some of these cowards grew some balls and spoke up for what is right and for those that know what happened or who was involved to speak up. Little weasels ! Makes me mad!
-
There you go again. She isn’t trying to blame anyone.
Have you been reading the same threads and watched same interviews? Ask billy to activate the old forum, read through these forums and the other. The police caught the right person, 16 years and nothing has happened since. The reason they jump between so many people to blame is there is no evidence for each one. How ever there is a massive amount of evidence against luke, hundreds of pages. Ill leave you and nugnug to line up questions for sandra.
-
When someone is convicted of a serious crime (and sentenced to life imprisonment) it's supposed to be on the basis of proven guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. Let's see what reasonable doubt exists in this case.
(1) DNA from semen on the victim's t-shirt from another man who had no alibi for 12 days. The prosecution explains other semen deposits on the t-shirt and bra as possibly carried there by "rain water diffusion" or "washing machine diffusion". This guy is part of a group who insist on a double check of the path, having gone directly there with no definable reason for doing so. His first words to the police when they arrived were "I suppose you've been to my house first?" He later explained this away as "humour" - minutes after finding his girlfriend's sister's body. He tells police in the 999 call they "phoned the police an hour ago" - much earlier than they actually did call the police and, coincidentally, at the exact time of a mysterious call reporting Jodi missing before she was missing. Admitted experiencing "anger issues". Never considered a suspect.
(2) A man suffering serious psychosis whose medication wasn't working because he was also using recreational drugs. Regular appointment with psychiatrist was cancelled that day apparently because he "wanted to keep smoking cannabis." Was kept away from police attention for the first 9 days of the investigation by others. Alibi from only one person is contradicted by others claimed to have been with him leaving his alibi dependent on just one person whose stories continually change. History of violent outbursts, including attacks with bladed instruments, increasing in the run up to the murder. Direct access to the victim, said to have been at home at the claimed time of the murder but identified by a witness outside of his house, close to the victim. Never considered a suspect.
(3) 2 boys on a moped, whose bike was propped against the wall at the V break, at the precise time the police claimed Jodi was being murdered. They couldn't say where they were or what they were doing. Took 5 days to make themselves known to police following a public appeal for them to come forward. Lied about the time they were on the path (removing themselves for the exact time of the murder, even though it would be several days later before police publicly released the believed time of the murder). One said they didn't come forward because Jodi's Gran told them not to. One cut off his own hair immediately after the murder. Supplied Jodi with cannabis. Was allowed to continue selling cannabis to Luke (who would later also be charged with drug offences). Known to carry knives. One was facing a charge for a serious violent attack on another female at the time of Luke's trial - gave evidence against Luke. Never suspects.
(4) A man masturbated into a condom which was dropped 20 yards from the body on the night of the murder. He wasn't traced for three years. When he was, the distance he said he went down behind the wall meant he would have to have seen the body (but said he didn't). He said that when he heard the following morning that a girl had been found murdered behind the wall, he went out onto Lady path and masturbated behind a tree (within the police cordon). Three arrests for violent attacks by the time he was identified. Never considered a suspect.
(5) After the murder, in 2006, a man driving along a main road spotted a girl walking on a country path in woodland. He swerved into a layby and followed the girl, grabbing her by the hair and pulling her down an embankment, beating her severely and raping her. He had a knife, but the girl managed to struggle free and escape. It was later discovered he was near Roan's Dyke path on the afternoon Jodi was murdered. Never considered a suspect. And to this day, people say there have never been any similar attacks in the area since Luke was convicted!
I could go on. Beyond reasonable doubt means ensuring anyone else who could have been responsible is ruled out on solid, factual evidence. That didn't happen. Four of the people mentioned above knew Jodi well (and she them). All of them lied at some point during the investigation (or others lied for them).
So there you have it. Without naming a single name or pointing a single finger, can anyone reading this factual information seriously claim Luke Mitchell was convicted "beyond reasonable doubt"?
-
Have you been reading the same threads and watched same interviews? Ask billy to activate the old forum, read through these forums and the other. The police caught the right person, 16 years and nothing has happened since. The reason they jump between so many people to blame is there is no evidence for each one. How ever there is a massive amount of evidence against luke, hundreds of pages. Ill leave you and nugnug to line up questions for sandra.
I have read the other forum etc and I’m still of the same opinion that Luke did not get a fair trial and that certain suspects were never investigated.
Spouting off about Sandra who you obviously have a problem with does not make Luke guilty. This isn’t about Sandra this is about someone shouting about Luke being imprisoned on an u fair trial , trial by media and locals doing their utmost to place the blame firmly on Luke to protect others.
Let’s hear from these cowards x
-
Sandra be honest, don't beat about the bush name everone youve pointed the finger at over the years.
You can mislead as much as you like on here to try convince random people, controlled interviews and forum use.
When it comes down to it your arguments arnt credible and that's why youve failed to help free luke, you have failed to convince the people who matter. Deep down you know hes guilty, like simon hall you wont admit it no matter what. your to involved now, books, worried what reputation you have left if any is nearly gone.
Are you 'just' helping mojo, surly an expert like you with all facts, truths would have a seat at the top table. Was there any fall out, disagreement with luke and you?
Corrine said lawers wont touch them, you said they will. What is it ? Someones lying, again
-
Unlike Luke, this guy had 2 alibis, one being Jodi's older sister. No motive. "I suppose you've been to my house first?" is suspicious but Corrine's first words when finding out were "Has Luke been arrested yet?"
You're referring to Jodi's brother. Please provide a source for the claim his medication wasn't working? Again, had an alibi. Jodi's mum. Wasn't identified by anyone outside his house and rarely left his bedroom. No criminal background as stated. No motive.
Ok sure. I think they were considered suspects and police made an appeal to find them. Like every other male close to the victim except Luke, they were able to rule them out.
Jodi wasn't raped. Unless you think someone raped Jodi using a condom, didn't leave any DNA on the body or the crime scene, or have Jodi's DNA on the condom, but was then foolish enough to leave it nearby with his semen in it, I think you can stop trying to force the idea that a condom near the crime scene was at all linked to the non-sexual murder of a young girl.
Really trying to blame the Da Vinci rapist again Sandra? Embarrassing. This was about 10 miles away from where Jodi was murdered. Jodi was't grabbed and pulled down anywhere, she voluntarily climbed over a wall with someone she trusted. Oh and Jodi wasn't raped. There were absolutely no witness sightings of any bald man in his mid 20s that day. More than one of a teenager with shoulder length dirty blonde hair. There have been no similar attacks in the area since Luke was convicted. Robert Greens raping someone years later does not cast "reasonable doubt" on Luke Mitchell's murder conviction in any way. Wtf?!
joe had an albi fromhis mum sodid luke if lukes mums albi isnt good enough neather is the albi of jodis mum
and steven kelly has an albi from his girlfreind thats really not good enough ethere wullie gage had an albi
from his girlfriend and hes doing life now.
-
joe had an albi fromhis mum sodid luke if lukes mums albi isnt good enough is the albi of jodis mum
and steven kelly has an albi from his girlfreind thats really not good enough ethere wullie gage had an albi
from his girlfriend and hes doing life now.
Totally agree but nut and if either of them had been convicted they would be shouting they didn't
Get a fair trial
-
Totally agree but nut and if either of them had been convicted they would be shouting they didn't
Get a fair trial
well ian huntley had an albi from his girlfriend we all know how much that was worth.
-
https://youtu.be/uK7OVE_5L7Y
-
Unlike Luke, this guy had 2 alibis, one being Jodi's older sister. No motive. "I suppose you've been to my house first?" is suspicious but Corrine's first words when finding out were "Has Luke been arrested yet?"
Tut tut, Lithium. For 12 days, according to his own and Janine's statements, he had no alibi. Nada! In those statements, he left Janine's Gran's either late morning or around lunchtime and that's the last we hear of him until around 7pm when he's back in the gran's house watching "Natural Born Killers" with Janine. The alibi of two people didn't appear until 12 days in. Corinne's first words were "Jodi's dead?" (unless the cops are lying about that). The claim that she asked "Has he been arrested?" (the word "yet" was never suggested to have been used) was never corroborated. That said, if your son was in the back of a police car that you weren't being allowed into, having just heard that his girlfriend was dead, "Has he been arrested?" would seem like an obvious question - why else would they have him isolated in the back of a police car?
You're referring to Jodi's brother. Please provide a source for the claim his medication wasn't working? Again, had an alibi. Jodi's mum. Wasn't identified by anyone outside his house and rarely left his bedroom. No criminal background as stated. No motive.
I quite deliberately did not name any of the people I'm talking about here. if you want to think I'm talking about Jodi's brother, that's entirely up to you. Information about the person whose medication was not working because of continued use of recreational drugs is in the case papers. But if we're talking specifically about Jodi's brother, why was his mum's alibi (which does not stand up because of the statements of others) acceptable when Luke's mum's wasn't? I'm sorry, you're quite wrong about him being identified outside the house - he was, and I have the documents to prove it. Rarely left his room? He was at his Gran's house on the Saturday night, went out somewhere until around midnight, returned to his gran's and stayed there overnight, returned to his mum's on the Sunday, walked back up to his Gran's on the Sunday evening (on his own) and walked back to his mum's on the Monday. I didn't say Jodi's brother had a "criminal background" anywhere - it's really not cool to misquote people to shore up your own arguments.
Ok sure. I think they were considered suspects and police made an appeal to find them. Like every other male close to the victim except Luke, they were able to rule them out.
The boys on the moped were ruled out before the DNA results came back and before it was discovered they'd lied about the time on the path. Exactly what was it that "enabled" the police to rule them out in these circumstances?
Jodi wasn't raped. Unless you think someone raped Jodi using a condom, didn't leave any DNA on the body or the crime scene, or have Jodi's DNA on the condom, but was then foolish enough to leave it nearby with his semen in it, I think you can stop trying to force the idea that a condom near the crime scene was at all linked to the non-sexual murder of a young girl.
You have conflated "non sexual" with "not sexually motivated." Did you know the police considered the possibility that Jodi had been sexually assaulted (potentially an attempted rape with a condom) but couldn't complete that line of enquiry because the swabbings from the outside of the condom were so badly done, no DNA profiles could be reliably obtained from them? No? They spent quite a bit of time on that theory, but once again, shoddy crime scene practices lost vital evidence. Ever considered that the person who dropped the condom didn't mean to drop it and, by the time he discovered he had, it was too late to go retrieve it?
Really trying to blame the Da Vinci rapist again Sandra? Embarrassing. This was about 10 miles away from where Jodi was murdered. Jodi was't grabbed and pulled down anywhere, she voluntarily climbed over a wall with someone she trusted. Oh and Jodi wasn't raped. There were absolutely no witness sightings of any bald man in his mid 20s that day. More than one of a teenager with shoulder length dirty blonde hair. There have been no similar attacks in the area since Luke was convicted. Robert Greens raping someone years later does not cast "reasonable doubt" on Luke Mitchell's murder conviction in any way. Wtf?!
It would be really easy to just give up here! I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm not "trying to blame" anyone! Roan's Dyke Path to Rosslyn Glen is 5.5 miles - about 10 minutes' drive at 30mph. Jodi was most definitely grabbed and pulled down, by the hair. We don't know if she climbed over the wall or went into the woodland strip from another, easily accessible point (the big break at the top of the path or the field at the other side of the woodland strip). There were other people she would have trusted to go over the wall with on the path at the time she would have been walking down it. There are no witness sightings on record of a bald man in his 20s that day because nobody was asking for them. How many sightings of "a teenager with dirty blond, shoulder length hair" do you think there might be in an area with 2 High Schools and about 1500 pupils between them? (BTW, he didn't have shoulder length hair at the time.) Similarities between the two attacks: young female on country path in woodland, attacker armed with knife, victim dragged by the hair, beaten and partially strangled.
-
strange to rule people out before the dna results cme back isnt it mind you strange to let the crime scne by scrubbed with bleach and to let the bins be emptied when your looking for a mrder weapon.
-
Imagine if Falconer was put in the stand at the original trial.
Finley: how did a condom with your seamen appear 50 ft from a murder scene
JF: I was playing with myself at the time because I have no privacy at home
Finley: what time was this? What route did you take to get there?
JF. Could have been as late as 9pm, and I went this way and that!
Finley: so you stepped over a naked and mutilated body on your way there?
JF: na! Of course not I didn’t see anything.
Case closed and back to the drawing board for Lothian and borders police if the procurator fiscal even allowed it to trial.
One thing that gets to me is that so much of what we know counteracts with what we know!
We know two people were on a motorised bike GD and AN OTHER, these are on camera at a tool hire place. They are seen pushing the bike. The bike is seen propped up against the V break in the wall. All before and at the very time of the murder. These two were never spotted heading home to GD’s house, these two couldn’t even say what route they took back home, these two were proven to have lied about the times they were supposed to be home at GD’s house. These two quickly changed their pre arranged plans for that night due to ! Well nothing really.
Let’s take that in context with what we know of Luke’s movements, not seen before the murder anywhere, not seen at the murder scene,not seen escaping the murder scene in a state that would make anyone believe that he had just brutally killed is girlfriend. Was possibly seen hanging around at what was basically his end of the path by a couple of chancers, who were almost held in contempt of court by colluding with each other on their testimonies. Ok Luke was seen prior to 6pm by a few lads who knew him sitting on a wall at the Newbattle end. This is conducive of what Luke maintains was his actions, home after school to lark around until time to make dinner, he was nowhere to be seen by anyone!!
The trouble is the two motorised bikers can be placed at the scene but can’t be placed leaving it! If I was a manipulating person who only wanted to see a brutal murderer off the hook I could suggest this was because they committed,witnessed and covered up a horrendous crime. Of course I’m not suggesting that, but I do wonder why two individuals who went a long way to discredit Luke as a cannabis user and seller who carries knives simply not say they saw him there! They were there so WHY! Didn’t they see him?
This takes me to something I don’t remember the answers to, the bike was seen placed at the V break, but it had to have been removed at some point. Do we have a time where we can tie down exactly when that bike wasn’t there
-
We don't, Gordo, and that's always bothered me. Both Dickies statements were all over the place. GD couldn't remember if his dad and the dogs (all 8 of them) were at home when he and JF got back, but he did remember they were home but went out shortly after 5.30pm, but it could have been 8 o'clock. He and JF went to a local shop for beer, etc, around 7pm, but he didn't know if his dad was home with the dogs then or not.
DD said he went out with the dogs "later on," possibly around 8 or 9pm (from memory, there were no statements from DD in the defence files - the information about going out around 8 or 9 was given in a media interview).
The guy on the pushbike didn't mention seeing the moped, but they had that guy so harassed, he didn't know if he was coming or going - he actually said on the stand, "They were making me feel like I was a suspect." In terms of the time he cycled up the path, according to police timings, it was between 5pm and 10 past, but that was on the basis of a route they pushed him to agree he'd cycled. Like AB, he told them the routes he normally cycled and that he couldn't be sure which one he cycled that evening, so they chose the one that fitted the timing they needed.
Either Ferris or Dickie jnr said there was a yellow pushbike against the railings at the back of the school, at the top of the path. The bike (and its owner) were never traced and the bike didn't fit any know descriptions of bikes belonging to anyone connected to the investigation. Was there a bike, or did they just make that up?
There was a phone call to Dickie's mobile phone from his girlfriend (or maybe vice versa- I'll have to check) that was used as "proof" of the time Dickie was back in his home - an exact reversal of the way the call to the speaking clock was used as "proof" that Luke was out of his house!
The only presumption we're left with is that Dickie and Ferris, if they returned to Dickie's home at 5.30pm, returned there on the moped.
-
i think if falconer had come to police atetin he would have had to come up with a much better story.
funny he said about 9 a clock though hes dropin himself in it there
was that becouse he could only give that time becouse his other movements were acounted for that day.
or was he just trying to make it to late for him to have been the killer.
-
im coming to the belief that jodi was atacked twice that day.
before she was murderd i belive earlyer in the day somebody had already hit her that person may or may not be the killer.
-
I can’t help feeling that what Falconer told the police 3 years later was pretty accurate an account of what he did and saw that night, it only becomes contentious when placed amid the other evidence the was brought to trial. It’s pretty unfair to him to believe otherwise and again not his fault he wasn’t detected prior to the trial and during the investigation
-
It’s strange you say she might have been attacked twice that night, certainly a lot of the injuries can’t be explained mainly due to the timings, again though until we get a grip of when this murder actually occurred it will seem strange. This was a very prolonged attack, fitting everything into a time frame is impossible if Luke’s the killer.
-
It’s strange you say she might have been attacked twice that night, certainly a lot of the injuries can’t be explained mainly due to the timings, again though until we get a grip of when this murder actually occurred it will seem strange. This was a very prolonged attack, fitting everything into a time frame is impossible if Luke’s the killer.
that's why I don't think they were all committed in one attack it would of taken to long I believe she was in fight with somebody before she was killed I think the injury's to her face were caused then.
-
I can’t help but agree with you mate
-
of course the person who hit her may have nothing to do with the murder but of course the police would not have belived that so they wouldent have come forward.
-
that's why I don't think they were all committed in one attack it would of taken to long I believe she was in fight with somebody before she was killed I think the injury's to her face were caused then.
Some of the injuries to her face were so horrific, nugnug, it would have been impossible to "hide" them. Some of the other injuries could have been caused by a fight - the bruising to the knuckles, the back of the head, side of the eye - even the cut to the inside of her top lip could have been caused by a punch to the face.
Actually, you guys have just made an important point. Bruising. If all the blows that caused the bruising were inflicted immediately before the injuries that killed Jodi, would they have had time to become full blown bruises, given the amount of blood loss involved? I'll go investigate and come back to this!
-
No I don’t believe they would have Sandra, it’s something I toyed with for a while but I always felt there was a danger to Jodi prior to all this anyway
-
Proof(lol just imitating yourself) but c’mon everything you have just typed is conjecture at most or desperation at best
-
I wouldn’t have put up that GD and AN OTHER called out Luke to start with. I believe your an intelligent person with much information and knowledge of this case so to simple stick stuff out there is crazy. These two didn’t even come forward for a few days after being told not to by a person on the search party. Luke has already been interviewed and treated like the culprit from day one
-
Once again plz prove what your are saying. Why would you so often criticise Sandra for what she puts up and NOW!! Ask her to back up what your saying? What side of the coin do you sit mate? I have told you that these two who ever they two were didn’t come forward at the time, here’s an even better point though, these two didn’t testify to what your saying at court.
-
JF and GD were telling people it was Luke even before Jodi's family believed it. Not sure if Sandra can confirm.
and why would they want to do that.
-
Maybe GD and JF did see something? They were the first people to tell everyone it was Luke, and Jodi's family fell out with them after it. Maybe because they didn't come forward with what they had seen. That would explain why Joey wanted to batter them. They didn't help. Maybe they didn't want to talk to police or want to grass someone they sold drugs to?
if so why wold they not come forward.
-
Ferris and Dickie!
They didn't come forward for 5 days. Ferris said afterwards his gran, Alice Walker, told him not to because they were on the path "too early" (at around 4.30). Since the time of Jodi leaving was thought, by Judith originally, to be 5 o'clock (later changed to 5.30, then to 4.50), how could AW be sure they hadn't seen someone suspicious lurking around the area? Ferris was never questioned in court about his claim that his gran told him not to come forward, nor was AW.
Jodi's mum did "fall out" with them later, claiming they knew more than they were letting on, but has never pushed for the police to go after them to find out what that was. Why might that be?
When MBB went to the Gran's on the morning of July 1st, he did not describe someone who could be Luke, but one witness said Ferris kept saying that afternoon, "it's Luke, it's Luke." However, the same witness said Ferris was behaving very strangely - whenever an article about Jodi came on the news, he would turn the volume up and concentrate intently on it. He was also very tense and "snappy" according to this witness.
We know from other witnesses the police were telling people from the off that Luke was the killer and they would have him arrested within the week - there's no reason to suppose they were telling Jodi's family anything different, so if Ferris and Dickie "knew" it was Luke, that's because the police were telling anyone who would listen!
Why didn't they tell police the truth about that afternoon? I think it's a dead cert that the whole lot was dishonest, not just the timing - they could "remember" everything about that afternoon except the correct time (even though Dickie remembered the time of his jobcentre appointment from which Ferris picked him up on the moped) or where they were when the bike was propped at the V point without them (even though they gave an "account" of everything else they did on the path).
It sure as hell wasn't because they were "covering" for Luke - their initial statements are entirely focused on incriminating him - stories about Luke and knives, Luke and cannabis, jabbing Jodi in the leg with a knife (never corroborated by anyone else), handing police knives they claimed belonged to Luke (one of them turned out later to be Ferris's own knife and there was nothing to corroborate the other claims) - it goes on and on. If they'd seen Luke there that day, there's absolutely no way they would have covered that up - their enthusiasm to point the finger at him in their early statements (while lying their heads off about the time) just stopped short of saying it was Luke, anyway!
What reason might Joseph have had to want to batter Ferris? Oh, yes - Ferris destroyed the alibi Judith gave police for Joseph that afternoon. It was Ferris, it appears, who told the police about Joseph's 9 bar which is why the police went back to Judith and Alice, several days into the investigation, to ask about Joseph, who'd been airbrushed out of their earlier statements.
As for not wanting to grass someone they sold drugs to - Ferris was singing like a canary about all the people who bought cannabis from him, not just Luke. He said in court Luke still owed him for the last lot. And we know the police were telling witnesses they weren't interested in cannabis, that nobody would be in trouble for anything cannabis related, they just wanted information about "the murderer" (what they meant was they just wanted information about Luke Mitchell).
So, not to cover for Luke, not to cover for someone they sold drugs to, not because they had special knowledge about Luke (since the police were telling everyone they "knew" it was Luke), so what are we left with?
Why did Ferris ask his gran and another male relative, on July 1st, if he should go to the police or not? There's a slightly different version of this, according to Yvonne Walker. She said Ferris did intend to go to the police on July 1st, so something must have changed his mind. Was it not so much a case of asking his gran, but mentioning that he'd been on the path and was going to tell the police that, and he was told not to? Then there's the gloves - why lie about them (and try to hide them prior to that)?
I, too, think Ferris and Dickie know more than they're letting on, but not about Luke Mitchell.
-
It’s strange that in those earlier encounters with the police that they were pointing the finger at Luke, why not simply say they saw him behind the wall? That’s because they didn’t see him but they should have. We know they were there so why not!
No real way of determining a time for the bike being at the wall, the tool yard workers knocked off around 5pm and by the time they locked up, got in their cars and drove to a point where they could see the bike certainly puts the 17:15 timing being accurate. Was the bike there only fleetingly? Simply stopped there to look over the wall, nothing to see and move on to the next place. No one else seems to put the bike there at the wall, neither Kelly,woman pushing the pram.
-
Thinking about the bike.
Does anyone know who owned it?
Where it was kept?
It’s movements that day? We know Dickie was picked up by Ferris so was Ferris running around on it that day
Was it forensically tested?
Remember this bike was positively placed at a murder scene at the time it was supposed to have occurred, if it was tested and found to have dna then the owners/riders would have questions to answer. If however it was clean would that go some way to suggesting that the murder didn’t occur at that time!
I was also wondering where the furthest item contaminated with blood that was found at the scene and at what direction it was found in relation to the body?
-
The woman pushing the pram wouldn't have seen it, Gordo, because she walked up the Easthouses Road rather than Roan's Dyke path. The most obvious witness would have been the guy on the pushbike who originally said (from memory) he thought he'd cycled up the path around 5.30pm - again, the time frame was altered over time to make it between 5pm and 5.10pm. If he cycled up the path beginning at 5pm,he'd have been at the other end of the path by the time Ferris and Dickie turned onto it from the Newbattle Road. If he cycled up it at 5.10pm, he couldn't have failed to see and hear the bike. If (as he originally said) it was nearer to 5.30pm and the moped wasn't there, we can deduce that it was removed sometime between 5.15pm and 5.30pm.
According to their finalised statements, Dickie and Ferris got back to Dickie's house at "about half five" - it would have taken them literally a few minutes, on the moped (if it didn't cut out again, which, according to them, it didn't) to get there. So, based on the information we have, the bike was at the V point for somewhere around 10 - 12 minutes from 5.15pm. They did claim that they drove up and down Roan's Dyke Path "a couple of times" before heading to Dickie's house - there is no other information anywhere to support those claims.
But, if they did, it would mean the murderer was stripping Jodi and mutilating her body, completely unconcerned by a couple of youths in such close (and noisy) proximity. Since they suggested that one reason the moped might have been propped against the wall was because they were "tired out" from pushing it, why would they take it back down the path, risking it cutting out again and the possibility of having to push it even further to get it home?
-
Thinking about the bike.
Does anyone know who owned it?
Apparently it was jointly owned by both youths who rode it that day.
Where it was kept?
Dickie's back garden
It’s movements that day? We know Dickie was picked up by Ferris so was Ferris running around on it that day
Apparently, it was in Dickie's back garden when Ferris arrived between 2 and 3pm. They tinkered with it for a bit (Dickie getting his mum to take him to the Shell garage in Mayfield to get fuel for it). He left Ferris tinkering with it when he went to his Jobcentre interview and, according to statements, Ferris stayed there until he got the call from Dickie to pick him up. The only movements on record for it are Ferris's trip through the woods and Newbattle Golf Course to collect Dickie and the return journey. Ferris and Dickie claimed to be in Dickie's house until around 9pm, when Ferris left and walked to Yvonne Walker's flat, so it would appear the bike wasn't moved again after 5.30pm. There were two witnesses whom Ferris claimed to have spoken to on his way down Lady Path between 4.20pm and 4.30pm - I have their names, but have never seen statements from them.
Was it forensically tested?
Remember this bike was positively placed at a murder scene at the time it was supposed to have occurred, if it was tested and found to have dna then the owners/riders would have questions to answer. If however it was clean would that go some way to suggesting that the murder didn’t occur at that time!
Not to my knowledge. If it was, the information was never released to the defence. It wasn't even known about until Saturday 5th July and (again, from memory) by the time the police got around to asking about it, they no longer had it. As per the introduction of confusing information in this case, another "dirt bike" was mentioned by one of the two (I'd have to go back and check which one - I think it was Ferris, but I'll double check) - that was in relation to the finding of the gloves. Information was offered about the history of this bike, but it's unclear whether they claimed to have ridden it before or after the bike in question.
There were witness statements about Ferris climbing over a fence later that night, his jeans ripped and covered with what the witnesses assumed was mud. To my knowledge, those jeans were never forensically tested either.
I was also wondering where the furthest item contaminated with blood that was found at the scene and at what direction it was found in relation to the body?
A bloodstained branch was retrieved 25 yards westward of the body (so 9 yards from the body in the direction of Newbattle). Other bloodstained branches were discovered eastward of the body (in the direction of Easthouses), but their distances from the body were not recorded (or, if they were, the information was never released to the defence). Someone claiming to be a relative of Jodi's once claimed that a bloodstained branch was found in the waste ground to the right of the lane leading to the Easthouses entrance to the path, so that would have been some 500 yards eastward of the body. Craig Dobbie claimed Jodi went over the wall and a violent encounter ensued, causing her to turn "eastward, towards home" - he made this claim on the basis of bloodstained branches found in the woodland strip. If, as he claimed, Jodi was attacked immediately she went over the wall at the V point, the bloodstained branches he's talking about would have to be at least 16.3m eastward from the body, since Jodi was found 16.3m west of the V point. All of the bloodstains on the branches were found to be Jodi's blood.
The police files refer to yards and metres interchangeably - sorry if that's confusing, but it's all we've ever had to work with and it makes it really difficult to pinpoint with any precision exactly what distance they're talking about.
-
The branch 25 yards towards newbattle when taken in context with the initial assault being around 7m? In that direction could suggest it was a part of that initial assault or had been moved because of the assault. Those further towards Easthouses are more suspicious in relation to possible movement of the murderer. It would seem strange have such an array of items as widespread as that. The V proved negative to any blood or forensics didn’t it so if the two lads on the bike had entered that clearing beyond the V they would surely have contaminated that area when leaving it to get the bike. Again does that mean that no crime scene existed at that time!
-
Jodi was attacked immediately she went over the wall at the V point, the bloodstained branches he's talking about would have to be at least 16.3m eastward from the body, since Jodi was found 16.3m west of the V point. All of the bloodstains on the branches were found to be Jodi's blood
The area at the woodlands side of the V didn’t contain that much blood though did it? The initial assault happened further westwards of the body in a more dense area of woodland, the area where the spatter and smear were located
-
The spread of the bloodstained branches is consistent with Jodi possibly being attacked, breaking away and trying to run, then being attacked again (even Dobbie himself alluded to that). The other possibility is that some of them could have been moved by animals - dogs, perhaps? That wouldn't be a reasonable explanation for the 6' branch (the one found furthest westward), but may account for some of the others.
Using the word "bloodstained" maybe gives the wrong impression - the branches all had spots or drips of blood on them - they weren't covered with blood.
The problem with the V point is how many people had been through it by the time the forensics officers got there. For example, blood on a boulder at the path side of the V was considered incapable of providing any usable evidence because it could have been deposited there by police officers at the scene. The explanation for no trace of Jodi going through the V was the same, but it's odd that there was no trace of the wall on Jodi either. I've been through the V point many times and every time, I get "scuff marks" of some description on my jeans.
It's true that the area directly behind the V had no bloodstaining, which doesn't fit with Dobbie's theory of the assault starting there and then moving westward then eastward. We don't know for sure where the initial assault happened - all we know is there was blood spray and a small smear on the wall to the west, beside where Jodi's body was found. The area where Jodi was found (and her body itself) were remarkably clean of blood, which seems very unusual. We don't know, for example, if blood had pooled beneath where Jodi lay, because no soil samples were taken (or, if they were, they weren't released to the defence). There was no pooled blood at the foot of the wall where the blood spray was (and where it was claimed Jodi's throat was cut) - the crime scene photographs show that clearly. I've said for many years that the spray on the wall is highly unlikely to be arterial spray.
So where does all of that leave us? The lack of evidence from the wall could suggest that there was no crime scene when the boys on the moped were there, meaning the time of death was wrong. Coupled with the kids who were playing in the woodland strip at the time who saw and heard nothing and the dog walkers at the junction of the paths at five o'clock who saw and heard nothing, Dickie Snr's claim to have seen and heard nothing, the cyclist's and Falconer's claim that they saw nothing, that's 9 people at or around the scene who should have seen something and didn't.
Similarly, because of the absolute hash the police made of protecting the crime scene, lack of evidence from the wall could be because they didn't try to collect it or they conceded from 8am on July 1st that whatever they might get from the wall would be evidentially worthless. We know that someone carried blood over the wall to the path side because of the blood on the boulder, but we'll probably never know who that was. It would have been a very dangerous move for the killer to climb back through the V onto the path side - that would have put him out in the open, with nowhere to hide, for several hundred yards in both directions. Also, he would have no idea if someone might appear on the path just as he climbed through (that happened the last time I was down there - had just climbed back onto the path side when a man appeared behind me and scared the bejeezus out of me because I didn't know he was there).
There were other, far safer routes for him to make his escape without being seen.
-
When put together like that it does make the time of the murder pretty impossible but we’ve known that for a while.
Didn’t Dickie snr take his dogs through that point sometime that day? I remember the oldest one wasn’t able to jump up that high or was it further down the path that he entered the woodland?
-
One big problem is if the murder occurred sometime after the 17:15 allotted time spot and put it to the latest of those 9 people who should have heard or saw something then we have a short window of when the crime could have been committed, equally we have a longer window of when it couldn’t have. If Jodi has simply went somewhere else and with someone different, whoever she was with would also appear to be the murderer!(alternatively she could have been with someone who caused her to be murdered) Or why wouldn’t they have came forward and simply said “yeah Jodi was with me until 6,7,8 pm etc”. Then we have the fact that if she had been with someone else for an extended period of time from where the crime occurred it would appear that Jodi was making her way towards Luke at newbattle, or alternatively on her way back from that area.
At that later time of night it would be unlikely for her to actually expect to go to see Luke! Mainly because of the non contact so she couldn’t be sure Luke would even be in, also this would be out of sorts with the routines and regular actions of Luke and Jodi .
-
When put together like that it does make the time of the murder pretty impossible but we’ve known that for a while.
Didn’t Dickie snr take his dogs through that point sometime that day? I remember the oldest one wasn’t able to jump up that high or was it further down the path that he entered the woodland?
He took his 8 dogs through the V point (he lifted the old one through). The problem is, we can't put a time on when that was - their statements are all over the place - anywhere between 5.30pm and 8 - 8.30pm. I'd have thought the dogs would have left forensic traces on the wall - it's a stone dyke that 7 dogs scrambled up, through and over onto the other side. Dickie Snr said he walked back up from the V break, on the woodland side, to the big break at the junction of the paths (the Easthouses end) and back along Lady Path. If it was the later end of the timescales given, he'd be arriving back at the house shortly before Ferris left to go to Yvonne Walker's, but neither of them ties the two events as happening in such close time proximity.
it absolutely fries my head, even after all these years, trying to work it out!
-
Crucially though it fits with there not being a body or a crime scene at the time the prosecution claimed.
Jodi has to be somewhere else at some point that night.
I was wondering we hear a lot about the close relatives to Jodi on her mother’s side and these were regular haunts for Jodi, she would visit YW and her gran, I’m sure she was also close to the aunts if their actions that night are anything to go by. What about har relatives on her fathers side? Did she regularly see them? Where did her uncle stay the one who committed suicide before the trial?
Looking at other aspects to see where she had went might be more informative. She had nothing substantial in her digestive system and we know she didn’t have dinner! Would this suggest she wasn’t somewhere where food was readily available? No alcohol in her system but the toxicology report stated she had used cannabis at some point after she had left the house. I’m kinda leaning towards not being at a house she knew well or outside somewhere the whole time, surely though she would have been seen!
Where there any squats around the area that kids used to hang around in?
-
5.30pm and 8 - 8.30pm. I'd have thought the dogs would have left forensic traces on the wall - it's a stone dyke that 7 dogs scrambled up, through and over onto the other side. Dickie Snr said he walked back up from the V break, on the woodland side, to the big break at the junction of the paths (the Easthouses end) and back along Lady Path
Let’s take it he was wrong substantially and it was actually 5pm , allowing for possibly missing Jodi and the murderer. This was a prolonged attack taking quite a while when you put all the processes of the crime together. The route he takes would come back eventually to the point of the murder scene and his dogs didn’t alert him to it, no noise and nothing witnessed! Crazy
-
One big problem is if the murder occurred sometime after the 17:15 allotted time spot and put it to the latest of those 9 people who should have heard or saw something then we have a short window of when the crime could have been committed, equally we have a longer window of when it couldn’t have.
Another big problem is that if the witnesses to Stocky Man were correct, and Jodi was still on the Easthouses Road at 5.05pm, she couldn't have been killed at 5.15pm behind the wall - there's not enough time.
If Jodi has simply went somewhere else and with someone different, whoever she was with would also appear to be the murderer!(alternatively she could have been with someone who caused her to be murdered) Or why wouldn’t they have came forward and simply said “yeah Jodi was with me until 6,7,8 pm etc”. Then we have the fact that if she had been with someone else for an extended period of time from where the crime occurred it would appear that Jodi was making her way towards Luke at newbattle, or alternatively on her way back from that area.
Or another alternative, Jodi spent some time with someone she "shouldn't" have been with - we know, if she left at 5pm, she was a bit too early for her usual meeting time with Luke of around 6pm - and someone attacked her after she left that person to head for Newbattle. Luke called to let her know he was out after tea at 5.32pm, eventually getting through at 5.38pm, so it would appear he hadn't expected her to have left already and, if AO told him "she's just left," Luke wouldn't be expecting her until around 6.10pm. Could she have gone to pick up some cannabis - maybe from Yvonne's, maybe from elsewhere - before heading off down the path?
It still wouldn't account for her not being seen by the witnesses who were over the wall between 8 and 9 o'clock, though.
At that later time of night it would be unlikely for her to actually expect to go to see Luke! Mainly because of the non contact so she couldn’t be sure Luke would even be in, also this would be out of sorts with the routines and regular actions of Luke and Jodi .
Agreed. Also, if she was on the path between 8.30pm and 9pm, she'd have virtually no time to spend with Luke because her curfew was 10 o'clock - she'd be getting there just in time to about turn and head back!
Then there's the scream reported by the witness in the house at the top of the path - around 8pm, he reckoned. Since Dickie didn't mention hearing it, that would rule him out as being there or thereabouts at 8pm and it's unlikely he got there at 8.30, or he'd have bumped into Falconer on his (Dickie's) way back.
So, if the expectation was that she'd be in Newbattle around 6pm (which the statements of Luke, Judith and a couple of Jodi's friends all suggest was roughly the time the and others would meet up after tea), we'd also expect her to start making her way down the path at around 5.30pm (the time Judith originally said she left). If the scream at 8pm is connected to the murder, that gives us a rough timescale of 5.45pm - 8pm (allowing time for Jodi to get from the top of the path to the V point). We also know that Jodi smoked a joint within an hour or so of her death and, taking all of the statements into account, that had to be after she left her home that evening.
If Jodi went straight to the V point after leaving her home at the claimed time of 4.50pm to smoke a joint with someone there, there would have been no body to see at 5.15pm (again, not enough time for the entirety of the attack on Jodi) - just a couple of people getting stoned.
Alternatively, if she went in through the big break at the top of the path to smoke a joint with someone (this was a popular hangout for underage or illicit smokers) and was initially attacked there, running further into the woodland strip in an attempt to escape, that would account for the bloodstained branches at the Easthouses end of the woodland strip.
There are just so many possibilities - sixteen years on and still no answers.
-
The bottom line is that, if Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, several people who were over the wall at or after that time should have seen her. If they (genuinely) didn't, it would be reasonable to conclude she wasn't there at that time (I can't see kids playing in the woods saying nothing -- they'd have been utterly traumatised by the sight).
But that would mean Jodi wasn't dead, in the woodland strip, as late as 9pm. She was found at 11.35pm (approximately) - AW said Jodi was "clammy" to the touch, not stone cold. Does that support the idea that Jodi was killed much later than suggested and, if so, where was she in the time in between?
-
But that would mean Jodi wasn't dead, in the woodland strip, as late as 9pm. She was found at 11.35pm (approximately) - AW said Jodi was "clammy" to the touch, not stone cold. Does that support the idea that Jodi was killed much later than suggested and, if so, where was she in the time in between
That’s the first time I think I’ve heard that is what AW described the body she had touched, I remember a few years ago we were discussing the entomology of the body and that didn’t coincide with a 6 hour gap between murder and discovery.
-
Luke's dog didn't alert him to it the first time he walked directly past it. Wasn't interested. On the way back though and in front of the search party it was apparently like a scene from Lassie where he pulled Luke straight over to it and started scrabbling at the wall. A complete contrast to the dogs behaviour walking past it on the way up the path. Doesn't make sense imo
This of course has come up time and time again and I think because of so many events that were occurring that evening it takes on many connotations.
For instance is it more likely for a dog that was well trained and I think Mia could be described as a well trained dog to react out with what it’s handler wants it to do?
Do we know that it didn’t react on the way up?
Luke’s arrangements were to make his way up Roans ’ Dyke path and to make his way to Jodi’s to establish what they were to do after that. Of course on the way up if he saw Jodi then he would have let whoever know he had found her. There was no real urgency on Luke’s part as to him Jodi would have never been in danger or put herself in danger so it was simply she was not where she should have been and they were out to look for her. He was himself with a dog, instructions were made and he was following them.
Is this really any different from let’s say the immediate assumption from Judy that something bad had happened to Jodi when on other occasions she didn’t react the same way when Jodi hadn’t shown up.
-
I am wondering lithium with what’s been discussed do you feel that the 17:15 time of the murder still holds up to scrutiny?
-
thers at least 4 people who should of seen the body if it was there david dickie john ferris Gordon dickie and james a falconer
mean the body wasnt there when they were or they did see it and for some reason chose to ignore it.
-
Not true. Entirely possible to be on the path without seeing the body. Also plenty of room to get to where JF left his condom without being anywhere near the body despite Sandra claiming he had to "STEP OVER IT" ::)
And who says dickie and fung were over the wall? DD certainly wasn't. A witness said they seen the bike parked at the break in the wall which would be impossible to tell from a car.
in broad daylight how could you not spot all that blood.
-
Sounds about right to me considering Luke and Jodi were spotted arguing on Jodi's side of the path at around 16:55 (which ties in with the time Jodi left her house and the few minutes to get to the path entrance and also the time Shane just couldn't agree that Luke was in the house) and the time to walk to the wall and climb over and the argument to escalate. Luke was then spotted by boys who knew him from school alone at his end of the path acting suspicious from about 17:40 - 18:00. Where he phoned Alan Ovens to pretend he was waiting for Jodi. AO ofcourse told him Jodi's left to meet you. Luke said "ok cool" even though his last text from Jodi was almost an hour ago saying she was leaving, he didn't raise this with AO... also later told his friends Jodi won't be coming out; she's grounded. Why would he say that? AO already told him Jodi had left... Why would he go home that night and never wonder what happened to Jodi and why she stood him up?
edit: no idea how Corrine confirming from work that Luke was at home burning dinner while Shane was having a wank in an empty house fits in to any of this.
Luke's friends who hung about with him that night in the woods all believe he done it. Ask yourself why?
It's all so obvious. And to think he almost got away with it.
Sorry but this is the sort of statements that get me annoyed, there is nothing you have said that is fact, but it’s made out to all be fact
Jodi and Luke were not spotted arguing, 2 people who might have been them spotted at top of path
Luke was spotted by 2 boys that knew him, but as far as I know they did not say he was acting suspicious (I’m sure Sandra can confirm on that tho), also this is meant to be only minutes after he carried out this bloodied murder, just sitting at the end of his street, Seems very unlikely to me. we do not know what ao said, even he was not sure, he did say she had already left but we do not know he said that she left to meet him. Luke said he then waited longer for her she did not turn up so he told him mum where he would be, met him mates and said Jodi wasn’t coming, may have been grounded. They were 14, why would he be worried she did not turn up, when I was 14 if my mate / bf did not turn up I’d just think something happened to stop them coming, certainly would not be worried.
The text from Jodi to Luke did not say she was leaving then to meet him, nobody knows what the text said apart from Luke and Jodi.
How do you know Luke’s friends he was with that night thought he done it, out of interest, was that in there statements?
-
I did not know it was a frozen pie, that’s would take over 30mins to burn I would think unless heat was up too high. Luke made the tea most nights so unlikely he had the heat to high, sounds like he had a good idea how to cook (better than me anyway lol ). If tea was ready for 1715 - 1720 I don’t see enough time for the pie to burn if it was in at 1650.
-
Someone had to have made the tea that night, it was not Shane or his mum according to their statements, but they both remember the burnt pie I believe. I always thought the pie might have been burnt as Luke had put it in to cook but was not there to take it out. Ie told his mum he put the pie in to cook and then went out, when him mum got home the pie was burnt.
Really depends if Shane remembers seeing Luke when he went to get his tea, I’ve heard both he did see him and he didn’t so I’ve never been clear on that.
-
I don't have time to address the mass of misinformation Lithium has posted here tonight - it'll have to wait until Monday.
Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.
-
No one said in court that they saw Luke at the Easthouses end of the path, in-fact it was the opposite. No one saw him at the crime scene or wherever it was he managed to clean himself up. The bike was spotted by the tool place employees, ones that were getting harassed by it that afternoon so would have known the bike. That bike places them at the crime scene. No one else is placed there.
Falconer by his own statement not Sandra’s claim the route he took meant he would have had to have stepped over the body.
Dickie snr claimed he was there and went over so again he can be placed at the crime scene, Luke can’t.
-
Thanks Sandra, I had read somewhere recently he spoke to his mum around 1650 to find out what was for tea, if it was 1620/1630 that’s plenty time to cook and even burn a pie.
-
And who says dickie and fung were over the wall? DD certainly wasn't
I’m curious as to your claim the Dickie certainly didn’t go over , if Dickie has told you that then it suggests you know where they went when not with the bike.! It also suggests that Ferris did! We know Jodi smoked cannabis that evening was she there to buy it off Ferris?
-
Not true. Entirely possible to be on the path without seeing the body. Also plenty of room to get to where JF left his condom without being anywhere near the body despite Sandra claiming he had to "STEP OVER IT" ::)
And who says dickie and fung were over the wall? DD certainly wasn't. A witness said they seen the bike parked at the break in the wall which would be impossible to tell from a car.
how would you that were yu on there.
-
Not true. Entirely possible to be on the path without seeing the body. Also plenty of room to get to where JF left his condom without being anywhere near the body despite Sandra claiming he had to "STEP OVER IT" ::)
And who says dickie and fung were over the wall? DD certainly wasn't. A witness said they seen the bike parked at the break in the wall which would be impossible to tell from a car.
so if a murder was going on at the exact same time they were on the path wouldent they have haerd it very few murder happen in comlete silence.
wouldent they have heard her scream.
-
The bike was spotted by the tool place employees, ones that were getting harassed by it that afternoon so would have known the bike. That bike places them at the crime scene. No one else is placed there.
Falconer by his own statement not Sandra’s claim the route he took meant he would have had to have stepped over the body.
Dickie snr claimed he was there and went over so again he can be placed at the crime scene, Luke can’t.
Ferris and Dickie admitted their bike was against the wall without them and they agreed that fact in court - just couldn't remember where they went when they left it there!
-
Ferris and Dickie admitted their bike was against the wall without them and they agreed that fact in court - just couldn't remember where they went when they left it there!
well they couldent of gone far i mean you wouldent want to leave it there long it might get stolen.
-
Thanks Sandra, I had read somewhere recently he spoke to his mum around 1650 to find out what was for tea, if it was 1620/1630 that’s plenty time to cook and even burn a pie.
Something I'm finding quite interesting. Firstly, 16.50 is the time Jodi is (finally) claimed to have left her mother's house - it changed from 17.30 to 17.00, to 16.50.
Luke spoke to his mum before 16.30 and therefore before the exchange of texts between his and Judith's phones at 16.34 - 16.38 and he called the speaking clock at 16.54.
His mum came home at 17.15, according to all three of the Mitchell family, and dinner was ready (This time is also supported by CCTV of Corinne leaving her work, stopping in at a local shop and reconstruction timings of the journey between the three places.)
Now, there's someone on youtube claiming Luke was still at home, cooking dinner, when he called Alan Ovens at 17.40, meaning he would have to have spent over an hour and a quarter cooking pies in the oven, by which time they'd have been burnt to a crisp!!!
I see this often - a large influx of misleading posting, using known timings but attributing them to other events to cause confusion, changing details from one known event and claiming it belongs to another and so on. I used to try to correct every example - not any more - I'd never have time to do anything else.
But since we have at least one poster who seems keen to extend the length of time for cooking some pies in the oven, I wonder what people make of the fact that the lasagne Judith claimed to be cooking that afternoon took 5 hours, at least, to cook? All of this focus on the 45 minute period in which Luke and his mother said pies were in the oven, yet no-one seems remotely interested in the development of the lasagne story, the timing of which, it seems, is to give an alibi for Joseph's movements that day.
Here's the final version:
Between 12:00 and 13:00 Judith was cooking the mince for the lasagne when Joseph and Ferris arrived at lunchtime (somewhere between 12 and 1).
15:50 - 15:55 Judith was preparing the sauce for the lasagne when Jodi came in from school (15.50ish) and Joseph was "mooching" around the kitchen, eating the mince. (This is just 25 minutes after the cancelled doctor's appointment to allow Joseph and Ferris to continue smoking cannabis - Judith would later say she didn't know what time Ferris left).
16:40 She and Alan Ovens sat in the living room for about half an hour after he came in from work, listening to cds and waiting for the lasagne to cook. Joseph was up in his room. (But Judith said Joseph was in the living room with her and Jodi listening to the Rod Stewart track when AO got in from work at 16.40). Jodi called out "keep some (lasagne) for me" as she left at 16.50
17:38 When Luke called - Alan Ovens took the call because Judith was in the kitchen making the cheese sauce for the lasagne and assembling it ready to put it in the oven, so they couldn't have been sitting in the living room between 16.50 and 17.20 "waiting for the lasagne to cook" as claimed above. It took about 10 minutes to make the sauce and assemble, she put it in the oven for about 20 minutes, then told AO to put it back on for another 5 minutes, twice. Then they called Joseph down for tea which they either all ate together on their laps, all ate sitting at the table (including Jodi), or which Joseph took to his room to eat while Judith and AO ate in the living room.
18:05 - Either way, Joseph was back in his room when Judith and AO left to visit the cemetery just as the six o'clock news headlines came on. But if the lasagne didn't go into the oven until 17.48 (allowing for the 10 mins prep) and it was cooked for at least 30 minutes before being served, the they couldn't even have started eating it until 18.28 - almost half an hour after they claimed they left to visit the cemetery.
I'm not saying there's anything "suspicious" about the cooking arrangements in the Jones household that day - I'm asking why known timings for the Mitchells, which are proven to be supportive of their claims about that afternoon are under such scrutiny, when such unsupported and extremely unlikely timings for the Jones family are glibly ignored?
-
well they couldent of gone far i mean you wouldent want to leave it there long it might get stolen.
Ferris knew all about stolen bikes, nugnug! He told police about a bike he'd "found" (in someone's garden) that somehow became his (Ferris's) bike. Guess it's ok if you find something to just keep it - even if you find it in someone's private property?
-
I’m curious as to your claim the Dickie certainly didn’t go over , if Dickie has told you that then it suggests you know where they went when not with the bike.! It also suggests that Ferris did! We know Jodi smoked cannabis that evening was she there to buy it off Ferris?
Goodness, Dickie didn't go over the wall, for certain? So he lied on oath then? Or, if what Lithium says about this is true, all these years later, Dickie is throwing Ferris under the bus? Guess something like that was bound to happen eventually!
-
Because they aren't accused of anything. What are you implying?
At the time of these statements, nobody was accused of anything. I'm not implying anything, I'm saying outright the double standards in this case were disgraceful.
-
So 2 people where at the v in the wall right at the time the murder was meant to be, but can’t remember what they were doing? And that was accepted? Do we know how long the bike was parked at the v? Or just that it was seen there at around 1715?
I still think they have guessed the time of the murder wrong, just seems to be too much going on in that 30 mins between 5 and 5.30 on the path for someone to be carrying out such a brutal crime. Imo.
-
We were just talking about that bullseye, had to be around the 12ish mins as the cyclist doesn’t mention it when he went by around 17:30
-
if jodi was killed later she wasnt seen by any witness so would mean she would of been in somebodys house.
-
I always wondered if she was with the boys on the moped having a smoke behind the wall, when they left she was fine but as that’s where she was found dead and they were to scared to say, as they would have been the last to see her alive. Everyone seems to think they know more that they are saying, that could be what it is. So many possibilities
-
I always wondered if she was with the boys on the moped having a smoke behind the wall, when they left she was fine but as that’s where she was found dead and they were to scared to say, as they would have been the last to see her alive. Everyone seems to think they know more that they are saying, that could be what it is. So many possibilities
i think that could certanly be a posbility.
-
i belive she ethere went to gorden dickies house or yvone walkers.
-
Who? Jodi?
yes.
-
Agreed think it's a fair suggestion. After they left though why would Jodi remain over there alone. Has Luke ever said anything about the pair? Like Gordo said, if they were so determined to incriminate Luke they could have easily made something up.
Maybe they didn't leave her alone, though. In this scenario (Jodi going over the wall with Ferris and Dickie to smoke), there could have been someone else there as well. If that someone was Luke, they'd have said so - as I said in a previous post, they were falling over themselves to incriminate him. So the suggestion would have to be that, if someone else was over the wall, it wasn't Luke and it was someone Dickie and Ferris were not prepared to bring to police attention for some reason. Were the lies about what time they were on the path, the failure to come forward, etc, all attempts to distance themselves from this person, or were they to keep him out of police attention?
-
It doesn't cancel anything out with regards to Luke's conviction, which is why the SCCRC was a bust. Yes L&B could have done better but they got their man in the end, and Luke had his day in court with one of Scotland's top lawyers and was still found guilty by a jury who heard everything.
So, if we're to believe the official documents, etc, why did the appeal judges say the family search trio left from Jodi's mother's house, just a few minutes from the path?
-
Did they all sit around the table eating burnt food?
The pies were "overdone," not burned to a crisp!
-
Maybe they didn't leave her alone, though. In this scenario (Jodi going over the wall with Ferris and Dickie to smoke), there could have been someone else there as well. If that someone was Luke, they'd have said so - as I said in a previous post, they were falling over themselves to incriminate him. So the suggestion would have to be that, if someone else was over the wall, it wasn't Luke and it was someone Dickie and Ferris were not prepared to bring to police attention for some reason. Were the lies about what time they were on the path, the failure to come forward, etc, all attempts to distance themselves from this person, or were they to keep him out of police attention?
were did they say they were going with the moped it was somones house as i recall.
-
I just have an impossible time believing Ferris had anything to do with it. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer (or in the letterbox, I could say :))) He did seem adamant it was Luke but is hiding something. I know at the time of the murder Luke owed him money for cannabis. So I'm not sure where his loyalties lay. What I do know for sure is Joey didn't want to batter him for murdering his sister and he since returned to Dalkeith.
so why would he hide somthing
-
Not sure nugnug.
What I am sure of is that Luke owned a parka before 30 June 2003. This has been confirmed by friends, and even school teachers who even commented that he resembled a "hooded monk" walking around school with it on. Why would these teachers lie? Jodi's family believe he owned one before the murder because they remember him wearing one before the murder too. This is why they are comfortable with the conviction. Not because they are simply dim-witted and easily influenced like Sandra would have you believe, but because they were there, they knew Luke. They know this as fact. Sandra did not and does not.
yu dont are so your ignoring my point are i thought that might be the case.
-
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, the flames and burning smell were reported from Luke's garden by NICHOLAS FRANKLAND and GEORGE RAMAGE, one being Luke's next door neighbour, the other whose garden backed onto Luke's. Both reported seeing and smelling burning which wasn't food, on the night of June 30th. Frankland stated it was shortly after he watched Luke walking past his window returning home. Ramage also commented to his partner that it was a bit late for the Mitchells to be having a barbecue. Mr Frankland's wife Patricia also confirmed smelling and seeing the burning from the Mitchell garden. Can Sandra please address this? The attempt to make these police statements disappear and just casually attribute it to a random incident in Newton Grange is worrying.
A school teacher testified in court that Luke owned a Parka. Why on Earth would he do this? And he certainly wasn't mistaken about it being before the murder, because he left St. Davids before the murder.
What on Earth would possess a respected teacher to lie in court like this?
There is solid evidence from credible sources that something was burned, and that it was probably the missing parka.
Jodi's family know first hand that Luke wore a parka before the murder. As did Luke's close friends. Random usernames on a forum who have never met Luke are telling them they are wrong. They have no issue believing this piece of evidence.
respected teacher respected by who exactly.
-
Good argument mate.
Do you have evidence or something that this teacher should be discredited?
no i am merely asking who respescts them your cliaming somone is respected respected by who.
-
Teaching isn't a respectable job? Not sure what your argument here is mate or why you're not addressing anything else?
it certanly is not i know enought teachers who are in prison to confirm that.
you shuld of met some of my teachers.
-
Why does Sandra deny that it was Luke's direct neighbours who reported burning to the police? What's this nonsense about a random family in Newton Grange? These people exist. Nicholas Frankland, Patricia Frankland, George Ramage.
makes no diffrence forensic examination of the log burner proves them wrong.
-
Is it possible that the parka morphed from say an oversized German army shirt worn over a hoodie? Something I have saw before.
Where exactly does a parka actually fit into all of this anyway? I understand it’s a great item if your covered in blood and wanted to get from the scene to safety, but here’s my problem. Safety would be his house and that would mean a full clean up there had to have occurred. That house was stripped and forensically checked with nothing found, I’m also sure if some massive clean up took place they would find extensive use of cleaning products. They took the plumbing system apart and nothing!
I know you follow the prosecutions stance so why doesn’t AB say she saw Luke wearing it, also why doesn’t the neighbour you claim who reported the burning not long after Luke passed his window not say that Luke was wearing one on his return. The lack of forensics is paramount to Luke’s innocence in this case and no one has been able to break that down.
My other problem is that you seem adept to believing Ferris has more to contribute but is holding back, I don’t think Ferris was even on that bike that evening. He doesn’t fit the description of either of the two seen on it. It’s suspicious that he cuts his hair shortly afterwards if indeed he was trying to distance himself from being on that bike, to do so and then go to the police was an attempt to place himself on that bike. Why do that? I suppose if the person who was there was a better alibi for someone else would be one reason. Oh I’m not suggesting Joey was one the bike he was most probably busy cutting his 9 bar up.
-
What time was it the the reported smoke smell from the garden reported?
Why just burn the parka? If he was wearing it during the murder it would have been saturated, these are usually thinish material that would mean anything underneath also would have contamination. It wouldn’t cover the lower part of the legs so jeans and definitely footwear also must have been contaminated. That’s a hell of a lot of burning! Then the ash taken away possibly allowed to cool a bit and then further burning as we know ash was taken from the burner by the police.
I just don’t think it’s credible to dispose of things like this in this manner, Corrine was available and had the means to say bag everything and drive for 30mins and back again to sufficiently dispose of the items far enough away from the area if need be. Much easier methods.
-
And considering all 3 members of the Mitchell household ate dinner in 3 different rooms and can't remember seeing each other that night, does Corinne know for sure Luke wasn't burning anything that night out the back garden?
Error. There has never been any suggestion that Corinne "didn't remember seeing Luke" -she told poice what he was wearing and the conversation they had when she came in from work and when he wass going out to meet Jodi. Shane's initial statement (on the Wednesday) said he didn't remember any real detail about the Monday evening - it wasn't until he was reminded about the visit to the friend on the way home, the receipts from the parts place, etc, that the evening in question began to fall into place. Corinne's reminder about the pies was only part of what reminded Shane about the evening in question.
Corinne took her dinner out into the garden to eat - she was sitting right beside the log burner!
The neighbours who lived closest to Luke's back garden both told police they smelled burning which wasn't food, but also seen flames coming from the log burner next door. Why would they lie? Why would Luke's teachers lie about a parka and why would the neighbours lie about this? Both neighbours whose gardens were directly joined with Luke's (one being the next door neighbour and the other whose backing onto Luke's garden) independently reported to the police seeing and smelling burning. COME ON...
Error. Only one neighbour referred to the smell not being burning food - he referred to Corinne as "the tart in tight pants," but I don't suppose that suggested any bias on his part? Nobody claimed to have seen flames - or even smoke. They smelled it - that's all. There was evidence of strange smelling smoke, but on a different night just after the murder. How could anyone be sure what night they smelled smoke? Even the Franklands weren't entirely sure it was that night. Why would you make claims about seeing smoke and flames when none of the witnesses made such claims?
I recently watched Sandra falsely attribute this burning to another family in Newton Grange, but this is just not true. It was Luke's direct neighbours George Ramage and Nicholas Frankland both seen and smelled burning.
Error. Sandra did not "falsely attribute" anything. James Matthews asked, directly, in the Sky interview about the burning of clothes (long before this was a police line of enquiry) on the basis of a local newspaper article about police following up on a report of the mother of a suspect burning clothes in a back garden in Newtongrange.
She also keeps talking about there being no evidence of clothing being burned because they checked the ashes etc. This was a week after the night of the murder so it doesn't prove anything. She also said there was no opportunity because Luke was in the police station that night and they were being watched by media from the day following. She knows no one stated the burning happened after Jodi was found. So none of this is relevant.
Error. What was a week after the murder? The police raided the house at 7am on July 4th - just 4 days after the murder. I never claimed anyone said there was burning after the body was found. I said there was no opportunity to dispose of ashes between Jodi's body being found and the raid on July 4th - different thing entirely.
Oh but a parka wouldn't fit in the log burner! How hard would it be to cut it up and throw the pieces in? Just a suggestion. Luke regularly burned things out the back and was apparently free to do so. School jotters etc. Also sometimes cooked using the log burner, bacon, sausages etc.
Ok, so Corinne knows her son's murdered his girlfriend and left her body lying out, visible, in broad daylight, so she could be found any minute. Best plan - spend time cutting up the jacket (and risk getting caught red handed), set a fire with no accelerant and wait for it to get hot enough to incinerate the cut up pieces (and run the risk of getting caught red handed or the rain putting out the fire before the incineration is complete), relight the fire a couple of hours later (and risk getting caught red handed with the remaining cut up pieces of jacket nearly 4 hours after beginning the disposal) - what was it you said earlier? Oh yes, I remember ... COME ON!
Luke sometimes cooked and burned old jotters when his mother was having a fire - there's never been any evidence he lit fires in the burner by himself, if his mother wasn't there.
-
Just because you refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
-
well its obvios she dident burn anything in the log burner becouse if she had forenic examination of the log burner would of proved it.
-
You/Sandra/nugnug seem to be simultaniously claiming he's deliberately placing himself at the scene, but also lying about times to distance himself from it. It can't be both
Lying is a hard thing to do when so many people involved, the lies where just that and not done to intentionally distance themselves.
-
i think the jones family were very sensble not talking to the press.
-
sndra who did the mopd actully belong to.
-
Sandra already has a few posts back. Why would we bother if the Jones family or yourself can come out with what they want simply because they believe it themselves.
Can I ask did the Jones know Luke before he went out with Jodi?
-
That’s not what I asked though is it. Did the Jones know Luke prior to his relationship with Jodi?
-
So are you willing to address the evidence from Luke's neighbours?
3 people mistakenly smelling and seeing burning from Luke's back garden that night?
How does that happen.
it was adreseed forensic examition of the log burnr proves them to be wrong.
-
Well he was buying Cannabis from Ferris before he went out with Jodi.
Error. I know who he was buying cannabis from previously and it wasn't Ferris.
-
So are you willing to address the evidence from Luke's neighbours?
3 people mistakenly smelling and seeing burning from Luke's back garden that night?
How does that happen.
Yes, I'm more than willing to address it. They did not say in their statements they saw it - they were quite clear about that - they only smelled it. And yes, they are almost certainly mistaken about the time. It was much later that the police went back and asked neighbours about smoke/burning - 32 out of 35 witnesses either said there was no smoke that evening, they couldn't say for sure if there was smoke, or they gave accounts of various places where the smell of smoke could have been emanating from (other than the Mitchell garden). Two out of 35 (and only one of whom was called to give evidence) spoke of strange smelling smoke. The one who was not asked to give evidence told of a citronella candle in their garden catching fire a few days after the murder. It was the police, camped outside the Mitchell home, who alerted them that their candle had gone up in flames. The Franklands (two out of the three who did give evidence) said the smell, on whatever night it was, because they could not be sure what night it was, was wood smoke. They remembered because they liked the smell.
So who do we believe? 34 out of 35 or 1 out of 35? As they say in legal circles, where does the weight of the evidence lie?
-
Ashes taken days after the alleged burning prove nothing
And I'm not sure gordo. My post was just to say that there is ever chance joey knew of him through jfs dealings
yes it does it wouldent mater if it was years later forensics would still be able to find evidence of it.
-
That’s not what I asked though is it. Did the Jones know Luke prior to his relationship with Jodi?
No, Gordo, they didn't. This is according to all of their own statements, Jodi's diaries, friends' statements and Luke's accounts. None of them knew Luke prior to his relationship with Jodi.
-
Exactly what I thought ! The smallest detail can be so damaging in the wrong context . If the Jones didn’t know Luke prior to the relationship with Jodi then where are you getting all the information from? Regarding the lock knife he always carried! How the whole family knows he had a parka! . All the information that your producing here to be fair seems contentious at best. You some sort of pawn mate? Like Ferris
-
sndra who did the mopd actully belong to.
If their statements are to be believed, it was jointly owned by Ferris and Dickie. There is, however, a suggestion that it was Ferris's, but he kept it at Dickie's place for some reason.
The statements about bikes are very confusing - there was mention (eventually) about another bike ridden by Ferris that belonged to someone else entirely (someone with no apparent connection to the case) - that came about as part of the explanation for the wet and muddy gloves. Ferris couldn't remember when he'd ridden that bike - it might have been the weekend before the murder - but he did remember that he'd borrowed his brother's gloves (without his permission ... wait ... that sounds familiar) to go out riding that bike and they'd got wet and muddy then.
Dickie, however, blew a hole in that story by suggesting he had identical gloves to the ones borrowed without permission from Ferris's brother (wait ... that sounds familiar), but he (Dickie) "wasn't bothered" about the damp, muddy, hidden gloves being discovered even though they might have been his or they might have been Ferris's.
So, in answer to your original question, I don't know for sure who the bike really belonged to. There was a statement from Judith, quite a bit into the investigation which begins:
"I have been asked about motorbikes owned by my son Joseph." She went on to say she could confirm Joseph had not "owned" a bike for a period of time (can't actually remember how long - again, I'd have to check). Why were the police asking specifically about motorbikes owned by Joseph? None of the bikes in question had recorded owners - they were all off-roaders and, back then, there was no requirement to register ownership - I think that changed several years later when daft lads on dirt bikes/off roaders were causing a nuisance in residential areas?
-
Exactly what I thought ! The smallest detail can be so damaging in the wrong context . If the Jones didn’t know Luke prior to the relationship with Jodi then where are you getting all the information from? Regarding the lock knife he always carried! How the whole family knows he had a parka! . All the information that your producing here to be fair seems contentious at best. You some sort of pawn mate? Like Ferris
well if they dident know him they couldent of known wather he wore a parka or anything about him.
-
If their statements are to be believed, it was jointly owned by Ferris and Dickie. There is, however, a suggestion that it was Ferris's, but he kept it at Dickie's place for some reason.
The statements about bikes are very confusing - there was mention (eventually) about another bike ridden by Ferris that belonged to someone else entirely (someone with no apparent connection to the case) - that came about as part of the explanation for the wet and muddy gloves. Ferris couldn't remember when he'd ridden that bike - it might have been the weekend before the murder - but he did remember that he'd borrowed his brother's gloves (without his permission ... wait ... that sounds familiar) to go out riding that bike and they'd got wet and muddy then.
Dickie, however, blew a hole in that story by suggesting he had identical gloves to the ones borrowed without permission from Ferris's brother (wait ... that sounds familiar), but he (Dickie) "wasn't bothered" about the damp, muddy, hidden gloves being discovered even though they might have been his or they might have been Ferris's.
So, in answer to your original question, I don't know for sure who the bike really belonged to. There was a statement from Judith, quite a bit into the investigation which begins:
"I have been asked about motorbikes owned by my son Joseph." She went on to say she could confirm Joseph had not "owned" a bike for a period of time (can't actually remember how long - again, I'd have to check). Why were the police asking specifically about motorbikes owned by Joseph? None of the bikes in question had recorded owners - they were all off-roaders and, back then, there was no requirement to register ownership - I think that changed several years later when daft lads on dirt bikes/off roaders were causing a nuisance in residential areas?
did it really belong to ethere of them i wonder were did they say they were going with it.
-
Dare I ask a simple Q guys, don't want to be promoting any kind of hostilities between 'The auld team' of your take on Q time?
Simple really.
There were , regardless of conception of your (cough) facts. 20 points of circumstantial evidence put forth.
My interest would be, in all of your many years of debates and discussions, can you 3? come anywhere close to putting forward 20 points in respect of (cough) your many suspects. Each individually to their own of course.
Dissertation and all that, just simple answers and points required. Thank you muchly :-)
-
So you're saying none of Jodi's family met Luke before Jodi was murdered? What are you talking about? I didn't say they saw him wearing a parka before he was Jodi's bf. I said they saw him wearing a parka because he was Jodi's bf.
they also said jodi wasnt allowed to use the path on her own wich is peovably untrue
-
How is it?
Just because she did something doesn't mean she wasn't allowed.
I'm sure her and Luke "weren't allowed" to smoke weed.
they allso said she was grounded when she wasnt.
-
How is it?
Just because she did something doesn't mean she wasn't allowed.
I'm sure her and Luke "weren't allowed" to smoke weed.
they also said she would she would not of used the path on her own.
but then chose that as the first place to look rather strange
-
(https://i.imgur.com/tSNfyaz.gif)
Ok just the 20 on one person( I would t call them suspects)
1. Mental health problems treated by many different drugs exacerbated by the use of recreational drugs
2. Long time dealer of drugs.
3. Long history of violence
4. Use of knives
5. No alibi at at least 1 point that night
6. Never took part in the search for his sibling
7. Plans for that night we’re changed
8. Was seen following Jodi not long after she left the house.
9. Was one of the last people to see the victim alive
10. Would certainly know the area of the murder
11. Was never questioned by the police
12. Was there a danger to Jodi through his dealing with drugs?
13. Were told he never left the house for a long time although he had been out that weekend and was also that day
14. Missed appointment to see psychologist that day.
15. After the murder appeared withdrawn again possibly due to drugs
16. Threatening behaviour afterwards
Ok just the 16 points but many of these were applied circumstantially to Luke and quite a few of these points could be elaborated with more than one example. In all that I still could make up more to fit a circumstantial case. I don’t see the point as this looks like I’m claiming he committed the murder and that would be wrong because I don’t believe he committed the murder.
-
So you're saying none of Jodi's family met Luke before Jodi was murdered? What are you talking about? I didn't say they saw him wearing a parka before he was Jodi's bf. I said they saw him wearing a parka because he was Jodi's bf.
I only asked if the Jones family knew Luke prior to them being in a relationship, simple question that didn’t warrant anything else than a simple yes/no
-
Sandra already has a few posts back. Why would we bother if the Jones family or yourself can come out with what they want simply because they believe it themselves.
Can I ask did the Jones know Luke before he went out with Jodi?
That’s what I asked more misinformation from yourself
-
You can find as many thoughts on this type of thing from various different professionals and amateurs a like. I do t have many thoughts either way, I know it’s used by certain government departments in the states and other places.
It doesn’t have a bearing on this case though does it ! Luke wasn't convicted using one was he?
His lie detector was for me just that, makes no difference to myself although it might bolster popular opinion in some aspects.
-
Here a Q for parky.
Can you give 5 fully corroborated pieces of evidence that would be allowed in a Scottish court of law that would lead to the conviction of Luke?
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/25/jeremy-kyle-producers-admit-lie-detector-tests-may-have-given/
there talking about people who failed them not people who passed.
-
Lithium has left the building and this thread has become unintelligible. There are better times ahead with a lot of effort and a big push to prove this case a MOJ and the support will be with Luke as it has the past 16 years.
I don’t want to try and understand motives for the deletion of much of what has been discussed here as private reasons are enough.
I’m sry though as we had new posters contribute even although they failed to follow up on what they contributed to but again as with a case like this it’s hard to even know where to start let alone know anything about the case in general.
looking forward always
-
We've seen this happen so many times before - people come on, flood the thread with misinformation, draw everyone into responding then delete their posts so that the thread makes no sense. Anyone coming along later soon gives up because they can't make head nor tail of it.
I was thinking about the claimed 20 pieces of solid evidence against Luke (that's been deleted now) - what's always interested me are the number of pieces of "evidence" that applied equally, and in some cases, moreso, to others than they did to Luke - so, drug use, connection with knives, "dark" interests, etc, etc. There are at least 5 others to whom all of these apply. Of those five, we can add serious mental health conditions (which didn't apply to Luke), previous attacks on women (which didn't apply to Luke), attacks with bladed intruments (which didn't apply to Luke), long histories of violence and/or involvement with the police (which didn't apply to Luke) - the truth is, they could have built stronger circumstantial cases against a number of others but stuck with their ludicrous case against Luke and stoked the fires of hatred and bias via the media to ensure he was convicted.
-
can anyone find the clip of jodis aunts making the information appeal id like to post it elsewhere.
-
I haven't been able to find it nugnug - there are articles referring to it, but the clip itself seems to have disappeared completely. The only link I had (a very old one) no longer works.
-
Looking for the clip of the aunts' appeal, I found this, from January 21st 2005:
She [Judith]said she learned from police that Jodi had been self-harming, and she later discovered the girl had confided in her sister Janine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4195169.stm
That is completely and utterly untrue. According to her statements, it was Joseph who told Judy about Jodi self harming - she knew nothing about it until Joseph told her. I always thought it was very strange that Joseph knew, but Janine didn't, since Jodi was, by all accounts, much closer to Janine than she was to Joseph.
But it certainly wasn't "the police" who broke the news about self-harm. Jodi did confide in her sister that the relationship with Luke had become sexual, so it's even more surprising that she didn't confide in her about the self harm.
-
It doesn’t look out of place though, Jodi might have wanted a different form of relationship with her sister, friends and closeness to the point where she wanted to be more like her. She may have looked up to her sister and didn’t want to let her sister know there were problems.
She stayed in the same house as Joesph so he may have saw the cuts and asked about them, more a matter of circumstance than anything else.
-
It doesn’t look out of place though, Jodi might have wanted a different form of relationship with her sister, friends and closeness to the point where she wanted to be more like her. She may have looked up to her sister and didn’t want to let her sister know there were problems.
She stayed in the same house as Joesph so he may have saw the cuts and asked about them, more a matter of circumstance than anything else.
well shel ilived in the same house as her mum but her mum didn't know
-
the question for me is why the police even asked abut her sexual activity and her self harming what was the relevance.
-
The two in certain circumstance can be co joined, abuse can lead to many different avenues
-
I've never heard that she was claimed to have been self-harming from the age of 8 - that would have been round about the age she was when her dad died. I know she struggled for her first two years at high school - I always assumed the self-harm began in that period.
From all accounts, Jodi was very secretive about her self-harming and always kept her arms covered. The statement in which Judith claimed not to have known about Jodi self harming until Joseph told her "just the other day" covered other information that Joseph had read in Jodi's diary, the implication being that the information about self harm had also come from the diary.
The front of her diary was covered in dire warnings that they were strictly private and not to be read by anyone. Judy said, after the trial, that Jodi would have been horrified at her diaries being read out in court (even though the bits read out in court were about her love for Luke, etc). I presume Jodi would have been equally horrified at the thought of her brother reading her private thoughts about boys, sex, etc.
In the same statement, Judy said Joseph told her about Jodi writing in her diary that she wanted to move out of the family home and move in with Yvonne Walker, which doesn't really fit with the idyllic, blissful home-life portrayed at trial - Janine moved out three years earlier, also aged 14. Why would two 14 year old daughters both want to leave home at such a young age?
-
I've never heard that she was claimed to have been self-harming from the age of 8 - that would have been round about the age she was when her dad died. I know she struggled for her first two years at high school - I always assumed the self-harm began in that period.
From all accounts, Jodi was very secretive about her self-harming and always kept her arms covered. The statement in which Judith claimed not to have known about Jodi self harming until Joseph told her "just the other day" covered other information that Joseph had read in Jodi's diary, the implication being that the information about self harm had also come from the diary.
The front of her diary was covered in dire warnings that they were strictly private and not to be read by anyone. Judy said, after the trial, that Jodi would have been horrified at her diaries being read out in court (even though the bits read out in court were about her love for Luke, etc). I presume Jodi would have been equally horrified at the thought of her brother reading her private thoughts about boys, sex, etc.
In the same statement, Judy said Joseph told her about Jodi writing in her diary that she wanted to move out of the family home and move in with Yvonne Walker, which doesn't really fit with the idyllic, blissful home-life portrayed at trial - Janine moved out three years earlier, also aged 14. Why would two 14 year old daughters both want to leave home at such a young age?
oh soory missread the link i will delete that post.
i wonder hy he was reading her dairy was it just nosey or did he want to know somthing i doubt if she would of left it lying around so he must of looked for it.
-
Apparently, one diary went missing. It had been referred to in a statement, which is how the police knew about it, but when the police came to collect it, it couldn't be found.
-
Apparently, one diary went missing. It had been referred to in a statement, which is how the police knew about it, but when the police came to collect it, it couldn't be found.
dident she have more than one dairy though becouse passages of her dairy have been queted.
-
Yes, there were three in total, but only two were recovered.
-
so what happened to the third im guessing it would of been in her bedrom I am all guessing that should would of removed it from there meaning somebody else did.
-
What happened to it? It’s obviously been removed or discarded for some reason. According to Sandra’s book, the Jones family seem good at covering up evidence and keeping people and things out the limelight. I think a key character in all of this was her brother JJ even though there was hardly a mention of him.
-
What happened to it? It’s obviously been removed or discarded for some reason. According to Sandra’s book, the Jones family seem good at covering up evidence and keeping people and things out the limelight. I think a key character in all of this was her brother JJ even though there was hardly a mention of him.
im thinking if hetoldhis mother things he read ij jodis dairy theres a good chance he may of told oter people as well and that could of had consuences.
-
I think there’s more to Joseph Jones than what’s been disclosed. His alibi that he was at home on June 30th was contradicted by Ferris. The accounts of Ferris undermined a lot of the statements to be honest, but this guy had a propensity for violence and grossly managed to go under the radar.
I think Ferris simply shat himself when he realised the screws were onto him and Dickie on the path, hence why he started acting suspicious with the mad hair cuts. I think there’s more evidence to suggest someone in Jodi’s family is linked to it. A witness identified a member of Jodi’s family as Stocky Man, who was also the dude who claimed to be at home all day.
That of course would imply - if you read the book - it was Joseph Jones
-
I think there’s more to Joseph Jones than what’s been disclosed. His alibi that he was at home on June 30th was contradicted by Ferris. The accounts of Ferris undermined a lot of the statements to be honest, but this guy had a propensity for violence and grossly managed to go under the radar.
I think Ferris simply shat himself when he realised the screws were onto him and Dickie on the path, hence why he started acting suspicious with the mad hair cuts. I think there’s more evidence to suggest someone in Jodi’s family is linked to it. A witness identified a member of Jodi’s family as Stocky Man, who was also the dude who claimed to be at home all day.
That of course would imply - if you read the book - it was Joseph Jones
i wonder if ferris actully was with joe that night and hes actully lying about on the bike
i find odd that joe would use him as an albi withot asking ifthe albi was not true.
i mean they all talked to eah other so joe would know ferris was with dickie if was with dickie so joe is hardly likely to say ferris is with him knowing full well hes been seen somewhere else that leads me to belive joe is telling the truth and ferris was with him and somebody else was with dickie.
-
this is of course why jodis gran told ferris not to go to the police becouse by doing so hes leaing joe without an albi.
and also making jodis mum look like a liar
-
What happened to it? It’s obviously been removed or discarded for some reason.
Judith seemed to think the police had it, the police didn't think they did (obviously) because they were asking about it. Another possibility is that it had been collected at some point and is, to this day, lying in a police storage unit somewhere (it's not as if that's never happened in Scottish policing before!!!)
According to Sandra’s book, the Jones family seem good at covering up evidence and keeping people and things out the limelight.
I don't know if it's the case that Jodi's family were good at these things or if it was more that the police just never asked - if you think about it, prior to Jodi being found, Ferris, Dickie, Joseph, Alice Walker, Janine and Judith (at least) all knew that Ferris left Alice Walker's with Joseph on the morning of June 30th and went to Judith's house, but the police had to put out a public appeal for the boys on the moped on the afternoon of July 4th. I would have expected a police investigation of this magnitude should have uncovered the main people in the houses Jodi might have been prior to her murder within the first few days. According to Corinne and others, Judith said, on either July 3rd or July 5th "Thank goodness they didn't find out about Joseph's illness," suggesting it was more a complete failure of police to ask the relevant questions. Likewise, Ferris's claim that his gran told him not to go to the police appears never to have been checked by investigators.
I think a key character in all of this was her brother JJ even though there was hardly a mention of him.
I think it was left looking that way because of terrible failings with the investigation. As I've said so many times, if the right questions had been asked at the very beginning, we wouldn't still (16 years later) be looking at so many unanswered questions.
-
i wonder if ferris actully was with joe that night and hes actully lying about on the bike
i find odd that joe would use him as an albi withot asking ifthe albi was not true.
i mean they all talked to eah other so joe would know ferris was with dickie if was with dickie so joe is hardly likely to say ferris is with him knowing full well hes been seen somewhere else that leads me to belive joe is telling the truth and ferris was with him and somebody else was with dickie.
But it wasn't Joseph who said Ferris was with him that afternoon, it was Judith. Joseph said Ferris only stayed a short while - less than half an hour - then left around 1 o'clock (which ties in with other statements that Ferris was in Dickie's house by 3 o'clock). The problem with that is, Judith's reason for cancelling the home visit by the psychiatrist then falls apart - she said it was so that Joseph could continue smoking cannabis with Ferris, up in his room, but if Ferris had already been gone for two and a half hours by then, that can't be correct.
Also, according to Judith, Ferris left her house "at some point" before Jodi got in from school at approximately 3.50- 3.55, but she (Judith) cancelled the appointment at 3.23pm, so Ferris must have left within less than half an hour of that cancellation, but Judith didn't hear him leave (even though the reason for the cancellation was so that he and Joseph could continue smoking).
The story about Ferris supposedly returning to Judith's house at 6pm that evening didn't emerge until more than a week into the investigation. It's probably just coincidence, but 6pm - 7pm (approximately) was the only time Judith's statements didn't provide an alibi for Joseph, so it ends up looking like Ferris (again) was supposed to be Joseph's alibi that evening, but failed to show.
What's surprising about all of this is that they were all talking from the early hours of July 1st - we know a group of Jodi's extended family members were in Judith's house by 4am and even more gathered in Alice's house later that morning - there was plenty of time to check with each other whether their recollections about June 30th tallied with other people's.
-
I think there’s more to Joseph Jones than what’s been disclosed. His alibi that he was at home on June 30th was contradicted by Ferris.
I think there's more to a great deal of things than what's been disclosed. It doesn't necessarily mean any of them are "linked" to the murder, it just means there are huge areas of doubt about what was going on within Jodi's wider family that day.
The accounts of Ferris undermined a lot of the statements to be honest, but this guy had a propensity for violence and grossly managed to go under the radar.
Ferris left so many people looking "suspicious" - again, the problem is, a lot of what he said was never followed up properly. We can infer, from some of the other statements, that he appeared to be telling the truth in places (for example, Yvonne Walker's assertion that Ferris intended to go to the police on July 1st and tell them he was on the path, on the moped), except that Ferris later denied saying that to Yvonne. Or the Dickies' statements that Ferris was in their house prior to 3pm. Trying to unravel what's true and what isn't from Ferris's statements is challenging. Several people with propensities for violence managed to go under the radar in this case.
I think Ferris simply shat himself when he realised the screws were onto him and Dickie on the path, hence why he started acting suspicious with the mad hair cuts.
Why though? If they saw, nothing, heard nothing, knew nothing, why would they sh*t themselves? They were just a couple of lads messing about on a moped. The guy on the pushbike didn't sh*t himself when he realised he'd been on the path at the relevant time - he just called the cops and told them so. The dog walkers who were at the top of the path at the relevant time didn't sh*t themselves, they just called the cops and told them.
I think there’s more evidence to suggest someone in Jodi’s family is linked to it.
I don't. At the moment, the best that can be said is that there could have been stronger circumstantial cases built against others (some members of Jodi's family, some not) than the case that was built against Luke. That doesn't mean any of them were "linked" to the murder, it just means they could have been fitted up for it just as easily as Luke was. The only person "linked" in what we would consider traditional terms is the sister's boyfriend because of the DNA deposit on Jodi's t-shirt and the implication that other deposits came from that original one. If the claim about rainwater/washing machine transfer is discredited, then, apart from the condom and the unidentified DNA profiles, it is the only solid evidence "linking" another person to the crime scene and the body.
A witness identified a member of Jodi’s family as Stocky Man, who was also the dude who claimed to be at home all day.
That of course would imply - if you read the book - it was Joseph Jones
But all that tells us is that his alibi was not what it was claimed to be. It doesn't "link" him to the murder - everything we know about Joseph is circumstantial. What we know might have built a circumstantial case against him that a jury would have considered "compelling," but it wouldn't actually prove he did anything wrong.
All my points about other people and the circumstances surrounding them are made to demonstrate how very poor the police investigation was and the extent of the double standards required to make the case against Luke stick.
-
“It doesn’t necessarily mean any of it is linked to the murder”
The amount of contradictions in all of the statements between the members in this family certainly make it look as though someone knows something and aren’t letting on.
Do you think there are people who know more than they have let on?
You answer the previous points in a way that sort of says, well, perhaps one could view it as suspicious, but it was the fault of the Police not to take it further. I can see that you don’t want to name or blame, but are there, in your opinion, people outlined within the book who should be sent down for the crime? Or, do you consider that this murder was committed by a complete stranger?
You do make several “hints” along the way in the book as to who you think could be responsible, and that these hints are definitely geared towards an inside job.
Also, in the Stocky Man chapter, who was the witness who came forward that identified him as a member of Jodi’s family, and was this sighting considered credible? Think this was page 111 in your new book...
-
“The only person "linked" in what we would consider traditional terms is the sister's boyfriend because of the DNA deposit on Jodi's t-shirt and the implication that other deposits came from that original one”
Do we have any further information yet as to whose DNA was contained within the saliva, short colourless hairs and sweat? I’m aware that they only tested this against Mitchell, but has there been any developments over the years that may point to someone else? Could the short colourless hairs have been deliberately treated with peroxide as a means of avoiding leaving a trace? Could these have been dog hair? What are these samples that we know of, and does anyone else match these other than Kelly?
Lastly, what do you presume will happen from this new knife that has been reported in the media? I don’t mean the 2010 “Luke” knife; I mean the one found in a dry-stone dyke by a local farmer hiding under rocks some 500yards from the murder site. Where do things stand with this? The media say Luke Mitchell’s campaigners want this knife to be tested.
Where are we at with this?
-
The amount of contradictions in all of the statements between the members in this family certainly make it look as though someone knows something and aren’t letting on.
It does make it look like that, and that's the problem - since those contradictions were never followed up to confirm or refute, there is clearly a large amount of reasonable doubt in this case which, unfortunately, ends up turning the spotlight on Jodi's family. As I said in the book, there may be perfectly innocent explanations for all of them, but since the questions were never asked, we just don't know.
Do you think there are people who know more than they have let on?
Yes, but not necessarily members of Jodi's family or extended family.
You answer the previous points in a way that sort of says, well, perhaps one could view it as suspicious, but it was the fault of the Police not to take it further. I can see that you don’t want to name or blame, but are there, in your opinion, people outlined within the book who should be sent down for the crime? Or, do you consider that this murder was committed by a complete stranger?
My answer doesn't "sort of" say it - it's the whole point. The police should have taken all of it further - our convictions are supposed to be based on proof "beyond reasonable doubt". It's up to the police to investigate areas of doubt and eliminate them - they didn't do that.
I wouldn't name or blame - to do so would be to do what was done to Luke. I've no idea whether people outlined in the book should be "sent down" - every single one of them would be entitled to a fair trial, based on solid evidence and it would be up to a jury to decide who should be "sent down". And, even then, the jury might get it wrong.
I've said for many years, there's a huge possibility that this was a stranger murder (as in, the killer didn't know Jodi personally).
You do make several “hints” along the way in the book as to who you think could be responsible, and that these hints are definitely geared towards an inside job.
My apologies, I didn't intend for anything in the book to suggest I was "hinting" at any individual or even group of individuals - my point was intended to be, repeatedly, why don't we have answers and explanations for this, this and this.
Also, in the Stocky Man chapter, who was the witness who came forward that identified him as a member of Jodi’s family, and was this sighting considered credible? Think this was page 111 in your new book...
The sighting was considered credible from the off - it's 50% of what police appeals for "Stocky Man" were based on! If you mean, was the identification credible, I'd say, on the basis of the information available to the witness, yes, it probably was. The witness pointed out a particular male from a group of several males not known to him/her and said - he's the guy. Had that been an ID parade, it would have been called a "positive identification." The problem was, the police buried that information and it didn't re-emerge until 2013/14. The witness did not name the male -s/he merely pointed out a male in a crowd as the person referred to as Stocky Man and that information was never released to the defence.
-
i wonder if the dairy might resurface at some time.
-
Thanks for addressing the previous points, Sandra. What’s going to happen with that knife found in a dry-stone dyke by a farmer some 500yds from the murder scene? Is this being tested or what?
-
It wasn't in a drystane dyke and it wasn't found by a farmer, Armchair Detective. I can say no more about testing etc at the moment, I'm sorry.
-
Thanks for addressing the previous points, Sandra. What’s going to happen with that knife found in a dry-stone dyke by a farmer some 500yds from the murder scene? Is this being tested or what?
New houses/scheme being built in the area for some time now. (approx. 7yrs) The knife found by one of the site team. AD, whether by the police in liaison with forensics or Ms Leans attempts at reconciliation with Ms Mitchell to retrieve authorisation for results on this testing leave a ? Not a mark but the question, as you asked, what happened with this. Ms Lean either doesn't know as she has no authority to know, she has since gained authority by visiting Ms Mitchell after their parting of ways. The results have to remain private incase it causes bias in future legal proceedings. Not rocket science. A play on words and answers (much like politicians) Can't answer because the answer would detract from the wonder?
-
New houses/scheme being built in the area for some time now. (approx. 7yrs) The knife found by one of the site team. AD, whether by the police in liaison with forensics or Ms Leans attempts at reconciliation with Ms Mitchell to retrieve authorisation for results on this testing leave a ? Not a mark but the question, as you asked, what happened with this. Ms Lean either doesn't know as she has no authority to know, she has since gained authority by visiting Ms Mitchell after their parting of ways. The results have to remain private incase it causes bias in future legal proceedings. Not rocket science. A play on words and answers (much like politicians) Can't answer because the answer would detract from the wonder?
Why did you just make all of that up, parky41? I mean, just literally made it up. The find had nothing to do with new houses or builders of them. My access to information about it had nothing to do with Corinne or Luke - I've known what has been "going on" with it since it was found and had full authority to know. If I am ever required to do so, I can prove what I say with documented evidence.
I am not prepared to disclose any strategy involving the knife at this time, not because I don't know and certainly not to satisfy an anonymous poster who is prepared to post utter tosh in his/her attempts to (a) discredit the information I can put in the public domain and (b) goad me into revealing confidential information by attacking my credibility/reliability.
The original question was What’s going to happen with that knife... Is this being tested or what?
My answer was I can say no more about testing etc at the moment, I'm sorry.
So let's be very clear. I could say more about it, but am not prepared to do so because of the potential (as you, yourself, point out) of adversely affecting potential future legal proceedings. That is, of course, the standard position of anyone working in these circumstances.
Most people know what is meant when I (or others doing this work) mean by "I can't say more at the moment" - it doesn't meant I literally can't say (or type) the words, it means I am restricted in what I can make public without jeopardising other, confidential developments.
Resorting to lies and assumptions about my "authority" whilst posting under a false username doesn't bolster your position, it merely exposes your complete lack of reliability and integrity.
-
Do we have any further information yet as to whose DNA was contained within the saliva, short colourless hairs and sweat? I’m aware that they only tested this against Mitchell, but has there been any developments over the years that may point to someone else?
Not yet, Armchair Detective. Getting samples released for re-testing is notoriously difficult, which is why we are now calling for a full, Hillsborough style, independent case review.
Could the short colourless hairs have been deliberately treated with peroxide as a means of avoiding leaving a trace?
Possibly, but that would suggest a large degree of pre-meditation and this case doesn't appear to allow for that. For example, no-one could have known for sure what time Jodi would walk down the path (we don't even know for sure that she did).
Could these have been dog hair?
Yes, it's possible - the forensic results didn't even say whether they were human or animal.
What are these samples that we know of, and does anyone else match these other than Kelly?
The saliva stains, semen/sperm head samples and "white stains" returned either partial profiles or "no reportable results". The hairs and fibres apparently yielded no results either. Some strands of long brown hair on Jodi's hands/arms were checked under a microscope to see if they "matched" Jodi's hair and the conclusion was that they were "similar." Cut hairs found in the pocket of a male who became known to the enquiry (a male who was not LM) were similarly checked and concluded to be "not similar" to Jodi's hair. No more sensitive testing of the cut hairs ever appears to have been done. There are still four "unidentified" male profiles in the case files and six mixed male/female samples recorded as "Jodi Jones and unidentified male." These profiles contain markers that are not in Luke's profile (hence the reason for recording them as "unidentified male"). The partial profiles cannot be "matched" to anyone although, to my knowledge, none of them has ever been subjected to Low Copy enhancement to examine whether more sensitive testing might make identification possible. Again, these are all reasons why we are calling for a full case review - if the Crown has nothing to hide, what does it have to fear from such a review?
Lastly, what do you presume will happen from this new knife that has been reported in the media? I don’t mean the 2010 “Luke” knife; I mean the one found in a dry-stone dyke by a local farmer hiding under rocks some 500yards from the murder site. Where do things stand with this? The media say Luke Mitchell’s campaigners want this knife to be tested. Where are we at with this?
As previously answered, I am not in a position to be able to reveal the strategy concerning the knife find. As soon as I am, I will update.
-
This knife is it the one that was found in the area of the new high school? It was pretty much cleared quite soon afterwards by the police as a possible murder weapon.
When we think of what was found on the body, the many different parts of dna partial or otherwise it things like the cut hair that astound me. Jodis murder was brutal and she had lost a lot of blood but very little was found on the body. The torso was almost clean.
-
Thank you for your help and reply Dr lean.
The post was put out with areas of misinformation intentionally . A feeder comment for the study of response. I haven't hidden what I am doing. For the most part, my work is general. Any material/quotes will be credited with source.
All of which should be complete, hopefully by the beginning of August. If I feel anything needs clarification I will seek this and give the oppertunity of response for all subjects.
-
It’s just games!! Why the need to as I’m sure your aware of Sandra’s work and you wouldn’t be here asking questions if you felt she had no intention of answering them to the best of her ability.
-
I don’t understand why lots of people seem to be so against a retrial? (Of course other than the pain it was cause Jodi’s family opening the whole thing up again, they are sure the right person is already serving justice) but there are 2 sides and everyone deserves a fair trial, I’m not sure Luke had one.
I think everyone can agree the police mucked this up right from the start, the investigation was poor, the treatment of witnesses appalling, the media reports at the time, the trial being held in Edinburgh, all the information that was not used, I can go on and on. So for all those reasons I think a retrial would be the best way forward for everyone. If you believe Luke to be guilty and there is any evidence to be found by retesting stuff etc. then surely it can only help and prove once and for all, without doubt, that Luke is the killer (which would be the outcome I’d like to see) It would then shut this down once and for all and everyone can get on with their lives, including Jodi’s family who have had to put up with all this crap over the past 16 years, all started because of LB police (IMO).
But if there is the slightest chance Luke did not do it, and its proved in the retrial then can you imagine the pain that would cause all involved, both Jodi and Lukes family and also everyone in danger from the real killer the past 16 years. I’m just not sure and I’d like to be, as I’m sure lots of other would be, from both sides, a retrial is the only way I can see this being put to bed.
-
im of the opon tat the knife was not found beouse the killer did not throw it way they took it home them.
craig dobbie allowed the bins to be emptied so if it was thrown in a bin god knows where it would be now.
i allways wonder why he did that i mean een if you had luke lined up s the only suspect and you were certan it was him would you not want the knife to confirm it its almost like dobbie dident want the murder weapn to be found.
-
Thanks for replies to previous points, Sandra. I appreciate this.
With regards to where you say the knife wasn’t found in a dry-stone dyke 300yards from the scene by a farmer, why would the media blatantly lie about that? I do get the media massage and manipulate things, but surely such a simple fact, which in itself is really a simple, non-incriminatory statement, would be told truthfully?
I suspect this knife is probably not connected to the murder anyway. When I was young, I found a machete behind my house in a bush. There was a lot of gang related violence nearby though, but these sort of finds do happen. Look at how many knives and weapons the police find and confiscate from the public each year.
I guess the location makes it look a bit more dubious, but if you’re saying it wasn’t in a dry-stone dyke 300yds from the scene, perhaps it was found 5 miles away? I’m also assuming if anything was to come from this development it would have already.
Out of curiosity - why have the media just begun to talk about this knife anyway? It was found what, four years ago or something? Why now?
I’m not forcing you to answer anything about it though, but I suppose the other argument is that your lack of response in relation to this weapon sort of suggests that it will be part of the investigation. I do get this which you did sort of mention. I just don’t get why now, given it was found what, three or four years ago?
Forgive me for any factual inaccuracies with this post. The only source of information for this is the media at the minute, sadly.
-
why did criag dobbie refuse a lot on crimewatch its almost like he dident want witness to come forward.
-
With regards to where you say the knife wasn’t found in a dry-stone dyke 300yards from the scene by a farmer, why would the media blatantly lie about that? I do get the media massage and manipulate things, but surely such a simple fact, which in itself is really a simple, non-incriminatory statement, would be told truthfully?
I don't know why the media would say that - I haven't actually seen any media coverage of it, so I'd appreciate any links you could provide. The knife in question was found approximately 500 yards from the murder scene near a drystane dyke (but not in one) and certainly not by a farmer - I've no idea where that came from.
I suspect this knife is probably not connected to the murder anyway. When I was young, I found a machete behind my house in a bush. There was a lot of gang related violence nearby though, but these sort of finds do happen. Look at how many knives and weapons the police find and confiscate from the public each year.
There are details about where the knife was found and the reaction of police officers when it was handed in that suggested there was a possibility (nothing more) that it may have been connected but, overall, I agree, knives, etc, turn up in many places without having been connected to anything untoward.
I guess the location makes it look a bit more dubious, but if you’re saying it wasn’t in a dry-stone dyke 300yds from the scene, perhaps it was found 5 miles away? I’m also assuming if anything was to come from this development it would have already.
See my answer above - it was, definitely, around 500m from the murder scene and there was a drystane dyke involved, it's just that the accuracy of the media reports about the relationship to the dyke and the person who found it was off. Unfortunately, those responsible for taking the required action on Luke's behalf, at the time of the find, failed to do so. That information has just begun to break publicly this evening, hence my unwillingness to comment further previously.
Out of curiosity - why have the media just begun to talk about this knife anyway? It was found what, four years ago or something? Why now?
Because Corinne mentioned it in her James English interview. Having only just discovered that those responsible for taking the required action, at the time, had failed to do so, she decided to go public with the information. I was not party to that decision (or the earlier failure to take action).
I’m not forcing you to answer anything about it though, but I suppose the other argument is that your lack of response in relation to this weapon sort of suggests that it will be part of the investigation. I do get this which you did sort of mention. I just don’t get why now, given it was found what, three or four years ago?
As always, I'll answer what I can, when I can; I was aware of developments behind the scenes but was not prepared to comment publicly on them for a number of reasons.
Forgive me for any factual inaccuracies with this post. The only source of information for this is the media at the minute, sadly.
I understand - the problem is that for so long, the only source of much of the misinformation about the case was mainstream media, which is why the facts to counter it remained buried for so long. It would be somewhat counter-productive to give MSM sensitive information about planned next moves - firstly, it would give them an opportunity to distort that information and cause even more confusion and secondly, as anyone working in these circumstances will tell you, there are some things that just cannot go into the public domain in advance for legal reasons.
-
why did criag dobbie refuse a lot on crimewatch its almost like he dident want witness to come forward.
Indeed!
Why was the area first flooded with pictures of a 4/5 year old Jodi and then an 8 year old Jodi when the claim was they were trying to find witnesses who might have seen 14 year old Jodi that day?
Why was the reconstruction video so inaccurate - it was (by the final claims about timings) around 15 minutes too late, there was no depiction of a "Stocky Man" following Jodi, or of a man in fishing clothing with thick hair standing up in a clump at the back, his arms by his sides, palms facing forward, standing in the lane leading to the path, with Jodi standing on the pavement looking towards him.
How could anyone's memory be "jogged" by a video that didn't reflect the known details and was too late to have helped anyway?
And, as nugnug points out, why refuse Crimewatch? It had one of the biggest viewing audiences at the time and, by July 7th, the case was already so massive that L&B were drowning in the deluge of "information" pouring into the enquiry (so much so that they missed masses of important information). Why not accept the offer of help from Crimewatch and lessen their direct burden?
Retrospectively, it would be easy to conclude that there was a concerted effort to keep "prying" outside eyes out and to control the public narrative of the case (in a way that, perhaps, would not have been possible had Crimewatch been involved).
-
Sandra, again thank you for the response. It is an interesting development, but I guess after all these years there’s probably no forensic material on the knife anyway. I never knew Corrine had mentioned it. I knew she had mentioned a number of interesting developments, but not the knife.
The part about a farmer finding it may have been my fault as an error, sorry. However, here is a link to where I originally read about it:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-jodi-jones-killer-fresh-16534131.amp
Here is a second link:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615.amp
What were the reactions of the Police officers like that you mention? And what type of knife was it anyway? Can you reveal that? I am interested in this knife, but again the media do seem to report factual inaccuracies.
So, it wasn’t “in” the dry-stone dyke, but rather next to it would you say? The forensic material will certainly be gone forever if that’s the case.
What information is breaking publicly this evening sorry?
Have you seen the knife yourself? And has there been any other knives or objects found near the scene?
-
Indeed!
Why was the area first flooded with pictures of a 4/5 year old Jodi and then an 8 year old Jodi when the claim was they were trying to find witnesses who might have seen 14 year old Jodi that day?
Why was the reconstruction video so inaccurate - it was (by the final claims about timings) around 15 minutes too late, there was no depiction of a "Stocky Man" following Jodi, or of a man in fishing clothing with thick hair standing up in a clump at the back, his arms by his sides, palms facing forward, standing in the lane leading to the path, with Jodi standing on the pavement looking towards him.
How could anyone's memory be "jogged" by a video that didn't reflect the known details and was too late to have helped anyway?
And, as nugnug points out, why refuse Crimewatch? It had one of the biggest viewing audiences at the time and, by July 7th, the case was already so massive that L&B were drowning in the deluge of "information" pouring into the enquiry (so much so that they missed masses of important information). Why not accept the offer of help from Crimewatch and lessen their direct burden?
Retrospectively, it would be easy to conclude that there was a concerted effort to keep "prying" outside eyes out and to control the public narrative of the case (in a way that, perhaps, would not have been possible had Crimewatch been involved).
the thing is though if you were conviced luke was the killer than you would want people to come forward becouse you would know that they would confirm your suspicions and make the case agianst him stronger the fact they dident want people to come forward suggests they were by no means convinced luke was the killer.
-
Do you know what I find so utterly ridiculous and bizarre about this whole situation? The number of people that could have potentially seen something or indeed carried out the murder. People in fishing clothing with the deceased staring at him; stocky men walking behind her; people on mopeds shaving their hair afterwards; people with scratches all over their face; people’s sperm on clothing; people known to violently attack others with knives; dodgy alibis; other individuals in the vicinity who may be involved; knives found near the scene with names on them; inscriptions on knife pouches; dodgy Police investigations; strangling sounds coming from behind brick walls; used condoms near the locus. The whole story is like Cluedo. How did so many things come together here to skew the truth? The average murder usually has a couple of witnesses here and there and maybe some people walking past near the time of death or whatever, not guys in fishing suits staring at people or dudes with stocky builds following people, all the while knife pouches are being found with mad writing, followed by semen on bodies and guys who dump fresh condoms in dark wooded areas. The number of individual developments and circumstances that actually took place is unreal. It’s as though because all of these developments happened together throughout the investigation, a blanket was pulled over the truth which makes it impossible to know WHO it was. It’s like Cluedo. There are so many dodgy individual aspects in this case from a number of people it is unreal. You’d be lucky to report even one or two of this stuff in a normal investigation. Strangling sounds from behind brick walls? People in fishing gear looking at the deceased? I mean it gets more and more ridiculous by the minute. It’s like trying to crack a 10 digit code to a safe. Honestly. It’s mind boggling.
-
I can't picture the murder scene if anyone has a diagram or a link?
-
Do you mean the V break in the wall or the actual place where Jodi was found? To my knowledge, there are no pictures in the public domain of the latter.
-
Try these images. I took then about a month ago.
This one shows the V-Break
https://m.imgur.com/a/TEYKH9L
This one looks through the V-break
https://m.imgur.com/a/boXpjV7
This one shows the Roans Dyke Path
https://m.imgur.com/a/OnOcDes
The second one, looking through the V-break, probably does not encapsulate where the body was found as I wasn’t prepared to climb over. However, according to the court description as to where the body was, I think off the top of my head it was around 13m to the left of the V. In the image, my camera is indeed pointing to this direction. So if you can approximate what 13m might look like in this picture, you can maybe imagine where it would be near. It was also found relatively close to the wall I think.
As for the other pictures, you can see the V-break itself and also the location of the crime. I was actually on a short break with my partner around six weeks ago through in the Dalkeith area and passed this place as we went to the large Tesco. I thought to myself - let’s go and put a place to the hype. A little bit on the morbid side of adventures, but hey ho. Hope the images shed some light on the crime scene. Bearing in mind that in 2003, the whole path would probably have been closed off to the public.
-
Sandra might be able to draw a sketch of where the body was located in comparison with other surroundings maybe? Im not sure if this is something she would do though.
Sandra, I’m curious - have you seen the crime scene pictures? I always wondered if you had ever seen them...
-
If you look at the picture of the woodland strip through the V from your previous post, you'd go 16.3 metres to your left. Jodi was found at a right angle to the wall, her feet maybe 3 - 4' from the wall, her head somewhere around 8 - 9' from the wall. It's worth noting that the woodland strip is not densely wooded (as you can see from the picture).
Yes, I've seen the crime scene photographs, unfortunately.
-
If you look at the picture of the woodland strip through the V from your previous post, you'd go 16.3 metres to your left. Jodi was found at a right angle to the wall, her feet maybe 3 - 4' from the wall, her head somewhere around 8 - 9' from the wall. It's worth noting that the woodland strip is not densely wooded (as you can see from the picture).
Yes, I've seen the crime scene photographs, unfortunately.
If I compare this case to Carl Bridgewater for a moment it was noted that he looked relaxed on the settee before he was shot in the head. Is there any indication whether Jodie had been forced to undress or any other indication of her mental state in the run-up to the murder?
-
Try these images. I took then about a month ago.
This one shows the V-Break
https://m.imgur.com/a/TEYKH9L
This one looks through the V-break
https://m.imgur.com/a/boXpjV7
This one shows the Roans Dyke Path
https://m.imgur.com/a/OnOcDes
The second one, looking through the V-break, probably does not encapsulate where the body was found as I wasn’t prepared to climb over. However, according to the court description as to where the body was, I think off the top of my head it was around 13m to the left of the V. In the image, my camera is indeed pointing to this direction. So if you can approximate what 13m might look like in this picture, you can maybe imagine where it would be near. It was also found relatively close to the wall I think.
As for the other pictures, you can see the V-break itself and also the location of the crime. I was actually on a short break with my partner around six weeks ago through in the Dalkeith area and passed this place as we went to the large Tesco. I thought to myself - let’s go and put a place to the hype. A little bit on the morbid side of adventures, but hey ho. Hope the images shed some light on the crime scene. Bearing in mind that in 2003, the whole path would probably have been closed off to the public.
Thank you Armchair (may I call you that for convenience, though it seems you might need a different monicker now you got up from your chair in investigating this case.)
-
Ah, yes - the ‘Armchair’ was indeed left behind on this occasion. From a physical point of view, the location of the crime is simply what you would expect a secluded area in woodland to look like - nothing particularly striking. However, if you are a psychical type who tunes in with meta-physical energy, I guess there does seem to be a bit of unease where the V-break is located. Looking over this felt a little bit like looking over the edge of a small boat at sea; a somewhat nauseous sensation developing in the pit of the stomach. Over the side of the wall is a bunch of trees, but you can see how someone could have got away with what they did. I just simply cannot believe the number of developments that all came together at once in this case which helped pull a blanket over the truth.
-
Ah, yes - the ‘Armchair’ was indeed left behind on this occasion. From a physical point of view, the location of the crime is simply what you would expect a secluded area in woodland to look like - nothing particularly striking. However, if you are a psychical type who tunes in with meta-physical energy, I guess there does seem to be a bit of unease where the V-break is located. Looking over this felt a little bit like looking over the edge of a small boat at sea; a somewhat nauseous sensation developing in the pit of the stomach. Over the side of the wall is a bunch of trees, but you can see how someone could have got away with what they did. I just simply cannot believe the number of developments that all came together at once in this case which helped pull a blanket over the truth.
I haven't read all the contributions to this case and came to it late anyhow. I would only add that the Scottish press seem determined to blacken Luke Mitchell's character at every opportunity and seem certain that it's a secure conviction.
-
Inconceivable that Jodi climbed in there with someone other than Luke.
Was the case that they climbed over for sexual intercourse upon which Jodie was attacked whilst undressing?
-
‘Lithium’ makes a good point - James English has taken down the YouTube video podcasts with both Corrine and Sandra. Why has this happened?
To me, it sounds as though something has been said, maybe even leaked, that perhaps shouldn’t have. Or, perhaps people have commented on the video and said things that shouldn’t be said.
Whatever way, the only person active on the forum who may be able to help is Sandra.
Can you shed light on why James English has taken these videos down, Sandra? Seems a bit odd given all his other ones are still there...
-
Inconceivable that Jodi climbed in there with someone other than Luke.
I’m not so sure, she knew the 2 boys on the moped that were there at the v at 1715 i think she would go over with them. She could have had a quick smoke with them before they left, it has always seemed they 2 knew more than they did, maybe they were the last to see her alive, right at the place she was murdered and were to scared to say.
Quite the opposite. They were over there having an argument about a girl Luke was two-timing Jodi with (Kimberley Thomson of Perth). She had been texting Luke regarding meeting up during the summer holidays and this came to light at school that day. This is why Luke deleted the texts from Jodi from his phone, they would have detailed all of this. (In my opinion) Luke possibly lost his temper and knocked Jodi out with a large tree branch when she stormed away from him, and subsequently removed the clothing and inflicted the knife injuries post-mortem to make it look like the murder was carried out by a rapist or deranged killer. He had a knife on him all the time anyway. Luke's own friends said that he jabbed her in the leg with a knife not long before the murder and was treating her like shit.
This has never sat right with me, if she found out about the other girl when she was at school then by the time she got home she would be very upset, the mum would noticed this. She thought she might have been in love with Luke, if she knew or even though he was cheating she would be devastated and would not have been the happy girl the mum remembers that evening before she left. I think it’s more likely, if it was Luke, then this was something he had been thinking about and wanting to do for a while and for some simple and horrible reason it happened that night. Maybe he told her about the other girl when they met up, but I don’t think she knew before she left the house as she was too happy.
-
Not sure about anyone else, but I find it particularly strange that James English has taken the Luke Mitchell videos down from YouTube. I suspect something has happened and he’s felt they are better offline. I read some of the comments - nothing in the comments is unknown public information. Everything people have said is all very relevant. Seems a bit strange given his other videos are still online.
-
It was always a bit early to speculate about the interviews!
It’s easy to put it in such a rudimentary way about Joesph when discussion on different people take many paths. A witness came forward and identified the stocky man but it was never released to the defence and for similar reason people draw their own conclusions
-
I can understand it not changing but surely you can understand why we have questions when things like witness statements weren’t given to the defence, albeit not corroborated but then neither was the Bryson sighting.
Did he mention why he was identified following Jodi?
-
I don’t accept the Bryson sighting because she didn’t pick him out at court, I feel she was making a big statement there’s
-
I again feel the double standards that riddle this case when the other sighting of F&W. On one occasion Luke is considered guilty because corriene is accused of be decisive and deceitful but the witnesses were and even the judge commented on it
-
That’s reversed phycology there mate. It did happen and Luke hasn’t changed that much when you consider the detail she describes the two who were at the entrance, it also wasn’t a problem with F&W.
I’m also impartial as I have no connection with anyone involved, I do this because a firmly believe Luke is innocent. I have never met anyone connected to either family so claiming what I would do is way off the mark when and if concrete proof was put before me.
-
I also believe Stocky Man is indeed Joseph Jones. It is glaringly obvious once you read Sandra’s book Innocents Betrayed.
So this confession - does it carry any weight? Who was it made to, and when? If it was Joseph Jones who confessed, then it’s likely to be downplayed due to his mental health conditions.
Confessing to a murder could’ve just been a crazy, cannabis induced delusion!
-
We do require evidence and it’s what our discussion is based on. There was someone who identified JoJ as the stocky man. That witness was independent from both families, non corroborated and cannot be admitted as evidence at court but then nothing was corroborated that jailed Luke
-
It’s not clear if that was her description
-
Why is it the flimsiest! It’s real and it exists, if you can’t take the others at face value why not this one, he was never found .
-
Joseph fits the profile anyway - he was around 21 when she was murdered, very well known to the victim, and had shown aggressive, violent tendencies and outbursts involving knives. He was unstable mentally
-
I don’t underestimate the probability that Mitchell was indeed the assailant, and I do also admit that the source of the information is from Sandra’s Book. I do hope that she is able to release official documents at some point for reference. She does claim that she will be able to do this soon, but if she can’t even confirm with evidence that Mitchell habitually phoned the Speaking Clock - as she states - then we’re clutching at straws.
In terms of the confession, all I was saying was, I consider it possible that, if all her evidence is indeed fact, then Joseph Jones would fit the profile to a T. She’s not revealed the person who confessed. All they said was that stocky man was seen following her, and the person who confessed was the one following her. How do we know this was the brother anyway? Nothing has been mentioned unless I have missed it? It does heavily hint towards this in her book, albeit she claims this wasn’t her intention.
-
Care to make the same montage about Joey? His violence? And of course you know our source being the investigation files and the person who has access to them.
The very same person who not so long ago you were asking to confirm information you put out, you can’t really believe her credibility is anymore than valid or you wouldn’t be asking her to do that now would you!
-
I don’t believe he killed his wee sis and I have been staying that for a while now, are you saying there are no violent episodes relating to joey?
-
Yeah but that all I said, nothing about him murdering her.
-
Sandra’s demeanour and driving force behind this whole agenda is one of sheer desperation, infatuation and obsession. The tone in which she uses towards the Criminal Justice System as a whole is drizzled in bitterness, which comes from her failings in a subject that she so passionately studied at PhD level for three years. It is probable that her infatuation with the Mitchell case led her to this, but listening to her speak in those podcasts shows a woman lost in an endless dark, black hole. Her disgust towards the Criminal Justice System, by in large, plagues her like a disease. It’s as though she can’t accept that society is not just, never will be just, and never has been just. Human beings are not democratic. They are swines, through and through. They are greedy, vengeful and evil, and the sooner she let’s go of this hunch, she may then be able to dig her way out the dark hole. I don’t agree with the system either, but I don’t let it impinge on my life. I don’t agree with capitalism, but I also don’t let it adversely affect my life. I don’t harbour bitterness towards those involved in such systems because, quite simply, it won’t change. It can’t change. Sandra, in my opinion, albeit has been very helpful in answering my previous posts, is deluded, infatuated and obsessed. To allow such a crime to take over your life for the best part of 16 years is a sign of someone who can’t see the wood for the trees. This woman has to stop. Someone has to stop her. Someone has to say, listen, I commend all your efforts of which there is no greater accolade to criminology, but please withdraw from it and put it to bed. The case will never be solved. Any forensic evidence is lost, and has been lost, forever. Mitchell is detained for life, and it is simply tough titty. A Jury convicted him. Game over.
-
Sandra’s demeanour and driving force behind this whole agenda is one of sheer desperation, infatuation and obsession. The tone in which she uses towards the Criminal Justice System as a whole is drizzled in bitterness, which comes from her failings in a subject that she so passionately studied at PhD level for three years. It is probable that her infatuation with the Mitchell case led her to this, but listening to her speak in those podcasts shows a woman lost in an endless dark, black hole. Her disgust towards the Criminal Justice System, by in large, plagues her like a disease. It’s as though she can’t accept that society is not just, never will be just, and never has been just. Human beings are not democratic. They are swines, through and through. They are greedy, vengeful and evil, and the sooner she let’s go of this hunch, she may then be able to dig her way out the dark hole. I don’t agree with the system either, but I don’t let it impinge on my life. I don’t agree with capitalism, but I also don’t let it adversely affect my life. I don’t harbour bitterness towards those involved in such systems because, quite simply, it won’t change. It can’t change. Sandra, in my opinion, albeit has been very helpful in answering my previous posts, is deluded, infatuated and obsessed. To allow such a crime to take over your life for the best part of 16 years is a sign of someone who can’t see the wood for the trees. This woman has to stop. Someone has to stop her. Someone has to say, listen, I commend all your efforts of which there is no greater accolade to criminology, but please withdraw from it and put it to bed. The case will never be solved. Any forensic evidence is lost, and has been lost, forever. Mitchell is detained for life, and it is simply tough titty. A Jury convicted him. Game over.
What an appalling post based on what exactly! Her demeanour on sites like these? When always answering what’s put before with candour and honesty. Doing while always being wary of attacks like these and having to keep within the moral and legal constraints placed upon her when working on these cases. She is driven that’s for sure and her drive comes from trying her best to wright what’s went wrong, brave also in having to bring up a family in an area where tensions and hostility towards her are real. Taking things to a level where she was in the position to get a doctorate to be qualified in her assumptions. How exactly are you qualified to make such a scathing attack based on nothing.
Why do you spend so much of your time on two forums debating this case if you feel it’s is unprovable? Some sick form of enjoyment? Questioning Sandra about crime scene photos, taking the time out to go to the scene itself to take pictures, are you some weird sort of fantasist who gets there kicks from brutal crimes? Of course my assessment of you is probably wrong but then I’m not qualified to make them but you can see where I derive them from.
She doesn’t hide behind a fancy moniker, she’s assessable and available unlike the majority of those who would attack her. She won’t be put off by this as it’s the normal run of the mill post she has had to put up with for years. She will carry on and that’s admirable.
-
Gordo, I’m not even going to write back to you as I would be here all day.
One thing I will draw your attention to though is a twitter post of Sandra’s where she speaks about the podcast with James English. She makes reference to the truth eventually coming out, and that those who are hiding things should “Be afraid. Be very afraid”
Now to me, that is a bit pot-kettle - she claims she is the victim and is under attack from online trolls. It’s difficult to deal with this, however, when she’s making remarks like this. She does this through her wording in the book too, which by the way is massively biased towards Mitchell, of course.
It’s as though it is ok for her to point blame at others yet can’t seem to take any criticism when matters are reversed. She’s a professional. She’s telling people to be afraid. To me, that sounds like she’s getting a rise from doing what she’s doing. I’m my opinion, all she is doing is mixing the pot over and over and over and over.
She needs to stop.
Reference - https://mobile.twitter.com/sandralean5?lang=en
Post - June 13
-
You never been to the scene Gordo?
Never felt the need to mate and I’m about a 45 min drive away. What would I gain from it.
-
been a couple of things on the red forum I’ve been chatting about, a few questions have come up, can Sandra or anyone else help? Also was wondering Sandra, if there is any reason you don’t post there, I assume it’s due to all the stuff that gets posted, don’t think I could be arsed with all that either!
Shane’s knife collection? Did he have one? How many did he have? Did the police take them, where were they kept.
Where was Shane when Luke went out with the dog after the call from Jodi’s mum?
Where was the knife pouch found and was the knife from the pouch the same one that was handed in by Luke’s mum? Was this also the brown handled knife witnesses have seen him with?
Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?
-
Are we all feeling better having got all of that off our chests? None of you know me, none of you know why I do what I do and, anyway, your opinions are none of my business. I do think, however, that continually misquoting me to "prove" what you say is somewhat hypocritical. Anyway, back to the discussion.
been a couple of things on the red forum I’ve been chatting about, a few questions have come up, can Sandra or anyone else help? Also was wondering Sandra, if there is any reason you don’t post there, I assume it’s due to all the stuff that gets posted, don’t think I could be arsed with all that either!
I've never posted there and have no intention of doing so because of (a) the way it's run and (b) the things that are allowed there.
Shane’s knife collection? Did he have one? How many did he have? Did the police take them, where were they kept.
No, he didn't have one, to the best of my knowledge.
Where was Shane when Luke went out with the dog after the call from Jodi’s mum?
In his house. Luke went up to ask if he could borrow the torch, Shane got it for him and then went back up to his room.
Where was the knife pouch found and was the knife from the pouch the same one that was handed in by Luke’s mum? Was this also the brown handled knife witnesses have seen him with?
In Luke's bedroom, on a shelf/chest of drawers (i.e. not hidden away). From memory, the knife Corinne handed to Luke's solicitor, who then handed it to the police, was the knife that belonged to the pouch - they were bought together. The solicitor's statement is in the case papers. The brown handled knife is one that was described by Ferris as belonging to Luke. He (Ferris) later accepted it was his own knife, not Luke's. It was not the knife that belonged to the pouch.
Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?
Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those clothes.
There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.
-
I've never posted there and have no intention of doing so because of (a) the way it's run
Will your new forum be run just like your old wap one, more control over posts and accounts? Is billy involved at all?
http://longroadtojustice.com/community/luke-mitchell/
Edit: stuff on forum has since been deleted
-
This woman has to stop. Someone has to stop her.
Really? Who might that be ... and why?
STOP FUCKIN LYIN
Yes, please do!
He also "reportedly owned a parka around the time of the murder" - Sandra.
But apparently the parka is an irrelevant red herring? Now it might have been MK because he owned one? You can't have it both ways.
This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.
"He was also reportedly a fan of Marilyn Manson" - Sandra
despite constantly reiterating how irrelevant Manson/Black Dahlia is to this murder.
Another misrepresentation (did you actually read the book?) There was information in the police investigation that someone had offered information to the police regarding someone who had accessed the Marilyn Manson website, specifically to view the Dahlia paintings, and had shown these to others. The point I made in the book was that this information was later drafted into the "evidence" against Luke, even though the initial reports named a different person. The Manson/Black Dahlia connection is irrelevant - it always has been - what I was trying to demonstrate was how it came to be involved in the case at all and how it later became "linked" to Luke.
I've neither the time nor the inclination to keep going round in these ludicrous circles. I've explained all of this many times before, I've put it in the book for everyone to read and make up their own minds - I'm done with it now.
In her Youtube video answering questions, she replied to a post someone telling her to stop with a smug grin along the lines of "nahhh, I'll decide when I stop
Demonstrably incorrect. Replying to someone who said "Please don't answer back, you've said enough already," I replied, "No, I decide when I've said enough, thank you very much."
-
I just don’t understand why anyone would waste 16 years of their life to a fuckwit who frankly doesn’t care if he’s on the inside or out anyway
-
In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.
-
In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.
Exactly
-
It is about him. It always has been about him and you know it. The way Sandra writes the book is done in an attempt to make it look and seem as though it could happen to anyone. We know it could. There’s no mistaking that. However, she’s clearly built up an extremely strong relationship with his mother over the years which in my opinion is why she is still continuing to work on it. Clearly, Corrine is her friend and she would be doing her an injustice if she dropped the case. Dropping the case would jeopardise their relationship. She’s clearly not wanting to do this. Anyone looking at such a case has to do so from an objective standpoint. How can she be objective when Corrine is clearly her best buddy? Is Sandra going to dispute this? If she does, then it shows you that she’s not even being reasonable or realistic. I’ve thought it all along - she’s too heavily involved to be able to offer this case any more value, and I consider her portrayal of the Criminal Justice System to be more of an attack rather than a perspective. At points during the reading of her book, I actually had to give myself a shake and remind myself that it’s Corrine Mitchell’s son who this happened to. Not Sandra’s. I would actually be surprised if she isn’t sued for it to be honest. It’s bitter, scathing and harsh. It goes beyond the point of honesty and, in my opinion, reveals too many hints and opinions. She’s overly critiques what appear to be the case papers, and goes off on tangents towards avenues of blame. Moreover, not only is it a biased account, but lacks an objective summary and profile of Mitchell himself. An objective author would have included this to highlight the importance of how a biased story may be misleading. Again, she’s friends with Corrine so clearly this book will tilt this way. The book is merely a scathing attack on as many people as possible.
-
Thanks for the info Sandra.
In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.
Spot on
-
This has probably never been mentioned before, but does anyone else get the impression that Corrine Mitchell might be into the occult/witchcraft? She strikes me as the type who would have a darkened house, dark curtains, spiritual ornaments and references to the occult in her house. Does she have skulls and candles in her house? I’m just trying to pinpoint precisely where her son developed his interest and knowledge of satanism. After watching her videos with James English, I got a very strong feeling that she’s into all of this. I don’t know why. I’d have said that even without the knowledge of what her son has done. He must have developed this interest from somewhere. His school jotters and knife pouch were covered in satanic slogans. Even his writings during his time behind bars have suggested this, as has his desire to have satanic material delivered to him. Is his mother a witch or something? She doesn’t look the full shilling. She seems unhinged and I suspect she has an array of Ouija boards at her disposal.
-
It could happen to you I suppose if you have an obsession with knives and your girlfriend is murdered with a knife while meeting you. Seriously how many people would all the factors that convicted Luke apply to? This "it could happen to anyone" just isn't true. It would never happen to me.
I don't know much about this case but I was thinking the very same thing. People say the same thing about Bamber but not many people find themselves in the same circumstances!
-
I just don’t understand why anyone would waste 16 years of their life to a fuckwit who frankly doesn’t care if he’s on the inside or out anyway
I see it as someone who believes something to be true and has the courage to stand up and say so. We all have to stand up for what we believe including those who believe Luke to be guilty, don’t we? I for one still can’t say one way or another but I respect Sandra for taking a stand and fighting for what she believes all these years. But if it is proven to her that Luke is in fact guilty, I’m sure that would be a dark day, but her work over the past 16 years is more than just Luke.
What makes you say Luke couldn’t care if he got out or not?
-
It could happen to you I suppose if you have an obsession with knives and your girlfriend is murdered with a knife while meeting you. Seriously how many people would all the factors that convicted Luke apply to? This "it could happen to anyone" just isn't true. It would never happen to me.
We’re talking of a 14 year old! The word obsession is used to create an idea that Luke was always with a knife, except no one at school that day and the police that night found a knife on him! No witness has came forward to say that he had a knife on him that day at school.
We here that he put a knife to the throat of someone at cadets yet it wasn’t his knife!
There nothing to say he even met Jodi that evening, no evidence to prove anything. There are many people who could be described as being obsessed with knives and who might even need one but not Luke .
-
This has probably never been mentioned before, but does anyone else get the impression that Corrine Mitchell might be into the occult/witchcraft? She strikes me as the type who would have a darkened house, dark curtains, spiritual ornaments and references to the occult in her house. Does she have skulls and candles in her house? I’m just trying to pinpoint precisely where her son developed his interest and knowledge of satanism. After watching her videos with James English, I got a very strong feeling that she’s into all of this. I don’t know why. I’d have said that even without the knowledge of what her son has done. He must have developed this interest from somewhere. His school jotters and knife pouch were covered in satanic slogans. Even his writings during his time behind bars have suggested this, as has his desire to have satanic material delivered to him. Is his mother a witch or something? She doesn’t look the full shilling. She seems unhinged and I suspect she has an array of Ouija boards at her disposal
If so then how does the occult make a difference? Much of it is founded on the natural as opposed to the supernatural of secular religions we have come to live with in our day to day life’s. I’m more afraid of the fact that there are many people involved with the distribution and procurement of drugs in this case than I ever would be of someone who might believe in something others fear
-
I see it as someone who believes something to be true and has the courage to stand up and say so. We all have to stand up for what we believe including those who believe Luke to be guilty, don’t we? I for one still can’t say one way or another but I respect Sandra for taking a stand and fighting for what she believes all these years. But if it is proven to her that Luke is in fact guilty, I’m sure that would be a dark day, but her work over the past 16 years is more than just Luke.
What makes you say Luke couldn’t care if he got out or not?
Exactly why we need more people willing to stick their necks out for people wrongfully accused
-
... However, she’s clearly built up an extremely strong relationship with his mother over the years which in my opinion is why she is still continuing to work on it. Clearly, Corrine is her friend and she would be doing her an injustice if she dropped the case. Dropping the case would jeopardise their relationship. She’s clearly not wanting to do this. Anyone looking at such a case has to do so from an objective standpoint. How can she be objective when Corrine is clearly her best buddy? Is Sandra going to dispute this?
Yes, Sandra most certainly is! I do not have an "extremely strong relationship" with Corinne, she is not "my friend," or my "best buddy." My reasons for continuing with Luke's case have nothing to do with any relationship I have with Corinne - good or bad.
-
This has probably never been mentioned before, but does anyone else get the impression that Corrine Mitchell might be into the occult/witchcraft? She strikes me as the type who would have a darkened house, dark curtains, spiritual ornaments and references to the occult in her house. Does she have skulls and candles in her house? I’m just trying to pinpoint precisely where her son developed his interest and knowledge of satanism. After watching her videos with James English, I got a very strong feeling that she’s into all of this. I don’t know why. I’d have said that even without the knowledge of what her son has done. He must have developed this interest from somewhere. His school jotters and knife pouch were covered in satanic slogans. Even his writings during his time behind bars have suggested this, as has his desire to have satanic material delivered to him. Is his mother a witch or something? She doesn’t look the full shilling. She seems unhinged and I suspect she has an array of Ouija boards at her disposal.
I see you've returned to the armchair. This is utter conjecture, based on nothing at all (other than a warped imagination). Corinne Mitchell has no such interests, her house was nothing like you suggest here - she had lace curtains in her living room windows, plants everywhere, a beautifully kept garden. To my knowledge, she never had a single Ouija board at her disposal, far less an array of them.
I, however, have spiritual ornaments and candles in my house, but I'm not into the occult in any way.
-
She's a gypo. So yeah probably into all that.
A what Lithium? Do you mean a gypsy? Wrong again. She grew up in Corstorphine, where here parents ran a small business. They later bought Scotts Caravans, where they sold caravans as well as camping and caravan supplies. They were never travelling people of any sort and Corinne never has been (unless you count holidays, in which case, that's all of us). Once more, just making stuff up.
But even if she had been a gypsy (which she's not), what on earth would that have to do with anything?
-
The fact that learning the right person has been behind bars for this crime and there isn't a murderer on the loose and an innocent guy has lost half of his life would be a "dark day" to Sandra says it all really. Surely personal-agendas aside, we're all HOPING it was Luke? Right?!?
It might have "said it all" if it had been me who said it would be a "dark day" for me if Luke was proven to be guilty, but it wasn't me, was it?
I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.
Simon Hall admitted his guilt and subsequently took his own life over it, and Sandra still refuses to admit she was wrong.
Wrong again! The details of the confession were never made public. It was never revealed whether Simon Hall had legal representation when making the confession. It was never revealed whether he had been assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist or what his mental state was in the lead up to the confession - was he in sound mind, fully aware of what he was saying/doing? I can see no reason why those details were not publicly known -- they should have been, in order to confirm that the confession actually fitted the details of the crime and that he was not, for example, suffering some sort of mental breakdown and just saying anything.
Once again, I'm searching for the truth. If the confession contains details that all fit with the crime and it can be shown that he was in sound mind and was fully aware of what he was saying and doing, then it would be reasonable to accept that he did, in fact, commit the murder and managed to conceal that fact for all those years, aided by a bungled police investigation which brought a case lacking the necessary elements of proof (even Keir Starmer admitted that, without the fibre evidence, "the case disappears.")
-
The fact that learning the right person has been behind bars for this crime and there isn't a murderer on the loose and an innocent guy has lost half of his life would be a "dark day" to Sandra says it all really. Surely personal-agendas aside, we're all HOPING it was Luke? Right?!?
Simon Hall admitted his guilt and subsequently took his own life over it, and Sandra still refuses to admit she was wrong.
You make me laugh, You like to put your own spin on stuff people say don’t you lol you really don’t help yourself. I only meant it would be hard, as I’m sure it would be for all involved in the Luke campaign.
If it was shown Luke did it and it had been the right person all along, another life was not ruined and a killer was not free all this time, I think everyone, including Luke campaigners and those that had any doubt, would take some sort of comfort from that. But it’s how he got found guilty that’s at the root of it all and that will never change, there was doubt for many from the start due to how the whole case was handled start to end. That’s what the real fight is about imo, trying to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.
-
It might have "said it all" if it had been me who said it would be a "dark day" for me if Luke was proven to be guilty, but it wasn't me, was it?
I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.
Wrong again! The details of the confession were never made public. It was never revealed whether Simon Hall had legal representation when making the confession. It was never revealed whether he had been assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist or what his mental state was in the lead up to the confession - was he in sound mind, fully aware of what he was saying/doing? I can see no reason why those details were not publicly known -- they should have been, in order to confirm that the confession actually fitted the details of the crime and that he was not, for example, suffering some sort of mental breakdown and just saying anything.
Once again, I'm searching for the truth. If the confession contains details that all fit with the crime and it can be shown that he was in sound mind and was fully aware of what he was saying and doing, then it would be reasonable to accept that he did, in fact, commit the murder and managed to conceal that fact for all those years, aided by a bungled police investigation which brought a case lacking the necessary elements of proof (even Keir Starmer admitted that, without the fibre evidence, "the case disappears.")
I think Steph has made it clear to you many times that the confession was legitimate. There are things you say you can't reveal in your recent posts for whatever reasons, perhaps you should respect other people's reasoning for doing the same. There is no reason for you to know.
-
Damn, that bedroom absolutely reeks of aggression. The colour of the paint on the walls and the amount of items, including wall posters and pictures that are actually in that bedroom give it an unhealthy vibration. It’s actually like a den rather than a bedroom. The sword, and what appears to be a knife above it, are hanging like trophies. His so called love of horses appears to on display, but I am actually getting more of a power thing from this than love. Horses can mean power, as they provide the rider with authority and strength. The overall ‘vibe’ and feel to this bedroom is dark. The blood red wall paint does little but add a sense of unease.
I am by no means psychic, and of course what I have said above is simply an opinion - I do feel uneasy looking at this bedroom. It’s dark. It’s dingy. It’s cluttered. It’s red. It shouts pain and aggression to me, if I am honest. I have seen young people’s bedrooms before. This has to be the first time I’ve felt uneasy looking at one.
It shouts death
-
The Diesel flag probably replaces skulls and animal carcasses that were there before the Police came
-
She's a gypo. So yeah probably into all that.
i thin tht coment says more about you.
-
wht the fuck h the decore of a house got to do with weather they comited a crime or not.
-
Damn, that bedroom absolutely reeks of aggression. The colour of the paint on the walls and the amount of items, including wall posters and pictures that are actually in that bedroom give it an unhealthy vibration. It’s actually like a den rather than a bedroom. The sword, and what appears to be a knife above it, are hanging like trophies. His so called love of horses appears to on display, but I am actually getting more of a power thing from this than love. Horses can mean power, as they provide the rider with authority and strength. The overall ‘vibe’ and feel to this bedroom is dark. The blood red wall paint does little but add a sense of unease.
I am by no means psychic, and of course what I have said above is simply an opinion - I do feel uneasy looking at this bedroom. It’s dark. It’s dingy. It’s cluttered. It’s red. It shouts pain and aggression to me, if I am honest. I have seen young people’s bedrooms before. This has to be the first time I’ve felt uneasy looking at one.
It shouts death
no it shouts teenagers bedroom to me
-
Using terms like gypo, and the past few comments about Luke’s room really are pathetic. Is this the kind of evidence you have to prove his guilt to us who are not sure, you guys really are not helping yourself or your attempts to show Luke guilt. Just making yourself look ridiculous imo.
-
Why did Corinne tell James English the police done nothing about the guys who vandalized Scotts Caravans? They were charged, convicted and sentenced for it.
STOP.
LYING.
!!!!
do you have any proof of this.
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/probation-for-vandal-attack-on-mitchell-mother-s-site-1-981769
(These boys are not Joey's friends either ftr - random local neds who had no idea it was Luke's mum's business)
Why did Corinne tell James the police did nothing?
I'm just sick of all the lying.
probely becouse there was more than one atack
and why do ou say they were not mates of joe i dont recall anybody saying they were.
-
Was just pointing out the sword in response to Gordo saying he wasn't interested in blades. I don't remember me or any of my 14 year old pals having an actual saber by our bedroom door. The gypo comment didn't have anything to do with his guilt, it was in response to AD asking if she was into witchcraft etc. Yes I should have probably said "gypsy" but that's just how I speak. Do I really have to dig up some of the things Sandra/Corinne have called Jodi's family?
The evidence I'd highlight to prove his guilt would be the missing knife, the missing parka, both replaced after the murder the knife sheath "tribute",possibly the burning in the garden that multiple independent neighbours reported, the brother destroying the alibi, the witnesses to Luke and Jodi arguing, Luke's history and interests, Luke deleting his texts to Jodi to cover up the fact he arranged to meet her at Easthouses (I saw Sandra in her book claiming "oh but Judith deleted them too!, emm no, what kind of teenage girl would leave texts of her arguing with her boyfriend on her mums phone for her mum to read... why did Luke delete the texts? And also his call history?)
Luke phoning the speaking clock, the fact she would only be over there with a boyfriend, Luke's complete lack of emotion throughout the entire thing, his violent writings, the stabbing of Jodi's leg shortly before the murder - confirmed by several friends of Luke. The previous knife attack on his girlfriend at the army cadets, the partial DNA match, finding the body in the dark, claiming it was the dog despite the dog not alerting him on the way up, walking directly past it. Being able to describe the body down to a "red scrunchie" which was hidden underneath Jodi's hair. Waiting for an hour on Jodi then suddenly meeting with friends then going home and not trying to find out why Jodi didn't turn up. Some common sense has to applied to this case. Everything from hanging around for an hour "looking suspicious" then spending the night with pals getting himself dirty, was all an attempt at an alibi. The other girlfriend he was arranging to meet. The fact Luke's close friends at the time have no problem believing he did it, much like his dad and brother Shane. I could go on all day.
I'd really love to see the circumstancial case Sandra would build against "the boyfriend" if it was JJ, MK, GD, SK, or JF sitting in jail right now for the murder claiming they were innocent.
the only person who cliamed luke stabed jodi in the leg was john ferris the man who could not explian what he was doing t the murder scene.
-
talking of swords dident jodis brother own one as well
-
Proof?
e.g. a picture of Joseph's bedroom at the time?
the prood being he atacked somebody with one
that woud sort of suggest ownership.
-
Which of the Mitchells hid the Bowie knife in the dog food before the police searched the place? Just some more strange but perfectly innocent behaviour eh.
non it never happend
-
Was just pointing out the sword in response to Gordo saying he wasn't interested in blades. I don't remember me or any of my 14 year old pals having an actual saber by our bedroom door. The gypo comment didn't have anything to do with his guilt, it was in response to AD asking if she was into witchcraft etc. Yes I should have probably said "gypsy" but that's just how I speak. Do I really have to dig up some of the things Sandra/Corinne have called Jodi's family?
The evidence I'd highlight to prove his guilt would be the missing knife, the missing parka, both replaced after the murder the knife sheath "tribute",possibly the burning in the garden that multiple independent neighbours reported, the brother destroying the alibi, the witnesses to Luke and Jodi arguing, Luke's history and interests, Luke deleting his texts to Jodi to cover up the fact he arranged to meet her at Easthouses (I saw Sandra in her book claiming "oh but Judith deleted them too!, emm no, what kind of teenage girl would leave texts of her arguing with her boyfriend on her mums phone for her mum to read... why did Luke delete the texts? And also his call history?)
Luke phoning the speaking clock, the fact she would only be over there with a boyfriend, Luke's complete lack of emotion throughout the entire thing, his violent writings, the stabbing of Jodi's leg shortly before the murder - confirmed by several friends of Luke. The previous knife attack on his girlfriend at the army cadets, the partial DNA match, finding the body in the dark, claiming it was the dog despite the dog not alerting him on the way up, walking directly past it. Being able to describe the body down to a "red scrunchie" which was hidden underneath Jodi's hair. Waiting for an hour on Jodi then suddenly meeting with friends then going home and not trying to find out why Jodi didn't turn up. Some common sense has to applied to this case. Everything from hanging around for an hour "looking suspicious" then spending the night with pals getting himself dirty, was all an attempt at an alibi. The other girlfriend he was arranging to meet. The fact Luke's close friends at the time have no problem believing he did it, much like his dad and brother Shane. I could go on all day.
I'd really love to see the circumstancial case Sandra would build against "the boyfriend" if it was JJ, MK, GD, SK, or JF sitting in jail right now for the murder claiming they were innocent.
Thanks for that, I have put below my thoughts on this below
Missing Knife and missing parka – I’m not convinced there was a missing knife, but I’m not 100% on the parka, due to the teachers statement
Knife sheath tribute – seems the knife from this was handed in to police, but it’s too small to be the murder weapon, could be a tribute to someone he loved and lost or could be a trophy as a reminder of the murder, but not enough info and not enough to show guilt
Burning in the garden – does not mean it was disposing stuff, also if there was a parka I don’t think it would be burned here.
Brother alibi – This for me is the biggest flag,lyn it’s been said he did say Luke was home and that he could not be sure, would love to hear him confirm now
Luke and Jodi - witness them argue – if this is AB she did not identify Luke in court, which for me is huge, ok he may have looked a bit different but she knew that was Luke so it’s a simple yes or no, she said she could not be sure), therefore not a positive sighting, I discarded this info
Luke’s history and interests – this information is hugely conflicted, I’m sure everyone had a story about Luke after he was arrested. Find it hard sort the fact from the hearsay
Luke deleting text, did he usually do this> if not then its suspicious (but nothing to say, as you do, that it was to cover up the fact he arranged to meet Jodi, we do not know the contents of the messages, please can we keep to the facts at hand)
You asked why he would delete the texts, the phones back then did not have a lot of space, I use to delete all my texts after I was done with them as it filled up my phone fast, but as I said it be good to know if this was usual practice for his messages to be deleted.
Luke phoning the speaking clock, not in any way suspicious to me
Jodi only going over the wall with Luke - As already discussed she would also go over there with the 2 boys who were at the v at 1715, I’m sure there are a few more people she would go over there with also, not just Luke.
Luke complete lack of emotion (been explained he was on medication) I can accept that but it is a bit suspicious to me also.
Violent writings – cannot comment without seeing the facts and not hearsay but does not mean he was a killer, could just be
stabbing Jodi in leg, threats to ex gf, - hearsay (was this used in court)not something I’d take as evidence if not.
Partial DNA, is a partial and can be a number of people including Luke, also there were partials that were not Luke. Semen full profile, not Luke, etc. More dna evidence for others rather than Luke.
Finding the body in the dark – he had a dog that was trained as a tracker, I’d be more surprised if he did not find her.(and I’m sure you guys would be using it to prove his guilt also if the dig did not find her)
Dog not alerting on way up as not asked to search for Jodi on way up and also Luke was pulling her up the path, a trained dog does what its told, if its told to search it does if its told to move it also does.
Describing the red scrunchie, does sound strange but without seeing the crime scene hard for me to say but yes sounds fishy
Waiting for Jodi then going to meet friends, not suspicious, I accept the explanation that he thought she had gone elsewhere, or got grounded, did not call back as did not want to get her in any trouble.
We do not know if Shane and his dad supports Luke or not, have been assured the both do but until the speak out sorry I do not take your word on that, again hearsay
-
No knife was found hidden in Mia's dog food? Are you sure?
Was it not found in a bag under the table that’s mia’s dog bowl/food sat on?
-
I'm not saying a parka was burned in the garden either. Things could easily have been disposed of in a bin somewhere. Unchecked by L&B. Something was burned though. I'm not saying it was Corinne or that Corinne even knows about it. I don't think she would have noticed if Luke was out there burning something like gloves, or whatever that's what the eye witness seen building from his pocket.
Agreed, I think if there was a parka that could be disposed of elsewhere. Anyone could have been burning anything, the neighbours may also be mistaken on the day or who was having the fire. Again to many questions and not enough answers on this.
-
Yes, a bag of dog biscuits lol.
And the speaking clock is suspicious to me when it was during a time he was claiming to be at home. Just doesn't make sense. Like I said, some common sense has to be applied here with regards to strange and unrealistic behaviour.
Ah I did not know it was a dog food bag I thought it was an ordinary bag, do you know that for a fact?
Luke called the speaking clock all the time, phone records show this, if he was home I think he may have called the speaking clock for timing as he was making dinner. You said common sense needs to be applied, I can only go by my constant use of the speaking clock when I was younger. Just because you don’t use it does not mean it was suspicious, I’d say that’s common sense also.
-
Have you seen these phone records? And how do they prove that he was at home when placing those calls, if they do indeed exist?
I have not seen them, going by info give here which I trust, but I don’t think you would to be fair.
Does not prove he was home but also does not prove he was out. Not unusual behaviour to call 123 for him tho.
-
Luke's lack of reaction upon verdict is evidence of something amiss mentally to me. Who cares if the judge says you can't show emotion, it's not something you can choose to show. If I get sentenced for a murder I didn't commit I'd be screaming and shouting and having a total meltdown. Luke was calmly escorted to the reliance van and didn't look one bit bothered. He possibly was already resigned to this being a likely outcome from the minute he decided to murder Jodi, either that or he's just a psychopath/sociopath. Pictures taken through the blacked out windows of reliance vans show him smirking. He swaggered about Polmont smirking and lapping up his notoriety. He was also enjoying the police interviews, playing the villain and provoking them. Turning up at his appeals with ridicuous haircuts and facial piercings. Writings and letters from Luke throughout his entire incarceration show someone who doesn't give a fuck. He's probably secretly laughing at Sandra. Yes in the past few years he's actually came out and said a few things, but really what has he got to lose.
Agreed, if I was found guilty of something I did not do the judge could go and f*** himself, Id be going nuts and everyone in the courthouse and outside would here me scream I was innocent
-
Luke's lack of reaction upon verdict is evidence of something amiss mentally to me. Who cares if the judge says you can't show emotion (and I don't believe he said this to the defendant, this usually is aimed at people in the gallery), it's not something you can choose to show. If I get convicted for a murder I didn't commit I'd be screaming and shouting and having a total meltdown. Luke was calmly escorted to the reliance van and didn't look one bit bothered. He possibly was already resigned to this being a likely outcome from the minute he decided to murder Jodi, either that or he's just a psychopath/sociopath. Pictures taken through the blacked out windows of reliance vans show him smirking. He swaggered about Polmont smirking and lapping up his notoriety. He was also enjoying the police interviews, playing the villain and provoking them. Turning up at his appeals with ridicuous haircuts and facial piercings. Writings and letters from Luke throughout his entire incarceration show someone who doesn't give a fuck. He's probably secretly laughing at Sandra. Yes in the past few years he's actually came out and said a few things (at the request of his mum and Sandra), but really what has he got to lose.
its the same reaction more or less everybody has.
-
I'm not going to quote all the individual posts - I'll just list the pertinent points. I'll indicate where I have documents that I can post (either in full, or excerpts, depending on what the legal situation allows) but please bear with me - there are hundreds of documents in no order whatsoever, and I have to sort all of them - I will post what I find, as I find it, rather than searching through all the boxes for specific documents. If someone wants to keep a record of this post, they can tick off the information I've made public and keep a list of what I haven't yet found.
The knife hidden in the dog food.
It wasn't a "bowie knife" as stated and it wasn't hidden in a bag of dog biscuits. It was in a holdall under a table on which the dog's food and water bowls sat. (Statements available).
Luke and Jodi's texts
No evidence that the arrangement was to meet at Easthouses or that they were arguing. Bryson's evidence was used to suggest Jodi went down the path in the direction of Newbattle - why would Luke walk all the way to Easthouses if they were going to be hanging out in Newbattle? Jodi's gran said, if Jodi was going to Newbattle, she would walk down the path alone and Luke would meet her at the Newbattle end. Janine said in court her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone. (AW statement and JaJ court transcript available).
Luke deleting texts and call history
He had no recollection of deleting texts. We now know that the call history was deleted just after 12.30am on July 1st - when the phone was in the possession of the police. We also know a text was sent from Luke's phone in this same time period and, although Luke was later grilled about "checking his voicemail" while standing on the path, waiting for the police, the records show, quite clearly, that this was a log of an incoming voicemail from Corinne asking where he was, being recorded on his phone, not Luke checking it . Since the police clearly interfered with the phone by deleting the call record and allowing a text to be sent while the phone was in their possession, we can never be sure if it was Luke who deleted the earlier texts or not. All we have are his police statements that he had no recollection of doing so - from that, the police questioned him about what reasons he might have had for deleting them. Fair enough, you'd think, but that was exactly the line of questioning they used when questioning him about why he thought Jodi hadn't turned up. Luke tried to think of various reasons and they later used that against him to suggest he was "lying." (Phone records and interview transcripts available).
Red scrunchie
A news reporter interviewed Luke "off the record" - he'd scribbled a note in his notebook, "red scrunchie?" He could not remember whether that was his own wording or a comment directly from Luke, or what the circumstances surrounding it were. This was several weeks after the murder - from memory, after the August 14th interrogation in which officers asked Luke what Jodi usually used if her hair was tied up. It was used in court to suggest it "must have been" a direct comment from Luke, since the reporter wouldn't, ordinarily, have used the term "scrunchie." That was then expanded to infer that the comment in the notebook was Luke saying, when he found Jodi that night, he saw a red scrunchie in her hair (something he couldn't have seen from where he was standing - the inference being he was much closer to Jodi than he claimed). The fact is, we don't know what the reference in the note book to a "red scrunchie" was about. This was also weeks after the post mortem, when the pathologist reported finding a scrunchie tangled in Jodi's hair - there's every possibility that this information was passed to Luke by police officers inadvertently. (Reporter statement, possibly transcript, interrogation transcript available.)
Stabbing Jodi in the leg
Reported by only one witness. I don't remember if it was used in court - I'll check the transcripts. (If used, transcript available).
Burning something in the garden
"maybe something like gloves?" Never been suggested by anyone, no evidence whatsoever to support it. Interesting, though, that Ferris appeared to be trying to hide, or explain away, a pair of wet, muddy gloves found in Yvonne Walker's flat. There are two sets of statements, one referring to these gloves being "down the back of a radiator" another that they were "in a drawer under the bed." One interpretation could be that they were originally behind the radiator, but were moved to the drawer before being handed to police. (Statements available).
Bulging from his pocket
This reference followed on from the suggestion that gloves might have been burned in Luke's garden - that the gloves might have been what were "bulging" from "his" pocket (ref the Bryson sighting). There's a bit of a problem there - Andrina Bryson described a "fishing style jacket with the collar up" and matching fishing style trousers. The bottom of the jacket was straight (no "tail" like a parka) and stopped just below the waist. In other words, it was not a parka jacket she was describing and the parka owned by Luke after the murder (from memory) had a hood (not a collar) and had no pocket on the upper left sleeve. (Statements and photographs available). The likelihood of the witness noticing the left sleeve, in particular, is undermined by police reconstruction photographs (available).
I also have copies of Shane's original statements and the phone data regarding the speaking clock, which shows Luke called the speaking clock numerous times in the period covered by the data (leading up to the murder) within roughly similar timescales - in the morning, before he would leave for school and in the afternoon, between getting in from school and his mother arriving home for dinner around 5.15pm.
-
I wonder how we can define anything regarding being found guilty in a courtroom, shock must have played a massive part. I remember myself being shunted from feeling he was guilty to think my god he’s going to get off with this, imagine what he must have been thinking. His life was over and he had to spend most of it as a child murderer. These guys don’t get much leeway in jail but I believe since he has become a bit of an enigma to himself in that manner.
What do we do when faced with that kind of hardship! Fight like mad to try and free himself and fight for any scrap that could prove so. Once time and time again this falls on deaf hears maybe just maybe you become who everyone says you are. They want to hear the satanic ramblings, the weird doodles on paintings or other scribbling. I think many times like gave up but it’s something in his personality that seems to drive him to keep carrying on.
-
Twisting that to fit with what you want.
The call from Corrine to Luke asking where he was wasn’t long after finding the body, at that time of night why would t she?
Luke had waited for Jodi and called his mother afterwards to tell Jodi if she turned up where he would be
-
hold on a sec...
"I'm off out mum, if Jodi turns up tell her I'll be in the abbey"
<proceeds to go and wait for Jodi for one hour>
(which one is it Luke?)
How on Earth was Jodi going to turn up at his door for without bumping into Luke on the way?
I agree, in one of the video's his mum said that there were no firm plans for him and Jodie to meet but that he went to wait for her at the end of the street anyway. Why wouldn't he have just waited at home or told his mum to send her on to the Abbey if she did call? Randomly waiting at the end of the street just doesn't sound right.
-
Dr Sandra Lean -
I also have copies of Shane's original statements and the phone data regarding the speaking clock, which shows Luke called the speaking clock numerous times in the period covered by the data (leading up to the murder) within roughly similar timescales - in the morning, before he would leave for school and in the afternoon, between getting in from school and his mother arriving home for dinner around 5.15pm.
I would like to see the phone data. Can you please release this information publicly?
-
I agree, in one of the video's his mum said that there were no firm plans for him and Jodie to meet but that he went to wait for her at the end of the street anyway. Why wouldn't he have just waited at home or told his mum to send her on to the Abbey if she did call? Randomly waiting at the end of the street just doesn't sound right.
This might not be relevant but I do this every Thursday night with a mate, we meet up at 8pm and head to the pub. The first two times I waited in the house but then after that I walk up to the end of my street around 7:50. He only texts me if he’s not going so there’s no real plan in place as sometimes it 20-30 mins later when he arrives.
-
Luke had been texting Jodi back n forth earlier though and had been in constant contact, so there must have been something arranged. Whereas your routine sounds like just a kind of unwritten agreement you and your pal have.
I agree but unless the content of those texts are retrieved there’s no way of knowing, certainly the timing of Jodi leaving kinda has a similar context to it as she left early than she normally would and if she was meeting him why not stay in the house for him to come to her.
-
Would it not be the case that seeing as Luke went off to the Abbey that he knew has friends were going there and that was the arrangement all along with Jodi also? That would suggest that the plan was to come to his end as it was closer to the Abbey.
I can’t remember at what point Jodi has claimed to be staying up her end and is it possible that the plans had changed after the texts! This was a period confused from the start from the initial 5:30pm to almost 45 mins earlier.
-
Yeah it's a pity Luke deleted them all at some point between arranging to meet Jodi and giving his phone to police.
Not suspicious at all though.
And now Sandra is saying the police deleted these texts. They had already decided to fit him up a few hours after Jodi was found.
Is this what we're being asked to believe here.
The ability to retrieve the content was available at the time, indeed they did retrieve one of Corrine s. The mast technology was also available to determine where Luke was when calling the speaking clock. It’s not Luje that’s making this suspicious but the failure of the police
-
Why bother waiting around at the gate for an hour then?
If Jodi was included in that plan then of course he would wait, AO had told him she had left which was another reason to wait as long as he felt before he got pissed off waiting
-
Dr Sandra Lean -
I also have copies of Shane's original statements and the phone data regarding the speaking clock, which shows Luke called the speaking clock numerous times in the period covered by the data (leading up to the murder) within roughly similar timescales - in the morning, before he would leave for school and in the afternoon, between getting in from school and his mother arriving home for dinner around 5.15pm.
I would like to see the phone data. Can you please release this information publicly?
The post from which you took this quote said, in the first paragraph
"I'll indicate where I have documents that I can post (either in full, or excerpts, depending on what the legal situation allows) but please bear with me - there are hundreds of documents in no order whatsoever, and I have to sort all of them - I will post what I find, as I find it, rather than searching through all the boxes for specific documents. If someone wants to keep a record of this post, they can tick off the information I've made public and keep a list of what I haven't yet found."
-
Please quote me were I said that? I understand that there were texts between the two and those would constitute a plan, I am saying however is that plan may not have been as definite as is made out here. The possibility that Jodi has bumped into a friend when leaving the house for instance and would be much later at getting to Luke’s is a possibility
-
I can’t remember at what point Jodi has claimed to be staying up her end and is it possible that the plans had changed after the texts! This was a period confused from the start from the initial 5:30pm to almost 45 mins earlier.
The story that Jodi was supposed to be hanging out in Easthouses/Mayfield that night came from Jodi's mum. In one of her earliest statements, she said (after Jodi came home from school and went up to her room then came back down again), "Jodi said she was going out. I took that to mean she was meeting Luke and they'd be mucking about up here."
For someone who had been texting her all afternoon he seemed a bit clueless as to what he was doing
Why the continual misinformation? There were three texts between 4.34 and 4.38pm - that's it. They didn't recover the content of the texts, but they did get the logs showing the exchange of texts between Judith's phone and Lukes. The people who were texting each other "all afternoon" were Jodi's mum and her partner, not Jodi and Luke.
That was before all the grounding lifting, Rod Stewart playing, keep some lasagne for me, there was a standing arrangement for Luke to meet Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path and walk her down to Newbattle confusion that emerged later.
According to Jodi's gran, for example, there was no such "standing arrangement" - Jodi would walk down the path and Luke would meet her at the Newbattle end. According to AW and Janine, there was no grounding in place that evening. And initially, according to Judith, she had no idea where Jodi was going, or with whom - she just made an assumption.
Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message - these are their own words.
-
What friend? Jodi's friends were Luke's friends and Luke told his mum they'd be in the abbey. Who is this mystery friend that Corinne, Sandra etc say Jodi could've been believed by Luke to have randomly bumped into in the short distance between her house and the path? According to Luke he knew Jodi was coming to see him.
I don't buy that Luke assumed she must have met with a friend thus didn't bother contacting her all night to ask why she no-showed.
Let's see, Jodi (apparently) left home at 4.50pm and was "seen" at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 4.54pm (if the Andrina Bryson evidence is accepted.) Just six minutes later Ferris and Dickie entered the Newbattle end of the path with the Moped. The path takes around 11 minutes to walk, end to end, at a brisk pace (according to police timings). Wonder who Jodi might have been able to bump into in those circumstances?
The police were pushing Luke for an "explanation" of why he thought Jodi might not have turned up - he didn't know why, but that wasn't a good enough answer, and they pushed some more, so Luke started giving possible reasons - maybe she bumped into someone, maybe she got grounded again, etc. This was during the interrogation in which even the appeal judges agreed that the treatment by these officers was "outrageous and to be deplored." I don't think anyone who's never been subjected to these interrogation techniques can have any idea of how massively they're geared towards eliciting the answers the officers want (for their own purposes) rather than truthful answers which, invariably, they will reject.
-
Why not? It’s details like that that could mean so much to someone. It is complicated though as with the calls that evening from the Jones house hold.
-
Yes I know. That's what I was referring to. What's your point? Nice wording though with "the story" that's up there with your other favourite, "it was claimed" when referring to any information provided by the Jones family.
I was responding to Gordo's post that he didn't remember when the story about Jodi hanging about at the Easthouses end first appeared - I even quoted it!
-
It’s a confusing case and from the feedback I have seen it doesn’t seem to have had that effect, most new comers do so with an open mind though and are not connected to either party.
I don’t think Luke’s thoughts of what and why Jodi hasn’t turned up mean anything as he probably didn’t know either way, she had done it before. Also didn’t help that he was unable to contact Jodi through the lack of a phone.
-
Well posts from various social media and other sources, it’s there if you look for it. The wording is in place to show that the case isn’t as clear cut, it shows that Sandra believes Luke’s innocence but that’s what you would expect, if Luke’s innocent then someone else is guilty.
-
If it’s true and I doubt it to be honest, there could be more of a self preservation thing.
-
Sandra you said a few times in your book in reference to statements, call logs etc ‘information not available to the defence’ I assume the information was there at the time, as the statements were taken so need to be somewhere for example, but would this information still exist today or would it all now have been destroyed, not sure what the police procedures is for keeping this kind of stuff as the case is closed. If there was a retrial would the defence be able to get their hands on all this or is it still upto the police what they are given?
-
Why does Shane tell people his brother's guilty. The same Shane who destroyed his alibi. The same one who section himself just before his brother was arrested with it.
Sounds to me like someone who was struggling with giving the false alibi after pressure from his mum.
We need to hear from him tbh.
If I remember correct you have said you have spoken to Shane directly on this and heard it from the horses mouth, Sandra has also stated both Shane and the dad have always supported Luke and believe he is innocent, I’m not sure if that’s from Luke’s mum or them direct but either way until Shane is willing to speak out himself the rest of us will never know, unless we want to invade his privacy. Please don’t post his personal details again.
If it’s true and I doubt it to be honest, there could be more of a self preservation thing.
I also doubt this is true, or I doubt lithium has heard this directly from Shane but if it is then for me it would be case closed tbh, what he remembers and believes is crucial
-
Why does Shane tell people his brother's guilty. The same Shane who destroyed his alibi. The same one who section himself just before his brother was arrested for it.
Sounds to me like someone who was struggling with giving the false alibi after pressure from his mum.
We need to hear from him tbh.
have you got any evedence to back this up.
-
I never said that. I might have said that I know first hand because I know people he has said it to. Maybe you're remembering me saying I heard from JJ. I have never posted any personal details unless you're including his name which is public knowledge regarding this case. I've said myself feel free to ask him. If I'm wrong I'll admit it but I wouldn't be making such libelous claims if I wasn't sure.
Thanks for clarifying, my apologies I must be mixing you up with another poster who said they had spoken to Shane.
Also someone else posted his work place which I thought was totally out of order, that was not aimed at you that was at them
-
I don’t know any other poster that could and lithium did post his work place
-
This might not be relevant but I do this every Thursday night with a mate, we meet up at 8pm and head to the pub. The first two times I waited in the house but then after that I walk up to the end of my street around 7:50. He only texts me if he’s not going so there’s no real plan in place as sometimes it 20-30 mins later when he arrives.
This being the case, it would be usual for Luke to be waiting and no one said that.
-
Yeah it's a pity Luke deleted them all at some point between arranging to meet Jodi and giving his phone to police.
Not suspicious at all though.
And now Sandra is saying the police deleted these texts. They had already decided to fit him up a few hours after Jodi was found.
Is this what we're being asked to believe here.
The phone data would reveal when they were deleted so it would be stupid for the police to have done this as it would show the phone to be in their care at the time.
-
The phone data would reveal when they were deleted so it would be stupid for the police to have done this as it would show the phone to be in their care at the time.
well the timing proves they did.
-
afraid not other than local knowledge.
in other wrds you made it up.
-
I'm also curious as to why Luke asked Alan Ovens "is Jodi home?"
He called at 17:32 and received no answer.
Then called again 8 minutes later when AO answered. Luke asked if Jodi was home. Wouldn't the previous unanswered call already indicate that she wasn't?
shhock horor guy phones to see if his girlfriend is home.
no how oes not nswering the phone once mean your not home
-
well the timing proves they did.
Have you seen this proof or do you just believe it exists because someone said so?
-
If it was me and I was expecting Jodi to turn up, and had just tried to phone the house to no answer (indicating no one's home) I'd conclude that she was on her way to me.
no it concludes tht nobody was albel to answer tha minute.
-
I think your right and what else would you do but wait for her, he did just that but what would be the point if she hadn’t arrive to try and find her? He couldn’t call her, he hadn’t got an answer later on, what else to do but what you intended that evening.
-
found it
that wasn't me
Ok sorry I tend to lump these things on you .
-
Have you seen this proof or do you just believe it exists because someone said so?
The times were put before the court.
-
Have you seen this proof or do you just believe it exists because someone said so?
i looked at the timline on previos forum we worked this out years ago.
the reporting of the case at the time states when the texts were deleted.
-
the fact is lue was taken in to the station that night his phone was taken from him as is normally the case when your taken into custudy
anything deleted after that time couldd not have been deleted by him.
-
Real solid source there nugget
re you saying he wasnt taken into custoody that night.
the source is simple logic.
-
The fact the Corinne call was still there indicates the deleting of everything else took place between the contact with Jodi and the finding of the body/phone being handed to police.
it indicates nothing of the sort it indicates that one call wasnt deleted.
-
It indicates that everything was wiped and Corinnes call was the only call that followed the deletion.
Why would he delete everything else individually and leave one call?
that does not prove who deleted the texts.
-
The fact the Corinne call was still there indicates the deleting of everything else took place between the contact with Jodi and the finding of the body/phone being handed to police.
There is proof that the phone has been accessed and used once in the possession of the police, no one can say for sure when the logs were deleted.
-
Maybe not but applying common sense it's the most reasonable explanation:
1) Luke deleted everything off his phone earlier that night and there was no logs up until his mum phoned after midnight.
2) Luke sat and deleted individual calls and messages all except the one from his mum after finding the body, apparently not preoccupied with everything that was unfolding.
3) The police deleted all calls after taking Luke's phone other than Corinne's (and messages from the murder victim which could be vital evidence) because they were already framing him so early on.
how could luke have deleted he texts after finding the body other people would of seen him.
-
Where is this proof?
Sandra addressed this only a few pages ago
-
Exactly. I'm saying this is unlikely.
why would he have deleted them thres is noting incrimating in them anyway.
-
i looked at the timline on previos forum we worked this out years ago.
the reporting of the case at the time states when the texts were deleted.
Using what?
-
why would he have deleted them thres is noting incrimating in them anyway.
There is if he's calling people to find out where she is and texting her at the same time. It means he knew where she was the the waiting around is just a smoke screen.
-
Will she back it up with proof.
Sandra has put much out via publications and other media outlets if this was not true where’s the litigation ?
-
There is proof that the phone has been accessed and used once in the possession of the police, no one can say for sure when the logs were deleted.
Nugs has just said there was a timeline and from that 'they' were able to work out that the texts were deleted when the phone was in the hands of the police?
I can see why Luke might delete them, but not why the police would and there should be a record of WHEN they were deleted.
-
Sandra has put much out via publications and other media outlets if this was not true where’s the litigation ?
So no proof?
-
How can you possibly know that?!
Did they never recover the texts? What about her phone?
-
So no proof?
The proof that they were deleted are in the logs as part of the investigation files, the phone was in the possession of the police when things were deleted.
-
Did they never recover the texts? What about her phone?
No only the times the texts were sent. She didn’t have one she through it at a wall!
-
I'm sorry, I seem to have caused a bit of a misunderstanding. Of the incoming voicemail call on Luke's phone that night, I said
the records show, quite clearly, that this was a log of an incoming voicemail from Corinne asking where he was, being recorded on his phone, not Luke checking it
I didn't mean the actual call was still on Luke's phone - I should have made that clearer. The record of the call going to voicemail is in the phone logs, Corinne said in her statement that she was trying to call Luke to find out what was going on, but got his voicemail - the timings given in her statement and both her and Luke's phone records all matched up. My point was that the police deliberately lied about Luke "checking his voicemail" when the log is clearly labelled "incoming."
All of the police assertions regarding the phone calls, texts, etc, were put to Luke in the Section 14 interrogation 6 weeks after the murder. By then, the police had the phone logs - they also recovered a text from Corinne to Luke saying, "Right, you tell me right now what's going on - I'm coming up to get you" (not recovered from Luke's phone).
The statement from the phone expert who examined the phone appears to suggest that the police may have inadvertently wiped the call logs, etc, not that they did so deliberately.Either way, according to their own statements, the police officers who put Luke in the back of the police vehicle and took his phone did so before 12.30, the time the expert said the logs were deleted.
-
Will she back it up with proof.
I'm not sure which part of this some posters don't seem to understand. I've listed the documents I know are in the case files
"I'll indicate where I have documents that I can post (either in full, or excerpts, depending on what the legal situation allows) but please bear with me - there are hundreds of documents in no order whatsoever, and I have to sort all of them - I will post what I find, as I find it, rather than searching through all the boxes for specific documents. If someone wants to keep a record of this post, they can tick off the information I've made public and keep a list of what I haven't yet found."
This "no proof" argument is ridiculous - I can only provide the "proof" required from the case papers which I'd have to search through to find the various bits and pieces being requested. Some of them I won't be able to post in full anyway - not that I don't want to but because legally, I'm not allowed to.
But I don't have time to spend searching through the boxes at the instant demands of anonymous posters on a forum - I do have a life to live as well. I'll post the stuff when I can - if people don't like that, I'm sorry, but that's the way of it.
-
How can you possibly know that?!
well its very simple who would he be texting jodi on her mums phone if so jodis mum would have the texts wouldent she and i think she might mention it.
his friends well i dont think they would have kept uite would they his own mum well they looked at her phone as well and they could ceranly trace anytexts between him nd his mums phone.
-
Did they never recover the texts? What about her phone?
I think her phone was broken and she was putting her SIM card in her mums phone to send the txt to Luke. As far as its know the txt messages were never recovered from either phone by police, or location data of calls or texts made that evening.
-
On the afternoon of June 30th, the text exchange between Jodi and Luke (4.34pm to 4.38pm) was not conducted between Luke's phone and Jodi's sim - it was her mother's number that showed up in the phone logs.
There were suggestions that Jodi did, sometimes, put her sim in other people's phones after her own was broken, but not that afternoon.
-
On the afternoon of June 30th, the text exchange between Jodi and Luke (4.34pm to 4.38pm) was not conducted between Luke's phone and Jodi's sim - it was her mother's number that showed up in the phone logs.
There were suggestions that Jodi did, sometimes, put her sim in other people's phones after her own was broken, but not that afternoon.
That explains why Jodi’s text were deleted if it was her mums phone and number.
-
On the afternoon of June 30th, the text exchange between Jodi and Luke (4.34pm to 4.38pm) was not conducted between Luke's phone and Jodi's sim - it was her mother's number that showed up in the phone logs.
There were suggestions that Jodi did, sometimes, put her sim in other people's phones after her own was broken, but not that afternoon.
so anytext that was deleted should of shown up on jodis mums phone.
so why the hell would he delte texts knowing full well jodis mum would still have them.
simple logic says somone else deleted them.
-
That isn't simple logic at all.
refute it then.
-
You're really saying the simple logical explanation for Luke's texts being deleted is that it must have been the police? You're a fkn weapon.
thats not a refution its just insult.
seems you cant refute my point.
why would lue delted incriminating texts knowing full well jodis mum would still have them
why would jodis mum not go t the police and say she had them.
come on whats the nser to that.
-
thats not a refution its just insult.
seems you cant refute my point.
why would lue delted incriminating texts knowing full well jodis mum would still have them
why would jodis mum not go t the police and say she had them.
come on whats the nser to that.
But Jodie's mum didn't have them, they were deleted from her phone too.
Was this phone found on Jodie's body?
-
well its very simple who would he be texting jodi on her mums phone if so jodis mum would have the texts wouldent she and i think she might mention it.
his friends well i dont think they would have kept uite would they his own mum well they looked at her phone as well and they could ceranly trace anytexts between him nd his mums phone.
If she was using her own sim, then it wouldn't matter who's phone she used.
-
But Jodie's mum didn't have them, they were deleted from her phone too.
Was this phone found on Jodie's body?
no it was with jodis mum.
-
If she was using her own sim, then it wouldn't matter who's phone she used.
i dont she was using her own sim
and even if she was it would still be in her house and any texts from look could have been found on it so it would be pointless for luke to delete the texts.
-
no it was with jodis mum.
No phone found on her or the crime scene, have you heard otherwise?
-
no it was with jodis mum.
Yes, I have just read that. Looks like the last text was sent by Jodie at 16:38, it seems odd that Luke didn't send any text messages after this time?
-
No phone found on her or the crime scene, have you heard otherwise?
no thats wht i said the phone was still in jodis house making it pointless for lue to have delted ny texts from his phone to hers..
-
Yes, I have just read that. Looks like the last text was sent by Jodie at 16:38, it seems odd that Luke didn't send any text messages after this time?
That would depend on what was said and the fact he knew she didn’t have a phone
-
Yes, I have just read that. Looks like the last text was sent by Jodie at 16:38, it seems odd that Luke didn't send any text messages after this time?
well he knew she dident have a phone on her and he thught she ha left the house so what point would there be texting her.
-
well he knew she dident have a phone on her and he thught she ha left the house so what point would there be texting her.
He knew she had left the house?
This appeal documentation appears to be indicating that Luke was waiting for Jodie to turn up at his house
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.
[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody.
His mother (in one of the video's) stated that they had no firm plans to meet however, the above suggests they did - so when she didn't turn up why wouldn't he have texted her again. Also, Luke could have instigated her to delete the texts before she left the house.
-
He knew she had left the house?
This appeal documentation appears to be indicating that Luke was waiting for Jodie to turn up at his house
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.
[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody.
His mother (in one of the video's) stated that they had no firm plans to meet however, the above suggests they did - so when she didn't turn up why wouldn't he have texted her again. Also, Luke could have instigated her to delete the texts before she left the house.
ecactly so it would be a bit pointless texting her as he knew she dident haave a phone on her.
-
ecactly so it would be a bit pointless texting her as he knew she dident haave a phone on her.
He said he thought something had happened that resulted in her NOT coming out and he could have instigated the deletion of the text messages.
-
He knew she had left the house?
This appeal documentation appears to be indicating that Luke was waiting for Jodie to turn up at his house
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.
[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody.
His mother (in one of the video's) stated that they had no firm plans to meet however, the above suggests they did - so when she didn't turn up why wouldn't he have texted her again. Also, Luke could have instigated her to delete the texts before she left the house.
These online appeal documents although not in accurate as such have many mistakes that all parties would agree with.
Luke instigating her to delete the texts is pure conjecture, there’s no way of knowing. I agree with lithium here it’s more likely to be a teenage daughter not wanting her mum to know her plans as opposed to anything more sinister.
The possibility that if the texts contained something like”ok meet you at 5” then why delete them, again she may just have done so out of routine
-
He said he thought something had happened that resulted in her NOT coming out and he could have instigated the deletion of the text messages.
but it would be totally pountless becouse the other phone would of still had the messagess on it.
-
These online appeal documents although not in accurate as such have many mistakes that all parties would agree with.
Luke instigating her to delete the texts is pure conjecture, there’s no way of knowing. I agree with lithium here it’s more likely to be a teenage daughter not wanting her mum to know her plans as opposed to anything more sinister.
The possibility that if the texts contained something like”ok meet you at 5” then why delete them, again she may just have done so out of routine
Of course it's conjecture - but we aren't in a court, we're simply trying to piece together what may have happened. Its conjecture that the police deleted them in the face of no posted proof.
-
but it would be totally pountless becouse the other phone would of still had the messagess on it.
Not with you Nugs? Two phones, Luke's and Jodie's mothers right? He COULD have asked Jodie to delete the messages from her mothers phone before leaving the house and them deleted them from his own phone.
-
Not with you Nugs? Two phones, Luke's and Jodie's mothers right? He COULD have asked Jodie to delete the messages from her mothers phone before leaving the house and them deleted them from his own phone.
and how would he knew she would do it.
-
The first text at 4:34 was initiated by Jodi so you can be almost certain Luke was in the house at that point, no point being anywhere else if there were no plans made. There were a total of 4 text 2 from each of them not a lot to instigate much of what your saying. Let surmise that Luke was in the house at the last text at 4:38 pm he would have had to have left straight away to walk the 11 min road to be seen by Bryson at the entrance to that path. What time did he have to get everything needed to carry out a murder and forensically clean the scene and not be seen by anyone.
-
and how would he knew she would do it.
But she did.
-
But she did.
There’s no way of knowing who deleted the texts from Luke , it could easily have been Judy.
-
But she did.
but how coulf he know for a fact she would.
-
but how coulf he know for a fact she would.
Because he knew her well enough.
-
There’s no way of knowing who deleted the texts from Luke , it could easily have been Judy.
Not from Luke, from Jodie's mum's phone.
-
Because he knew her well enough.
how did he know her mum wouldent grab the phone back before she could.
-
Not from Luke, from Jodie's mum's phone.
No proof from either phone about actually who deleted those texts
-
how did he know her mum wouldent grab the phone back before she could.
I doubt that was even a consideration.
-
No proof from either phone about actually who deleted those texts
I thought there was supposed to be proof that the police deleted them?
-
I think we were all under the impression it was Luke’s texts you were meaning sey
-
The one thing about going round in circles is that it shows just how bad the investigation was. They could have retrieved the texts, logs when something was deleted and more. What we’re left with are logs showing action was undertaken by the police on Luke’s phone after it was in their possession. So many things unanswered.
-
I think we were all under the impression it was Luke’s texts you were meaning sey
Had I meant Luke's, I wouldn't have referred to Jodie's mothers phone.
-
The one thing about going round in circles is that it shows just how bad the investigation was. They could have retrieved the texts, logs when something was deleted and more. What we’re left with are logs showing action was undertaken by the police on Luke’s phone after it was in their possession. So many things unanswered.
That is true of any case and I think it's pretty normal for 'action to be taken' on a suspects mobile phone.
I think the most likely people to have deleted the texts ate Luke and Jodie themselves but that will always be a best guess.
-
That is true of any case and I think it's pretty normal for 'action to be taken' on a suspects mobile phone.
I think the most likely people to have deleted the texts ate Luke and Jodie themselves but that will always be a best guess.
Yes if that action was undertaken by specialists and not and joe copper
-
Yes if that action was undertaken by specialists and not and joe copper
I believe this case was in 2002? Mobile phone forensics was in it's infancy and so I would assume in the early days some data extraction would be carried out by police officers. I think Joe Copper would receive training.
-
I believe this case was in 2002? Mobile phone forensics was in it's infancy and so I would assume in the early days some data extraction would be carried out by police officers. I think Joe Copper would receive training.
No joe copper wouldn’t have been trained to do anything! That should have been bagged and tagged and sent off to forensics as he had used it very soon after he supposedly murdered Jodi. This was most probably a push button phone and hard to clean forensically.
I am wondering if it had been sent off for testing and what results came from that phone .
-
Any news on the launch of Long Road to Justice?
-
Nothing concrete, you can register and navigate the site but nothing active atm
-
isnt a bit strange jodi used her mums sim card insted of her own was she in that much of a hurry to send a text.
-
isnt a bit strange jodi used her mums sim card insted of her own was she in that much of a hurry to send a text.
Maybe she was going out and wanted to txt Luke to say she would be down later?
I just believe she would be meeting Luke after 1730 at their usual time and she was going somewhere first before heading to Luke’s, if she did in fact leave at 1650
But nothing at all to prove or disprove this
-
No joe copper wouldn’t have been trained to do anything! That should have been bagged and tagged and sent off to forensics as he had used it very soon after he supposedly murdered Jodi. This was most probably a push button phone and hard to clean forensically.
I am wondering if it had been sent off for testing and what results came from that phone .
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.
I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.
-
Maybe she was going out and wanted to txt Luke to say she would be down later?
I just believe she would be meeting Luke after 1730 at their usual time and she was going somewhere first before heading to Luke’s, if she did in fact leave at 1650
But nothing at all to prove or disprove this
i just wonder why she was in that much of a hurry that she dident change the sim card.
-
i just wonder why she was in that much of a hurry that she dident change the sim card.
Why does that mean she was in a hurry? Her sim may not have fitted her mothers phone or there may have been no money on it. It does explain why the texts were deleted though.
-
Why does that mean she was in a hurry? Her sim may not have fitted her mothers phone or there may have been no money on it. It does explain why the texts were deleted though.
Or could just be her mum was using it too and told here to be quick with it. Either way she sent a couple of text and I assume deleted them right away so her mum did not see them.
-
Why does that mean she was in a hurry? Her sim may not have fitted her mothers phone or there may have been no money on it. It does explain why the texts were deleted though.
well it seems to have fitted it at other times
-
well it seems to have fitted it at other times
Not much use if it's not topped up!
-
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.
I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.
Please read back what you have said! You really think every copper has some training in mobile data and how to extract it from phones that change at that time almost monthly! This should have went to forensics to be tested, the aim taken out and given to the RELEVANT department to extract was was needed.
-
This was the same force that allowed the body to be moved, allowed it uncovered overnight,allowed many people to circumvent the crime scene. Allow contaminated articles to be misdescribed!! You still think joe copper back then was trained in every aspect of forensic detail , ffs!!
-
Please read back what you have said! You really think every copper has some training in mobile data and how to extract it from phones that change at that time almost monthly! This should have went to forensics to be tested, the aim taken out and given to the RELEVANT department to extract was was needed.
Every copper didn't extract the data, it just takes one, it's simply connected to a machine and the data is downloaded. Not rocket science - the police can and DO extract phone data https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5558511/Police-download-phones-data-minutes-NO-warrant.html
-
This was the same force that allowed the body to be moved, allowed it uncovered overnight,allowed many people to circumvent the crime scene. Allow contaminated articles to be misdescribed!! You still think joe copper back then was trained in every aspect of forensic detail , ffs!!
I said trained in BASIC forensic methods!!
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.
I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.
-
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.
I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.
(1) Police officers are trained in policing, not forensic analysis. They are supposed to be trained in preserving crime scenes for forensic analysis, not actually carrying it out.
(2) You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages.
Jodi died mid 2003. Mobile phone experts had been around for 8 - 10 years by then. Tell everyone here exactly how you would have "check[ed] text messages, retrospectively, in 2003" - step by step, if you don't mind.
(3)One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off )
So the officer who "seized" Luke's phone, in the back of the police vehicle, while Luke's mum was trying to call him, didn't "switch it off" and then have to "switch it back on" 5 minutes later in order to get Luke to dial his mum's number so that the officer could call Luke's mum to tell her they were taking Luke to the police station (the only legal obligation police officers in Scotland had at the time)?
-
I said trained in BASIC forensic methods!!
I’m sorry but your way off here and no officer will be trained basic anything when it takes more than the basics to make this investigation right.
-
Sandra was there any forensics that came back from the mobile phone itself? Was it tested?
-
(1) Police officers are trained in policing, not forensic analysis. They are supposed to be trained in preserving crime scenes for forensic analysis, not actually carrying it out.
(2)
Jodi died mid 2003. Mobile phone experts had been around for 8 - 10 years by then. Tell everyone here exactly how you would have "check[ed] text messages, retrospectively, in 2003" - step by step, if you don't mind.
(3)
So the officer who "seized" Luke's phone, in the back of the police vehicle, while Luke's mum was trying to call him, didn't "switch it off" and then have to "switch it back on" 5 minutes later in order to get Luke to dial his mum's number so that the officer could call Luke's mum to tell her they were taking Luke to the police station (the only legal obligation police officers in Scotland had at the time)?
I didn't say they were trained in forensic analysis, I said they take part in basic forensic methods - securing a crime scene is part of that, collecting evidence is another BUT as far as mobile phones are concerned they most certainly do extract data or are you suggesting they don't in the face of all of the information available to the contrary? In 2003 I would imagine they looked at the information on the phone itself and just photographed it. In thus case when they realised the texts had been deleted, they passed it to an "expert" to try and recover it - however, given that mobile forensics had only been a field of study dating back to the late 1990's/early 2000's such experts would have been few!
You're asking me how I would have checked text messages in 2003? Seriously? Well, I would make sure my phone was switched on, navigate to 'text messages' and then read them. Much the same as I do now. Why? How do you check yours?
As for your last point, I have no idea what the police officer did with Luke's mobile phone, nor did I suggest I did. My post was general NOT specific!
-
I’m sorry but your way off here and no officer will be trained basic anything when it takes more than the basics to make this investigation right.
I'm not talking about testing the phone for DNA etc. I'm talking about the data!
-
Maybe you should read up on the BASICs these officers hould be schooled in then, they fucked up big time on this one .
-
Maybe you should read up on the BASICs these officers hould be schooled in then, they fucked up big time on this one .
So people keep saying and yet post no proof. Where is the proof that police deleted Luke's text messages?
-
I see we are still debating this. Let’s face it, we know what the truth is anyway.
- Mitchell done it
- Bryson seen him
- Nobody was ever identified or came forward to suggest it was someone else
- He is, and always has been, emotionless
- It was him
- Game over
Mr Stoneman was arrested and charged for all the right reasons. His lack of emotion has been noted time and time again, as has his failure to show or prove to anyone he’s innocent. His satanism and poems about death were not a teenage life stage as stated by Sandra in a YouTube comment due to his adult requests and interests.
The murder was satanic
Her eyelids and throat were mutilated
He shows no emotion and prefers to keep trophies of it.
This debate is pointless.
It was him.
I rest my case.
Have a nice day.
-
Well, that'll be that, then. We can all rest easy because an anonymous poster decides what's fact and what isn't based on ... well, whatever!
Gordo asked Sandra was there any forensics that came back from the mobile phone itself? Was it tested?
From memory, the phone wasn't tested for forensic material, it was only the data that was examined. I've had a mobile phone expert tell me there is no way, with the style of phone (push button keypad) that all forensic traces could be removed. The prosecution claimed Luke's calls to Jodi's mum's landline at 5.30 and again at 5.38 were to "cover his tracks," yet, by their own timings, Luke would still have been at the murder scene at 5.30pm - If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, the stripping, tying and mutilation of her body had to take place thereafter. The claim has always been that the murderer became extremely calm, inflicting post mortem injuries with some deliberation, so not in any rush.
That being the case, if he then used his phone, it seems reasonable to assume the phone would harbour trace evidence of the murder - even the police themselves at the time said the murderer would have been heavily bloodstained.
But no other phones were ever tested for forensic traces either (again, from memory). We know Ferris and Dickie had phones on them that afternoon. We know the bike, by their own admission, was at the V point at 5.15pm but they couldn't say where they were. Wouldn't it have seemed obvious to check out their phones for forensic traces, if for no other reason than they couldn't remember where they were at such a critical time? Of course, by the time they figured out these two had lied about the time they were on the path, there would be no guarantee they still had the same phones anyway (and just about everyone connected to the investigation, except Luke, had at least two mobile numbers - who would ever have been able to tell which phones were in use that evening?)
-
I see we are still debating this. Let’s face it, we know what the truth is anyway.
- Mitchell done it
- Bryson seen him
- Nobody was ever identified or came forward to suggest it was someone else
- He is, and always has been, emotionless
- It was him
- Game over
Mr Stoneman was arrested and charged for all the right reasons. His lack of emotion has been noted time and time again, as has his failure to show or prove to anyone he’s innocent. His satanism and poems about death were not a teenage life stage as stated by Sandra in a YouTube comment due to his adult requests and interests.
The murder was satanic
Her eyelids and throat were mutilated
He shows no emotion and prefers to keep trophies of it.
This debate is pointless.
It was him.
I rest my case.
Have a nice day.
dna evedence and forensics say otherwise your not much of a detective if you cant look those issues.
and brson did not cliam to have seen him see him she couldent identify him in court if you cliam to be a detective do some basic resarch.
-
Caroline said:
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis!
Four and a half hours later, Caroline said:
I didn't say they were trained in forensic analysis, I said they take part in basic forensic methods
Does Caroline not read his/her own posts?
-
dna evedence and forensics say otherwise your not much of a detective if you cant look those issues.
and brson did not cliam to have seen him see him she couldent identify him in court if you cliam to be a detective do some basic resarch.
What do the forensics say?
-
What do the forensics say?
well theres several dna profiles none of the them belong to luke.
thers also the fact that luke had not washe or changed clothe that day.
theres also the fact that jodi back agianst her attacker ut luke dident have a mark on him.
-
Caroline said:
Four and a half hours later, Caroline said:
Does Caroline not read his/her own posts?
Firstly Caroline didn't 'say', Caroline 'wrote' - however. funny you didn't highlight the word 'basic'. I think you know exactly what I meant - they have 'some' training in the basics of forensics. Playing aspects of my posts down doesn't make you right. I live about two miles from the police forensic training college - it's called Harpley Hall. They run various courses from the basics to fully qualified CSI.
https://www.college.police.uk/News/archive/2014jul/Pages/Police-forensics-inder-the-microscope.aspx
By the way, I see you have ignored the FACT that police do indeed extract data from mobile phones - such extraction is part of the forensic process albeit basic is function. Deeper analysis of the data would be done by a lab.
Also, why would I read my own posts? I'm not that self obsessed and how many men do you know called Caroline?
I have already stated that I don't know much about this case but I can already see that it attracts the same kind of zealots as the Bamber case, I was intending to ask you some questions to learn more but I don't think I'll bother because you're too emotionally involved to just present facts! If you want to hurl crap back and forth, I can do that all day but it won't further your mission to prove Luke is innocent. I had an open mind to learn more - now I just can't be arsed - I'm not here to feed your ego!
-
well theres several dna profiles none of the them belong to luke.
thers also the fact that luke had not washe or changed clothe that day.
theres also the fact that jodi back agianst her attacker ut luke dident have a mark on him.
DNA from where?
How is it known that he didn't change his clothes and wasn't there something about a parka?
-
DNA from where?
How is it known that he didn't change his clothes and wasn't there something about a parka?
he was strip searched at the station his fingernials were still dirty as was his hair proving he hadent had a wash.
-
he was strip searched at the station his fingernials were still dirty as was his hair proving he hadent had a wash.
But he still could have changed his clothes or wore the coat over them? Did they take fingernail scrapings?
-
But he still could have changed his clothes or wore the coat over them? Did they take fingernail scrapings?
the dna would still be on his body and under his nails
i asume they would of done fingernail scrapings.
theres also the fact that is body was unmarked dispite the fact jodi had put up a big fight.
-
Proves nothing. He was playing in the woods with pals for hours after the murder. Messing about on a rope swing etc.
and tht acounts for his hair being unwashed does it.
you can dirty dirty from a rope swing can you.
and how does that explian there being marks on his bdy when he was strip searched.
-
Also a source that Jodi must have marked her attackers body, thanks.
ok that can be done.
-
ok that can be done.
This is a section from an appeal document from 2011 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
The pathologist mentions nothing about her putting up a fight, he stated that she had wounds consistent with trying to defend herself. In other words 'defense wounds'.
[5] The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. 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.
-
This is a section from an appeal document from 2011 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
The pathologist mentions nothing about her putting up a fight, he stated that she had wounds consistent with trying to defend herself. In other words 'defense wounds'.
[5] The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. 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.
that is pathologist spea for putting up a fight.
-
that is pathologist spea for putting up a fight.
You're misunderstanding the difference between defense and attack, surely. The poor child was victim to such an horrendous attack, the most she could have done before lapsing into unconsciousness/death -two minutes according to the pathologist- was raise her arms in futile attempt to stave off the repeated blows. I don't know the case as you appear to so I'm sure you'll be able to tell me that the judge said that she'd put up a spirited fight. However, IMO, that NOT what the pathologist implied.
-
You're misunderstanding the difference between defense and attack, surely. The poor child was victim to such an horrendous attack, the most she could have done before lapsing into unconsciousness/death -two minutes according to the pathologist- was raise her arms in futile attempt to stave off the repeated blows. I don't know the case as you appear to so I'm sure you'll be able to tell me that the judge said that she'd put up a spirited fight. However, IMO, that NOT what the pathologist implied.
no i am not as will be made;
-
that is pathologist spea for putting up a fight.
No it isn't - it means she tried to protect her herself from the blows and as such received injuries - like putting her hands in front of her face etc. It has nothing to do with fighting the assailant.
-
no i am not as will be made;
She was struck repeatedly with a blunt object - she had no chance to put up a fight. If you have evidence that refutes what the pathologist said then post it?
-
She was struck repeatedly with a blunt object - she had no chance to put up a fight. If you have evidence that refutes what the pathologist said then post it?
yes she had and she did.
that is what i am just aout to do
-
yes she had and she did.
that is what i am just aout to do
Cheers
-
well heres one ill try find another
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwis6P_cybLjAhU2QEEAHXInD3QQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F1480608%2FJodi-Jones-death-similar-to-Hollywood-killing.html&usg=AOvVaw0EzeGIFf_iGmQ6j07ZgtHl
-
well heres one ill try find another
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwis6P_cybLjAhU2QEEAHXInD3QQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F1480608%2FJodi-Jones-death-similar-to-Hollywood-killing.html&usg=AOvVaw0EzeGIFf_iGmQ6j07ZgtHl
Thanks Nugs, I take 'fought to the death' to mean that she tried to defend herself (to the death), which is obvious by all of the injuries she sustained. Whoever killed her was armed with both a blunt object and a knife, it is plausible that she didn't get near him but in trying to do so, received the defensive injuries.
-
Thanks Nugs, I take 'fought to the death' to mean that she tried to defend herself (to the death), which is obvious by all of the injuries she sustained. Whoever killed her was armed with both a blunt object and a knife, it is plausible that she didn't get near him but in trying to do so, received the defensive injuries.
i belive though do not take this as gospel that there was skin under her fingernails though ill have to onfirm this so i wont state it as fact straght away.
jodi would of been no push over she was big or a girl her age 5 foot 7
luke was actully smaller than her.
-
i belive though do not take this as gospel that there was skin under her fingernails though ill have to onfirm this so i wont state it as fact straght away.
jodi would of been no push over she was big or a girl her age 5 foot 7
luke ws actully smaller than her.
OK
Well, her size might be the reason why she received a severe blow to the 'back' of her head.
-
This is a section from an appeal document from 2011 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
The pathologist mentions nothing about her putting up a fight, he stated that she had wounds consistent with trying to defend herself. In other words 'defense wounds'.
[5] The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. 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.
This catalogue of wounds is in no way conducive to anyone having "fought to the death" or, indeed, being able to/having time to. Whilst she was unlikely to have been compliant with the attack, any actions she took would, I think, have been far more likely to be defensive than aggressive, as suggested by the "extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms". I can't find anything in his report which reads like "pathologist speak for putting up a fight". It was counsel, not he, who used the expression "fought to the death", which might be interpreted as having fought to defend herself.
-
This catalogue of wounds is in no way conducive to anyone having "fought to the death" or, indeed, being able to/having time to. Whilst she was unlikely to have been compliant with the attack, any actions she took would, I think, have been far more likely to be defensive than aggressive, as suggested by the "extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms". I can't find anything in his report which reads like "pathologist speak for putting up a fight". It was counsel, not he, who used the expression "fought to the death", which might be interpreted as having fought to defend herself.
if you read the rtical i posted the patholgist clerly states she fought for her life.
-
if you read the rtical i posted the patholgist clerly states she fought for her life.
The passage is open to interpretation. However, trying to fend off blows would be fighting for your life but you wouldn't need to injure to assailant to do so.
-
The passage is open to interpretation. However, trying to fend off blows would be fighting for your life but you wouldn't need to injure to assailant to do so.
donald ask him did jodi fight for life and he says yes what other interpretation can there be.
-
donald ask him did jodi fight for life and he says yes what other interpretation can there be.
I have just told you, fending off blows is fighting for your life but that doesn't mean the assailant will be injured.
-
I have just told you, fending off blows is fighting for your life but that doesn't mean the assailant will be injured.
there will not necarsrly e injurys but there will be sighns of a strugel
if she jst tried to hold her killer back there would be sighns of that.
-
there will not necarsrly e injurys but there will be sighns of a strugel
if she jst tried to hold her killer back there would be sighns of that.
There were signs of a struggle on her because she was defending herself against weapons but there doesn't need to be any sign on the assailant. If someone hits a person with a Baseball bat, the person being hit will raise their arms to protect their head. The victim will have bruising on their arms where they tried to defend themselves but the attacker doesn't have to have any sign of injury.
-
There were signs of a struggle on her because she was defending herself against weapons but there doesn't need to be any sign on the assailant. If someone hits a person with a Baseball bat, the person being hit will raise their arms to protect their head. The victim will have bruising on their arms where they tried to defend themselves but the attacker doesn't have to have any sign of injury.
if i try and stab you and you grab my arm to stop me do it there will will be evedence of it on my arm even if you dont hurt me there would be marks and inprints.
-
if i try and stab you and you gra my arm to stop me do it there will will e evedence of it on my arm even if you dont hurt there would be marks and inprints.
IF I got near enough to do that but more likely, the person with the knife will lash out and there would be cuts on the victims hands. Of course it is possible for a victim to leave a mark on the assailant but not necessarily.
-
There doesn’t need to be a massive fight for an attacker to be marked, even the most subdued frightened defensive struggle would and could cause marking.
The pathology report stated that Jodi has bruising to her knuckles suggesting that she had fought back at some level. The knife was possibly produced at a letter point in the struggle that almost certainly started as an argument as per the prosecutions cases.
-
There doesn’t need to be a massive fight for an attacker to be marked, even the most subdued frightened defensive struggle would and could cause marking.
The pathology report stated that Jodi has bruising to her knuckles suggesting that she had fought back at some level. The knife was possibly produced at a letter point in the struggle that almost certainly started as an argument as per the prosecutions cases.
If we accept that the fatal attack was the escalation of an argument, the bruising on her knuckles could have occurred then. Therefore they could not be construed as evidence of her having "fought for her life".
-
Yes I agree the likelihood that they occurred during the argument is the most sensible however I’m sure the most sensible explanation for those bruises is that the knuckles were used to defend and came into contact with the attacker.
Jodi could be a feisty character and if she was about to accost Luke regarding his friendship with another girl it’s also likely that she lashed out first, not set in stone but likely.
-
There doesn’t need to be a massive fight for an attacker to be marked, even the most subdued frightened defensive struggle would and could cause marking.
The pathology report stated that Jodi has bruising to her knuckles suggesting that she had fought back at some level. The knife was possibly produced at a letter point in the struggle that almost certainly started as an argument as per the prosecutions cases.
Or that they received a blow from the blunt object! The attacker could easily have escaped without being marked.
-
Some clips from the Frontline Scotland documentary in 2007, including the pathologist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIdhoCwnLc&list=PLZLSdT-uIALVzhEtjFZyHSWqegmyeJPOZ&index=2&t=0s
-
If we accept that the fatal attack was the escalation of an argument, the bruising on her knuckles could have occurred then. Therefore they could not be construed as evidence of her having "fought for her life".
if she had bruised knuckels the mot likely explantion of that is she hit somone rather unlikely that after punching someone theres going to be no sighn of it on them.
-
Yes I agree the likelihood that they occurred during the argument is the most sensible however I’m sure the most sensible explanation for those bruises is that the knuckles were used to defend and came into contact with the attacker.
Jodi could be a feisty character and if she was about to accost Luke regarding his friendship with another girl it’s also likely that she lashed out first, not set in stone but likely.
Of course t's possible that that's how the bruises happened BUT it's not the only explanation.
-
Some clips from the Frontline Scotland documentary in 2007, including the pathologist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIdhoCwnLc&list=PLZLSdT-uIALVzhEtjFZyHSWqegmyeJPOZ&index=2&t=0s
well theres hardly clearly evdence than that.
-
Some clips from the Frontline Scotland documentary in 2007, including the pathologist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIdhoCwnLc&list=PLZLSdT-uIALVzhEtjFZyHSWqegmyeJPOZ&index=2&t=0s
Will watch it later.
-
Something I want to clarify - I've seen a number of posts maintaining that Jodi was struck, or struck repeatedly, with a blunt object and that the attacker also had a knife.
The most that can be said is that she may have been struck with a "blunt object" (other than a fist) - one suggestion, for example, was that the large area of bruising to the back of her head may have been the result of the attacker slamming her head against the wall. The "struck by a branch" suggestion came from SIO Dobbie - there was nothing to support it (for example, no impact staining on any of the branches, only drips). Some of the facial injuries could have been attributable to punching and kicking (the pathologist's opinion). There was also the pathologist's suggestion that bruising to the back of Jodi's hand could have been caused either by a bite, or by her hand coming into contact with someone's teeth during a struggle. Although that suggestion was "ruled out" by another expert, I've never seen the report giving the reasons for ruling it out.
Nobody knows what sort of bladed instrument was used to harm Jodi - the most that can be said is that it was large and sharp.
In terms of the "struggle" during which Jodi was, literally, fighting for her life, there is evidence that the attacker was close enough to her to pull bits of her hair out by the roots - some of those were found entangled in Jodi's hands and arms. One of the worst facial injuries was not postmortem, so, again, very close contact. The distribution of blood spots in the woodland strip and the soil staining on Jodi's socks and hands suggest Jodi was being attacked and breaking away until she was finally overpowered.
-
Will you upload the Sky interview?
well we are more intrested in actull forensic evidence.
-
It’s a bit rich when you were last discussing how violent a room was based on it decoration, but a science so advanced that they have managed to determine its abilities as well as frailties should be considered circumstantial and a joke.
-
C’mon now you wee discussing it with that other guy, I think it was even you who posted the picture and then agreed with him about his analysing
-
Really? I thought you were more interested in circumstantial "evidence" against others, lie detector tests, mobile phone sims, random unrelated students and other such straws to clutch at.
Luckily for Luke the police let the rain wash vital forensic evidence away overnight.
no the forensic evdence tht shows the killer would of been marked and luke was complely unmarked.
-
Will you upload the Sky interview?
I would if I could, but I don't have access to it.
-
Disagree.
ok its only the word of the pahtolgist who examend the body.
-
He didn’t say there wouldn’t be either, that’s why were discussing it.
-
he probely thought he dident need to say it.
seeing as its more less the only logicall conclusion.
-
wow...
You can do better than that mate it’s a boring Sunday evening give me some more of your Feng Shui type evidence , I could do with a laugh
-
Pathologist didn't say there would be marks on the attacker.
OK, so why do you think SIO Dobbie instructed his team to have Luke checked for bruises, scratches, fresh marks on his body that might connect him to the attack on Jodi?
Could it be that they thought there would be evidence of that nature that could be run by experts for their interpretation of what those connections might be? What might the pathologist have been asked to conclude, in his professional opinion, if any such bruises, scratches or marks had been found?
Why do you think they took samples from under Jodi's fingernails? Could it be that they believed there would be evidence that she had scratched her attacker, or grabbed onto items of his clothing that may have left fibres there? Shame the police botched that as well - no results could be obtained from under Jodi's fingernails because they used the wrong techniques.
For what it's worth, it wouldn't have been the pathologist's job to comment on whether the attacker would have had marks on him unless evidence from the post mortem had suggested that (and the botching of the police gathering of evidence had made that impossible).
His comments in the documentary are (just like his evidence in court) dependent on the questions asked of him. He wasn't asked, directly, if he thought the attacker would have marks on him as a result of the tremendous struggle he testified Jodi put up during the attack. What we're left with is working out a reasonable assumption of what he would have said, had he been asked directly.
There's a clue to the possible answer. He wasn't asked, directly, in court, about the likelihood of the attacker having traces of Jodi's blood on him. He was asked directly in the Frontline documentary and his answer was unequivocal - "very likely". He wasn't asked in court what measures the attacker would have had to take to avoid becoming contaminated with forensic evidence from the murder. He was asked, directly, in the Frontline documentary, and his answer was unequivocal - "ensuring that his body and clothing did not come into direct contact with the deceased."
Just because he didn't say something in court or in the documentary doesn't mean he wouldn't have said it, had he been asked!
-
Potential forensic evidence is a lot of noise about nothing. How about the forensic evidence pointing away from Luke ?
-
a lesson on reading comprehension of statements from nugget might be where I draw the line...
(https://imgur.com/mfEZ0mA.gif)
Luke done it, the overwhelming circumstantial (and potential forensic) evidence is overwhelming to the point its almost laughable.
(https://i.imgur.com/6qX20ED.jpg)
^ This freakshow cunt as an adult requesting Satanic books a few years ago and plastering poems about murdering people to his cell walls. Thank fuck he's not out. He's getting worse with age.
I really believe L&B caught a serial killer on their first kill here.
and what's this pish about him living off the grid when he's out. Nae bother Ted Kazynski.
deafeted in debate so resorts to personal abuse.
i dont like quating donald trump but sad.
-
Potential forensic evidence is a lot of noise about nothing. How about the forensic evidence pointing away from Luke ?
what this potential forensic evedence then. gordo
-
Well potentially there’s a lot of evidence that has the potential to be potential evidence .
-
Well potentially there’s a lot of evidence that has the potential to be potential evidence .
but only potentailly or has that been comfirmed yet.
-
So this means we should work on the assumption that he did say it?
No thanks
That's not what I said, is it? You were basing your conclusion on the assertion that the pathologist "didn't say there would be marks on the attacker." I was pointing out that an explanation for that could have been that he wasn't asked since the other evidence and basic common sense points to it being likely that the attacker would have been marked in the "violent struggle."
And you really don't think scraping the victim's fingernails is a given?
Again, not the point being made. The question is why are victim's fingernails scraped? Answer - to see if there is any forensic evidence from the attacker under them. If there was evidence of a violent struggle with the attacker, that's exactly what they would be looking for in fingernail scrapings.
How does
"They checked the victim's fingernails to see if there was"
get twisted into
"They checked the victim's fingernails, so they must have known..."
Behave Sandra.
It's not me who has to behave here, Lithium. Deliberately twisting other people's words isn't reasoned debate, it's game playing. What I actually said in my post was:
Could it be that they believed there would be evidence that she had scratched her attacker, or grabbed onto items of his clothing that may have left fibres there?
Must have known? My whole point was that if the police had found evidence either of marks on Luke's body or forensics under Jodi's nails (or both), the pathologist's comments would have been different because he would have been asked his opinion on what those pieces of evidence meant in relation to the murder. They didn't get that evidence, so there was nothing to ask (in terms of the investigation).
Since there was no post mortem for the defence, there was no real opportunity for them to explore the question about lack of marks on Luke further and none whatsoever to address the fingernail scrapings because the police botched the taking of them.
-
When was the last time Jodi was at her grand over the weekend prior to the killing and what was it they were doing, can you remember ?
-
That's not what I said, is it? You were basing your conclusion on the assertion that the pathologist "didn't say there would be marks on the attacker." I was pointing out that an explanation for that could have been that he wasn't asked since the other evidence and basic common sense points to it being likely that the attacker would have been marked in the "violent struggle."
Again, not the point being made. The question is why are victim's fingernails scraped? Answer - to see if there is any forensic evidence from the attacker under them. If there was evidence of a violent struggle with the attacker, that's exactly what they would be looking for in fingernail scrapings.
It's not me who has to behave here, Lithium. Deliberately twisting other people's words isn't reasoned debate, it's game playing. What I actually said in my post was:
Must have known? My whole point was that if the police had found evidence either of marks on Luke's body or forensics under Jodi's nails (or both), the pathologist's comments would have been different because he would have been asked his opinion on what those pieces of evidence meant in relation to the murder. They didn't get that evidence, so there was nothing to ask (in terms of the investigation).
Since there was no post mortem for the defence, there was no real opportunity for them to explore the question about lack of marks on Luke further and none whatsoever to address the fingernail scrapings because the police botched the taking of them.
The professor didn't say that she put up a 'violent struggle' that was inferred by the reporter. He actually said that she had severe defensive wounds and these are usually consistent with the victim trying to deflect blows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_wound.
Not sure what you mean by 'post mortem for the defense'?
Did you not interview the pathologist for your book? If they didn't, I am surprised that finger nail scrapping were not taken?
-
Been trying to make sense of the time frame, if she was killed at around 1715 to 1730 at the v as it’s believed then I think the joint she had could speak volumes. Where and when did she get it. I’ve tried to list any possibilities below that I can think of that might fit, but I’m sure there are lots I’ve not come up with.
It Takes 20-30 mins to show in blood meaning 1645 to 1710 is the latest she could have had a smoke. It could not be at school, or on way home as friends confirmed this I believe so has to be after, putting her at home, maybe between the time of txting Luke and leaving the house she stole a few puffs from a j her bro had without him knowing before she left. he was smoking cannabis in his room that evening, was he not with his mum when Jodi nipped back upstair before heading out?
Or if not at home it has to be somewhere very close as 1710 latest she could have had this joint. Could she have popped into somewhere close by before heading down the path, is there time?
If she did not go somewhere before down the path then she might have met the boys on the moped at the v at, they could have been having a smoke with Jodi, but if they left at 1715 that only leaves 15 mins for Luke to meet Jodi, argue, fight, kill, strip, mutilate, tidy up, is that enough time?
If it was Luke, earliest Luke could meet Jodi is 1705 and dead at 1725, going by call made to ao at 1732. Only way I can see this fit is If Luke gives her a joint at 1705 soon as she gets to v, maybe a fight broke out, she was unconscious at 1715, so boys on moped did not see or hear anything, once they leave he started to strip her she wakes up, kills her at 1725, can’t be before as joint would not show up in her system if he gave her it, giving him a few mins to strip rest of her, if not already done, cause the injuries that were post-mortem (im not 100% sure what these were)check himself and the scene, taking of any soiled clothes ie parka and start down the path to call ao at 1732, very tight fit, but could it be done in your opinion? I think it’s far to tight a timeframe.
Only other options i can see is she was not killed at 1715 -1730 and can’t be Luke.
-
There is time if the acknowledged time isn’t the 5:15 pm. She had been grounded before once her mum found out she smoked it so I doubt she should have had it at home, saying that it not impossible as you say to knock a few puffs. Then again how can you disabling a child to not do something when you allow that very thing to happen in the house.
-
Been trying to make sense of the time frame, if she was killed at around 1715 to 1730 at the v as it’s believed then I think the joint she had could speak volumes. Where and when did she get it. I’ve tried to list any possibilities below that I can think of that might fit, but I’m sure there are lots I’ve not come up with.
It Takes 20-30 mins to show in blood meaning 1645 to 1710 is the latest she could have had a smoke. It could not be at school, or on way home as friends confirmed this I believe so has to be after, putting her at home, maybe between the time of txting Luke and leaving the house she stole a few puffs from a j her bro had without him knowing before she left. he was smoking cannabis in his room that evening, was he not with his mum when Jodi nipped back upstair before heading out?
Or if not at home it has to be somewhere very close as 1710 latest she could have had this joint. Could she have popped into somewhere close by before heading down the path, is there time?
If she did not go somewhere before down the path then she might have met the boys on the moped at the v at, they could have been having a smoke with Jodi, but if they left at 1715 that only leaves 15 mins for Luke to meet Jodi, argue, fight, kill, strip, mutilate, tidy up, is that enough time?
If it was Luke, earliest Luke could meet Jodi is 1705 and dead at 1725, going by call made to ao at 1732. Only way I can see this fit is If Luke gives her a joint at 1705 soon as she gets to v, maybe a fight broke out, she was unconscious at 1715, so boys on moped did not see or hear anything, once they leave he started to strip her she wakes up, kills her at 1725, can’t be before as joint would not show up in her system if he gave her it, giving him a few mins to strip rest of her, if not already done, cause the injuries that were post-mortem (im not 100% sure what these were)check himself and the scene, taking of any soiled clothes ie parka and start down the path to call ao at 1732, very tight fit, but could it be done in your opinion? I think it’s far to tight a timeframe.
Only other options i can see is she was not killed at 1715 -1730 and can’t be Luke.
I understand the complexity of this case but much of what you said makes sense to a point. Imagine though what happens at the scene let alone getting to the point where the murder occurs. A fight ensues and there is evidence to suggest Jodi is knocked unconscious , at this point the stripping may have began but then Jodi get away as the main point with the most blood is further into the woodland area. She has to be moved back and then calmly mutilated post mortem. The scene then has to be cleaned and Luke has to make his way home to clean himself up to be seen at the end of the road at 15:50.
There is also evidence to suggest this time isn’t accurate as the boys claimed they would normally wait till the father was home before going on to play on their bikes. The father usually came home around the 17:30-35 so it’s possibly earlier that the boys so Luke. How does he do it!!
-
i allways thught that 530 or so would be to early to comit a murder in a public place without being seen
as we know fought back she must of made a noise.
-
again with the "must have"?
How must she have made a noise to fight back and defend herself?
She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force before she knew she was being murdered.
Defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We're talking minutes here before she's unconscious. Not that hard to believe no one was passing at that exact moment even if she was shouting or something or whatever you're implying she "Must" have been doing while fighting back.
On the contrary, blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away after realising what was unfolding.
how do you know we are minutes talking theres no evdence of how long it was the only person who would know would be the person who killed her..
-
OK no one has ever been murdered during the day.
well its very hard to comit a murder in a public place in a public place in broad daylight without witness.
-
She was smoking weed that lunchtime at school at the china gardens.
Even if the murder wasn't 1715-1730, this doesn't eliminate Luke.
If correct, that would account for it. But I thought her friends confirmed they didn’t smoke at school, lunch or after school that day, meaning it was more than likely to between the time she got home and was killed, if the police guess at the time of death was correct then that’s between 1600 and 1710 apx.
-
Please bear with me - I'll try to get to everyone's points this evening - it' likely to be a long post, though!
-
again with the "must have"?
How must she have made a noise to fight back and defend herself?
She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force before she knew she was being murdered.
Defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We're talking minutes here before she's unconscious. Not that hard to believe no one was passing at that exact moment even if she was shouting or something or whatever you're implying she "Must" have been doing while fighting back.
On the contrary, blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away after realising what was unfolding.
I must admit I agree with you here!! There’s no need to make a noise if you know the person who is attacking you, until that point where even they exceed the ability to produce a knife and actually kill you. I don’t believe Jodi was expecting what was to come but then again that’s pretty certain wether it was luke or someone else.
To say that no one was there to hear her is crazy though mate when two close family members/friends were exactly where the murder took place at the exact time. Unless your trying to say that’s not the case?
-
again with the "must have"?
How must she have made a noise to fight back and defend herself?
She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force before she knew she was being murdered.
Defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We're talking minutes here before she's unconscious. Not that hard to believe no one was passing at that exact moment even if she was shouting or something or whatever you're implying she "Must" have been doing while fighting back.
On the contrary, blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away after realising what was unfolding.
Can you explain to why you know the injury that might have made Jodi unconscious was to the back of the head????
-
I must admit I agree with you here!! There’s no need to make a noise if you know the person who is attacking you, until that point where even they exceed the ability to produce a knife and actually kill you. I don’t believe Jodi was expecting what was to come but then again that’s pretty certain wether it was luke or someone else.
To say that no one was there to hear her is crazy though mate when two close family members/friends were exactly where the murder took place at the exact time. Unless your trying to say that’s not the case?
he you ever seen a fight happen in complete silence.
-
I never said complete silence! In the end there was a supposed argument so no there was noise but not necessarily enough to alert people that someone was in danger.
-
That's not true. Alister Leitch testified to smoking hash with Luke and Jodi in the chinese gardens on the day of the murder. school lunchtime.
why have you avioded gordos qustion.
-
Can you explain to why you know the injury that might have made Jodi unconscious was to the back of the head????
yes how do you know that lithum
-
I'm saying it's obviously not the case or they would have.
The cyclist heard it.
He didn't encounter any moped at the V.
The bike was witnessed there by more then one individual, it was part of the court case. Jelly was most probably mistaken in what time he was one the path. Jodi was there at the same time as those two on the bike that’s for sure, she didn’t make a noise because she didn’t expect things to get to the extent they became.
-
oh right
cos i did it obviously
You were pretty clear as to what happened! She was running away and received a blow to the back of the head is what you said. Pretty easy can you explain why you know this!
-
So you saying you basically came up with it?
-
Was her throat not cut from behind when she was trying to crawl away after being struck? Hence no blood spurt on Luke?
The way I picture it is an altercation became physical, Jodi tried to get away, was struck from behind, and ultimately killed with the cut to the carotid while incapacitated, defenceless and on the ground, possibly barely conscious or unconscious. I believe the tying up and the mutilation were all post-mortem and was just Luke's morbid curiosity after the fact, when he found himself there with a lifeless body. Or maybe even the staging of a random lunatic murder to hide the fact it was a domestic got out of hand...
Just postulating same way nugnug apparently "Knows" she must have marked her attacker and must have been making a load of noise.
He must've been there eh.
I'm sure you have your own scenarios gordo?
You and nugnug are really doing your side no favours by implying it must have been me because I'm postulating. Aren't we all.
The tying up couldn’t be post-mortem as the blood on the trousers is testimony to that, it was not on the twisted parts or in the tied areas of the trousers but substantial enough to suggest it was part of the murder itself
-
In saying that I have been discussing this case for nearly 16 years and although I know the injuries inflicted I’m not of the same opinion. I certainly wouldn’t put out as fact that she had been incapacitated due to a blow on the back of the head while trying to run away. If you do indeed believe you have a better understanding of the case than nugnug I don’t remember him ever having said that either
-
So Jodi put up a violent fight to the end but ended up with her jeans off and kneeled there letting someone tie her up?
Jodi put a fight up that’s for sure! She was unconscious at some point also as testimony I feel from the blood and saliva on the inside of the hood of the hoodie she had on. Once that was the case the stripping tying etc would follow. She was not dead at that point though.
-
I don't think I've put anything out as fact. I'm just an anonymous forum poster discussing a case the same as you.
I can get that also as we all have our own theories and thought about the possibilities of that night. We might come to things from a different angle and belief but in the end it’s not fair to ourselves to put that into prose. You are an intelligent person and when things that have never came up before suddenly enter the discussion it’s hard to simple dismiss them as merely a mistake.
-
I can get that also as we all have our own theories and thought about the possibilities of that night. We might come to things from a different angle and belief but in the end it’s not fair to ourselves to put that into prose. You are an intelligent person and when things that have never came up before suddenly enter the discussion it’s hard to simple dismiss them as merely a mistake.
I have seen similar comments about blow to the back of the head.
-
Really! Where as the police only surmised that there was a blow to the head. The fact Jodi was unconscious kinda supported the conclusion but exactly where to the head I don’t remember ever coming out.
-
It was discussed at trial and isn't new information at all.
In a circumstantial case the finer details of where the blow to the head took place was discussed at trial? I honestly don’t remember that ever being put forward.
-
Really! Where as the police only surmised that there was a blow to the head. The fact Jodi was unconscious kinda supported the conclusion but exactly where to the head I don’t remember ever coming out.
Surely all of the head injuries will be detailed in the autopsy report?
-
I’m not sure about that but I would expect so to, I wouldn’t expect lithium to be party to the report though!
-
I’m not sure about that but I would expect so to, I wouldn’t expect lithium to be party to the report though!
No, but things do get leaked and perhaps like me, he just read it. Thing is, she did have extensive head injuries so likely did receive a blow to the back of the head. Perhaps Sandra has seen the autopsy report?
-
I’m not disagreeing with the head injuries, she had extensive bruising to the head and areas of hair being Luke’s out. She also had signs of being struck with a blunt instrument possible causing unconsciousness but to be that precise!!
-
I don’t think so as it become quite cheap and all the proceeds go to the long road to justice campaign. The charges or fees for it are also crippling
-
I’m not sure about that but I would expect so to, I wouldn’t expect lithium to be party to the report though!
unless he is one of loathen and borders finist.
-
Good morning. As you’re about to see, keeping up with this rate of posts/questions is extremely difficult – if I’ve missed anything, let me know and I’ll try to get back to it as soon as I can.
Caroline said, The pathologist didn’t say she put up a violent struggle, that was inferred by the reporter
then quoted Wikipedia in support.
Donald Findlay asked the pathologist, at trial, if Jodi's injuries suggested she had "fought literally to the death". Prof Busuttil said: "Indeed so, yes." Findlay pointed out that when a doctor examined Luke, "not a bump, scratch, bruise or abrasion" was found which could be linked to the time Jodi died. Busuttil replied "That is so."
not sure what you mean by post mortem for the defence
I mean exactly that – the defence had no opportunity to carry out its own examination of the body because Jodi was buried 10 weeks after the murder, before any arrest was made. Therefore, the defence had to rely on information produced by the Crown.
Did you not interview the pathologist for your book?
Not for Innocents Betrayed, no. I did speak to him when I was writing No Smoke, though.
If they didn’t, I am surprised that fingernail scrapping were not taken
I didn’t say they weren’t taken, I said they used the wrong technique and therefore destroyed the opportunity for forensic evidence to be properly recovered.
Bullseye asked about timings – I’ll answer that in a separate post.
Lithium said She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force… blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away
No, it doesn’t! The only mention of Jodi being rendered semi or unconscious in the pathology report was in relation to strangulation, not blunt force injury. The pathologist suggested the blow to the back of the head may, in fact have been caused by Jodi’s head being hit against e.g the wall.
The suggestion that she was hit over the head with a “blunt instrument” came from Craig Dobbie, who suggested she was hit with a large branch – there was zero evidence to support that. None of the recovered branches had impact staining – they all had only drips or spots of blood, none of them consistent with a blow.
She was smoking weed that lunchtime in the China Gardens
Even if she was (and the evidence of Alistair Leitch isn’t specific about whether Jodi was smoking), the cannabis in her system, according to the toxicologist, had been ingested less than 2 hours before she died - if the lunchtime cannabis accounts for the cannabis in her system when she was killed, she must have died before 3pm – while she was still at school.
defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We’re talking minutes here before she was unconscious
According to the pathology report, Jodi was strangled into semi or unconsciousness at some point during the attack. There was evidence to suggest punching (e.g. lip burst on the inside by being brought into contact with teeth, bruising to eye and temple area), kicking/stamping (including a possible partial shoe imprint on Jodi’s skin), dragging by the hair (hair pulled out by the roots, soil staining on socks), struggle taking place in different areas of the woodland strip (distribution of blood spots), walking or crawling on soil without shoes (soil staining on socks, soil in fingernails) – none of this could have happened when Jodi was semi or unconscious or “within a couple of minutes” – in particular, the bruising had developed and was visible, which is rarely immediate. Nor could the deep defence wounds to her arms, one of which would, in itself, have been life threatening, according to the pathologist. So either, the strangling was the last thing to happen before the cut-throat injuries that killed her (and after all of the above), or it happened at an earlier point and Jodi regained consciousness and tried (again) to get away from her attacker. It’s unlikely Jodi would have been able to crawl after the injuries to her arms.
the cyclist heard it
Not in his original statements he didn’t. He initially said he heard a sound behind the wall “like branches moving.” He stopped to listen, but heard no more. That was later changed to “a struggling sound” which was changed again to “a strangling sound.” This is the guy who said, in his evidence, that he was extremely nervous because he felt like the police were treating him as a suspect, in response to Donald Findlay’s questions about how the sound of branches moving became “a struggling sound” and then a “strangling sound” – make of that what you will.
was her throat not cut from behind as she tried to crawl away after being struck, hence no blood spurt on Luke?
Almost certainly not. The prosecution contention was that her throat was cut from behind while she was sitting or kneeling, facing the wall. For this to be even remotely possible, she would have to be kneeling (because of the distribution of blood on the trousers). But, if this was the final act, after the blows to the arms, etc, it’s unlikely Jodi would have been able to sit or kneel on her own – the attacker would have had to hold her in that position making it extremely unlikely he would have escaped bloodstaining (by then, Jodi was bleeding heavily from a number of wounds – lip, face, arms). If she was trying to crawl away, that had to be before the injuries to the arms. There is, in fact, no solid evidence to suggest Jodi’s throat was cut from behind – for example, the cuts were in both directions laterally, not the result of a “sawing motion,” but slash injuries. It would be virtually impossible to inflict such injuries from behind.
surely all the head injuries will be detailed in the autopsy report
Yes, they are. All of the injuries are. I’m not sure what that adds to the discussion. There was a large area of bruising to the back of the head caused by “blunt force” but not necessarily a blow by an object. There was extensive bruising to Jodi’s face, cheek, jaw, temple, forehead, hands, the cut from her mouth to her ear was inflicted while she was alive, the knife wound that pierced her tonsil was inflicted post mortem, it’s unclear whether the cut to her earlobe or the puncture wound in her forehead were inflicted before or after death. Clumps of hair were pulled out by the roots, some of these were found entangled in her hands and fingers.
I’ll come back to the timing of the stripping and tying of Jodi’s body in a separate post.
-
Been trying to make sense of the time frame, if she was killed at around 1715 to 1730 at the v as it’s believed then I think the joint she had could speak volumes. Where and when did she get it. I’ve tried to list any possibilities below that I can think of that might fit, but I’m sure there are lots I’ve not come up with.
The prosecution contention is that Jodi was killed at exactly 5.15pm, in order to fit with their other timings. A time frame of between 5.15 and 5.30 makes all of that timing untenable, but that's another discussion in its own right. I, too, believe the joint she had is significant.
It Takes 20-30 mins to show in blood meaning 1645 to 1710 is the latest she could have had a smoke. It could not be at school, or on way home as friends confirmed this I believe so has to be after, putting her at home, maybe between the time of txting Luke and leaving the house she stole a few puffs from a j her bro had without him knowing before she left. he was smoking cannabis in his room that evening, was he not with his mum when Jodi nipped back upstair before heading out?
Since the cannabis was ingested "less than 2 hours before she died" according to the toxicologist, if Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, the latest she could have smoked was 4.45 - 4.55pm. If she was the person seen by Bryson at 4.54pm, she wasn't smoking then. She wasn't smoking when she was listening to the Rod Stewart track around 4.40pm, (the last text in the exchange with Luke was at 4.38) so there's only a tiny window of opportunity for her to have smoked that joint if she was killed at 5.15pm.
It's difficult to know exactly when Jodi "nipped back upstairs" because her mum's statements kept changing. In her early statements, she said Jodi came in from school, dropped her bag in the hall and went upstairs. She came down later (about 5 o'clock) and announced she was going out. Later statements said Jodi came in from school, chatted to her mum, may have gone into the kitchen for something to eat before going upstairs, coming back down, going back up again and then leaving (this is the statement in which Judith said Jodi was sitting on the couch "trying to talk to me" - Judith was telling her to "be quiet, shoo and go out." She later explained this as being her way of letting Jodi know she was no longer grounded.) The final account was that Jodi came in from school, went upstairs to get changed then came down and sat in the living room with her mother and brother, chatting, and they listened to the Rod Stewart track. In this account, Jodi went back upstairs "for about three minutes," came back down, kissed her mum, asked her to keep some lasagne for later and left. There are no other statements to confirm or refute any of this - AO, for example, said he heard the door banging when he was in the toilet and assumed that was Jodi leaving (meaning he'd been in the toilet approximately 10 minutes, if the timings are correct), but he didn't say he heard anyone going upstairs or coming back down.
The amount of cannabis in Jodi's system suggested she'd smoked a joint (not just a few puffs)
Or if not at home it has to be somewhere very close as 1710 latest she could have had this joint. Could she have popped into somewhere close by before heading down the path, is there time?
Probably not. If she left home at 4.50pm and was the person seen by AB at 4.54pm, there are just 21 minutes for her to get from the entrance to the path to the V break, over the wall, for the whole attack to take place (see my previous post) before the fatal wound at 5.15pm. She would have needed around 10 - 11 minutes minimum to get to the V point (police timings), leaving just 11 minutes for her to have gone elsewhere first, smoked a joint and then for all of the above to have happened.
If she did not go somewhere before down the path then she might have met the boys on the moped at the v at, they could have been having a smoke with Jodi, but if they left at 1715 that only leaves 15 mins for Luke to meet Jodi, argue, fight, kill, strip, mutilate, tidy up, is that enough time?
The evidence doesn't support them leaving the V point at 5.15pm. According to their amended statements, they got back to Dickie's house "about 5.30pm" - it would only have taken them a couple of minutes on the moped, which, according to these statements, they'd got going again.
There were exactly 17 minutes between 5.15pm and Luke's call to Jodi's landline at 5.32pm. Again, in view of what we know about the attack prior to the fatal wound and the post mortem events (stripping, tying, mutilation etc), if Luke did it in this timescale, it raises a number of questions quite aside from the timing (which, I believe is too tight.)
(Why would he take the risk of alerting Jodi's family that she was not where she was supposed to be at 5.32pm - he couldn't have known the call would go unanswered, or that Jodi's family wouldn't have immediately sent someone out to look for her, since she'd been gone 40 minutes by then).
Other questions:
Who was the male seen at the Easthouses end of the path if Luke wasn't in the woodland strip until 5.15pm?
If Luke was the person seen by AB, then he would have been present if Jodi met the boys on the moped - they have never said they met either Jodi or Luke that day, even though their bike was propped against the wall at 5.15pm and they didn't get back to Dickie's house until "about 5.30pm"
If Jodi wasn't killed until nearer 5.30pm, allowing for all the post mortem events, etc, the person seen by Fleming and Walsh on the Newbattle Road (originally timed at "about quarter to six") would have been there literally within a few minutes of stripping, tying and mutilating Jodi's body, yet there was no sign of him being agitated, trying to flee, being bloodstained - he was simply standing there, looking at the pavement.
If it was Luke, earliest Luke could meet Jodi is 1705 and dead at 1725, going by call made to ao at 1732. Only way I can see this fit is If Luke gives her a joint at 1705 soon as she gets to v, maybe a fight broke out, she was unconscious at 1715, so boys on moped did not see or hear anything, once they leave he started to strip her she wakes up, kills her at 1725, can’t be before as joint would not show up in her system if he gave her it, giving him a few mins to strip rest of her, if not already done, cause the injuries that were post-mortem (im not 100% sure what these were)check himself and the scene, taking of any soiled clothes ie parka and start down the path to call ao at 1732, very tight fit, but could it be done in your opinion? I think it’s far to tight a timeframe.
Depends what you mean about the earliest Luke could have met Jodi - there was never a suggestion that he met her "at the V" (although, of course, that's a possibility that should have been checked out). As previously stated, if Jodi was the person seen at 4.54pm by AB, the earliest she could have arrived at the V, as you say, is 5.05pm but, that being the case, there are only 10 minutes left for everything, up to the fatal blow (and including the smoking of a joint) to take place. (On another note, I don't use cannabis, but from what I know of others who do, would it not be strange for such a violent argument to erupt after two people had just smoked a joint?)
If, as the evidence suggests, the person seen by AB was not Jodi, but the person seen by other witnesses on the Easthouses Road at about 5.05pm was Jodi, this pushes the earliest time Jodi could have reached the V point to 5.17pm (allowing the extra two minutes for her to reach the entrance to the path). If she smoked at that point, the earliest she could have been killed (and have cannabis detectable in her system) is 5.37pm - just one minute before Luke's 5.38 call to the landline.
Both of these possible times of death (5.25pm and 5.37pm) then run into difficulties with the various sightings at the Newbattle end. The original timing of Fleming and Walsh's sighting was about quarter to six. The post mortem events were not "rushed," according to the prosecution case - the attacker became "icily calm" and, according to the pathologist, the post mortem injuries were inflicted with some precision and deliberation. The claimed post mortem events are:
Possible further cuts to the throat after the fatal wound (there were betweeen 12 and 20 cuts - we don't know which one was the fatal one inflicted at 5.15pm and neither do the police).
Jodi's t shirt and bra cut and pulled off
Her trousers and underwear taken off (not cut)
Her hands tied behind her back with her trousers
Her abdomen and breast slashed
Cuts to her eyelids inflicted (not penetrating through to the eyeballs)
Knife pushed into her mouth, piercing a tonsil
Body moved from the foot of the wall to the position, at right angles to the wall, where she was found
Other post mortem events which would have to have occurred if Luke was the killer:
Scene cleared of any DNA/forensic evidence that would place him there (leaving the DNA of others and various other forensic traces, e.g. short, colourless hairs)
Disposal of any bloodstained clothing
Removal of every trace of the murder from himself
Disposal of the murder weapon.
If he was the person seen by Fleming and Walsh, allowing the 5 minutes he'd need to get from the scene to the Newbattle Road, he had either 15 minutes if ToD was 5.25pm based on the discredited Bryson sighting, or 3 minutes if the ToD was 5.37pm, based on the more realistic 5.05pm sighting on the Easthouses Road, to achieve all of that. We know, for certain, he was seen sitting on a wall at the end of his street at about five to six - if he was still in possession of the clothing he needed destroyed at 5.45pm (wearing the parka in plain view, according to F & W) he had just 10 minutes to get from the Newbattle end of the path to his home (7 minutes at a brisk pace), dump the clothing, get himself forensically clean and be back on the wall (another 2 minutes at a brisk pace) at five to six.
Only other options i can see is she was not killed at 1715 -1730 and can’t be Luke.
I agree - not only is there nothing to support the claim that Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, all of the credible evidence points away from that as ToD.
-
How could the tying of the jeans be post-mortem when there was no blood in the bounds of the knot but on the surface of the jeans themselves ? She had to have been wearing the t-shirt when killed as it was saturated so certainly partially clothed at the time of the murder.
-
Hi Sandra, thanks for the reply - a lot to digest but the point about the defense not being able to have their own post mortem? A post mortem isn't for the prosecution or the defense - the pathologist is independent of the police. I know this is the case for England and Wales, is this not the case in Scotland?
-
Thanks for the info Sandra. I think every answer just raises another load of questions, sorry lol.
If it was a full joint that usually takes a wee bit time to smoke, more than a quick couple, so I don’t think that could be at home going on what you have said. A quick couple of puffs maybe but not a full j, so places her on route to the path or on the path itself. I can’t see her walking along her street puffing on a j at 5pm (or anytime), so more likely to be the path. Giving the time for the weed to show in her system I just feel it’s too tight a time frame to be Luke imo.
I’ve been a smoker for over 20 years. Never seen anyone arguments turn violent because of weed, unless they were fighting over who it belongs too or money being due, IMO never turned violent due to smoking, drink yes, smoking no. But I have heard if you have violent tendencies it can enhance that, I’ve just never witnessed it, more the complete opposite, too stoned to bother lol.
Regards the 2 boys on the bikes, Gordo had said “There is also evidence to suggest this time isn’t accurate as the boys claimed they would normally wait till the father was home before going on to play on their bikes. The father usually came home around the 17:30-35 so it’s possibly earlier that the boys so Luke. How does he do it!!”
If this is correct, was there any other sightings of Luke after this time, just always wondered what other theory’s police were looking at and any other times of death. I.e jodi did meet Luke at end of his street, went back to the v for a smoke, giving him an hour between 6 and 7 to carry it all out. Not saying that’s what I think happened just wondered if this was ever a working theory.
-
Some more questions, totally understand if you don’t have the time to answer, must take up so much time replying to everything on here.
Did the guy on the bike on the path smell any weed?
Did the police have any other reason to put tod at 1715, did they know about the 2 boys on moped when this time was accepted or was this info brought to light after?
Was there then or has there been since, any other possible sightings of Jodi or Luke that evening, or anything not used by police?
Was there any footprints at the scene? From the possible partial shoe print were they able to pull any info from that, what type of shoe it may have been, or size.
I think it’s possible, tho unlikely, the killer was not covered in blood but I think their shoes would certainly have had blood on them. Was there ever a pair of Luke’s shoes they suggested were missing? Also their hands would be covered in blood I think. If they wore gloves then that’s premeditated as it was summer so no need to have gloves on them, personally I think it was spur of the moment so no gloves. I was wondering if there is a steam or water near the area where they may have cleaned up a little?
I think the knife and any soiled clothing could have simply been put in a bin. Did the police not allow the bin men to empty the bins in the area very soon after the murder?
-
How could the tying of the jeans be post-mortem when there was no blood in the bounds of the knot but on the surface of the jeans themselves ? She had to have been wearing the t-shirt when killed as it was saturated so certainly partially clothed at the time of the murder.
That's what I don't understand Gordo - the lack of blood in the knots suggests they were tied before blood was shed, but the prosecution contention is that they were tied after Jodi was dead. It doesn't make any sense. Likewise, whether she was sitting or kneeling at the wall when the cut-throat injuries were inflicted, it's highly unlikely that the jeans would have escaped blood staining, with the exception of a few drips to the bottom back of one of the legs.
-
Hi Sandra, thanks for the reply - a lot to digest but the point about the defense not being able to have their own post mortem? A post mortem isn't for the prosecution or the defense - the pathologist is independent of the police. I know this is the case for England and Wales, is this not the case in Scotland?
Apologies, I should have worded that more clearly. Yes, the pathologist is independent of the police, but the prosecution case is based on the Crown's interpretation of the post mortem results in conjunction with the other evidence supplied to them by the police. If there are contentious issues in that interpretation, it is open for the defence to request a second examination (rather than simply a second opinion), but, since Jodi was buried 10 weeks after the murder, that possibility was lost.
-
Regards the 2 boys on the bikes, Gordo had said “There is also evidence to suggest this time isn’t accurate as the boys claimed they would normally wait till the father was home before going on to play on their bikes. The father usually came home around the 17:30-35 so it’s possibly earlier that the boys so Luke. How does he do it!!”
If this is correct, was there any other sightings of Luke after this time, just always wondered what other theory’s police were looking at and any other times of death. I.e jodi did meet Luke at end of his street, went back to the v for a smoke, giving him an hour between 6 and 7 to carry it all out. Not saying that’s what I think happened just wondered if this was ever a working theory.
It's never been a working theory, Bullseye, because they were looking at tod of 5.15pm from very early in the investigation. To my knowledge, no other time of death was considered - an expert was brought in to identify a "window of opportunity" for Luke to have been the killer (but not for anyone else) - she pinpointed 5.15pm and that was the time they ran with.
If Jodi met Luke at the end of his street after 6pm (the boys on the bikes didn't see her either on their way down the Newbattle Road or with Luke on the wall at the end of the street), you'd then be looking at the two of them getting to the V point without being seen by anyone (they could have gone through the Abbey grounds and into the woodland strip from there, but that would bring them out at the Easthouses end of the path at the opposite side of the wall. To get from there to the V point (behind the wall, not in front of it) would then mean they'd have to make their way back down towards Newbattle - it would take them about 10 - 12 minutes to the top of the path from the Abbey at a "brisk pace", they'd need another 7 - 10 minutes to get down from there to the V point, leaving around 30 minutes for the attack, murder, clean up to happen before Luke made his way back to the Abbey to meet his friends. In that same time, he'd have to dispose of all incriminating evidence and remove all traces of the attack from himself, since his friends noticed nothing at all untoward about him that evening.
No-one has ever come forward to say they saw a couple matching Luke and Jodi's descriptions walking up the Newbattle Road around 6pm that evening, or anyone matching Jodi's description walking down the Newbattle Road between say, 5.50 and 6pm, even though, initially, the "window" police were focusing on for witnesses was between 5pm and 10pm.
It would also beg the question, where was Jodi between 4.50pm, when it is claimed she left home, and 6pm (if she met Luke at the end of his street then)? That's a period of 70 minutes for a walk that should only have taken her 20 - 25 minutes.
-
Some more questions, totally understand if you don’t have the time to answer, must take up so much time replying to everything on here.
This will have to be my last lot for now!!!
Did the guy on the bike on the path smell any weed?
He never mentioned it in any of his statements.
Did the police have any other reason to put tod at 1715, did they know about the 2 boys on moped when this time was accepted or was this info brought to light after?
No, the boys on the moped lied about the time they were at the V point and it wasn't until weeks later that the truth was uncovered - tod had been decided by then. Unfortunately, the truth of the time they were on the path was available to the investigation, it just wasn't properly followed up on until weeks later.
Was there then or has there been since, any other possible sightings of Jodi or Luke that evening, or anything not used by police?
That's a big question! There was loads of information not used by the police, but, if there were other possible sightings of Luke or Jodi that evening, they were never released to the defence.
Was there any footprints at the scene? From the possible partial shoe print were they able to pull any info from that, what type of shoe it may have been, or size.
From memory, there were 11 footwear marks identified, casts taken of just 4. No usable information was discovered (or, if it was, it wasn't released to the defence). The soles of Luke's boots had very distinctive treads - if marks from those had been found close to the body, that would have been quite strong evidence, but, since such evidence was never produced, we have to assume there was none (otherwise they would have used it.
I think it’s possible, tho unlikely, the killer was not covered in blood but I think their shoes would certainly have had blood on them. Was there ever a pair of Luke’s shoes they suggested were missing? Also their hands would be covered in blood I think. If they wore gloves then that’s premeditated as it was summer so no need to have gloves on them, personally I think it was spur of the moment so no gloves. I was wondering if there is a steam or water near the area where they may have cleaned up a little?
None of Luke's shoes/boots were ever claimed to be missing. The only gloves ever to come into the investigation were the ones found in Yvonne Walker's flat - they were "damp and muddy" having been immersed in water,but not run through a washing machine. Ferris claimed he'd worn them the previous weekend and denied any attempt had been made to hide them. No gloves attributable to Luke were ever claimed to be missing.
There's the Mary Burn (accessible at the Easthouses end of the path) or the River Esk where a person could, feasibly, have washed hands. But I think, considering Busuttil's comments in the Frontline documentary, it would have taken more than just hand washing in the river to remove all evidence of the attack.
I think the knife and any soiled clothing could have simply been put in a bin. Did the police not allow the bin men to empty the bins in the area very soon after the murder?
Possibly, but what bin, where and when? Anyone sharing a home with others and putting clothing and a knife in a bin would be taking the risk of another family member noticing. The person would still have to get from the murder scene to a bin, carrying the murder weapon and carrying (or wearing) blood stained clothing - it was broad daylight and Jodi could have been found at any minute. The bin collections for Easthouses/Newtongrange did go ahead as normal the following morning, that's correct.
-
Apologies, I should have worded that more clearly. Yes, the pathologist is independent of the police, but the prosecution case is based on the Crown's interpretation of the post mortem results in conjunction with the other evidence supplied to them by the police. If there are contentious issues in that interpretation, it is open for the defence to request a second examination (rather than simply a second opinion), but, since Jodi was buried 10 weeks after the murder, that possibility was lost.
OK, thanks again, I will reply later but can I ask if you have seen the pathologist report and if you know where on Jodie's head was the contusion (referred to by the pathologist) located?
-
There's the Mary Burn (accessible at the Easthouses end of the path) or the River Esk where a person could, feasibly, have washed hands. But I think, considering Busuttil's comments in the Frontline documentary, it would have taken more than just hand washing in the river to remove all evidence of the attack.
Possibly, but what bin, where and when? Anyone sharing a home with others and putting clothing and a knife in a bin would be taking the risk of another family member noticing. The person would still have to get from the murder scene to a bin, carrying the murder weapon and carrying (or wearing) blood stained clothing - it was broad daylight and Jodi could have been found at any minute. The bin collections for Easthouses/Newtongrange did go ahead as normal the following morning, that's correct.
If the bins were emptied the following day any bin they passed could be the one they used. If they remove jacket/top, roll up the knife/weapon in this, left the scene and dump in a bin, either domestic or commercial. I don’t think they would put it in their own bin, just some random bin they passed on the route they took ASAP after the murder. They might have been noticed with a bloody top or jacket (and a weapon!) but not many would notice blood on the lower trousers or shoes on someone they passed in the street. Also that’s why I was wondering if there was somewhere near they could wash their hands, not to get rid of evidence as such but just so they were clean enough to go un-noticed by anyone they might have passed on their route to wherever they went next.
I just can’t see how the killer could not have some blood on their hands/gloves, sleeves/arms and their top and surely would be worried they could be seen by someone. I know some say it’s possible and I suppose it is, but really what are the chances of that?
No trace on Jodi I can understand as she was left in the rain (how that can happen I’ve no idea, forget about preserving a crime scene, how about treating her like a young girl and a human being!!) But nothing on Luke, his home etc seems unlikely if he did it. Imo he would need to have had a shower to be sure as he could be that he was clean, but when he was at police station he was dirty and grubby. And not even the smallest trace of anything was found. The places Luke was spotted between 1740 and 6pm, were these ever tested for any trace evidence, for transfer from Luke directly after he is meant to have killed her?
How far a walk is it from Luke’s house to the caravan site, I assume quite far, too far for him to have cleaned up there and got back in time to meet his mates? And I’m sure the police would have carried out a full search there also.
-
Yeah the caravan was closer to Jodi. He must have been in a rush also to do everything needed and I’m still not sure it’s possible to completely decontaminate yourself from a crime like that.
There was a case where someone was wrongly convicted of microscopic bloodlets being found on him. These were caused when he lifted the body and these were expelled from the lungs. Jodi has been moved and it’s that type of dna that he can’t see that would be impossible to remove and leave other samples there.
-
Yeah the caravan was closer to Jodi. He must have been in a rush also to do everything needed and I’m still not sure it’s possible to completely decontaminate yourself from a crime like that.
There was a case where someone was wrongly convicted of microscopic bloodlets being found on him. These were caused when he lifted the body and these were expelled from the lungs. Jodi has been moved and it’s that type of dna that he can’t see that would be impossible to remove and leave other samples there.
That’s what first tweaked my interest in the case, I always assumed there was some dna linking Luke to the murder, when I read there wasn’t, with it being such a bloody murder, her being found so quick after being reported missing and the fact they had Luke in the police station that night taking samples and clothes, that they would have found something, no matter how small but they didn’t so I started to read up and the more I read the more concerned I got that this was an unsafe conviction. Hence all the questions, I’m still trying to make it fit to Luke. I hope it was Luke, but IMO it looks more like it wasn’t, just want something more than circumstantial evidence based on a time of death best guess by the police. I use to agree Luke “seems the type” and his reading material and stuff he has been reported as writing in jail makes him look even worse, but I’ve learnt from past mistakes of believing all I read in the news and how people can “seem the type” just because of what the papers say, but turns out they were totally wrong remember Christopher Jefferies
-
Yeah I’m very similar, I think your right coming at it from the perspective as in the end Luke was convicted of the crime.
I remember everyday listing to what the media was putting out as the trial went on, I was angry as I was like you so confident that they had the right guy. It wasn’t till I listened to the reporter once the verdict came back that I was shocked as I was sure he was going to get off with it. I started to question why I thought that way and I realised that it’s what was said in the media that forced me to think like that. I definitely learned something about myself that day.
-
If the bins were emptied the following day any bin they passed could be the one they used. If they remove jacket/top, roll up the knife/weapon in this, left the scene and dump in a bin, either domestic or commercial. I don’t think they would put it in their own bin, just some random bin they passed on the route they took ASAP after the murder. They might have been noticed with a bloody top or jacket (and a weapon!) but not many would notice blood on the lower trousers or shoes on someone they passed in the street. Also that’s why I was wondering if there was somewhere near they could wash their hands, not to get rid of evidence as such but just so they were clean enough to go un-noticed by anyone they might have passed on their route to wherever they went next.
I just can’t see how the killer could not have some blood on their hands/gloves, sleeves/arms and their top and surely would be worried they could be seen by someone. I know some say it’s possible and I suppose it is, but really what are the chances of that?
No trace on Jodi I can understand as she was left in the rain (how that can happen I’ve no idea, forget about preserving a crime scene, how about treating her like a young girl and a human being!!) But nothing on Luke, his home etc seems unlikely if he did it. Imo he would need to have had a shower to be sure as he could be that he was clean, but when he was at police station he was dirty and grubby. And not even the smallest trace of anything was found. The places Luke was spotted between 1740 and 6pm, were these ever tested for any trace evidence, for transfer from Luke directly after he is meant to have killed her?
How far a walk is it from Luke’s house to the caravan site, I assume quite far, too far for him to have cleaned up there and got back in time to meet his mates? And I’m sure the police would have carried out a full search there also.
the bins were emptied its alsmost like the police dident want to find the knife well not the police as such the emptying of the bins was entirly the decisn of one policeman and that was criag dobbie.
it was lso him i belive who ordered the crime scene be cleaned with bleach im not sure if sandra can confirm this.
-
solving ahih high profile murder genarly leads to promotion but in dobbies case it led to retirement a bit strange.
-
The walk from Luke's house to Scott's caravans was about 15 minutes from the junction of the paths and 22 minutes from the V point, so if Luke killed Jodi between 6 and 7pm, he'd need 22 minutes from there to Scotts Caravans, 15 minutes back to the big break at the Easthouses end of the path and 10 -12 minutes from there to the Abbey - that's a total of 47 - 49 minutes out of the hour available, leaving 11 minutes for everything else.
That's the thing with this case - every alternate explanation to try to make it Luke runs into the same obstacles. Just like the 5.15pm claimed tod, there's also not enough time for the alternatives.
There was a question about Luke possibly killing Jodi between 9pm and 10pm (on the basis that he arrived home earlier than usual that night because of Jodi's no-show and was seen by a neighbour walking towards his own home around 10pm).
In that scenario, it was suggested, Corinne could have disposed of incriminating evidence between then and when Luke set out to Luke for Jodi (or, at least, before she went to the police station later that night). Luke's alibi for that period is (a) he parted company with his friend at the Abbey gates at "about 9 o'clock" and headed for home, where he watched a video in his room until his mum asked him to take Mia out for her last walk of the evening. The neighbour's sighting, he suggested, was while he was out with the dog and therefore, nearer to 10.30pm.
Again, it's possible that this was when the murder happened and, again, there are problems. The journey to and from the V break would still have been in broad daylight, so he'd have had to get there and back on a public road without being seen, the time to get there and back taking 24 minutes, leaving him 36 minutes to do everything. But if Jodi was murdered at exactly the midpoint of this timeframe 9.30), the attack and murder were happening (a) when Condom Man was there doing what he was doing and (b) the same timescale Ferris abruptly left Dickie's for Yvonne Walker's flat.
We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed". He'd have to get dirt under his fingernails, make his neck, knees and ankles appear "grubbby" and "unwashed" and meanwhile, Corinne would have to be re-lighting an earlier (innocent) fire in order to dispose of the incriminating clothing. That, in turn, would make it highly unlikely that she burned a fire hot enough to completely incinerate clothing then managed to cool the ashes enough to remove them before she headed for the police station a little after 12.30am.
The other difficulty with this timescale is that Jodi's curfew was 10pm. If her mother had called at, say 10.15pm, the alarm would have been raised then - she could have sent her partner or Jodi's brother down the path right away, raising the chances of Jodi being found very soon after being killed and leaving little to no time for Luke and his mother to do what would have been necessary.
All of this guesswork, however, should have been unnecessary. There was evidence gathered (and examined by experts) that would have given a much more accurate estimate of the actual time Jodi died. That evidence has never been released to the defence, nor was it ever used by the prosecution. I can't say more about that at the moment, unfortunately.
-
I don't know who ordered the scene to be bleached, since we only found out about it because the Yorkshire dog experts included the information in their reports, stating that the dogs were "hampered" by the scene having been bleached. We don't even know when it was bleached, other than that it was within the first 10 - 12 days, which means it was bleached while the police were still searching it for evidence (the path wasn't re-opened until July 16th).
The bins being emptied seems to have been a complete oversight - one of the workers at the skip (as it was then - recycling centre now) - took a decision to hold off emptying the bin lorries in anticipation of a call from the police, but that call simply never came.
Returning to Bullseye's theory that the clothing and knife were disposed of in a bin, there would have been no bins on Roan's Dyke path or Lady Path. There may have been bins behind the school (they're usually behind locked gates though), in the grounds of the garage at the Easthouses Road just before the entrance to the path, in the grounds of Redwood House at the Newbattle End, or in the various business premises within the grounds of Newbattle Abbey. If the murder happened at 5.15pm, the chances of being seen disposing of stuff in commercial bins would be higher than if the murder was later.
I think it's unlikely the killer would have gone into a random garden to dump the stuff in a domestic bin and this was before dog bins - the dog fouling act (Scotland) was only at its draft stage in June 2003. So, again, while it's possible the killer dumped the stuff in a random bin, there are difficulties with that theory as well although, as has already been discussed, the failure to check bins in the area means we'll probably never know. If the killer did put it in a bin, he couldn't possibly have known the police would allow the bins to be emptied without checking (an oversight I believe came about because they were so sure Luke was the killer) - a very, very lucky break for him, whoever he is.
-
I don't know who ordered the scene to be bleached, since we only found out about it because the Yorkshire dog experts included the information in their reports, stating that the dogs were "hampered" by the scene having been bleached. We don't even know when it was bleached, other than that it was within the first 10 - 12 days, which means it was bleached while the police were still searching it for evidence (the path wasn't re-opened until July 16th).
The bins being emptied seems to have been a complete oversight - one of the workers at the skip (as it was then - recycling centre now) - took a decision to hold off emptying the bin lorries in anticipation of a call from the police, but that call simply never came.
Returning to Bullseye's theory that the clothing and knife were disposed of in a bin, there would have been no bins on Roan's Dyke path or Lady Path. There may have been bins behind the school (they're usually behind locked gates though), in the grounds of the garage at the Easthouses Road just before the entrance to the path, in the grounds of Redwood House at the Newbattle End, or in the various business premises within the grounds of Newbattle Abbey. If the murder happened at 5.15pm, the chances of being seen disposing of stuff in commercial bins would be higher than if the murder was later.
I think it's unlikely the killer would have gone into a random garden to dump the stuff in a domestic bin and this was before dog bins - the dog fouling act (Scotland) was only at its draft stage in June 2003. So, again, while it's possible the killer dumped the stuff in a random bin, there are difficulties with that theory as well although, as has already been discussed, the failure to check bins in the area means we'll probably never know. If the killer did put it in a bin, he couldn't possibly have known the police would allow the bins to be emptied without checking (an oversight I believe came about because they were so sure Luke was the killer) - a very, very lucky break for him, whoever he is.
so they have suspect that they have absolutely no forensic evidence against.
and they hen bleach the crime scene they have absolutely of finding any forensic evidence against him
it most like somebody knew they wouldn't anyway.
-
OK, thanks again, I will reply later but can I ask if you have seen the pathologist report and if you know where on Jodie's head was the contusion (referred to by the pathologist) located?
-
Is there any update on when the long road to justice site will be up and running?
Also I read in the news last month that James English was trying to get an interview with Luke, is that likely to go ahead any time soon?
-
Is there any update on when the long road to justice site will be up and running?
Also I read in the news last month that James English was trying to get an interview with Luke, is that likely to go ahead any time soon?
i think that will be a long coming it will take a fir bit of negotaion with prison athuritys.
-
Is there any update on when the long road to justice site will be up and running?
Also I read in the news last month that James English was trying to get an interview with Luke, is that likely to go ahead any time soon?
Unfortunately, the website was hit with a serious of technical problems, which I'm dependent on others to fix for me (and which they're very kindly doing free of charge), so it's out of my hands at the moment. I'll update as soon as I'm able.
I imagine the prison will take its time over the decision about whether or not to allow the interview with James to go ahead or not. There's no reason why they should refuse as there's another lifer, maintaining innocence, who has been allowed to be interviewed on camera, but as with everything in this case, we can't be sure until the decision's finally made.
-
I see the usual suspects are still on here talking about this scum until the birds start chirping in the morning. Sandra, do you have other hobbies or interests? Or, do you spend 24 hours a day thinking and talking about Mitchell? I see we are now on the 330th page on the forum. How many comments must that be? Easily over 1000. I don’t understand what there is to debate. It was him and that’s it. The stoneman done it. Debating and even considering that it could’ve been someone else is an insult to the victims family.
It was him. The debate should cease.
-
Why don’t you go back to the forum set up to discuss this one!!
-
I see the usual suspects are still on here talking about this scum until the birds start chirping in the morning. Sandra, do you have other hobbies or interests? Or, do you spend 24 hours a day thinking and talking about Mitchell? I see we are now on the 330th page on the forum. How many comments must that be? Easily over 1000. I don’t understand what there is to debate. It was him and that’s it. The stoneman done it. Debating and even considering that it could’ve been someone else is an insult to the victims family.
It was him. The debate should cease.
could somone get rid of this werido.
-
Unfortunately, the website was hit with a serious of technical problems, which I'm dependent on others to fix for me (and which they're very kindly doing free of charge), so it's out of my hands at the moment. I'll update as soon as I'm able.
I imagine the prison will take its time over the decision about whether or not to allow the interview with James to go ahead or not. There's no reason why they should refuse as there's another lifer, maintaining innocence, who has been allowed to be interviewed on camera, but as with everything in this case, we can't be sure until the decision's finally made.
well its happend a fair few times in england as they let luke do the lie detecter id be suprised if they dident let him do an interiew.
-
Unfortunately, the website was hit with a serious of technical problems, which I'm dependent on others to fix for me (and which they're very kindly doing free of charge), so it's out of my hands at the moment. I'll update as soon as I'm able.
I imagine the prison will take its time over the decision about whether or not to allow the interview with James to go ahead or not. There's no reason why they should refuse as there's another lifer, maintaining innocence, who has been allowed to be interviewed on camera, but as with everything in this case, we can't be sure until the decision's finally made.
It's likely that you missed this question so I will ask once more.
OK, thanks again, I will reply later but can I ask if you have seen the pathologist report and if you know where on Jodie's head was the contusion (referred to by the pathologist) located?
-
Would be nice to see Luke trip himself up, unfortunately English is a thick ned with no interview skills. Painful to watch.
im sure sombody will trip themselves up sooner or later if they havent allready.
-
Well nobody has in 16 years. Also no one else has been butchered. The right man is in jail.
are you totally sure they havent.
-
Would be nice to see Luke trip himself up, unfortunately English is a thick ned with no interview skills. Painful to watch.
james has offred to presnt the other side hes offred to interview people who think lukes guilty
and h has ofred people mentioned in th interviews right of reply up to them if they want to acept of course.
-
Why would any of Jodi's family take up his offer to go on there and convince people Luke did it? What planet do you come from? What is there to gain? The conviction speaks for itself.
well im not talking just about jodis family the cops could go on there to tell uus how they cought him craig dobbie could go on there if he wanted to of course.
-
Get real mate.
why would he not if knows he did a good job in catch why wuld he not want to.
surely he wants to tell us all what a good job he did catching luke and puting him away.
-
why would he not if knows he did a good job in catch why wuld he not want to.
surely he wants to tell us all what a good job he did catching luke and puting him away.
I think he probably believes the conviction shows that.
-
I think he probably believes the conviction shows that.
most cops would jump at the chance.
-
most cops would jump at the chance.
I take it that this 'English' is someone who is a campaigner? There is no what that the police would enter into a discussion of that nature. Think about the Bamber case, how many officers have allowed the campaign team to interview them?
-
I take it that this 'English' is someone who is a campaigner? There is no what that the police would enter into a discussion of that nature. Think about the Bamber case, how many officers have allowed the campaign team to interview them?
no he just interveiws people.
the only campaghning his ever done has been about homlessnes not criminal justice
-
no he just interveiws people.
the only campaghning his ever done has been about homlessnes not criminal justice
I thought someone posted a Youtube video of him talking to Sandra? Anyway, regardless, police sometimes take part in documentaries but not usually interviews. I can't think of such an instance?
-
I thought someone posted a Youtube video of him talking to Sandra? Anyway, regardless, police sometimes take part in documentaries but not usually interviews. I can't think of such an instance?
interviewing someone does not make you a campaigner does it
Hamish Campbell.
Jeremy Paine
mark wilam Tomas
our own mr bews.
john stalker
-
I see the usual suspects are still on here talking about this scum until the birds start chirping in the morning. Sandra, do you have other hobbies or interests? Or, do you spend 24 hours a day thinking and talking about Mitchell?
Funny you should ask - I was just talking the other day about what a fantastic life I have and how blessed I am. I love studying and discussing metaphysics, energy exchange and transfer and the nature of transformation. I'm an avid D-I-Yer, love gardening, designing campervan conversions, cooking (especially for friends and family), sewing and reading. I'm a fully qualified clinical hypnotherapist and have a long-term interest in alternative healthcare. My family, of course, is everything to me and I spend as much time as I possibly can with them. I write about many subjects and in my "down time" (of which there's very little) I like to get away in nature (especially by the sea or rivers) and (my guilty pleasure) watching youtube videos on a huge range of subjects.
I'm usually up at 5.30am and go to bed between 10.30 and 11pm - that gives me 17 - 17.5 "usable" hours a day, 7 days a week. If there are lots of questions of me online, I try to answer them when I first get up, so that I'm free to get on with the rest of my day. Occasionally, I have time during the day or early evening to post.
How about you AD? How do you spend your time?
I don’t understand what there is to debate. It was him and that’s it. The stoneman done it. Debating and even considering that it could’ve been someone else is an insult to the victims family.
I'd love to see the reasoning behind that! What was the insult to Rachel Nickell's family - the consideration that it wasn't Colin Stagg who murdered her or the fact that it took 16 years to find her real killer? What was the insult to the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings - the consideration that it wasn't the six convicted men who were responsible for them or the fact that, to this day, they still don't know who was really responsible? The insult to Jill Dando and her family, or Lesley Molseed's, or Philip Saunders' or Lynette White's? I could go on - you'll get the point, I'm sure.
It's not an insult to anyone to seek true justice - it's a massive insult to the deceased and their families to allow questions to remain unanswered and, potentially, the real perpetrator free to strike again. That uncovering the truth might be painful for victims and/or their families is unavoidable, but that doesn't- and shouldn't - make it untouchable.
It was him. The debate should cease.
Said in the midst of a massive scandal currently rocking the CJS concerning false accusations of rape and sexual abuse/assault on the basis that alleged victims must be believed - i.e. "S/he did it."
-
Caroline has asked a couple of times
can I ask if you have seen the pathologist report and if you know where on Jodie's head was the contusion (referred to by the pathologist) located?
Yes. I've seen it and I've already answered the other question.
-
Why would any of Jodi's family take up his offer to go on there and convince people Luke did it? What planet do you come from? What is there to gain? The conviction speaks for itself.
The invitation to Jodi's family wasn't intended to "convince people Luke did it," though, was it? It was to give their side of the story regarding the changes to the search trio's statements, the developments of narratives far removed from original accounts, the airbrushing of certain people and events from the investigation for as long as possible, the claim that the Gran told the boys on the moped not to come forward. the fact that even Jodi's mum said she thought Ferris and Dickie knew more than they were letting on, but has never pushed to try to find out (or to have investigators ifnd out) what they knew, and so on.
"What is there to gain?" If someone were saying those things about me and my family and they weren't true, I'd be livid - I'd want the record set straight asap. But they are true and there are documents to prove it.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIr2Q8pNsCM
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I must admit I have to agree with you lithium not the most professional guy, saying that is didn’t really matter as it was about getting the message out but I wouldn’t be jumping to watch him on anything else.
-
The invitation to Jodi's family wasn't intended to "convince people Luke did it," though, was it? It was to give their side of the story regarding the changes to the search trio's statements, the developments of narratives far removed from original accounts, the airbrushing of certain people and events from the investigation for as long as possible, the claim that the Gran told the boys on the moped not to come forward. the fact that even Jodi's mum said she thought Ferris and Dickie knew more than they were letting on, but has never pushed to try to find out (or to have investigators ifnd out) what they knew, and so on.
"What is there to gain?" If someone were saying those things about me and my family and they weren't true, I'd be livid - I'd want the record set straight asap. But they are true and there are documents to prove it.
well i think most fmilys would they wuld want to get there ide across.
-
I must admit I have to agree with you lithium not the most professional guy, saying that is didn’t really matter as it was about getting the message out but I wouldn’t be jumping to watch him on anything else.
james give a vioce to people the mintream media cant be arsed to.
lie lura here.
https://youtu.be/RGHi_YZlimM
-
james give a vioce to people the mintream media cant be arsed to.
lie lura here.
https://youtu.be/RGHi_YZlimM
he shld get shane on ; thers someone with REAL info abt the details of th case and what happen that evenin, not jst speculation. right sandra?
-
he shld get shane on ; thers someone with REAL info abt the details of th case and what happen that evenin, not jst speculation. right sandra?
im sure he will in time.
-
Caroline has asked a couple of times
Yes. I've seen it and I've already answered the other question.
I haven't seen the answer and would it kill you to answer it again? As I have said, I am new to this dicussion and don't get why you just didn't answer the question? Was it at the back of her head?
Later edit
Apologies Sandra, I missed your reply. So the injuries were to the back of the head which supports the notion that she was struck from behind. Cheers.
-
James English is a ned with criminal ties in glasgow and a wannabe celeb. Cast member of failed Glasgow reality tv show "GLOW" which has for some reason lead to a youtube channel interviewing literally any random person who will agree to it. I'm sure he started out interviewing faces of the underworld (because he knew them personally) and other wannabe celebs peddling themselves, (porn star Georgie Lyall, the lassie from Niddrie who was in the news for being Scotland's youngest lottery winner and "internet sensation - Naked Martin" to name a few). Now he'll interview literally anyone, if you can call it that. He heard of Luke Mitchell while interviewing Glasgow gangster Joe Steele about his wrongful murder conviction. He sits there mumbling with a vacant stare without asking anything really. I'm not sure what his endgame is and I'm not quite sure he does either, other than views/followers/some sort of fame.
We're not exactly talking "Making a Murderer" here.
He seems like an ok lad but he doesn't have a clue how to conduct an interview (can barely string a coherent question together) and there's no journalistic credibility there to speak of.
Thanks Lithium, clearly the police are not going to take part in an interview of this kind.
-
Thanks Lithium, clearly the police are not going to take part in an interview of this kind.
of what kind an iterview is an interview and i a nt talking about the police i talking about retired policeman.
-
of what kind an iterview is an interview and i a nt talking about the police i talking about retired policeman.
Some bloke on Youtube - unprofessional etc.!
-
I haven't seen the answer and would it kill you to answer it again? As I have said, I am new to this dicussion and don't get why you just didn't answer the question? Was it at the back of her head?
Is this not it?
Yes, they are. All of the injuries are. I’m not sure what that adds to the discussion. There was a large area of bruising to the back of the head caused by “blunt force” but not necessarily a blow by an object. There was extensive bruising to Jodi’s face, cheek, jaw, temple, forehead, hands, the cut from her mouth to her ear was inflicted while she was alive, the knife wound that pierced her tonsil was inflicted post mortem, it’s unclear whether the cut to her earlobe or the puncture wound in her forehead were inflicted before or after death. Clumps of hair were pulled out by the roots, some of these were found entangled in her hands and fingers.
Thanks Lithium, clearly the police are not going to take part in an interview of this kind.
I really don’t see why the police or Jodi’s family would want to take part in an interview. They believe the right person is in jail, so nothing to discuss. I would not either in their shoes.
-
Shane wouldn't, and Corinne wouldn't allow it. Shane openly admits his brothers guilt to folk and wants nothing to do with any of it. He's been more or less disowned by Corinne for this reason and hasn't visited Luke in years. A handful of times in total. Even during his police interview he was open to the idea his brother was capable of this, and told police that. Guess Sandra and nugnug know 14 year old Luke better than his brother though eh.
ive asked you for a source for this sevral times yu have yet t provide one.
-
My source is Shane. People I know and trust have heard it from him. Want his number?
so in other words you havent got one.
-
My source is Shane. People I know and trust have heard it from him. Want his number?
Can I just ask, if you do have his number would you really give it out to random people on a chat forum?
-
Sandra knows I'm telling the truth lol. Why isn't he on here correcting misinformation. I would be if I was him?
I would be too if someone was saying stuff about me that was not true and other people happily giving out his work address etc. But that’s just me, he might have had enough of everything and just want to keep clear of all this which I could fully understand too.
-
The guy was in tears at the trial when shown pictures of the crime scene.
Where were Luke's tears?
The stone man.
(https://i.imgur.com/bjSlbqa.png)
Here's a challenge, post a pic of Luke where he isn't completely dead behind the eyes.
here's a challenge debate actual evidence.
-
Lithium I really do want you to convince me he did it but if the below is all you have to go on then sorry not as yet
He told David High Jodi won't be out she's grounded, despite Alan Ovens telling him she had left to meet him, and telling his mum to direct her to the abbey. Why?
So what, she didn’t meet him, might have gone elsewhere he was not worried but imo not evidence
He told police she was wearing a red scrunchy although the pathologist said it was buried beneath her hair under her head and Luke wasn't near the body, plus it was dark. How?
Did he? Proof please
Shane Mitchell told the court/police he came home, shouted "Hello?" and when no one answered, he watched porn and masturbated with the door open to listen out for Luke or Corinne coming home. He admitted the story about the burnt pie was fed to him by his mum. Why?
Shane could not say if his bro was home or not, only Shane can confirm. Even court said his evidence is not unequivocal. Would love to hear what he had to say nowadays tho
Luke's next door neighbour and the neighbours whose garden backed directly onto Luke's both, independently, along with their partners, reported smelling and seeing burning from the Mitchell log burner that night. Why?
Hear-say no evidence in log burner or anywhere else
Luke's friends, teachers and Jodi's family all seen him wearing a parka before the murder. His teacher testified in court that staff would joke about Luke resembling a "hooded monk" walking around in school with the coat on and hood up. No such jacket was ever recovered. Why?
Here-say no evidence, but you would think there would be a pic somewhere of him wearing it, cctv, photo etc Shame police could not find this. If there was, that would be enough proof for me that he did it due to what would be lies about it since.
A knife Luke was known to carry vanished off the face of the earth. The empty pouch for this knife was later found in his garage with a disturbing "tribute" to Jodi Jones, marking her birth year and death, and "666" scribbled onto it. Why?
Proof it was in the garage please, I believe it was in his room, i believe the knife that fitted the pouch was also too small to be murder weapon?
After the murder, and before handing his phone to police, Luke had deleted his last texts ever sent to Jodi in which he arranged to meet her. Why?
The phone messages were gone but no proof as to how, I agree more likely to be Luke but no evidence.
Luke hung around the same spot for an hour doing nothing, pretending to wait on her, rather than just walking ten mins or checking the path... then suddenly changed his mind and no longer cared. He went home and never bothered to enquire as to why Jodi never showed, despite being told she was on her way to meet him. Why not?
That’s how he chose to handle the situation but not proof he killed Jodi, again not evidence
Luke walked directly past Jodi's body with Mia, who apparently didn't alert him to anything on the way up the path to meet with the search party. On the way back Mia decided she smelled a body. She scrabbled at a wall and this was enough for Luke to know to climb over the V, shine his torch instantly left, in a narrow gap where no one would think someone would be, and immediately know it was a body. How?
Been discussed many times.
-
a bit from the sckptics forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12757819#post12757819
-
He told David High Jodi won't be out she's grounded, despite Alan Ovens telling him she had left to meet him, and telling his mum to direct her to the abbey. Why?
There's only David High's word for this. The other two boys who were there said there was no such conversation.
He told police she was wearing a red scrunchy although the pathologist said it was buried beneath her hair under her head and Luke wasn't near the body, plus it was dark. How?
I believe I explained this before. It was a reporter who noted the words "red scrunchie" in his notebook during an off the record interview with Luke. He could not say whether these were Luke's words or what they were in relation to. I know, for example, that Luke was asked on one of the police interviews, "How did Jodi usually wear her hair?"
BTW, the pathologist said nothing of the sort. If that's where the scrunchie actually was at some point, only the killer could know that.
Shane Mitchell told the court/police he came home, shouted "Hello?" and when no one answered, he watched porn and masturbated with the door open to listen out for Luke or Corinne coming home. He admitted the story about the burnt pie was fed to him by his mum. Why?
Nicely misrepresented! That was the prosecution's contention, not Shane's evidence. And the information about the burnt pie wasn't "fed to him" - it was mentioned as the only unusual or memorable event that evening prior to the realisation that Jodi was missing.
Luke's next door neighbour and the neighbours whose garden backed directly onto Luke's both, independently, along with their partners, reported smelling and seeing burning from the Mitchell log burner that night. Why?
It's like Groundhog Day on here. None of them claimed to see burning - all of them claimed to have smelled smoke and none of them were certain it was that night.
Luke's friends, teachers and Jodi's family all seen him wearing a parka before the murder. His teacher testified in court that staff would joke about Luke resembling a "hooded monk" walking around in school with the coat on and hood up. No such jacket was ever recovered. Why?
I don't recall the teacher ever testifying about staff joking about a "hooded monk" - I believe that was the description he gave of his own opinion. It was claimed this teacher left St David's High before the murder, but he would have been as open as the rest of us to the zillions of pictures of Luke in a Parka that the media published from six weeks after the murder for over a year before trial. As for the others, none of them said so initially (since the police were looking for descriptions of Luke in a German Army shirt from 14th August 2003), the first pictures of Luke in a Parka emerged on August 15th, and we know some witnesses were taken media pictures of Luke in a Parka and asked if this was the person they saw. Not rocket science!
A knife Luke was known to carry vanished off the face of the earth. The empty pouch for this knife was later found in his garage with a disturbing "tribute" to Jodi Jones, marking her birth year and death, and "666" scribbled onto it. Why?
Again, total misrepresentation - this has been discussed repeatedly.
After the murder, and before handing his phone to police, Luke had deleted his last texts ever sent to Jodi in which he arranged to meet her. Why?
Factually, the texts were deleted when police investigators tried to check them. We know know that various events concerning the phone took place while it was in the custody of the police (the deleting of the call log, for example, definitely happened after the police had taken his phone from him, before he was even taken to the police station, so no one can ever be sure who deleted the texts, or why.
Luke hung around the same spot for an hour doing nothing, pretending to wait on her, rather than just walking ten mins or checking the path... then suddenly changed his mind and no longer cared. He went home and never bothered to enquire as to why Jodi never showed, despite being told she was on her way to meet him. Why not?
Already been discussed numerous times.
Luke walked directly past Jodi's body with Mia, who apparently didn't alert him to anything on the way up the path to meet with the search party. On the way back Mia decided she smelled a body. She scrabbled at a wall and this was enough for Luke to know to climb over the V, shine his torch instantly left, in a narrow gap where no one would think someone would be, and immediately know it was a body. How?
So you accept the dog alerted? Good, that makes the search trio and you. He didn't shine his torch "in a narrow gap where no-one would think someone would be" - he walked almost exactly the same distance as Kelly, stopped at exactly the same point, and both of them realised (independently) that it was a body. By your reckoning, if Luke couldn't have known it was a body, unless he had prior knowledge, the same applies to Kelly.
-
I haven't seen the answer and would it kill you to answer it again? As I have said, I am new to this dicussion and don't get why you just didn't answer the question? Was it at the back of her head?
Later edit
Apologies Sandra, I missed your reply. So the injuries were to the back of the head which supports the notion that she was struck from behind. Cheers.
It wouldn't kill me, Caroline, but a cursory glance at this thread will show how many times I've answered the same questions over and over again. I consider it a basic courtesy when I'm posting on forums etc, to read what's gone before. If I haven't, I say so up front - if I ask a question and someone says "already answered" I go back and read to find the answer. I answered your most recent question, just two days previously, in a response to one of your own questions!
Unfortunately, you seem to have misunderstood my posts regarding the bruising to the back of the head. The pathologist was quite clear the injury did not necessarily support that Jodi was struck from behind, but that her head may have been bashed against the wall. There were reasons for that consideration (obviously - pathologists don't just sit and think up alternative explanations for the sake of it).
-
It wouldn't kill me, Caroline, but a cursory glance at this thread will show how many times I've answered the same questions over and over again. I consider it a basic courtesy when I'm posting on forums etc, to read what's gone before. If I haven't, I say so up front - if I ask a question and someone says "already answered" I go back and read to find the answer. I answered your most recent question, just two days previously, in a response to one of your own questions!
Unfortunately, you seem to have misunderstood my posts regarding the bruising to the back of the head. The pathologist was quite clear the injury did not necessarily support that Jodi was struck from behind, but that her head may have been bashed against the wall. There were reasons for that consideration (obviously - pathologists don't just sit and think up alternative explanations for the sake of it).
Yes, my fault, I completely missed your reply which is why I apologised when I realised and added the edit.
I agree, it doesn't mean she was hit from behind, however, that still remains a 'possibility'. Which is what is intonated here "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. "
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Ok then I don't have mutual associates. His mobile number ends in 107, feel free to confirm with Corinne.
ha yer not wrong but yeh dont go givin his detail.
honestly think he can live life with head held high an dont blame him for not getin involved with his bro and mum and wantin a quiet life with nothin to do with them
reason i said james should have him on is because it would never happen, he would tear into his bros claims of innocence and have to deal with media after
-
How many times?
So why are you dishonestly going about denying there ever were such reports, and trying to convince people the mention of burning is related to a fire in Newtongrange? Luke's direct neighbours both independently reported a fire and testified at trial. Total dishonesty from you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y
1:40 - Q: why did his mother/brother burn his clothes?
A: "Luke was taken straight to the police station and held til the next morning, a LO was appointed the next day and was with them the whole time. There was no opportunity. The media was camped outside. "
But you know fine well the witnesses testify to the burning being on June 30th... no one ever suggested anything was burned after Jodi was found. Why are you being dishonest?
You then, after completely ignoring the trial evidence of the neighbours or mentioning it at all, go on to say:
"There was however the story of a mother of a suspect burning clothing in the back of a back garden on the night of the murder in a house in Newtongrange. Somehow that story got transferred onto the Mitchell family "
Not only is that completely unsubstantiated, nor was this person ever a "suspect"... that's not what happened with regards to the burning story at all. Deliberate dishonesty/deflection. You're ignoring the log burner evidence and statements, which were mentioned in trial, which is surely the burning this viewer is refering to, whether you believe them or not (is that impartial?), and introducing misinformation. No story was "transferred" or confused. You'd really have viewers believe that this is where the claim that something was burned in the Mitchell log burner originated? The story about the fire in Luke's garden came from his neighbours, multiple independent neighbours who testified to it in court and yes they were all certain it was June 30th. Why are you lying and not answering this viewer's question honestly and telling them this???
You're a liar and know fine well what you're doing.
Didn't Luke even admit to there being a fire in early police interviews and try and blame his mum and brother?
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Point 144
-
see also
"no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained" found on her body."
+prosecution / defense agreement to not consider this evidence as it'd be constant back an forth
gradualy becomin
"none at all, not a shred!"
-
Whether you believe there was a fire or not, for Sandra to suggest the entire claim of a fire was only because a random incident in Newtongrange had been "transferred" onto the Mitchells over time is a ridiculously dishonest misrepresentation.
The guy on Youtube asked the question and Sandra's answer more or less denied the existence of this part of the prosecution and trial, and the 3 witnesses. This is why she cannot be trusted as a source.
they said they smelt smoke nothing about a fire as they would not be in poistin to say there was a fire or not.
-
Spot on
Finally someone sees what's happening here
Findlay had to explain lukes dna away at trial and as u say with them being boyfriend and girlfriend it couldn't really be used
Not to mention the partial matches to luke on the body. As much chance of belonging to luke as anyone else Sandra has tried to link.
will you stop talking to yourself.
Luke is seriously lucky they messed up the crime scene so badly.
will you stop talking to yourelf.
-
Whether you believe there was a fire or not, for Sandra to suggest the entire claim of a fire was only because a random incident in Newtongrange had been "transferred" onto the Mitchells over time is a ridiculously dishonest misrepresentation.
The guy on Youtube asked the question and Sandra's answer more or less denied the existence of this part of the prosecution and trial, and the 3 witnesses. This is why she cannot be trusted as a source.
These things are simply explanations when faced with question after question, of course a fire in another area cant explain smoke from Luke’s house. It’s possible that people smelt burning in another area at some point and that transfers over time to the night of the murder. This is not a definitive answer but a possible explanation, you either accept it or denounce it but whatever it is it’s up to you.
Corrine said that nothing was burnt that night, Luke didn’t know so it comes down to two people who if I remember claim the smell was at different times. That’s hardly corroboration.
-
see also
"no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained" found on her body."
+prosecution / defense agreement to not consider this evidence as it'd be constant back an forth
gradualy becomin
"none at all, not a shred!"
Hello Wakey/Wakey it's forum policy for new members to introduce themselves in The Foyer. please would you do so. Thanks Maggie
-
These things are simply explanations when faced with question after question, of course a fire in another area cant explain smoke from Luke’s house. It’s possible that people smelt burning in another area at some point and that transfers over time to the night of the murder. This is not a definitive answer but a possible explanation, you either accept it or denounce it but whatever it is it’s up to you.
Corrine said that nothing was burnt that night, Luke didn’t know so it comes down to two people who if I remember claim the smell was at different times. That’s hardly corroboration.
Luke said his mother and brother set the fire - that's kind of an admission that there was a fire on their property.
-
Luke said his mother and brother set the fire - that's kind of an admission that there was a fire on their property.
untill you hear the interview you dont actull i think it was more along the lines of he id know maybe not
it was an increible agressive interview that the sccrc agread breached his human rights.
-
Luke said his mother and brother set the fire - that's kind of an admission that there was a fire on their property.
When he was interviewed. With no adult representation he was told the smoke had been smelt from his garden, his reply was that either his mother or brother must have been burning something, totally different. The fact that 2003 was a record breaking hot season throughout Europe many people spent a lot of time in gardens, the Mitchell’s obviously were used to burning things in their garden evident by the fact they had a garden burner! Something I don’t have what about you?
-
Why didn't sandra publish that part in the book then in the section where she was attempting to show how aggressive the interview was?
I don't know but its a fact the scrcc said it breached his human rights.
and a fact that the appeal court said the interview was to be deplored.
-
When he was interviewed. With no adult representation he was told the smoke had been smelt from his garden, his reply was that either his mother or brother must have been burning something, totally different. The fact that 2003 was a record breaking hot season throughout Europe many people spent a lot of time in gardens, the Mitchell’s obviously were used to burning things in their garden evident by the fact they had a garden burner! Something I don’t have what about you?
Yes we have one, don't burn it on hot nights though.
Bit stupid of the police to interview him without an adult.
-
Mr Ramage, whose home backs onto the Mitchell family home in Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, said he told his wife it was a strange time for them to be having a barbeque.
He had been busy doing DIY and clearing his tools away when he became aware of burning.
He told the court on Monday: "I could see it and smell it. It wasn't a food smell."
How many times?
So why are you dishonestly going about denying there ever were such reports, and trying to convince people the mention of burning is related to a fire in Newtongrange? Luke's direct neighbours both independently reported a fire and testified at trial. Total dishonesty from you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y
Ok, let's back up a little, because the various aspects of the fire arguments are becoming confused. The whole point to the fire argument is to prove or disprove that Corinne Mitchell disposed of Luke's parka by burning it in the back garden.
The next door neighbours said they smelled woodsmoke around 7pm and later, around 10pm - they didn't have to close their kitchen window (which was yards from where the log burner in the Mitchell garden was) and the smell was "pleasant" - the husband said he "likes the smell of woodsmoke."
So, nothing there to support the incineration of a bulky item of clothing - in fact, quite the opposite. Their evidence, if the fire was that evening, supports the claim that no items of clothing were burned in the garden. They weren't entirely sure about the date, but nor did they offer any statements or evidence of strange smelling smoke at any other time.
I agree, Mr Ramage's evidence in court was that he saw and smelled smoke (not burning), however, what people said in court in this case and what they said in their original statements does not always agree. I don't have Mr Ramage's original statement to hand (so my comments about his original statement are from memory). I do, however, have his wife's statement, in which she reported him as saying, "I wouldn't eat off it 'cos it's stinking" - no mention of seeing smoke, only smelling it. Also, the wife (who had seen the Mitchell garden from her upstairs window) said the Mitchells had a barbecue next to the conservatory, but not (to her knowledge) a log burner "or anything like that." The barbecue in the Mitchell garden was gas, which starts to take us into the realms of the ridiculous in terms of burning clothing.
I apologise if I was not clear that Mr Ramage's evidence in court is not reliable (I didn't mean to give the impression he'd never said such a thing, only that it wasn't supported by previous and other statements that were not before the jury), but it doesn't change the substance of the argument - I have the other 32 neighbour statements, all saying either that there was no fire in the Mitchell garden, they had no recollection of a fire, there were no "untoward" smells from fire (except the citronella candle in a neighbour's garden just after the murder which caught fire and caused a noticeable smell), so to this day, the only evidence of strange smelling smoke from the Mitchell family is from one witness's court testimony (regardless of his original statements). Even if he genuinely believed he did see and smell strange smelling smoke emanating from the Mitchell garden, his evidence is refuted by two other neighbours who were in a better position to see what was happening in the Mitchell garden - the next door neighbours - and is certainly undermined by the 32 other statements. His own wife said they could only see into the Mitchell garden from an upstairs window (because of the 6' fence separating the gardens at the back). Basically, it's 34 against one on his evidence being reliable.
The fire in Newtongrange. Why did the Sky reporter say to Luke: "This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned"? To what was he referring? Up to that point, Luke had never been questioned about the burning of clothing anywhere. It was a story in the local media which claimed that police were investigating the mother of a suspect burning clothing in a back garden in Newtongrange. The article is no longer available online, but I am working on finding a copy of it so that I can finally put this one to bed.
1:40 - Q: why did his mother/brother burn his clothes?
A: "Luke was taken straight to the police station and held til the next morning, a LO was appointed the next day and was with them the whole time. There was no opportunity. The media was camped outside. "
But you know fine well the witnesses testify to the burning being on June 30th... no one ever suggested anything was burned after Jodi was found. Why are you being dishonest?
Perhaps you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. There was no opportunity for anyone to dispose of incriminating ash (2.18) between 6pm and when Luke was taken to Dalkeith Police Station just after half past midnight on July 1st and the morning of July 4th (the morning of the police raid). I've explained elsewhere, repeatedly, why theories of jacket burning prior to the finding of Jodi's body fail - at no point have I ever tried to suggest "the burning" was after Jodi was found. Maybe it's me who's misunderstanding your point? If so, again, I apologise.
You then, after completely ignoring the trial evidence of the neighbours or mentioning it at all, go on to say:
"There was however the story of a mother of a suspect burning clothing in the back of a back garden on the night of the murder in a house in Newtongrange. Somehow that story got transferred onto the Mitchell family "
Not only is that completely unsubstantiated, nor was this person ever a "suspect"... that's not what happened with regards to the burning story at all. Deliberate dishonesty/deflection.
This video was made to answer questions that followed the James English interview, so parts of the answers were already "out there" - it would have been tedious for viewers who had seen the first video to hear it all again in order to clarify specific points. Tell me what did happen with regards to the burning story and (apart from the fact that we now know there was only one suspect) who is the "this person" who was never a suspect?
You're ignoring the log burner evidence and statements, which were mentioned in trial, which is surely the burning this viewer is refering to, whether you believe them or not (is that impartial?), and introducing misinformation.
I'm evidently not ignoring the log burner evidence and/or statements - couldn't have been more clear about that, but now I'm supposed to know which "burning evidence" random posters are talking about?
No story was "transferred" or confused. You'd really have viewers believe that this is where the claim that something was burned in the Mitchell log burner originated? The story about the fire in Luke's garden came from his neighbours, multiple independent neighbours who testified to it in court and yes they were all certain it was June 30th. Why are you lying and not answering this viewer's question honestly and telling them this???
Because it's not true. 34 out of 35 neighbours could not say with any certainty whether there was a fire in the Mitchell garden on June 30th or, if there was, whether it was anything other than an innocent log fire. One - only one - suggested otherwise. I don't suggest for a minute that you're lying or being dishonest, but I do think it might be worth fact checking your claims before accusing others of dishonesty.
You're a liar and know fine well what you're doing.
Easy, Lithium, let's keep it civil. Personal attacks and name-calling don't do your arguments any favours.
Didn't Luke even admit to there being a fire in early police interviews and try and blame his mum and brother?
No. But even if he did, he'd still have to be "admitting" to a log fire, and therefore "blaming" his mum and brother for having a log fire on an initially beautiful June evening, not something that could completely incinerate every scrap of evidence from a blood soaked parka.
Finally, to go back to the opening quote, why would 10pm in Scotland on June 30th be a "strange time for them to be having a barbecue"? It's actually the perfect time for considerate neighbours to do so - it's light until after 10.30pm, by-laws (no longer in force) dictated that anyone wanting to have fires or barbecues wait until dusk, so as not to interfere with others' washing out on the line, etc and all of the statements used to bring the "burning evidence" to court were taken in October, when a 10pm barbecue in Scotland might have seemed strange (well after dark).
-
I'm late to this discussion, obviously. Can't possibly keep up in real time - I'll do what I can!
-
Yes we have one, don't burn it on hot nights though.
Bit stupid of the police to interview him without an adult.
Caroline, it was entirely legal for police to interview anyone in Scotland, in 2003, without legal representation - "responsible adults" were not allowed to intervene in the interview process at any point, so what was them point of them being there at all?
Luke's "responsible adult" (social worker) during the Section 14 interview spoke not single word except to confirm his name and presence - the appeal court judges not only agreed with that, they used it to infer that there was nothing untoward going on. I'll just leave that there fore people to think about
-
Yes we have one, don't burn it on hot nights though.
Bit stupid of the police to interview him without an adult.
Try up here in Scotland the midges and general pests need a good
Smoking
-
You got a transcript of this?
Another question! Why don’t you discuss what being discussed? Sandra put forward some great material showing how impossible it was for Luke to have done everything needed to get to the position the investigation got to but nothing from you.
-
It would be nice to hear exactly how Luke managed to do so much that meant no normal case could be brought before the court.
Your own perspective !
-
nor do endless appeal judges or the SCCRC.
I’m not asking appeal judges or anyone else, im asking you the only one who may put up a cohesive argument for the safe verdict on the Mitchell case.
-
Hello Wakey/Wakey it's forum policy for new members to introduce themselves in The Foyer. please would you do so. Thanks Maggie
done thanks , sorry i didnt realise this policy. beeen reading here for a while thought it time to sign up to contribute where i can
-
prof alan jamison.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881797.luke-mitchell-interview-forensic-scientist-professor-alan-jamieson/
-
more from prof jamision.
https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle-2-15039/casting-light-on-dark-science-at-scene-of-crime-1-1054921
-
don't think the burden of proof is on me mate he had his day in court and was convicted by a jury who seen all the evidence, so its up to the conspiracy theorists to convince us everyone is wrong.
Of course it isn’t! The burden of discussion is though or otherwise there’s no point being here. Theres no use in reproducing the prosecution case when we’re here because that very case doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I know you don’t agree with that but that’s the reason why discussion is so important.
-
don't think the burden of proof is on me mate he had his day in court and was convicted by a jury who seen all the evidence, so its up to the conspiracy theorists to convince us everyone is wrong.
The jury didn't see all of the evidence, though, did they? Not ever before the jury were:
32 statements of other neighbours about fires on the night of the murder
Ferris' claim that AW told him not to go to the police
The other boys with Luke that evening who refuted David High's claims that Luke said Jodi wasn't coming out
All of the condom evidence
Claims of intimidation and bullying of witnesses by the police
The true circumstances of the section 14 interview
The extent of the crime scene contamination by police officers
The timing anomalies throughout that evening
The fact that, according to all of the family statements, Jodi was not grounded that evening
Claims that police were telling people from the first day that Luke was the killer and they only had to find the evidence to prove it - and that they'd be arresting him within the week.
The change, without explanation, from police focus on a german army shirt to a parka jacket and the disappearance of "dozens" of witnesses who'd apparently described Luke in a german army shirt that evening
There's plenty more - trials are not an arena where the jury hears "all of the evidence" and anyone still believing that simply doesn't understand how our courts work.
-
Do you have a job? How do you make a living?
Cheap shot, Lithium. I was asked by another poster if I had any hobbies or interests, so I listed that I like to do in my spare time.
What relevance does what I (or anyone else) do for a living have, with regard to an online discussion about a case of claimed wrongful conviction?
-
The question was, did I spend 24 hours a day thinking about this case or did I have other hobbies or interests? That was why I answered - to demonstrate that I don't spend all my time working on this case.
Why is my occupation relevant? In the time I've been involved with this case, I've worked in a Natural Health Centre, as a care assistant, an events co-ordinator for a government organisation, in a d-i-y store, as a guest lecturer and as a clinical hypnotherapist. What relevance do any of those have to the case?
The number of copies of Innocents Betrayed sold is none of your business and I'm not even going to dignify your last question with an answer.
-
I'm not even going to dignify your last question with an answer.
Despite it being major hang-up for anyone comin new to th case wantin to believe innocent, and a total valid question for anyon critically evaluation the info you present?
-
No, Wakey, wakey, because I've answered it many, many, many times before,
-
Sandra do you think prof jamsion would be wiling to be interviewed do you think he would have anything intrsting to say.
-
not at the time but he has been recently.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881797.luke-mitchell-interview-forensic-scientist-professor-alan-jamieson/
-
I don't think Prof Jamieson would agree to an interview while he is likely to be a significant contributor to a review of the case (no expert would, for obvious reasons).
However, I think he might do an interview about the misuse of forensic evidence generally, since it's something he's expressed concerns about many times.
-
that would certanly be worth watching.
-
Sandra Lean -
All you seem to do on here is regurgitate the same pieces of information. You continuously claim to have this ‘inside knowledge’, yet nobody else has ever been allowed to see it. What do you expect people’s opinion to be if they have never had access to this ‘other’ stuff?
I think at this stage, you ought to start putting some evidence out there to support your claims. What is the delay? Why can’t we see some of the evidence? How long is it going to take? People are frustrated. People want answers. I want answers. In fact, I want you to proceed with the process of having this other stuff released to the public domain, and I would like to see it sooner rather than later - preferably before my 60th birthday, if possible, which is around 29 years and 10 months away (approx).
I’m also still unconvinced that Mitchell habitually used the Speaking Clock service. Had he done this, then I think this would have been excellent grounds for appealing the time he phoned it in question - that being at 16:54 the day Jodi was murdered. His defence counsel did not appear to use this so-called ‘habitual use of the Speaking Clock’ at any of the appeals, which tends to suggest it was a one off incident on June 30th. I’m sure if he used it regularly as you claim, this would’ve been adequate grounds for an appeal.
At present, you’re full of hot air. Your claims are, quite simply, unfounded due to lack of evidence. You’ve failed to support any of your claims about the Mitchell case throughout your time spent working on it. I appreciate that your hands may well be tied. However, you’ve had 15 years to release some of this stuff. Some of it has been known for years.
It’s all hot air at the moment, and to be frankly honest - the book is biased, which I am sure you already know from the previous feedback I gave you.
When are we going to start seeing some proof?
-
hmm now was it coincedence john lamberton was in the same holding cell as luke f course it could well be.
-
Wtf u smoking nugnug
golden virgina at the moment.
-
Sandra Lean -
All you seem to do on here is regurgitate the same pieces of information. You continuously claim to have this ‘inside knowledge’, yet nobody else has ever been allowed to see it. What do you expect people’s opinion to be if they have never had access to this ‘other’ stuff?
I think at this stage, you ought to start putting some evidence out there to support your claims. What is the delay? Why can’t we see some of the evidence? How long is it going to take? People are frustrated. People want answers. I want answers. In fact, I want you to proceed with the process of having this other stuff released to the public domain, and I would like to see it sooner rather than later - preferably before my 60th birthday, if possible, which is around 29 years and 10 months away (approx).
I’m also still unconvinced that Mitchell habitually used the Speaking Clock service. Had he done this, then I think this would have been excellent grounds for appealing the time he phoned it in question - that being at 16:54 the day Jodi was murdered. His defence counsel did not appear to use this so-called ‘habitual use of the Speaking Clock’ at any of the appeals, which tends to suggest it was a one off incident on June 30th. I’m sure if he used it regularly as you claim, this would’ve been adequate grounds for an appeal.
At present, you’re full of hot air. Your claims are, quite simply, unfounded due to lack of evidence. You’ve failed to support any of your claims about the Mitchell case throughout your time spent working on it. I appreciate that your hands may well be tied. However, you’ve had 15 years to release some of this stuff. Some of it has been known for years.
It’s all hot air at the moment, and to be frankly honest - the book is biased, which I am sure you already know from the previous feedback I gave you.
When are we going to start seeing some proof?
that is not grounds for appeal any lawyer will tell you that.
i dont need new evdence to qustion the conviction a basic knowledge of forensic sceince leads me to
as it lead most people who have such basic knowledge.
-
is it possble the rest of the frontline documentry could be uploaded.
-
Yeah, the speaking clock isnt new evidence either so no grounds for appeal and the phone mast data as to where lukes phone was is lost.
-
Yeah, the speaking clock isnt new evidence either so no grounds for appeal and the phone mast data as to where lukes phone was is lost.
His phone was lost?
-
His phone was lost?
we are not talking about jodis pone we are talking about lukes.
phone calles
-
The phone data as to the phones location at the time he called the speaking clock is lost
-
we are not talking about jodis pone we are talking about lukes.
phone calles
Which is why I used the word HIS!
-
The phone data as to the phones location at the time he called the speaking clock is lost
OK, you mean the location of the phone when the 'data' was lost?
-
OK, you mean the location of the phone when the 'data' was lost?
no were re talking about the speaking clock stuf.
-
Yeah, the data was only kept for a year at that timeso is lost now. It would have been able to tell you where the call to the speaking clock was made and whether the phone went down the path to easthouses or not.
-
Its been a long while since I looked into this case. I will admit I have only had a brief look into it.
If memory serves me correctly. Did they not find in Luke's possession an empty knife holder with Jodi's initials craved into it along with the date she was born and the date she died?
Does anyone know if the knife found at the scene fits into the holder?
Regardless, its rather damning IMO. When I read that I more or less gave up thinking this could be a potential MOJ.
-
Its been a long while since I looked into this case. I will admit I have only had a brief look into it.
If memory serves me correctly. Did they not find in Luke's possession an empty knife holder with Jodi's initials craved into it along with the date she was born and the date she died?
Does anyone know if the knife found at the scene fits into the holder?
Regardless, its rather damning IMO. When I read that I more or less gave up thinking this could be a potential MOJ.
there wasnt a knife found at the scene and the missing knife was acounted for.
wha about luke passing a polygrph how can you say polygraph how can you polygraphs mean somthing in bambers case but not in lukes.
if lukws pass doesnt mean anything the neather does jeremys.
-
there wasnt a knife found at the scene and the missing knife was acounted for.
wha about luke passing a polygrph how can you say polygraph how can you polygraphs mean somthing in bambers case but not in lukes.
if lukws pass doesnt mean anything the neather does jeremys.
It doesn't mean anything in both cases.
-
It doesn't mean anything in both cases.
yes i know you think that but david seems to think i means somthing in jeremys case but not in lukes and i cant really see the logic there.
-
Its been a long while since I looked into this case. I will admit I have only had a brief look into it.
If memory serves me correctly. Did they not find in Luke's possession an empty knife holder with Jodi's initials craved into it along with the date she was born and the date she died?
Does anyone know if the knife found at the scene fits into the holder?
Regardless, its rather damning IMO. When I read that I more or less gave up thinking this could be a potential MOJ.
Don’t think it was carved into the knife pouch it was written on it with pen
-
there wasnt a knife found at the scene and the missing knife was acounted for.
press reported "kitchen knife" was found 300 yard from scene this year buried in drystane dyke. whether is has anything to do with anything is anyone guess. havent heard anymore about it and i would be suprised to hear that police test it, they are satisfied with conviction.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
2008 appeal section [20] doesnt reckon missin knife was account for
Don’t think it was carved into the knife pouch it was written on it with pen
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-police-luke-picture-id52042946?s=612x612
bit of both really carved and pen
-
press reported "kitchen knife" was found 300 yard from scene this year buried in drystane dyke. whether is has anything to do with anything is anyone guess. havent heard anymore about it and i would be suprised to hear that police test it, they are satisfied with conviction.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
2008 appeal section [20] doesnt reckon missin knife was account for
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-police-luke-picture-id52042946?s=612x612
bit of both really carved and pen
yes 200 yards from the scene can hardly be called the scene especially when it ws found 16 years later.
it could be the murder weapn but then it could be knife somone droped til its tested and as yet i see know sihn of that happening
john feerris handed in a knife and said luke ha droped it at a part now if ferris is teling the truth then that is the knife accounted for.
-
This is just another thing Sandra has been saying for years without backing it up or having proof or even knowing herself. The missing knife was accounted for, it was another house burning stuff, parka didn't exist. not a shred of dna, Luke always phoned the speaking clock, etc. etc. She just makes these claims and sadly after repeating them enough they start be be considered proven facts to newcomers to the case.
will it clearly was acouned for becouse john ferris had it he handed it in to the police saying luke had droped it a a party.
so it is acounted for and theres pleny of evdence to back that up you know that full well.
of coure ferris could be lying about it being lukes knife buut why would he.
-
yes i know you think that but david seems to think i means somthing in jeremys case but not in lukes and i cant really see the logic there.
A polygraph result is simply one piece of evidence. You need to take everything into account.
I don't put much weight on the polygraph in Jeremy's case. Or any case for that matter.
-
A polygraph result is simply one piece of evidence. You need to take everything into account.
I don't put much weight on the polygraph in Jeremy's case. Or any case for that matter.
yes and dna evedence pointing to other people and he fact jodi fought back and luke dident have mark on him is another.
and the fact the pthogist who examend the body doesnt seen think it was luke is another.
the fact theres no credible motive is another.
and its actully 2 polygraph results.
-
Its been a long while since I looked into this case. I will admit I have only had a brief look into it.
If memory serves me correctly. Did they not find in Luke's possession an empty knife holder with Jodi's initials craved into it along with the date she was born and the date she died?
Does anyone know if the knife found at the scene fits into the holder?
Regardless, its rather damning IMO. When I read that I more or less gave up thinking this could be a potential MOJ.
Yes and wasn't there a link with the Black Dahlia crime? Has anyone done a psychological profile of the killer? I don't know whether Mitchell is innocent or guilty but from reading the Scottish press he seems to fit a generic profile down to a T.
-
Yes and wasn't there a link with the Black Dahlia crime? Has anyone done a psychological profile of the killer? I don't know whether Mitchell is innocent or guilty but from reading the Scottish press he seems to fit a generic profile down to a T.
no the black dalia was cut in half and drained of bloood the 2 crimes are nothing like each other.
-
no the black dalia was cut in half and drained of bloood the 2 crimes are nothing like each other.
The Prosecution claimed there was. I assume the Black Dahlia killer had more time, hence the bissection. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1480608/Jodi-Jones-death-similar-to-Hollywood-killing.html
-
The Prosecution claimed there was. I assume the Black Dahlia killer had more time, hence the bissection. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1480608/Jodi-Jones-death-similar-to-Hollywood-killing.html
thats allan turnball probely the dodgist person who has ever passed the scottish bar exam.
hes making a camparision that doesnt exist to link being a fan of marlin manson wich he wasnt with the killing.
mansion has a fasnation with the black dalia luke owned a marlin mansion album.
turnball is making the comparsion in rder to jion the dots but if you actully look at the reports of the 2 cases there nothing likeb each other the injurys are not simlar neather they were both horrble and shockingmurders but thts about all they have in common.
-
thats allan turnball probely the dodgist person who has ever passed the scottish bar exam.
hes making a camparision that doesnt exist to link being a fan of marlin manson wich he wasnt with the killing.
mansion has a fasnation with the black dalia luke owned a marlin mansion album.
turnball is making the comparsion in rder to jion the dots but if you actully look at the reports of the 2 cases there nothing likeb each other the injurys are not simlar neather they were both horrble and shockingmurders but thts about all they have in common.
Yes, I agree, the connection is spurious.
-
All the evidence was circumstantial. I can't understand in that case why the verdict of not proven was discarded. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/black-dahlia-link-blasted-luke-968291
-
All the evidence was circumstantial. I can't understand in that case why the verdict of not proven was discarded. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/black-dahlia-link-blasted-luke-968291
Because lots of people are convicted on circumstantial evidence.
-
All the evidence was circumstantial. I can't understand in that case why the verdict of not proven was discarded. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/black-dahlia-link-blasted-luke-968291
In corrines interview with james english , she caimed that not proven was their biggest fear with the evidence against them. Never thought a guilty was possible.
-
In corrines interview with james english , she caimed that not proven was their biggest fear with the evidence against them. Never thought a guilty was possible.
I know. They were badly let down by their Defence team.
-
Does anyone know if this is a verbatim quote from Luke?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-i-would-rather-stay-behind-bars-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodie-jones/ (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-i-would-rather-stay-behind-bars-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodie-jones/)
"I would rather stay behind bars than admit my guilt for murder of Jodi Jones"
The way this is said implies his guilt is real.
Also its been presumed that Jodi died round 5:00pm - 5:45pm. Lukes brother was watching porn the computer between 4.53pm and 5.16pm. Lukes brother claimed he would only do such a thing if he thought he was alone in the house.
Around 8pm there is a fire in Lukes back garden.
On the day she was murdered, Jodi told her mother that she was going to meet Luke. They had agreed to met yet Luke has given no explanation as to why they never met in his version of events.
-
Does anyone know if this is a verbatim quote from Luke?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-i-would-rather-stay-behind-bars-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodie-jones/ (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-i-would-rather-stay-behind-bars-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodie-jones/)
"I would rather stay behind bars than admit my guilt for murder of Jodi Jones"
The way this is said implies his guilt is real.
Also its been presumed that Jodi died round 5:00pm - 5:45pm. Lukes brother was watching porn the computer between 4.53pm and 5.16pm. Lukes brother claimed he would only do such a thing if he thought he was alone in the house.
Around 8pm there is a fire in Lukes back garden.
On the day she was murdered, Jodi told her mother that she was going to meet Luke. They had agreed to met yet Luke has given no explanation as to why they never met in his version of events.
no its not a erbatim qaute its headline e have already discuses the fire a few pages back headlines are not its the words of newspaper editor.
te loogburner stff is discussed. in a fa pges back.
and there was no tod given she could have died at any time bettween going out and being found.
-
no its not a erbatim qaute its headline e have already discuses the fire a few pages back headlines are not its the words of newspaper editor.
te loogburner stff is discussed. in a fa pges back.
and there was no tod given she could have died at any time bettween going out and being found.
Given the time she left the house and the time the cyclists heard the murder. A TOD can be established.
"The deceased left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and would be "mucking about up here". At 1654 a call was made from the appellant's mobile telephone to the speaking clock. Between about 1705 and 1720 Leonard Kelly was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall."
-
Given the time she left the house and the time the cyclists heard the murder. A TOD can be established.
"The deceased left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and would be "mucking about up here". At 1654 a call was made from the appellant's mobile telephone to the speaking clock. Between about 1705 and 1720 Leonard Kelly was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall."
the cyclit did not hear the murder he said he heard a sound that he thought sounded like someone possibly being strangled tough he wasn't sure.
how could know wht he sond of being strangled sounded like i m not sure a best that can be described as a guess.
the fact is the patholgist said he could establish a toD.
this witness could not see anything and Jodi was not strangled. her throat was cut so it actually mens bugger all
-
the cyclit did not hear the murder he said he heard a sound that he thought sounded like someone possibly being strangled tough he wasn't sure.
how could know wht he sond of being strangled sounded like i m not sure a best that can be described as a guess.
the fact is the patholgist said he could establish a toD.
this witness could not see anything and Jodi was not strangled. her throat was cut so it actually mens bugger all
So when the cyclists rode past the spot where she was murdered. They just so happened to hear this noise. And they just so happen to hear this at the right time when Jodi would have been in that location from leaving her home 15 minutes prior telling her mum that she was going to see Luke.
Its rather self-evident they heard the murder.
-
So when the cyclists rode past the spot where she was murdered. They just so happened to hear this noise. And they just so happen to hear this at the right time when Jodi would have been in that location from leaving her home 15 minutes prior telling her mum that she was going to see Luke.
Its rather self-evident they heard the murder.
how could he have heard somone being strangled when nobody was strangled her throat was cut.
rather self evdent tht he couldent have done.
and how would he know what being strangled sounded like.
what expeerience did have of hearing strangultion beore im beting it was none.
-
the cyclit did not hear the murder he said he heard a sound that he thought sounded like someone possibly being strangled tough he wasn't sure.
how could know wht he sond of being strangled sounded like i m not sure a best that can be described as a guess.
the fact is the patholgist said he could establish a toD.
this witness could not see anything and Jodi was not strangled. her throat was cut so it actually mens bugger all
And he didn't do anything - investigate? Call the police?
-
And he didn't do anything - investigate? Call the police?
no he just carried on riding past.
-
how could he have heard somone being strangled when nobody was strangled her throat was cut.
rather self evdent tht he couldent have done.
and how would he know what being strangled sounded like.
what expeerience did have of hearing strangultion beore im beting it was none.
You are assuming her throat was cut first. Furthermore its never claimed it was a strangulating sound only that it was a strangling sort of sound. - "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing"
And he didn't do anything - investigate? Call the police?
no he just carried on riding past.
That's because only in retrospect/hindsight, does the cyclist realise what he had heard.
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
It would have to be a hell of a coincidence for the cyclist to have heard something other than her murder. Regardless of who done it.
Its also worth noting that the sound the cyclist heard was in the same time frame when Lukes brother was watching internet porn - something he admits he would only do if he was alone in the house. This contradicts Luke's claim he was in cooking dinner at that time. The evidence shows he was out and about on his mobile after making plans to meet Jodi. While his brother was home alone.
-
You are assuming her throat was cut first. Furthermore its never claimed it was a strangulating sound only that it was a strangling sort of sound. - "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing"
That's because only in retrospect/hindsight, does the cyclist realise what he had heard.
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
It would have to be a hell of a coincidence for the cyclist to have heard something other than her murder. Regardless of who done it.
Its also worth noting that the sound the cyclist heard was in the same time frame when Lukes brother was watching internet porn - something he admits he would only do if he was alone in the house. This contradicts Luke's claim he was in cooking dinner at that time. The evidence shows he was out and about on his mobile after making plans to meet Jodi. While his brother was home alone.
she had have been alive when her throat was cut becouse of thhe blood spray. so her throat must of been cut first.
yes it could well be complete cioncedence becouse that is not a deserted spot strange sounds would be heard all the time.
if this ccyclist had been that disturbed. had been tht disturbed about whaat he heard surely he would of gone to the police.
and hes timing can not be considred gospel becouse he does not mention seiing the 2 lads on the moped even though other witneses did see them at that time.
and i might point out that 3 diffrent times have been given for jodi leaving her house.
why do you think the police didnt look or a liguture as they would of done had there been a sugestion of strangulation.
-
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
It would have to be a hell of a coincidence for the cyclist to have heard something other than her murder. Regardless of who done it.
Its also worth noting that the sound the cyclist heard was in the same time frame when Lukes brother was watching internet porn - something he admits he would only do if he was alone in the house. This contradicts Luke's claim he was in cooking dinner at that time. The evidence shows he was out and about on his mobile after making plans to meet Jodi. While his brother was home alone.
Its apparent that Luke and Jodi had arraigned to meet up just prior to her murder. Its apparent that Luke was giving the pretence of expecting to meet Judi when he called Jodi's home.
The telephone/text and witness accounts of her mother makes this rather clear. This is very problematic for Luke because he has set himself up with two false alibis for this time frame.
In one instance he has claimed he was at home cooking. And in another instance he told a Sky news reporter that he was with friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: But you have an alibi for that night because you were with friends?
"LUKE: Yes. I was, first I was waiting just at the end of the estate where I was in full view, cars were passing, people were just getting home from work on buses, then I met up with my friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Who vouch for you?
LUKE: Yes, they gave statements the same as mine."
Another thing that I find crucial is that only Luke and Jodi's mother would have known when and where Judi was going when she left the house shortly before she died. Who else would have known where Judi was and where she was going? Any alternative killer has to be a random impulse killer with no connection to the victim.
Witnesses also saw Luke that day with certain type of Jacket on. This jacket was never found. This conforms with the theory that what he wore that day was being burned in the fire that took place that very night.
Then you have the knife pouch with Jodi's initials on and the date she died but the knife is missing.
Its rather easy to solve this case with old fashioned detective work.
"there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion: but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of." R v Exall (1866)
-
Its apparent that Luke and Jodi had arraigned to meet up just prior to her murder. Its apparent that Luke was giving the pretence of expecting to meet Judi when he called Jodi's home.
The telephone/text and witness accounts of her mother makes this rather clear. This is very problematic for Luke because he has set himself up with two false alibis for this time frame.
In one instance he has claimed he was at home cooking. And in another instance he told a Sky news reporter that he was with friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: But you have an alibi for that night because you were with friends?
"LUKE: Yes. I was, first I was waiting just at the end of the estate where I was in full view, cars were passing, people were just getting home from work on buses, then I met up with my friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Who vouch for you?
LUKE: Yes, they gave statements the same as mine."
Another thing that I find crucial is that only Luke and Jodi's mother would have known when and where Judi was going when she left the house shortly before she died. Who else would have known where Judi was and where she was going? Any alternative killer has to be a random impulse killer with no connection to the victim.
Witnesses also saw Luke that day with certain type of Jacket on. This jacket was never found. This conforms with the theory that what he wore that day was being burned in the fire that took place that very night.
Then you have the knife pouch with Jodi's initials on and the date she died but the knife is missing.
Its rather easy to solve this case with old fashioned detective work.
"there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion: but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of." R v Exall (1866)
luke was with freinds tht night hes freinds confirm that.
that was after he cliams he was cooking dinner. so your to 2 false albis cliam is completly untrue.
who else but jodis mother well everybody in her house. brother and sister her mums partner and i belive her sisters boyfreind whos sperm just happend to found on jodis underwear. and anybody who was on the path that includs her 2 cousins who lied about what time they were on there.
-
in the reconstruction it shows jodi leaving at five pm so why did the times for jodi leaving keep changing.
https://media.gettyimages.com/videos/jodi-jones-murder-police-stage-reconstruction-itn-scotland-dalkeith-video-id682859452
-
It is evident that this entire debate is going round in circles. When something is mentioned, it is dissected again, and again, and again.
Does anyone have any new information? Everything that has so far been mentioned has already been discussed and dissected.
Surely someone else must have something new to bring to the table? The entire debate is boring. It’s the same material being discussed.
Can anyone else offer something more exciting? I can’t, so I guess I am appealing now for more information...
-
It is evident that this entire debate is going round in circles. When something is mentioned, it is dissected again, and again, and again.
Does anyone have any new information? Everything that has so far been mentioned has already been discussed and dissected.
Surely someone else must have something new to bring to the table? The entire debate is boring. It’s the same material being discussed.
Can anyone else offer something more exciting? I can’t, so I guess I am appealing now for more information...
It’s boring because their is no real mystery here.
This is a closed case that’s rather easy to work out IMO. I have nothing more to add to this discussion.
Over and out.
-
It’s boring because their is no real mystery here.
This is a closed case that’s rather easy to work out IMO. I have nothing more to add to this discussion.
Over and out.
ok mr fornscic breakthrough im sure we can surive with out you.
by they wy have you ever thought of doing basic resarch on a case before you comment.
-
Its apparent that Luke and Jodi had arraigned to meet up just prior to her murder. Its apparent that Luke was giving the pretence of expecting to meet Judi when he called Jodi's home.
The telephone/text and witness accounts of her mother makes this rather clear. This is very problematic for Luke because he has set himself up with two false alibis for this time frame.
In one instance he has claimed he was at home cooking. And in another instance he told a Sky news reporter that he was with friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: But you have an alibi for that night because you were with friends?
"LUKE: Yes. I was, first I was waiting just at the end of the estate where I was in full view, cars were passing, people were just getting home from work on buses, then I met up with my friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Who vouch for you?
LUKE: Yes, they gave statements the same as mine."
Another thing that I find crucial is that only Luke and Jodi's mother would have known when and where Judi was going when she left the house shortly before she died. Who else would have known where Judi was and where she was going? Any alternative killer has to be a random impulse killer with no connection to the victim.
Witnesses also saw Luke that day with certain type of Jacket on. This jacket was never found. This conforms with the theory that what he wore that day was being burned in the fire that took place that very night.
Then you have the knife pouch with Jodi's initials on and the date she died but the knife is missing.
Its rather easy to solve this case with old fashioned detective work.
"there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion: but the whole taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of." R v Exall (1866)
I think you need to go back and read the information again to get everything in the right order. At least get the names correct.
-
Also, what certain type of jacket he wore that day was missing.pilot jacket, green german army shirt or fishing style jacket or a parka? It confirms absoloutely hee haw. Since they couldnt decide what type of jacket they were looking for in the first place , how do we know what is missing ?
-
I think you need to go back and read the information again to get everything in the right order. At least get the names correct.
Apologies if this has been mentioned before in this now lengthy thread but who were the friends whom Luke claimed to have met, and what has David got in the wrong order?
-
i just found a lot of old links that i thought had dispeared.
i will get them later.
-
Apologies if this has been mentioned before in this now lengthy thread but who were the friends whom Luke claimed to have met, and what has David got in the wrong order?
well one was david high he gave evdence incourt i belive there were 2 others i cant rember there names but i will get you them later.
this was all established at he trail had david actully looked at the court reporting of the trail he would know this.
had he bothred to read the begining of the thread he would know this.
-
Apologies if this has been mentioned before in this now lengthy thread but who were the friends whom Luke claimed to have met, and what has David got in the wrong order?
if your finding this thread hard to naavigate theres a much smaller one on webleuths that contains some basic information.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/uk-jodi-jones-14-dalkeith-scotland-30-june-2003.3863/
-
Just read the article about another knife being found close to the murder scene in a wall by someone digging his garden. Never knew that! Can anyone shed anymore light on this? I k now it was a kitchen knife.
-
Just read the article about another knife being found close to the murder scene in a wall by someone digging his garden. Never knew that! Can anyone shed anymore light on this? I k now it was a kitchen knife.
well i havent heard anything about it sof its true it must be a very recent descovery.
-
are yes you are correct a kitchen knife was found.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR0wa_c_IiqG1BfcwgTbdTLYqMcXDB7e0OqHSNno0QwREUNsRYqPdJXjaNk
-
a question for sandra thts not been asked her before: who is sgiath films?
one video in existance (about luke case)
no other works
no references to them anywhere online
...other than sandra talkin about them
in interest of disclosure is sgiath films... you?
-
Never heard so much guff in my life! If Luke did it would someone plz explain how? We have gone over every aspect time and time again and yet whenever the ability of a 14 year old to do what had occurred and only a wholly circumstantial case could be brought before the court.
Please don’t hide behind the prosecution case but simply explain how everything happened, we discuss this because we don’t see any other way it could happen and Luke be guilty .
-
Hey guys, after seeing those 2 podcasts (I'm discounting the poly one, it is irrelevant) I decided to join the discussion. I like to keep an open mind, but i was simply not going to go on what seemed like 2 very one sided podcasts, so i did a bit of digging.
Some questions.
Who has confessed?
The body was found, excuse me if i'm wrong over 13 meters from the V. How is it possible, Luke could see a body & knew it was Jodi? after taking just a few steps? I presume, it was dark, with thick growth?
Who seen the 2 guys at the V with the moped? The cyclist never seen them, so who did?
Where is Shane? And why did his mother talk him though a fresh statement?
Why have all appeals failed?
the 2 guys on the moped were seen buy the owner of the tool hire shop I believe.
bit of mute point really seeing as they both admitted o being there.
I can only assume that the cyclist did not see them becouses hes got the time wrong and he was there before they were or after.
I don't think it can be disclosed who confessed as might prejudice further legal proceedings personally I don't set much store by a confession on its own I mean someone in a confused state or someone with mental health problems could confess to anything weather they did it or not.
so im personally not that bothered about it.
-
Hey guys, after seeing those 2 podcasts (I'm discounting the poly one, it is irrelevant) I decided to join the discussion. I like to keep an open mind, but i was simply not going to go on what seemed like 2 very one sided podcasts, so i did a bit of digging.
Some questions.
Who has confessed?
The body was found, excuse me if i'm wrong over 13 meters from the V. How is it possible, Luke could see a body & knew it was Jodi? after taking just a few steps? I presume, it was dark, with thick growth?
Who seen the 2 guys at the V with the moped? The cyclist never seen them, so who did?
Where is Shane? And why did his mother talk him though a fresh statement?
Why have all appeals failed?
Who confessed . N/A at this point
Luke could not see a body and could not identify it as Jodi, he described it as a mannequin
The employees of the tool hire company that had forced the lads off their land at an earlier point.
Shane it appears is back in the community and his mother didn’t talk him through anything, as has been discussed the first statements change many times over the course of any proceedings and he naturally remembered something more, same thing happened with the other 3 members of the search party although all their statements changed to the very same thing.
-
i do wonder why the cyclist never saw anybody though i can only conclude there was nobody to see when he rode past.
he dident see a moped so you have to asume there wasnt a moped there at the time.
-
In-fact i see i'm wasting my time signing up to have a discussion, and here was me thinking, this lad might be innocent, but the blatant lies in Gordo's post, tells me, i'm wasting my time, Shane admitted in court his mother told him what's what. No wonder all the appeals fail.
Over & out.
were you in the court then have you read the trail have you got a source or your claim.
-
Who confessed . N/A at this point
Luke could not see a body and could not identify it as Jodi, he described it as a mannequin
The employees of the tool hire company that had forced the lads off their land at an earlier point.
Shane it appears is back in the community and his mother didn’t talk him through anything, as has been discussed the first statements change many times over the course of any proceedings and he naturally remembered something more, same thing happened with the other 3 members of the search party although all their statements changed to the very same thing.
I think its just a troll gordo not a serious poster.
-
I thought gordo was spot on with his answers
-
This debate is needing curtailed. It’s going round and round like a never-ending carousel roundabout.
Does anyone else agree that the debate should end? I think the plug has to be pulled. It’s 16 years ago. Continuously feeding the debate, and also Sandra Lean, with interest isn’t helping anyone.
The plugs needing pulled.
-
This debate is needing curtailed. It’s going round and round like a never-ending carousel roundabout.
Does anyone else agree that the debate should end? I think the plug has to be pulled. It’s 16 years ago. Continuously feeding the debate, and also Sandra Lean, with interest isn’t helping anyone.
The plugs needing pulled.
its not going to end simple as. even if it ended on here it would carry on somwhere else.
-
what ive never been able to fathem is whydoes jodis mum send a text adressed to jodi on lukes phone how did she know jodi would see it how did she know lukes phone was switched on.
if she wanted to get hold of jodi wouldent it have been better to ring luke and ask to speak to her.
-
This debate is needing curtailed. It’s going round and round like a never-ending carousel roundabout.
Does anyone else agree that the debate should end? I think the plug has to be pulled. It’s 16 years ago. Continuously feeding the debate, and also Sandra Lean, with interest isn’t helping anyone.
The plugs needing pulled.
Nope I guess it’s only you!! Then why would someone like yourself even bother coming on a site and put up a few posts. Few posts and then advocate for the thread to be closed? This is not an open and shut case no matter how often you muppets decide that it is.
-
Nope I guess it’s only you!! Then why would someone like yourself even bother coming on a site and put up a Few posts and then advocate for the thread to be closed? This is not an open and shut case no matter how often you muppets decide that it is.
-
The problem to me seems to be that alot of people refuse to entertain the fact that the information they have been fed for the past 16 years is false.
Or could be false in the interest of fairness.
-
Look at the type of people who surround themselves with the information, those who have nothing to gain and see something wrong in the case ,those who are from the area and are surrounded with internal influences and self motivation who want to either try and take this out the public perspective in one way or another.
-
i think theres a bit more to it than that.
-
Hi,
I've been away for a bit, so haven't been able to keep up with comments here (or anywhere else)!!!
a question for sandra thts not been asked her before: who is sgiath films?
one video in existance (about luke case)
no other works
no references to them anywhere online
...other than sandra talkin about them
in interest of disclosure is sgiath films... you?
No. I didn't know any of the people involved prior to the making of this film, which was organised by a mutual colleague.
If it had been my own work, it would have been published under my own name - like the books, like the youtube video - I've no need to hide my involvement/responsibility for anything I personally put out and it's only right that others take full credit for their own work. Nothing to disclose here, WakeyWakey.
-
do the search party videos still exist.
-
Which ones, nugnug?
-
the ones were on wrongly acused person.
-
The problem to me seems to be that alot of people refuse to entertain the fact that the information they have been fed for the past 16 years is false.
Or could be false in the interest of fairness.
Who are you referring to? Those who advocate this as a MOJ or those who don't?
-
They're still on the wap YouTube channel. Bizarre creations.
oh thankyou litum ill go and have a look.
-
Such as? Just because Sandra has tried to explain away every piece of circumstantial evidence (unsuccessfully and without any proof) doesn't make it false.
What information (that was used to convict Luke) has been proven false?
The circumstantial evidence all fits together like a jigsaw. I don't see how anyone can explain it away. There is only one logical answer. That being Luke murdered Jodi.
PS: Does Sandra L have access to the trial transcrips and witness statements?
-
The circumstantial evidence all fits together like a jigsaw. I don't see how anyone can explain it away. There is only one logical answer. That being Luke murdered Jodi.
PS: Does Sandra L have access to the trial transcrips and witness statements?
you havent sudied this case very much have sandra was lukes power of atorney for several yeears and has read all the case papers.
-
Who are you referring to? Those who advocate this as a MOJ or those who don't?
I think it’s all about who has the guts from the Luke is guilty side to step up and explain the anomalies in this case, let’s start with a simple one like how did he manage to do everything and still be seen sitting on a wall less than 40 mins later.
-
Such as? Just because Sandra has tried to explain away every piece of circumstantial evidence (unsuccessfully and without any proof) doesn't make it false.
What information (that was used to convict Luke) has been proven false?
There’s no need to explain away any circumstantial evidence it’s doesn't even stand on its own scrutiny, that’s why it’s circumstantial. Most cases like this have a few solid forms of fully corroborated evidence that the case stands upon. Not in this instance! Everything was just a well put together story.
-
There’s no need to explain away any circumstantial evidence it’s doesn't even stand on its own scrutiny, that’s why it’s circumstantial.
How do you think cases were solved prior to DNA? ???
-
you havent sudied this case very much have sandra was lukes power of atorney for several yeears and has read all the case papers.
In that case I would like Sandra to clarify a few things-
Do these statements from Luke's friends exist?
"JAMES MATTHEWS: But you have an alibi for that night because you were with friends?
LUKE: Yes. I was, first I was waiting just at the end of the estate where I was in full view, cars were passing, people were just getting home from work on buses, then I met up with my friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Who vouch for you?
LUKE: Yes, they gave statements the same as mine."
Does this alleged other witness unconnected to his family who admitted burning clothes exist?
"JAMES MATTHEWS: This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE: No, not that we know of. "
-
were you in the court then have you read the trail have you got a source or your claim.
I think he is refering to this from the scotsman newspaper 1/13/2005
"Luke's brother admits mum aided evidence
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"
-
One hell of a long post to decide wether someone was led to his statement or had discussed the different timings and events that occurred that day. This was a normal Monday that no one would have remembered except that a young woman had been killed in the area. I wonder do you really expect me to believe that other people pertinent to this enquiry didn’t do the same thing! Ffs two were almost held in contempt of court for doing so.
-
One hell of a long post to decide wether someone was led to his statement or had discussed the different timings and events that occurred that day. This was a normal Monday that no one would have remembered except that a young woman had been killed in the area. I wonder do you really expect me to believe that other people pertinent to this enquiry didn’t do the same thing! Ffs two were almost held in contempt of court for doing so.
Shanes computer was examined. They found he had been downloading porn around this time. Something he admits he would only do if he was alone in house. Thus Luke was not "mashing tatties". He had made araingemnts to meet Jodi. The last known thing Jodi said was telling her mother that she was going to visit Luke.
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
-
Shane’s computer was looked at and there was nothing that suggested he had looked at porn at that point. It was put to him what he would do should he find himself alone watching porn, totally different from asking him what he was doing at the very point. The website he activated were car site with many pornographic pop ups that marred these sites. The line of questioning was leading and subjective.
I see were still avoiding the question put by me earlier, strange that I’m not bothered as it was expected.
-
Define "everything"?
No one knows exactly how it happened. The murder could have taken five mins. Why couldn't luke have been sitting at the wall alone at the opposite end of the path "looking suspicious" after meeting and arguing with jodi at her end of the path... 🤔
That wall is exactly where he would be if he murdered Jodi at the suspected TOD. He was there trying to be seen by as many people as possible which he more or less slipped up and admitted to in the sky interview. Then decided his alibi was he was cooking dinner. It all falls apart pretty quickly when the suspect is a naive 15 year old trying to fool people.
Even the most rudimentary explanation
-
Define "everything"?
No one knows exactly how it happened. The murder could have taken five mins. Why couldn't luke have been sitting at the wall alone at the opposite end of the path "looking suspicious" after meeting and arguing with jodi at her end of the path... 🤔
That wall is exactly where he would be if he murdered Jodi at the suspected TOD. He was there trying to be seen by as many people as possible which he more or less slipped up and admitted to in the sky interview. Then decided his alibi was he was cooking dinner. It all falls apart pretty quickly when the suspect is a naive 15 year old trying to fool people.
You know what happened at that murder site! How could you suggest it would or could have take 5 mins
-
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
4.53pm - 5.16pm - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
The timing that Lukes brother accesses internet porn is around the time just after Luke would have left the house to meet up with Jodi. And we know for a fact that he he did plan to meet her due to the phone records and what Jodi told her mother.
-
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
4.53pm - 5.16pm - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking8 where she is.
The timing that Lukes brother accesses internet porn is around the time just after Luke would have left the house to meet up with Jodi. And we know for a fact that he he did plan to meet her due to the phone records and what she told her mother.
What phone records!! What phone records! The use of a phone for calling or texting is in now way a record of anything stated in the calls or texts.
The timings about accessing poem is in now way conclusive that he did so when no one was in the house, if he ever did access porn sites at this point.
-
Ive continually corrected the grammar and composition of my posts and still they come up like a bunch of crap on this site. Is there anyway of making sure this doesn’t happen.
-
What phone records!! What phone records! The use of a phone for calling or texting is in now way a record of anything stated in the calls or texts.
The timings about accessing poem is in now way conclusive that he did so when no one was in the house, if he ever did access porn sites at this point.
I am getting my info from here
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7)
-
Ive continually corrected the grammar and composition of my posts and still they come up like a bunch of crap on this site. Is there anyway of making sure this doesn’t happen.
The site has nothing to do with how your grammar turns out.
-
How do you think cases were solved prior to DNA? ???
The site has nothing to do with how your grammar turns out.
I have tried to correct words and grammar and they change when I modify and then go back to what I tried to correct! If thats not got anything to with the site then so be it, it’s becoming unfit for purpose.
How do you think miscarriages of justice cases occur?
-
I have tried to correct words and grammar and they change when I modify and then go back to what I tried to correct! If thats not got anything to with the site then so be it, it’s becoming unfit for purpose.
Try editing your posts in a different web browser.
-
I have tried to correct words and grammar and they change when I modify and then go back to what I tried to correct! If thats not got anything to with the site then so be it, it’s becoming unfit for purpose.
No one has ever had this problem before - give me an example?
-
No one has ever had this problem before - give me an example?
Here we go do you guys need proof you had a shite? The last post was proof I had corrected the grammar spelling and everything needed and it was ok on the modified screen but when I posted it went back to the same as I had posted once I pressed save.
-
Here we go do you guys need proof you had a shite? The last post was proof I had corrected the grammar, spelling and everything needed and it was ok on the modified screen; but when I posted it. it went back to the same as I had posted once I pressed save.
Just corrected your grammar if it saves OK, the problem is between your keyboard and the back of your chair!
-
Just corrected your grammar if it saves OK, the problem is between your keyboard and the back of your chair!
Just as I thought!
-
I have tried to correct words and grammar and they change when I modify and then go back to what I tried to correct! If that's not got anything to with the site then so be it, it’s becoming unfit for purpose.
How do you think miscarriages of justice cases occur?
Just corrected another - in red. Seems to be working fine to me.
-
Writing a grammatically bad post. Will attempt to modify, correct and save.
Will post a copy of the ORIGINAL text below the correction for comparison.
Copy of original "witing a grafically bid pot - will attumpt to midify corrict and sav"
-
Writing a grammatically bad post. Will attempt to modify, correct and save.
Will post a copy of the ORIGINAL text below the correction for comparison.
Copy of original "witing a grafically bid pot - will attumpt to midify corrict and sav"
As you can see, the correction worked! I have checked your permissions and they include being able to modify your posts.
-
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
4.53pm - 5.16pm - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
The timing that Lukes brother accesses internet porn is around the time just after Luke would have left the house to meet up with Jodi. And we know for a fact that he he did plan to meet her due to the phone records and what Jodi told her mother.
so why did the police recontstruction video that I posted say see left home at 5 pm.
-
so why did the police recontstruction video that I posted say see left home at 5 pm.
The appeal document states "She left her home at around 4 50 pm". A narrator in a video made a week after the murder says 5pm
Hardly a discrepancy.
-
The appeal document states "She left her home at around 4 50 pm". A narrator in a video made a week after the murder says 5pm
Hardly a discrepancy.
its a diffrence a of ten minutes very big difrence in a murder case with a very limted time window.
it also means that shanes downlods were before jodi left home not after.
it also means somebody has changed the times to give the suspect a bigger time window than he actully has
-
its a diffrence a of ten minutes very big difrence in a murder case with a very limted time window.
it also means that shanes downlods were before jodi left home not after.
it also means somebody has changed the times to give the suspect a bigger time window than he actully has
Nobody has changed anything. There is only one source for when Jodi left her home and that is her mother and any other occupants in the house. The time she testified in court was "around 4:50 pm"
A video made for the news is not evidence.
-
Nobody has changed anything. There is only one source for when Jodi left her home and that is her mother and any other occupants in the house. The time she testified in court was "around 4:50 pm"
A video made for the news is not evidence.
wich the reconstruction video proves is not true.
-
Nobody has changed anything. There is only one source for when Jodi left her home and that is her mother and any other occupants in the house. The time she testified in court was "around 4:50 pm"
A video made for the news is not evidence.
The time testified in court is not the time originally given in statements or other accounts. Judith originally said, "It was about five o'clock," and, according to AO, around twenty to six. The eyewitnesses said five past five. Nobody changed anything? Really? This case is chock full of examples of people changing things.
Evidence given in court is not the only evidence available in this case or any other.
The "video made for the news" was made by the police investigating the case, in order to jog people's memories. If I know I'm always home by 5pm, my memory's not going to be jogged about something that happened at five past five or twenty to six, even if the video suggests something happened at 4.50, during my drive home, because I couldn't possibly have seen it happen, could I?
The "video made for the news" was
-
The time testified in court is not the time originally given in statements or other accounts. Judith originally said, "It was about five o'clock," and, according to AO, around twenty to six. The eyewitnesses said five past five. Nobody changed anything? Really? This case is chock full of examples of people changing things.
Evidence given in court is not the only evidence available in this case or any other.
The "video made for the news" was made by the police investigating the case, in order to jog people's memories. If I know I'm always home by 5pm, my memory's not going to be jogged about something that happened at five past five or twenty to six, even if the video suggests something happened at 4.50, during my drive home, because I couldn't possibly have seen it happen, could I?
The "video made for the news" was
"around 4:50 pm" and "about five o'clock" are almost synonymous.
Luke called Jodi's house at 5:40pm asking where she is and was told she had left to see him. Luke also called Jodi's house at 5:32pm to ask where she was but did not get through. Thus the had made arraignments to meet with Jodi that coincide the the time Judi's mother stated she left the house and the text messages.
Factor this in with what the cyclists heard between 5:05pm - 5:20pm (Judi's death) and that it would take around 10 to 15 minutes for Judi to reach the spot where she died. We can reasonably conclude that AOs recollection of the time was wrong.
And if some witnesses say five past five, that's not an issue because if that was the case it still fits in with the timeline.
-
"around 4:50 pm" and "about five o'clock" are almost synonymous.
Luke called Jodi's house at 5:40pm asking where she is and was told she had left to see him. Luke also called Jodi's house at 5:32pm to ask where she was but did not get through. Thus the had made arraignments to meet with Jodi that coincide the the time Judi's mother stated she left the house and the text messages.
Factor this in with what the cyclists heard between 5:05pm - 5:20pm (Judi's death) and that it would take around 10 to 15 minutes for Judi to reach the spot where she died. We can reasonably conclude that AOs recollection of the time was wrong.
And if some witnesses say five past five, that's not an issue because if that was the case it still fits in with the timeline.
if jodi left at 5.05 that and got there at 620pm or so that gives luke 25 minutes to kill mutliate the body run home without anybody seeing him and clan himself up completly more or less impossble.
he was seen at the end of his road by 3 boys on bikes a 545 pm.
jodi leaving at 500 pm or 505 pm also makes shanes downloadin comletly irlvant to the case becouse becouse jodi was still at ome when he was doing it.
-
The time testified in court is not the time originally given in statements or other accounts. Judith originally said, "It was about five o'clock," and, according to AO, around twenty to six. The eyewitnesses said five past five. Nobody changed anything? Really? This case is chock full of examples of people changing things.
Evidence given in court is not the only evidence available in this case or any other.
The "video made for the news" was made by the police investigating the case, in order to jog people's memories. If I know I'm always home by 5pm, my memory's not going to be jogged about something that happened at five past five or twenty to six, even if the video suggests something happened at 4.50, during my drive home, because I couldn't possibly have seen it happen, could I?
The "video made for the news" was
id say he eye witness must of given the right time because there times didn't change.
say they could of been worng by 5 minutes ever way that would mean its wasbetween about 500. or 510 pm
-
"around 4:50 pm" and "about five o'clock" are almost synonymous.
Luke called Jodi's house at 5:40pm asking where she is and was told she had left to see him. Luke also called Jodi's house at 5:32pm to ask where she was but did not get through. Thus the had made arraignments to meet with Jodi that coincide the the time Judi's mother stated she left the house and the text messages.
Factor this in with what the cyclists heard between 5:05pm - 5:20pm (Judi's death) and that it would take around 10 to 15 minutes for Judi to reach the spot where she died. We can reasonably conclude that AOs recollection of the time was wrong.
And if some witnesses say five past five, that's not an issue because if that was the case it still fits in with the timeline.
We’re talking about someone claiming to have seen Luke for a brisk second while driving by at speed. The idea that a few mins here and there don’t matter is an astounding claim.
-
if jodi left at 5.05 that and got there at 620pm or so that gives luke 25 minutes to kill mutliate the body run home without anybody seeing him and clan himself up completly more or less impossble.
he was seen at the end of his road by 3 boys on bikes a 545 pm.
Luke didn't return home until 9:05pm
jodi leaving at 500 pm or 505 pm also makes shanes downloadin comletly irlvant to the case becouse becouse jodi was still at ome when he was doing it.
The importance of Shane watching porn between 4.53pm - 5.16pm is that he would only do that if the house was empty and it contradicts Luke's claim of being at home cooking dinner. It shows Luke was out at the time.
Luke claims he did not leave the house until around 5:30pm. Yet he was seen by a witness near the crime scene at around 4:55pm.
Shane Mitchell admitted that his mum got him to say Luke was in the house around the time of the murder and that if it was not for his mother he would not have said Luke was in (because he clearly was not) If Luke really was in, Shane would not need to go along with a story his mum made up.
-
Luke didn't return home until 9:05pm
The importance of Shane watching porn between 4.53pm - 5.16pm is that he would only do that if the house was empty and it contradicts Luke's claim of being at home cooking dinner. It shows Luke was out at the time.
Luke claims he did not leave the house until around 5:30pm. Yet he was seen by a witness near the crime scene at around 4:55pm.
Shane Mitchell admitted that his mum got him to say Luke was in the house around the time of the murder and that if it was not for his mother he would not have said Luke was in (because he clearly was not) If Luke really was in, Shane would not need to go along with a story his mum made up.
no eye witneses saw him near the crime scene that is the invsetigting officer craig dobbie stated this himself there was not one postive id of him.
adriana bryson failed to pick him out in court.
there was the witneses flemming and walsh who described somebody who looks nothing like nothing like luke
-
Luke didn't return home until 9:05pm
The importance of Shane watching porn between 4.53pm - 5.16pm is that he would only do that if the house was empty and it contradicts Luke's claim of being at home cooking dinner. It shows Luke was out at the time.
Luke claims he did not leave the house until around 5:30pm. Yet he was seen by a witness near the crime scene at around 4:55pm.
Shane Mitchell admitted that his mum got him to say Luke was in the house around the time of the murder and that if it was not for his mother he would not have said Luke was in (because he clearly was not) If Luke really was in, Shane would not need to go along with a story his mum made up.
That is just made up, tell me where did Shane say his mother forced him to say luje was in the house. Corrine only reminded him of the burnt pie and he went to amend his statement.
Y
-
adriana bryson failed to pick him out in court.
Considering that two years had passed by then and Luke presented himself in a more formal manner before the court, contrary to the night of the murder, that's understandable.
To say Bryson just so happened to witness someone that looked just like Luke with someone who just so happened to look like Jodi, complete with the missing jacket and it just so happened to be close to the time and place they planned to meet up and it just was not them, is not.
You need to ask yourself - Why are the Mitchells lying?
Why is Luke, his brother and his mother dishonestly trying to make out he was home when the murder took place?
Why did his neighbours notice a fire in his backgarden on the night of the murder and around the same time he arrived home?
Why was the Jacket he was seen wearing that day and known to wear often vanish by the time the police searched his house 4 days later?
Why does he have a knife pouch with the initials and date of death of his stabbed to death girlfriend with the knife missing from the pouch and no murder weapon is recovered?
To me the answer is obvious - He killed Jodi.
-
Considering that two years had passed by then and Luke presented himself in a more formal manner before the court, contrary to the night of the murder, that's understandable.
To say Bryson just so happened to witness someone that looked just like Luke with someone who just so happened to look like Jodi, complete with the missing jacket and it just so happened to be close to the time and place they planned to meet up and it just was not them, is not.
You need to ask yourself - Why are the Mitchells lying?
Why is Luke, his brother and his mother dishonestly trying to make out he was home when the murder took place?
Why did his neighbours notice a fire in his backgarden on the night of the murder and around the same time he arrived home?
Why was the Jacket he was seen wearing that day and known to wear often vanish by the time the police searched his house 4 days later?
Why does he have a knife pouch with the initials and date of death of his stabbed to death girlfriend with the knife missing from the pouch and no murder weapon is recovered?
To me the answer is obvious - He killed Jodi.
so that would mean the witness who did positively indemnify Jodi in a completely different place was lying wouldn't it.
and why would they.
-
Considering that two years had passed by then and Luke presented himself in a more formal manner before the court, contrary to the night of the murder, that's understandable.
To say Bryson just so happened to witness someone that looked just like Luke with someone who just so happened to look like Jodi, complete with the missing jacket and it just so happened to be close to the time and place they planned to meet up and it just was not them, is not.
You need to ask yourself - Why are the Mitchells lying?
Why is Luke, his brother and his mother dishonestly trying to make out he was home when the murder took place?
Why did his neighbours notice a fire in his backgarden on the night of the murder and around the same time he arrived home?
Why was the Jacket he was seen wearing that day and known to wear often vanish by the time the police searched his house 4 days later?
Why does he have a knife pouch with the initials and date of death of his stabbed to death girlfriend with the knife missing from the pouch and no murder weapon is recovered?
To me the answer is obvious - He killed Jodi.
Not based upon the rubbish you just typed.
Bryson didn’t pick him out at court possibly because of what you infer, however Fleming and Walsh did how can one be ok and the other be ok. Bryson claimed to have saw who she thought was Luke from slightly behind as he was at the point of the entrance of the paths. The person he was with was never claimed to be Jodi by anyone only inferred to place the two together, strange that the description of the girl the man was talking to didn’t match up with what Jodi was found to be wearing isn’t it, there’s a series of errors here.
No fire was witnessed misinformation it was a burning smell that could have came from anywhere.
The jacket he was seen wearing at school and the only positive sightings of him with a jacket was the green bomber jacket that is with the police.
The pouch was purchased after the murder so has no bearing on the murder , therefore the knife that went with the pouch was also purchased after the murder and has no bearing on the case.
-
well the other witness cliam proves the brsyn sighting to be wrong how can she entering the path on her own at 505 pm and be somewhere else with luke 10 minutes earler.
-
Absolutely no evidence that the murderer would have had to "clean themselves up"
well the patholgist disagreas with you there.
-
Can Sandra shed any light on wether or not they now have a new legal team and that an application is being prepared? I am a little confused as read that she had taken all the paperwork from mojo and was looking for a new lawyer. Is it just a tabloid confusing things?
Also going back to the JE podcast i found Corrine to be completely honest and I felt terribly sorry for her. It’s a shame that it seems that she hasn’t had much support from outside her own family. You would think being adults most people would understand that guilty or innocent her life has been a living hell for years. It has obviously taken its toll and she could do with a few good friends. I know I would feel bitter if I was her and I completely get where she’s coming from . Shame on those that ruined her business. very sad for her.
-
Wrong. He merely said it would be surprising if the killer didn't have a little blood on him.
Also a pathologist isn't exactly qualified to comment on the crime scene. Nor is he a blood pattern analyst.
i think there both more qualfeid than you.
-
Blood spatter and smears on wall, numerous amounts of blood on sticks and leaves but Luke didn’t have to clean up as he was able to do everything and not get blood on him, mental!!
-
Either that or he just binned his parka and shoved his gloves in the fire.
Also post your source for the crime scene being the blood bath you describe.
Are you saying the things I have said weren’t there? You know the source as you keep looking to the same source yourself
-
Crime scene wasn't covered in blood and I've never seen Sandra say so either. Where did you hear this?
Where did I say it was covered in blood? I said there was blood spatter on the bottom of a wall that also had a smear higher up. I said there were numerous branches and leaves that had various amounts of blood on them. Couple that with having to take off items of clothing that were saturated and it doesn’t make sense that someone can say there no reason he wouldn’t have blood on him.
If that was the case there’s no way Luke could know that no blood was on him and would have had to follow the processes needed to make sure. All took time .
-
If the killer was soaked in blood it would have transferred to the V when he climbed out. They would have been spotted walking down the street in blood soaked clothes. No matter who you think did it, they couldn't have been covered in blood.
no not if they lived right next to the path.
-
Did police ever recover the 7 inch locking knife that Luke's army cadet leader returned to him after confiscating less than a year before the murder? Does Sandra Lean and co. accept that Matthew Muraska exists and this incident did occur in front of a class full cadets or do we just disregard everyone? Such as the neighbours, and the girl Luke threatened with the knife, the high school teacher and the friends who testified Luke would talk about wanting to kill someone...
Is this the knife he allegedly held to a girls neck? If so why would it be returned to Luke as it wasn’t his knife.
-
Did police ever recover the 7 inch locking knife that Luke's army cadet leader returned to him after confiscating less than a year before the murder? Does Sandra Lean and co. accept that Matthew Muraska exists and this incident did occur in front of a class full cadets or do we just disregard everyone? Such as the neighbours, and the girl Luke threatened with the knife, the high school teacher and the friends who testified Luke would talk about wanting to kill someone...
funny none of the cadets ever said they saw him do it isn't it.
-
Crime scene wasn't covered in blood and I've never seen Sandra say so either. Where did you hear this? I just think everything should be backed up as so much Sandra misinformation has been repeated for so many years now that it is now being touted as fact when she never follows up on her promises to provide the proof.
I get the impression that the trial transcripts and other case files have not been released because it wont do his campaign any favours.
Did police ever recover the 7 inch locking knife that Luke's army cadet leader returned to him after confiscating less than a year before the murder? Does Sandra Lean and co. accept that Matthew Muraska exists and this incident did occur in front of a class full cadets or do we just disregard everyone? Such as the neighbours, and the girl Luke threatened with the knife, the high school teacher and the friends who testified Luke would talk about wanting to kill someone...
Disregarding everything and everyone seems to be the predominant theme of his advocates here. I would be willing to bet that if an alternative suspect came to light with similar circumstancial evidence against him, for them it would somehow prove that guys guilt but for Luke it still means nothing.
-
I get the impression that the trial transcripts and other case files have not been released because it wont do his campaign any favours.
Disregarding everything and everyone seems to be the predominant theme of his advocates here. I would be willing to bet that if an alternative suspect came to light with similar circumstancial evidence against him, for them it would somehow prove that guys guilt but for Luke it still means nothing.
no becouse in scotland its not legal to release them.
-
funny none of the cadets ever said they saw him do it isn't it.
That’s how misinformation works mate, if you read the paragraph you would be certain to think that all this is exactly as stated. The majority of it is possibly correct , I have no clue if Luke had the lock knife or even if it was confiscated in front of a cadet class, how relevant it is is even more contentious . What I do know is the knife held to the girls throat wasn’t Luke’s, why would that matter as the event occurred and may show some startling behaviour! It shows that more than one person took a knife to the cadets, this behaviour doesn’t appear to be singular at all but adolescent mucking around. This occurrence didn’t even warrant the police being made aware and if I remember right the cadet leader also was not made aware. It all came out in an interview after the trial, so just how dangerous and threatening the event was is anyone’s guess.
-
I get the impression that the trial transcripts and other case files have not been released because it wont do his campaign any favours.
Disregarding everything and everyone seems to be the predominant theme of his advocates here. I would be willing to bet that if an alternative suspect came to light with similar circumstancial evidence against him, for them it would somehow prove that guys guilt but for Luke it still means nothing.
Quite the reverse David as was demonstrated a while ago that a circumstantial case could have been made against a number of people , no one advocates that any of them are guilty, only that the police should have followed the proper protocols and found the right culprit .
-
Quite the reverse David as was demonstrated a while ago that a circumstantial case could have been made against a number of people , no one advocates that any of them are guilty, only that the police should have followed the proper protocols and found the right culprit .
if we ever get trial transcripts and other case files, we will see that they did...
No fire was witnessed misinformation it was a burning smell that could have came from anywhere.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
[139]
"At page 17, the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived. "
That is just made up, tell me where did Shane say his mother forced him to say luje was in the house. Corrine only reminded him of the burnt pie and he went to amend his statement.
why he say thats what happened, these days? hes an articulate functionin member fo society made amends for past, not some barely functionin mental patient like some hear would have us beleive
-
If you look at another piece of information lithium put out about the many witnesses to Jodi being stabbed in the leg by Luke prior to the murder, in hindsight it’s an astounding allegation! When it’s broken down though it becomes something else.
How aggressive and frightening was that attack! Not enough for a young girl to fear for her life, she and Luke were very much an item afterwards, not enough to report this attack to the police even although many witnesses could have done so. It didn’t appear that bad that even Jodis mums was I formed of it or why would a mother allow her daughter to muck around with anyone who would do such a thing. Big bro I’m sure would have put Luke in his place had this stabbing been what it’s made out to have been.
Did Jodi require medical assistance as you would expect from a stabbing, when put into context with what happened to Jodi it’s easy for this to take on a far more sinister perspective but just what this actually was is anyone’s guess
-
If you look at another piece of information lithium put out about the many witnesses to Jodi being stabbed in the leg by Luke prior to the murder, in hindsight it’s an astounding allegation! When it’s broken down though it becomes something else.
How aggressive and frightening was that attack! Not enough for a young girl to fear for her life, she and Luke were very much an item afterwards, not enough to report this attack to the police even although many witnesses could have done so. It didn’t appear that bad that even Jodis mums was I formed of it or why would a mother allow her daughter to muck around with anyone who would do such a thing. Big bro I’m sure would have put Luke in his place had this stabbing been what it’s made out to have been.
Did Jodi require medical assistance as you would expect from a stabbing, when put into context with what happened to Jodi it’s easy for this to take on a far more sinister perspective but just what this actually was is anyone’s guess
the only person who claimed this was john Ferris
-
if we ever get trial transcripts and other case files, we will see that they did...
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
[139]
"At page 17, the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived. "
why he say thats what happened, these days? hes an articulate functionin member fo society made amends for past, not some barely functionin mental patient like some hear would have us beleive
Not only does Luke admit this fire took place after previously denying it. This fire took place around the exact time he returned home that night. Furthermore he lied in the Sky interview that the fire had nothing to do with him.
Lying about the fire. And lying about being home when the murder took place makes sense if he committed the murder before returning home to burn his clothing. That is not something you want people to know.
PS: I am still waiting for Sandra to confirm or deny the existence of witness statements that can corroborate the claims Luke made on the sky interview.
-
The documents can't be published in full because in Scotland,, it would be an offence to do so.
The scene was not "covered in blood" - I've commented many times on the surprising lack of blood at the scene for such a bloody murder. But the attack itself was extremely bloody - Jodi's hair, t-shirt and hoodie were soaked in blood. The attacker had to be close to all of these things whilst attacking Jodi, and thereafter (if the prosecution claim is to be believed) while he stripped, tied and mutilated her. It is that which makes claims that the killer was not heavily bloodstained unlikely.
Claims that the attacker would not be bloodstained because Jodi was unconscious are ludicrous. Firstly, the heart is still beating normally when a person is unconscious (and the pathologist stated that Jodi was strangled into semi or unconsciousness - he couldn't say which - at some point during the attack - he was unable to say which point). Therefore, arterial spray would occur normally. Secondly, Jodi wasn't unconscious when the defence wounds to the arms were inflicted (obviously). The pathologist said these wounds would have bled copiously and one of them, in particular, would have been life threatening in its own right. Thirdly, the wound from the side of Jodi's mouth to her ear, which went right through the flesh, was inflicted while she was alive - the killer had to be in very close proximity to her to inflict that wound which, again, would have bled profusely.
The police, by their own admission, did not follow proper protocols. The contamination of the scene, the failure to follow proper identity parade procedures, the failure to follow up on at least one other potential suspect because "by then, all resources were invested in the case against Mitchell," allowing the other members of the search party to mingle with others before being interviewed, the failure to take their clothes etc, incorrect procedures for collecting forensic evidence (fingernail scrapings and swabbing of items) rendering potential evidence impossible to recover or properly analyse, the leaving of the body out in the rain, uncovered, overnight, interrogation processes which were "outrageous and to be deplored," failure to protect and properly interview child and vulnerable witnesses, ignoring all evidence that did not support the chosen narrative (e.g. 30+ witness statements that there was no fire or there was nothing untoward about any fire that night, in favour of one which supported their contention), the whole photo spread shown to Bryson, the showing of newspaper photographs to other witnesses "for identification purposes" - the list goes on and on. Before the usual claims that you've only got my word for this, 9 out of the 12 examples above are confirmed, in the public domain, elsewhere.
"At page 17, the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived
Why is the bold passage above important? Because it is a recognised interrogation technique to force the person being interrogated into giving the answer required by the interrogator. Prior to this supposed "concession," Luke had said he didn't know if his mother and brother had a fire, they may have done/could have done, he was out, so he couldn't know if they'd had a fire earlier, etc.
There are examples of this throughout the interrogation. In the early part, they'd try to get Luke to agree with a suggestion - for example, "so the dog only knows it's working when it's got the lead thing on?" (This after several attempts to get Luke to explain how the dog "knew" to "work.") Luke said, "Like I said, it's more of a game to the dog - it's working to us, but to the dog, it's just a game." Later in the interrogation (when they officers were claimed to have "lost it"), one cop says, "You told us the dog would only work when the lead was on, you told us that, why are you lying?" Luke " I didn't ...I ..." Cop - "I wrote it down ... it's right here ... the dog only knows its working when the lead thing is on... that's your words Luke..." They weren't Luke's words, as you can see - they were the cop's words.
That's why quoting from court reports is so dangerous.
I get the impression that the trial transcripts and other case files have not been released because it wont do his campaign any favours.
If I could, I'd release the whole bloody lot. This tedious repetition of misinformation/correction/ misinformation/correction has been going on for years - if I'd been able to release everything, I wouldn't still be here, doing this. I would like nothing more than to be able to release everything. But far from doing the campaign no favours, I believe it would have exactly the opposite effect which is why, I believe, they're not allowed to be publicised.
-
Not only does Luke admit this fire took place after previously denying it. This fire took place around the exact time he returned home that night. Furthermore he lied in the Sky interview that the fire had nothing to do with him.
See my previous comment about the "admission." The fire was claimed to have taken place between 6pm and 7pm according to the Franklands and then again later, around 10pm. The only person who said it was between 9 and 10 "possibly about 9.30" was Mr Ramage - no corroboration whatsoever. How did he lie in the Sky interview? Matthews was referring to a report of a mother of a suspect burning clothing in a back garden in NEWTONGRANGE.
Lying about the fire. And lying about being home when the murder took place makes sense if he committed the murder before returning home to burn his clothing. That is not something you want people to know.
What the actual? The claim is that his mother burned the clothing while he was still out. Keep up, Wakey Wakey - let's just look at your claims rationally. So Luke killed Jodi and returned to his home around 9 o'clock to burn his clothing. According to Ramage, the strange smelling smoke didn't occur until about 9.30, an hour and ten minutes later, Luke gets the text from Jodi's mum and ten minutes after that, he sets out to look for her. Not one person commented on him smelling of smoke. The police doctor made no mention of him smelling of smoke or having any evidence of fire debris on him. I don't know about you, but if I have a log fire in the garden, my clothes are still smelling of smoke the following day. If he stood there while a Parka was incinerated, whatever he was wearing and his hair would be stinking of "strange smelling" smoke, surely? There was no suggestion he showered before going back out again, so how did he escape smelling of such a strong smoke smell, as well as leaving no evidence of himself at the scene, but leaving evidence of other people?
Also, in this scenario, he's burning the clothing at 9.30, knowing Jodi's curfew is 10pm - what if she'd been found immediately, or her mother had sent out a search party just after 10pm? He'd have been caught red-handed, wouldn't he?
PS: I am still waiting for Sandra to confirm or deny the existence of witness statements that can corroborate the claims Luke made on the sky interview.
If you mean the statements that his friends were playing with him in the woods, the times they were there, who was there, what Luke was wearing and whether or not Luke said Jodi wasn't coming out, yes, those statements all exist and, with the exception of the later changed account of David High to say Luke said Jodi wasn't coming out (which he hadn't claimed earlier), they all corroborate Luke's movements that night.
-
If you look at another piece of information lithium put out about the many witnesses to Jodi being stabbed in the leg by Luke prior to the murder, in hindsight it’s an astounding allegation! When it’s broken down though it becomes something else.
There was only one witness to this and that is John Ferris. No-one else ever made such a claim, even though there were several other people in the flat that night, many of whom gave statements.
-
The documents can't be published in full because in Scotland,, it would be an offence to do so.
Then how did channel 4 manage to televise Nat Fraisers trial?
"Courts of Justice are open to the public, anything that takes place before a Judge or Judges is thereby necessarily and legitimately made public, and, being once made legitimately public property, may be republished without inferring any responsibility.” (Sloan v B 1991 S.C. 412)
-
Then how did channel 4 manage to televise Nat Fraisers trial?
"Courts of Justice are open to the public, anything that takes place before a Judge or Judges is thereby necessarily and legitimately made public, and, being once made legitimately public property, may be republished without inferring any responsibility.” (Sloan v B 1991 S.C. 412)
she said case papers its legal to cover a trail and lukes trail ws covered by the press but case paper can not be legally published in scotland without the permissin of the crown office.
-
Not sure both incidents involved the same knife but the one the cadet leader caught Luke showing to a pal was confiscated and later returned to him. Muraska went out of his way at trial to explain specifically why he returned it to Luke - they had got into bother previously for permanently confiscating such items as it basically amounted to theft. The guy held the knife up to the class and said it had no place in the cadets and was only made for one thing. Does anyone know what that is? "killing" they answered.
To downplay Luke's knife obsession at this point is frankly embarrassing.
It wasn’t the same knife in both scenarios , the knife you claim was confiscated may well have been Luke’s I do t know. The fact is I k ow the knife used in the occurrence with Kara wasn’t his knife. Did she go to the police? Did she even tell her parents? Not until after the case and then the damsel in distress couldn’t wait and tell the world how close she had come to being Luke’s first murder, utter crap!!
-
Kara and Matthew are both lying though for no reason.
Nothing to see here folks.
*Sweep sweep*
funny they dident report it to the police at the time funny they made no compliant funny the people theyonly mentioned it to a tabliod newspaper ages after supposed to have happend.
-
Not really. He snuck up on her in private with a balaclava on and terrified her. As a "joke". Her being alone was kind of the point.
How could you know this if there were no witnesses to this happening? You admit yourself it happened between the two.
-
Kara and Matthew are both lying though for no reason.
Nothing to see here folks.
*Sweep sweep*
well a fee from a tabloid newspaper might be a good reason.
-
You're saying Luke's scout leader is lying and sold that story to a tabloid?
Do you know he testified in court? and the incident was fully corroborated.
we are not talking about the same incedent i aready dealt with scoutmaster.
-
Not sure both incidents involved the same knife but the one the cadet leader caught Luke showing to a pal was confiscated and later returned to him. Muraska went out of his way at trial to explain specifically why he returned it to Luke - they had got into bother previously for permanently confiscating such items as it basically amounted to theft. The guy held the knife up to the class and said it had no place in the cadets and was only made for one thing. Does anyone know what that is? "killing" they answered.
To downplay Luke's knife obsession at this point is frankly embarrassing.
how can come none of the kids seem to rember this incedent if it happend in front of them.
-
Forget it mate... Matthew Muraska made the whole thing up and committed perjury for no reason.
So did Luke's high school teacher who testified about the Parka...
They're all just lying. He's innocent. Case closed.
Even Luke is lying in order to frame himself. ;D
-
Forget it mate... Matthew Muraska made the whole thing up and committed perjury for no reason.
So did Luke's high school teacher who testified about the Parka...
They're all just lying. He's innocent. Case closed.
i dident say they were lying i said its funny none of the kids back there statements.
-
I don't believe the kids were ever asked. Nor were statements from them required. The word of Matthew Muraska is enough for me. He has no motive to perjure himself.
and why werent they asked.
and how would you know they wernt asked.
-
Because that's not how it works. The witness was Matthew Muraska. He provided the evidence.
dident they want more evdence i mean if the acounts true surely the kids would back him up.
and how would you know how it does or doesnt work.
-
Just ridiculous.
Is this what it has come to nugnug?
Yip unfortunately it is, a non corroborated account is worth zilch or should be. Except in a circumstantial case.
-
Let's just call endless witnesses to testify that they witnessed the original witness witnessing something. Then call anyone who they might have spoken to about it while we're at it. Witnesses who witnessed the witness of the original witness. ::) ::) ::)
Would be a start with all the misinformation you tend to stuff these pages with
-
Let's just call endless witnesses to testify that they witnessed the original witness witnessing something. Then call anyone who they might have spoken to about it while we're at it. Witnesses who witnessed the witness of the original witness. ::) ::) ::)
its perfectly normal to have a secound witness backing up the first witness.
then its harder to contest all proscuters know this
and its normal police procedere to find a secound witness an event if they belive the event happend.
-
its perfectly normal to have a secound witness backing up the first witness.
then its harder to contest all proscuters know this
and its normal police procedere to find a secound witness an event if they belive the event happend.
At least four different witnesses told the court they had witnessed Luke carrying a knife. Luke admitted to owning a knife, police found a knife pouch on his propety that belonged to him.
All these peices corroborate eachother.
Do you have any idea how lukes knife and jacket whent missing and why?
-
I have one simple question.
Why have all appeals failed?
Because no fresh evidence has come to light that has convinced the appeal court that if presented at his trial could have resulted in a different verdict.
-
At least four different witnesses told the court they had witnessed Luke carrying a knife. Luke admitted to owning a knife, police found a knife pouch on his propety that belonged to him.
All these peices corroborate eachother.
Do you have any idea how lukes knife and jacket whent missing and why?
What jacket is missing? Green german army shirt , fishing style jacket pilot jacket or parka?
The knife has been discussed many rimes before on here. Read the thread mate
-
At least four different witnesses told the court they had witnessed Luke carrying a knife. Luke admitted to owning a knife, police found a knife pouch on his propety that belonged to him.
All these peices corroborate eachother.
Do you have any idea how lukes knife and jacket whent missing and why?
well ive allready given my answer sandra has allready answered it it as well.
and my answer will be the same john ferris said luke luke droped the knife at a party he handed this knife intothe police.
2 days after.
that being the case there is no missing knife/
as for he jacket luke and corrine have allways mainened they boght the parker jacket after the murder.
they always maintained that luke wore a bomber jacket that day..
they maintain there is no missing jacket.
-
What jacket is missing? Green german army shirt , fishing style jacket pilot jacket or parka?
The knife has been discussed many rimes before on here. Read the thread mate
I don't actullly know why we are bothering to reply david not actually going to read hes ust going to ask it again.
-
The Parka that Luke's school teacher testified to seeing him wearing before the murder, he remembered this jacket in particular because he joked that Luke resembled a hooded monk. It was before the murder because This particular teacher retired that summer and never returned to school to see Luke wearing the replacement one bought by Corinne. Luke's friends and Jodi's family all remember this Parka.
Why have you decided these people are lying?
Jodi's family are satisfied with this piece of evidence because they remember first hand Luke wearing the parka. I'm sure they aren't too fussed that some anonymous forum poster doesn't believe it.
Why do you know better? You weren't there.
this is the same family that gave 3 different times for Jodi leaving home.
as for the teacher again why did the kids not say they had seen him in it.
-
Luke's friends did say they seen him in it.
they certainly saw him him in one after the murder because he was wearing one after the murder.
-
They also told police he owned one before the murder.
His own friends.
you hae seen there police statements have you.
-
Tell Sandra to release them
Ask yourself why she won't release anything.
because She'll be found out.
i know why she wont realese them its ilgal.
and how would you have seen them are you a cop then.
-
I don't believe the kids were ever asked. Nor were statements from them required. The word of Matthew Muraska is enough for me and was enough for the court. He has no motive to perjure himself.
Why is one person word enough for you? I don’t deny that the events you have stipulated occurred by why should we take one mans word as gospel?
-
The Parka didn't exist and is so irrelevant yet Sandra mentioned in the SCCRC submission that Mark Kane owned one so it could have been him witnesses seen. Alriiiiiiighty then lol.
lol
-
If i remember correctly, jodis family remembered he had a parka after it was suggested by the police after he appeared in the paper wearing one, funny that.
Which friends gave statements to him wearing a parka?
I know the school teachers statement though.
The parka theory only came about after the parka in the papers was bought, which the receipt was handed to police .
What happened to the other jackets that were described as what was being worn by the descriptions given by witnesses
What jodis family think of my anonymous posts is here nor there. As is what the mitchells think of yours.
All entitled to our opinion.
-
Why would you rather believe he's lying for no apparent reason?
What's his motive?
I don’t believe he is lying I think everything to do with this part of the de can be easily explained.
-
If i remember correctly, jodis family remembered he had a parka after it was suggested by the police after he appeared in the paper wearing one, funny that.
Which friends gave statements to him wearing a parka?
I know the school teachers statement though.
The parka theory only came about after the parka in the papers was bought, which the receipt was handed to police .
What happened to the other jackets that were described as what was being worn by the descriptions given by witnesses
What jodis family think of my anonymous posts is here nor there. As is what the mitchells think of yours.
All entitled to our opinion.
Mate they won’t even tell us what part in the crime the parka was involved in. I’m not sure myself but if it’s only about lying then I could show numerous people involved in this case who lied.
-
Where does it fit in?
-
Why would you rather believe he's lying for no apparent reason?
What's his motive?
there many and varied reasons why witneses lie somtimes it an simply be they think there helping to to convict the guilty.
somtimes its can just be for atention somtimes it can be just becouse theydont like the person concerned.
somtimes for darker reasons but i doubt thats the case here.
sotimes there not actully lying just mistaken.
-
The Parka didn't exist and is so irrelevant yet Sandra mentioned in the SCCRC submission that Mark Kane owned one so it could have been him witnesses seen. Alriiiiiiighty then lol.
Since the police claim to be looking for a parka and luked didnt have one before the murder it makes perfect sense if mark kane was said to have been in the area and owned a parka😂😂
-
Sandra Lean has "good evidence" Mark Kane owned a parka because someone mentioned that she was "relieved he had a warm coat"
Who was it that the school teacher joked with about the parka? Did they make a statement to confirm this?
This is all totally fine proof
But a school teacher testifying in court that he distinctly remembered joking about Luke's parka jacket...
nah that's not enough.
The witness to Mark Kane's parka had "good reason to remember"
but the high school teacher's distinct reason for remember isn't good enough.
Not to mention a "warm coat" could mean absolutely anything.
-
Maybe Corinne doesn't even know she was doing anything wrong. Luke was the boss. Maybe he said he left it in a friends, or lost it outside... who knows?
I reckon it ended up in a bin on 30th June 2003.
The fire in his back garden started around the time he returned home that night (the same fire he admitted having after denying it). To me its rather obvious where the jacket ended up.
-
Luke had one.
Point is mate , if they think luke and mark kane may have had a parka they both should have been investigated.
-
Luke had one.
where is it then because it certainly wasn't burned in that piddly little bbq burner, so come on where the hell is it because it has to be somewhere.
-
lithum you claimed to have seen may I ask how as only the police or the defence are normly allowed to see them.
-
Luke's friends did say they seen him in it. Corinne claims they were all manipulated into saying this but they all stand by it to this day.
have you personally asked them this question. do you know them?
-
The Parka didn't exist and is so irrelevant yet Sandra mentioned in the SCCRC submission that Mark Kane owned one so it could have been him witnesses seen. Alriiiiiiighty then lol.
quite right to mention it in the submission. it could be relevant and no other parka was found was it
-
But he wore one out the night jodi was murdered🤣🤣
-
I have seen the SCCRC submission. It's not very secret now though because most of what is in there has been mentioned and elaborated on in Sandra's latest book. Circumstancial cases against others. Nothing proving that Luke's trial was unfair.
how could you have seen it only the sccrc can see them
there not avialble to the public.
-
You don't know for sure it wasn't burned in the log burner. How hard is it to cut it into pieces and throw them in?
I don't know if it was. I think he dumped it in a bin on the way home along with the knife.
Evidence that I can't just ignore says that something was burned though. Probably gloves.
The fire in his back garden started around the time he returned home that night. What made him have this fire and deny it happened and tell Sky news it was someone else?
You don't need to cut anything. You can just feed the fire more of the Jacket with fire fork or a stick once the fire has consumed part of the jacket.
-
The fire in his back garden started around the time he returned home that night (the same fire he admitted having after denying it). To me its rather obvious where the jacket ended up.
david have you seen a picture of the burner!!!! have a look, no way it would fit in the bloomin thing. catch up matey
-
Where does the parka fit in for the utmost time?
-
The one he wore on the night of the murder he had owned for months. Exactly my point.
Sorry i missed out the quote on this point.
You thought it was strange that he bought a parka in the middle of summer after the murder , but you believe that he wore a parka out on a summers night when jodi was murdered. Just as strange i would have thought
-
The fire in his back garden started around the time he returned home that night. What made him have this fire and deny it happened and tell Sky news it was someone else?
You don't need to cut anything. You can just feed the fire more of the Jacket with fire fork or a stick once the fire has consumed part of the jacket.
and any examimnation f the log burener will show the plice you have done this.
and he also has to dispose of the remains f the coaat.
-
Where does it fit in ffs?
-
Some yeah. I don't expect you to take my word for it though so I've never bothered saying that. I've also met Luke Mitchell face to face multiple times and he'd likely know me if he seen me.
so that's answered all my questions then, you aren't able to be impartial or consider you may be mistaken because you know the people involved.
-
so that's answered all my questions then, you aren't able to be impartial or consider you may be mistaken because you know the people involved.
Always been the case mate but at least he proactive in a genuine sense.
-
david have you seen a picture of the burner!!!! have a look, no way it would fit in the bloomin thing. catch up matey
You can just feed the fire more of the Jacket with fire fork or a stick once the fire has consumed part of the jacket.
-
The fire in his back garden started around the time he returned home that night. What made him have this fire and deny it happened and tell Sky news it was someone else?
You don't need to cut anything. You can just feed the fire more of the Jacket with fire fork or a stick once the fire has consumed part of the jacket.
Check out the photo of the log burner. You willthen know how ridiculous it is to think his clothes were burned there. Add to that that it was forensicaly tested as well as the surround and found to have no sign of clothes being burnt there . No excelerants used , no nothing.
-
James English recently confirmed on Instagram that he will be interviewing Luke.
Can't wait.
I thought it said he is in talks, nothing confirmed yet
-
The last section of the submission discusses the jury being misled about Luke's behaviour at the V break in the wall.
so whats your take on the family changing their statements regarding lukes behaviour?
-
You can just feed the fire more of the Jacket with fire fork or a stick once the fire has consumed part of the jacket.
and what do you do with the burnt remains.
and how do concel from forensics that its even happend that log burner was taken to bits and know forensic evdence was found.
-
Some yeah. I don't expect you to take my word for it though so I've never bothered saying that. I've also met Luke Mitchell face to face multiple times and he'd likely know me if he seen me.
so how do you know him
-
The jury seen the piddly little bbq burner and had no problem believing a parka was burned in it...
eh so where were all the remains of it then?
-
Always been the case mate but at least he proactive in a genuine sense.
agreed
-
Not only the remains but the ashes that were taken! They had to burn everything that may incriminate Luke and then retrieve and dispose of, then burn something else to get ashes that contained nothing that could link the burner to the crime. Remember ashes were taken from the burner.
-
Always been the case mate but at least he proactive in a genuine sense.
You are right, he does think he is guilty but doesnt answer most of the questios put to him and the ones he does answer are he says she says from people who havent made statements in the case and is all just hearsay who live in the area and seems to me want to believe rather than know luke is guilty. Then tells us everything that sandra says is false when her information comes from the case papers.
Who do you believe? Really
-
You are right, he does think he is guilty but doesnt answer most of the questios put to him and the ones he does answer are he says she says from people who havent made statements in the case and is all just hearsay who live in the area and seems to me want to believe rather than know luke is guilty. Then tells us everything that sandra says is false when her information comes from the case papers.
Who do you believe? Really
When your bound by the prosecutions case in trials like these there is no leeway, its simply what occurs at trial and nothing else. A few posts telling us that people who are in in social circle believe this and that and then a few pictures or scribbles that happened after the fact that after so many years in prison are supposed to represent the child that was convicted at 16 mean very little.
-
and what do you do with the burnt remains.
and how do concel from forensics that its even happend that log burner was taken to bits and know forensic evdence was found.
All the fabrics would have been carbonized in the combustion process. You can only determine what burned remains are if they have not been completely incinerated, This is often the case with human bones, as they are very dense and hard to completly burn. A fire will consume a jacket completey rather quickly.
-
All the fabrics would have been carbonized in the combustion process. You can only determine what burned remains are if they have not been completely incinerated, This is often the case with human bones, as they are very dense and hard to completly burn. A fire will consume a jacket completey rather quickly.
nd what about the buttons.
and the zip.
-
All the fabrics would have been carbonized in the combustion process. You can only determine what burned remains are if they have not been completely incinerated, This is often the case with human bones, as they are very dense and hard to completly burn. A fire will consume a jacket completey rather quickly.
We’re not talking about human bones! We’re talking about synthetic materials that would have melted and that burner would never have got to a temperature to totally destroy all residue of these, not without an accelerant that could in itself be tested for. We’re talking zips,rivits and numerous other chemical elements that that burner didn’t display in forensic analysis .
-
nd what about the buttons.
and the zip.
Depends if plastic or metal. If metal he has five days prior to the police search to remove them.
-
Depends if plastic or metal. If metal he has five days prior to the police search to remove them.
exept in tiny little log burner like that you wouldent be able to genrate that sort of heat without an accelerant wich would be detectable to forensics.
-
We’re not talking about human bones! We’re talking about synthetic materials that would have melted and that burner would never have got to a temperature to totally destroy all residue of these, not without an accelerant that could in itself be tested for. We’re talking zips,rivits and numerous other chemical elements that that burner didn’t display in forensic analysis .
I only mention human bones to highlight the point that anything can be incinerated beyond recognition if left to burn long enough.
As for zips and rivets if they are metal they can be melted to the point wereby its impossible to tell what was melted other than what the melted object was made of.
-
I only mention human bones to highlight the point that anything can be incinerated beyond recognition if left to burn long enough.
As for zips and rivets if they are metal they can be melted to the point wereby its impossible to tell what was melted other than what the melted object was made of.
and that would of been all they needed to do
but no mention of any metal obect being melted.
-
I only mention human bones to highlight the point that anything can be incinerated beyond recognition if left to burn long enough.
As for zips and rivets if they are metal they can be melted to the point wereby its impossible to tell what was melted other than what the melted object was made of.
Rubbish the burner itself would be subject to a change of form at the temperatures needed to change anything metal in that burner, never mind no matter what condition they were in forensics could put a case forwards if anything was found!
-
and that would of been all they needed to do
but no mention of any metal obect being melted.
I am not going to guess what was found in the burner without seeing a transcript from the people that done the analysis.
Furthermore the buttons and zip could have been plastic. Plastics give off a strange smell when burned, The Neighbours reported a strange smell.
Since Luke, his brother and mother no longer deny having this fire late at night and possibly in the rain. Have they ever explained why they had it?
-
Rubbish the burner itself would be subject to a change of form at the temperatures needed to change anything metal in that burner, never mind no matter what condition they were in forensics could put a case forwards if anything was found!
There would be items on a garment such as a parka that wouldn't burn - zips, metal buttons or rivets.
-
There would be items on a garment such as a parka that wouldn't burn - zips, metal buttons or rivets.
but they would melt leaving evdence of there presence in the log burner.
-
I am not going to guess what was found in the burner without seeing a transcript from the people that done the analysis.
Furthermore the buttons and zip could have been plastic. Plastics give off a strange smell when burned, The Neighbours reported a strange smell.
Since Luke, his brother and mother no longer deny having this fire late at night and possibly in the rain. Have they ever explained why they had it?
I can tell you exactly what was found nothing.
why do think the forensic examiners did nt give evidence.
-
I can tell you exactly what was found nothing.
They cant have removed stuff from the burner to analyise if nothing was found in there in the first place.
-
but they would melt leaving evdence of there presence in the log burner.
Not necessarily melt if they were metal - but they would still be in the burner.
-
Not necessarily melt if they were metal - but they would still be in the burner.
exactly.
-
Out of curiosity. Who authored the Luke Mitchell`s caseblog on wronglyaccusedperson.org ?
-
Out of curiosity. Who authored the Luke Mitchell`s caseblog on wronglyaccusedperson.org ?
i asume it would of been the owner of the site that would be billy middelton.
but thats just me asumption dont take it as gospel.
-
Why have you decided that this person with no reason to lie, committed perjury to help send down an innocent 14 year old cadet of his.
Why did so many people tell different stories at trial than they told in their statements? Because they were pressured to do so. Did Fleming and Walsh "commit perjury" or was the police influence on their evidence so strong that by the time they got to court, they didn't know whether they were coming or going? They "never saw his face," "would only recognise him from his clothing" then identified him in the dock because one of them would "never forget those eyes."
Did Jodi's family "commit perjury"? Jodi wasn't grounded, according to all the family's evidence, but her mother said, in court, that she was. Janine agreed that Judith "knew perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone and her gran said in her statements that Jodi would walk down the path, alone, and meet Luke at the Newbattle end. The search trio initially said it was the dog that alerted just past the V point, but said in court the dog did nothing.
It's not at all difficult to see how the statements got influenced.
The Parka didn't exist and is so irrelevant yet Sandra mentioned in the SCCRC submission that Mark Kane owned one so it could have been him witnesses seen. Alriiiiiiighty then lol.
When did I ever say the parka was "irrelevant"? It didn't exist in the way the police tried to claim it did - their claim isn't "irrelevant" in that it formed part of the prosecution case. It has, however, been discredited.
Why were the police searching the house for a parka jacket?
Why did it take until April 2004 for them to do so, after they'd searched the house on two separate occasions previously?
Tell Sandra to release them
Ask yourself why she won't release anything.
because She'll be found out.
"Tell Sandra to release them (the statements)? Sure, tell Sandra to get herself arrested. Behave yourself!
The police were searching for a parka before Corinne replaced it.
Wrong. In August 2003, they were looking for a German army shirt that "dozens" of witnesses had told them Luke was wearing that night. What happened? Where did all those witnesses go?
Why is Sandra trying to both discredit the parka, but also try and find Luke-alikes (lol) who owned one?
I wasn't "trying to find Luke-a-likes" - the information about Mark Kane was in the case papers - my suggestion was that the evidence of Fleming and Walsh could have been a mistaken identity - haven't seen a single argument that refutes that possibility.
The fire in his back garden started around the time he returned home that night (the same fire he admitted having after denying it).
Continual repetition doesn't make false information true. This has been addressed several times.
I don't know if it was. I think he dumped it in a bin on the way home along with the knife.
Evidence that I can't just ignore says that something was burned though. Probably gloves.
Oh, I get it - if the prosecution case is challenged by evidence and shown to be either improbable or impossible, you just change the narrative?
Once again, this thread has descended into nonsense because of those who insist on repeatedly posting misinformation or misrepresentation.
-
And why couldn't these have been swept up/bagged before the police search? Or even the base replaced? If it was indeed a portable BBQ base, the entire thing could have been binned and replaced. I just can't ignore the independent and multiple witnesses to burning that night from the Mitchell garden. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence to be asked to. Also Luke was known to burn things in this log burner. School jotters etc. Corinne may not even know for sure what was happening out the back if she was in the opposite end of the house with her wine.
because even if they were traces of them would still be found in the log burner.
-
wtf? I wasn't talking about Jodi's family or Fleming and Welsh, was I? but nice deflection attempt.
Why are you suggesting Mathew Muraska was manipulated or influenced by police into saying what he said? The police had no idea or reason to ever interview or interrogate Luke's old cadet leader. He chose to go to the police and inform them of this incident and the knife Luke had. This isn't a naive 14 year old school kid we're talking about here. He chose to go and speak to police and give evidence in court. You have absolutely no evidence this middle aged army man was pressured by police into making up this story for no reason, so why suggest it? I'm going to message him. I've also made contact with the neighbours and Kara Nuil. I'd like to hear things from the horses mouths. Because I actually care about the truth. It has been far too easy for you up until now to just shrug everyone off and tell the world they were manipulated or pressured.
Maybe if you weren't so biased you would have spoken to these people at some point over the past 16 years? Maybe they should have a mention in the book in the interest of fairness.
It hasn't been discredited at all, sorry. There is far more evidence of Luke owning a parka than there is to the contrary. The onus is on you to attempt to explain why all of these different people are lying about Luke owning a parka. Do you think the Jones' don't care about the strength of the evidence? They remember Luke owning a parka and have discussed it between themselves. Jodi remebers it. Janine remembers it.
Has Luke ever even denied owning a parka before the replacement one? He seems to openly admit quite a lot of things that you and his mum try to deny.
That's why the James English interview is so vital. In 16 years the guy has barely said 2 words about his innocence.
Really? What law would you be breaking here?
Right. Of course they were searching for a parka before Corinne replaced it, or else the search wouldn't have "turned up nothing" - they would have recovered the replacement one!
I haven't seen a single argument that refutes the possibility that it was Luke. Why didn't Luke or anyone else who spotted Luke see this other person? There wasn't 2 boys. Also Mark Kane DID NOT resemble Luke Mitchell.
I also haven't seen a single argument that refutes the possibility it was Elvis Presley they seen.
You can't introduce a totally irrelevant person and say "well you can't prove it wasn't him..."
It's called being open to alternatives. Something you appear to be incapable of.
Why do you think I keep deleting my posts? It really is ridiculous. There is nothing compelling being posted that challenges Luke's conviction. It really is quite safe. To think that the police mismanagement of the crime scene almost let him get away on a technicality is terrifying. Especially considering the Satanic book requests and violent fantasies an adult Luke has been writing in Shotts prison.
I concur the thread should be closed, deleted, and Luke Mitchell swiftly forgotten.
I agree, there is no substance in the arguments put forth. Furthermore the stuff that was posted on wronglyaccusedperson.org is full of blantant distortions.
For example
"The log burner in the Mitchell garden is 11” in diameter. The ash contents were taken for analysis, and no forensic evidence whatsoever to support the contention that clothing of any type had been burned there was found. There was no time between the claimed time of the “burning of the jacket” and the collection of the ash for contents to have been disposed of."
Five days is not enough time? ;D
-
I agree, there is no substance in the arguments put forth. Furthermore the stuff that was posted on wronglyaccusedperson.org is full of blantant distortions.
For example
"The log burner in the Mitchell garden is 11” in diameter. The ash contents were taken for analysis, and no forensic evidence whatsoever to support the contention that clothing of any type had been burned there was found. There was no time between the claimed time of the “burning of the jacket” and the collection of the ash for contents to have been disposed of."
Five days is not enough time? ;D
how did you find that no longer exists
and your really in no position to excuse other people of blatant distortions.
so they got rid of the evdence with the police and the press constantly watchin there house.
the statement is perfectly true they did have no time.
-
Of course a liaison office was appointed quickly, the press were camped outside!
-
And why couldn't these have been swept up/bagged before the police search? Or even the base replaced? If it was indeed a portable BBQ base, the entire thing could have been binned and replaced. I just can't ignore the independent and multiple witnesses to burning that night from the Mitchell garden. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence to be asked to. Also Luke was known to burn things in this log burner. School jotters etc. Corinne may not even know for sure what was happening out the back if she was in the opposite end of the house with her wine.
they would be able to tell if the base had been replaced.
-
No ones trying to take the witnesses to the smelling of smoke out of the equation but when 2 say they smelt it at 19:30 and 1 claimed around 22:00 which one was it? We’re there two fires somewhere in the area, are both being attributed to the Mitchell’s? Why did each of the neighbours not smell each other’s smoke at the relevant times.
Then no forensics to bolster the use of the burner doesn’t add much to the burner being used, it’s not hard to see why we go round in circles.
-
well id like to know how the could of got ridof the log burner evdence with the police constantly watching the houseafter the murder.
-
No ones trying to take the witnesses to the smelling of smoke out of the equation but when 2 say they smelt it at 19:30 and 1 claimed around 22:00 which one was it? We’re there two fires somewhere in the area, are both being attributed to the Mitchell’s? Why did each of the neighbours not smell each other’s smoke at the relevant times.
Then no forensics to bolster the use of the burner doesn’t add much to the burner being used, it’s not hard to see why we go round in circles.
One lot smelling wood smoke - they liked the smell - and only one solitary person speaking of strange smelling smoke out of 30+ statements. What happened to the need for corroboration? Two different types of smoke at two different times don't corroborate anything.
-
Corroboration doesn’t matter, double standards as usual as we ask for clarification on this type of evidence but to so many it’s all about getting the info out there and see what damage is done. Never any debate on it only stick it out there and hope that it does it job.
Oh
-
The more these Luke lovers type, the more desperate they get, Lithium just owns them in every way.
I will ask again. Why did the appeals fail?
Stop it, ma sides. Are you awake?
-
One lot smelling wood smoke - they liked the smell - and only one solitary person speaking of strange smelling smoke out of 30+ statements. What happened to the need for corroboration? Two different types of smoke at two different times don't corroborate anything.
Luke admitted to this fire happening. (Despite previous denying it) You would have to believe Luke then lied about this fire happening in order to frame himself if you want to still try and cast doubt on it.
Furthermore Sandra, I am still waiting for you to provide more info on what Luke claims in this interview.
LUKE: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE: No, not that we know of.
Have you come across anything to corroborate this?
-
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
(https://i.imgur.com/0EHxhCv.png)
Are you pleased with yourself Sandra? Deliberately misleading people with misinformation.
Whether or not you believe there was a fire. It is FACT that a fire was reported by Luke Mitchell's neighbours, and more than one of them. But thanks to your campaign of misinformation, this has totally vanished.
Well done...
Unacceptable.
Point 139
"the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7)
-
Your making a lot of noise about nothing here, no ones saying the neighbours didn’t smell smoke and the number of people willing to testify. The thing is 2 say it was at 19:30 and 2 possibly near 22:00. If you will please can you explain the fact the 2 different fires had to exist for this to be a true account of the night, while I doubt you will do so can you explain why these neighbours didn’t smell the smoke on both occasions!
No one again is doubting the incident the the cadet leader claimed occurred but seeing as you have him on speed dial could you ask him how many knifes he had confiscated? How many times he had to speak to cadets regarding inappropriate behaviour. Sandra when she spoke about witnesses being bullied into changing certain aspects of their original statements wasn’t referring to the cadet leader but you cleverly added him in to show that he was one who wasn’t and therefore Sandra was wrong. Absolute see through.
If your told time and time again that a fire and smoke was seen coming from your garden, your not there and you don’t know. Under a barrage of questions the first explanation that comes to mind will do, this reinforces the first two points and I just realised it’s actually what your doing on this very site lol
-
Your making a lot of noise about nothing here, no ones saying the neighbours didn’t smell smoke and the number of people willing to testify. The thing is 2 say it was at 19:30 and 2 possibly near 22:00. If you will please can you explain the fact the 2 different fires had to exist for this to be a true account of the night, while I doubt you will do so can you explain why these neighbours didn’t smell the smoke on both occasions!
No one again is doubting the incident the the cadet leader claimed occurred but seeing as you have him on speed dial could you ask him how many knifes he had confiscated? How many times he had to speak to cadets regarding inappropriate behaviour. Sandra when she spoke about witnesses being bullied into changing certain aspects of their original statements wasn’t referring to the cadet leader but you cleverly added him in to show that he was one who wasn’t and therefore Sandra was wrong. Absolute see through.
If your told time and time again that a fire and smoke was seen coming from your garden, your not there and you don’t know. Under a barrage of questions the first explanation that comes to mind will do, this reinforces the first two points and I just realised it’s actually what your doing on this very site lol
There doesn't have to be two different fires, fires can smolder for hours and the neighbours could have been outside at different times.
-
If that’s correct the first fire would almost certainly be the one with the most smoke, if your saying it was the same fire that was smelt then why had the first 2 been so precise as to timings? Why didn’t hey say the had smelt the smoke at 7:30 but had also smelt it at many times throughout the night. If the fire had produced smoke over 3 hrs I’m sure you would have more than the 4 witnesses to it also.
The point in questions is no one claims to of seen a fire! Therefore the source of that fire is in doubt. The appeal document states Luke suffered a barrage of questions regarding this smoke and he never knew its source or who created it. The witnesses couldnt pinpoint for certain beyond all reasonable doubt as to wether it came from the Mitchell’s or not.
-
You know Caroline you have made me think as I don’t believe anyone actually made reference to seeing smoke, only that they could smell it, it was described as a nice wood smoke and pleasant. If the fire that created it started around the 19:30 timings that would suggest the smoke was present and not just the smell. The fact that the smell is the only thing testified to would suggest it had started even earlier.
-
There doesn't have to be two different fires, fires can smolder for hours and the neighbours could have been outside at different times.
True, but that doesnt fit with the contention that was made about the fires.
-
True, but that doesnt fit with the contention that was made about the fires.
In what way?
-
With what’s been suggested to being burn in that burner it would have been either a cotton and synthetic mix that would more or less melt and not the pleasant wood burning smell that was reported, I don’t see it lasting the 3 hrs
-
Are you pleased with yourself Sandra? Deliberately misleading people with misinformation.
Let's see who's misleading whom, shall we?
Whether or not you believe there was a fire. It is FACT that a fire was reported by Luke Mitchell's neighbours, and more than one of them. But thanks to your campaign of misinformation, this has totally vanished.
P218/19 "According to Corinne's next door neighbours, there was woodsmoke from the Mitchell garden around 7 - 7.30pm and then it rained and then there was woodsmoke again around 10pm, the implication being that the earlier fire was doused by the rain....Another neighbour claimed smoke from the Mitchell garden had a "strange smell"... out of 35 statements regarding whether or not there was a fire in the Mitchell garden that night, all but three either said no, or that they did not know. Two of the three affirmative statements ... said the smell from the fire was woodsmoke . In effect, there was only one "suspicious" statement ... the one about strange smelling smoke... I uncovered a probable innocent explanation for that" (the citronella candle that caught fire in another neighbour's garden shortly after the murder.
There's your "disappeared" information right there!
Unacceptable.
It certainly is, since you're blatantly lying and have just been proven to be doing so.
@Lianna Mackie Sorry Lianne but you have been totally misled by Sandra Lean's misinformation. There was a fire reported by Luke's next door neighbours Mr and Mrs Frankland, and also the neighbour whos back garden backed onto Luke's; George Ramage. Mr Ramage's girlfriend also corroborated this.
Wrong again. Mr Ramage's girlfriend (wife) could only corroborate that he had told her about smoke from the Mitchell garden - she did not see or smell it herself.
Sandra Lean has somewhat successfully made this evidence vanish by attributing it to an unrelated and unconfirmed fire somewhere in Newtongrange reported by a local paper. Whether or not you believe there was a fire in Luke's garden, to tell people that it was never reported by Luke's neighbours, is completely untrue. They gave evidence at trial.
If you are so convinced you are right, why are you lying to people to convince them? I have given all the information about statements relating to a fire in the Mitchell garden. The evidence attributed to the unrelated fire in Newtongrange included, specifically, "burning clothing" - in what way have I "made the evidence vanish" about a possible log fire in the Mitchell garden, when I've clearly stated that the "burning of clothes in a back garden" was reported in the local news as having happened in Newtongrange? Two separate fires for two different reasons. It is Lianna who stated there was no fire reported, not me!
It's not your fault though. This is what Sandra wanted and this is what she does. I almost fell for it too when I started investigating this case, until I looked into the case papers for myself and realised I was being misled by someone with an agenda. Luke actually even admitted there was a fire in his back garden on the night of the murder, during police questioning, and blamed it on his mum and brother.
I absolutely refute any claim that I am misleading anyone. My "agenda" (for want of a better word) is to get the truth about this case into the public domain. Your determination to distort that truth through personal attack, lies and misinformation and misrepresentation suggests I'm succeeding. Look at your last sentences - "admitted"and "blamed" - Luke was bombarded with questions which he was then not given an opportunity to answer (from court documents, no less) in order to get him to agree that his mother and brother might have had a fire. In fact, Luke said at one point, "I was out ... how would I know what they were doing?" before being bombarded again. Your choice of words suggests guilt or sinister intent.
"[144] The first passage that had been founded upon by the Crown was to be found at page 17 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant agreed that on 30 June 2003 his mother and brother had had a fire in the log burner. However, there had been evidence of that fire from Mr and Mrs Frankland and also from Mr Ramage."
"[154] The appellant agreed that his mother and brother had had a fire. Looking at the questioning to which that reply was given, no unfairness strikes us as being involved. Furthermore, evidence of the existence of such a fire had been laid before the jury from Mr and Mrs Frankland and Mr Ramage."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
The passage you quote here was from the appeal argument that evidence from the interrogation of August 14th should not have been allowed because of the way the interrogation was conducted - the one in which the judges agreed the behaviour of the officers involved was "outrageous and to be deplored." How they can come to that conclusion and then decide that any "evidence" elicited by those tactics was reliable is beyond me. But even they used the word "agreed" rather than "admitted."
Please do some independent research, Sandra Lean is not a reliable, unbiased source.
Independent research will demonstrate that you have lied, distorted, misrepresented and misled. Everything I have stated publicly is backed up by solid evidence - if I am ever required to prove that in a court of law, I can confidently do so. Can you?
It's similar to how it is now being touted as fact that there was "ABSOLUTELY NO DNA EVIDENCE!", when actually this too has been twisted, quite successfully over the years by Sandra. The truth is there was DNA of Jodi on Luke and vice versa,
Now that's just outright, plain and simple, WRONG. There was no DNA from Luke identified on Jodi's body, clothing or the crime scene that night. I've stated on numerous occasions, partial DNA profiles do not, and cannot, identify any individual, although I understand that the existence of partial profiles is what was used to convince Jodi's family that "strands" of Luke's DNA were found "all over her." It's despicable that police officers are willing to mislead victims' families in this way and beyond despicable that posters like Lithium are willing to continue that deception for them. The only DNA from Jodi found on any of Luke's clothing was a single sample on a pair of trousers not related to the murder - the stain could not even be dated.
but because they were boyfriend and girlfriend, there was no DNA "THAT COULD NOT BE INNOCENTLY EXPLAINED", so the defense and prosecution made an agreement it couldn't be used as evidence.
Since we're looking for proof to back up posters' claims, where is the evidence that an agreement was made not to use the DNA evidence because it could all be "innocently explained?" If such an agreement was made, why did the forensic scientist try to claim on the stand that DNA on Jodi's bra "matched, in places, the DNA profile of Luke Mitchell"? She was shot down by Findlay - as she rightly should have been for such an outrageously misleading claim - but how did that appear in the trial, along with the evidence of the single DNA sample on Luke's trousers (that couldn't in any way be connected to the murder) if an agreement had been made not to use DNA evidence?
Who's misleading, whom, indeed?
-
Honestly lithium I would give up now. Sandra knows this case inside and out and your arguments are based on “ I know this person or that person said this” you obviously know them and feel aggrieved and I get that but your arguments are pointless
Sandra can you let us know if a new application is being done and if Luke has secured new lawyers please.
-
Honestly lithium I would give up now. Sandra knows this case inside and out and your arguments are based on “ I know this person or that person said this” you obviously know them and feel aggrieved and I get that but your arguments are pointless
You seem to be getting Lithium mixed up with Sandra.
-
Give up what? The person I believe done it is locked up with no release date in sight. Stop correcting misinformation or "innocent omissions" from Sandra? I know Sandra knows the case inside out, which makes it all the more deplorable that she's telling interested viewers that no burning was reported from the Mitchell's garden. I refuse to believe you can't see what she's doing.
My other problem is that what Sandra doesn't know, she still states as though it's fact. She has no idea if Luke done it or not, she has no idea what items of clothing he wore, she has no idea who burned what that night. She has her own formed beliefs based on what she has read, which is fair enough. But she is somewhat misleading in her attempts to bring people to her way of thinking. She isn't being impartial.
And she knows it too. She isn't daft.
Well I’m sorry to disappoint you lithium but I don’t believye there was a fire or a parka before that night and Sandra’s arguments outweigh yours by a mile.
I don’t believe Sandra is doing this other than she believes the evidence doesn’t stack up for Luke to have been the killer and I agree.
You can’t have it both ways about the DNA and you certainly can’t convict someone on it partial as that isn’t proof.
You do realise that cases based on circumstantial evidence is one persons story against another’s don’t you. Loadsa people are convicted on circumstantial evidence I know but I don’t believe on this occasion they believed the correct story.
-
I know Sandra knows the case inside out, which makes it all the more deplorable that she's telling interested viewers that no burning was reported from the Mitchell's garden. I refuse to believe you can't see what she's doing.
Show me where I've said that no burning was reported from the Mitchell's garden, please.
But you have no problem attributing these strands which are partial matches to Luke to other people in an attempt to clear Luke. You're saying there are numerous other DNA samples from other males, when these DNA samples could just as likely belong to Luke. You're going about posting as fact that they belong to men other than Luke. That hasn't been confirmed at all. People are repeating it too
Show me where I attributed partial profiles that "could just as likely belong to Luke" to others, please. I have stated repeatedly that partials cannot identify particular individuals. Where partials contain markers that are not in Luke's profile, they have to, by definition, be from a male who is not Luke - that's not an opinion, it's a scientific fact. Therefore, the partials in this case which contain markers not in Luke's profile, I am confident to state originated from males who were not Luke.
And again - you have NO IDEA if those trousers are linked to the murder, it's your opinion they aren't. Don't state it as fact. You don't know that he didn't change into these after school before meeting Jodi. You simply don't know. Why are you posting "these were nothing to do with the murder" as if they had been cleared?
I'm stating the opinion of the scientists who tested the trousers and the evidence of the investigating officers who took them from his house.
While on the subject of SK, you know full well the semen trace found on Janine's shirt was too insignificant to suggest ejaculation at the scene. But you will still advertise this as "sisters bf's semen found on the body!" when it is such a trace amount that the obvious explanation is the contrary, and the one accepted by police.
Show me the evidence for this, please? If it was so insignificant, how would rainwater have transferred it to so many other areas of the t-shirt? If it couldn't have done so (and there are scientists who believe that to be the case), then those other areas became contaminated with semen by some other means. Before you leap to conclusions about my "opinion" on this, it was the police and prosecution contention that semen found elsewhere on the t-shirt (even though these were only partial profiles) got there by rainwater transfer - there was only one full DNA profile from semen on the T-shirt and that was Kelly's. So it is they who raised the possibility that those partials originated from Kelly's semen. Their contention that they were deposited via rainwater transfer is not supported by the evidence, but I don't suppose you'll allow that little fact to get in the way of a good story.
I do not believe I have ever claimed this particular semen was "on Jodi's body" - I have always said it was on the t-shirt.
Like when you implicated Peter Tobin earlier in this thread when you knew it couldn't have been him.
Yet you post my comment "I haven't been able to watch the whole programme yet" - at the time I posted about Tobin returning to Scotland in 2003, I didn't know when in 2003 he returned.
Really? THAT sent a shiver through your spine? You can disregard and explain away a mountain of circumstantial and probable physical evidence against Luke, but finding out someone (totally unrelated, with a wholly different M.O.) was in the vicinity is enough to accuse him? And not only that, tell the media it might be him. So you're happy with trial by media when it suits your own personal beliefs (which have been wrong 2 outta 3 times now)?
Show me the evidence that I accused him, please? Again, my point was that he wasn't investigated and, in terms of the case and what was known within the system about him, he should have been checked out. I did not tell the media it "might have been him" and the media gleefully misrepresented what I was saying (Headlines like "Blames the da Vinci rapist" for example.)
I don't have time to respond to all of your comments at the moment. I'll get back to the rest when I can.
-
I find the last few posts of yours lithium are showing a bit of desperation, one of the points Sandra has just reconfirmed is that none of what she puts out is actually her interpretations but of that if the investigating team, the very investigation that the prosecution took their case from. When you argue against them you are actually confirming that which we have been arguing for years, it was never fit for purpose.
Like the DNA samples not being Luke’s is explained excellently when dealing with the partial matches, there were points in the samples that just couldn’t be Luke. The full seamen sample no matter how large is there and it proved a match. That’s hard to argue away by any means, that sample couldn’t have been there after washing unless it was deposited after washing.
-
Well you'd have to be an idiot to think the semen was deposited at the scene. It's unrelated to the murder.
How can you be sure it wasn’t ? Or at some point after Jodi left the house.
You would need to be an idiot to discount what is in front of you. It’s there and like so many of the posts you make it’s has to be properly accounted for.
-
Man! How can you say that? There were samples on many different parts of clothing, ok no full profiles but seamen samples none the less.
I also don’t understand how innocent seamen deposits would be small and malicious deposits would be large , how you do you determine such.
How do you now what the composition of the seamen stain was.
-
Because it would be a far more substantial amount. The only logical explanation is that of innocent transfer.
According to the stuff that used to be on Sandra's website. There were 10 unidentified DNA profiles found from the scene. If true then thats a lot of innocent transfer. Unless they want to implicate 10 people.
-
According to the stuff that used to be on Sandra's website. There were 10 unidentified DNA profiles found from the scene. If true then thats a lot of innocent transfer. Unless they want to implicate 10 people.
I don’t remember if all the samples were the same material. In a circumstantial case where inference was important to the prosecution is I safe to infer that if one seamen sample married to an individual meant that all seamen samples came from that same person?
-
Sandra can you upload the 200-page report from the SCCRC on why they refused an appeal in 2014.
-
I don’t remember if all the samples were the same material. In a circumstantial case where inference was important to the prosecution is I safe to infer that if one seamen sample married to an individual meant that all seamen samples came from that same person?
I would need to the see the evidence from the case files to draw any conclusions. We are very much in the dark on this subject.
If Sandra wants the truth to come out, she should ask the courts for permission to post the trial transcripts.
-
There has been a few comments in the past about how there is not enough time for Luke to have carried out the murder. How long does everybody think this would have taken? Is there any evidence this was over a period of time or could it all have been carried out in a matter minutes. (As in 10/15) I use to think it would take some time but other than the cuts to the eyes, I’m not sure it would take that long. The removal of most of the clothes could have been during a struggle and the rest looks to have been cut off? Again would not take long. Was wondering was others think, and what the evidence shows? Where were the items found like her glasses and clothing, any marks on the ground to show what direction they were moving, where it started and ended etc?
-
There was a fight, Jodi was fully clothed when she became unconscious due to blood and saliva on the inside of the hood. She has to awaken and then possibly be unclothed at that point or later. She runs deeper into the woodland area where another assault takes place, she is either forced to the ground and her throat cut. Then body is then moved back to the point where she is found through that woodland area.
The other clothes that must have been worn at the time of the throat being cut were also now removed. Someone then performed the post mitten injuries, items like the bra being placed cup inside cup and shoes placed together shows that whoever wasn’t in a particular hurry. I think 10 mins is way to short but something like 30 mins might be too long. Other aspects like the putting on of the socks would have taken more time and there’s nothing to suggest these thing were done in a hurry.
-
40 minutes: Things achievable. Anything that is logistically possible can be done. Unless you can prove otherwise.
1) Distance of 2 miles covered, walking at an average pace.
2) 30+ miles distance In a car. (Even a cycle depending on cyclist and terrain)
3) 35+ 1 minute conversations by phone.
4) Carer: 5 mins to get an elderly person up, 5 mins for toilet duties. 2 mins to get undressed. 7 mins in shower, 5 mins to dry, 5 mins to dress. 5 mins to get in chair, 1 min to prep food and 5 mins to feed/help. Time allocated 30mins.
5) Butter, fill and make 160 sandwiches.
6) 35+ shirts ironed.
7) Novice/amateur ability to fillet 30 fish/chicken
8) 25+ facial shaves 40+ with electric battery shaver.
10) 100+ dinners served up in canteens.
11) 40+ customers served at collection points in stores such as Argos.
12) Just under two driving test examinations.
13) The window cleaning of 3 + houses (average size)
14) 1 1/2 episodes of soaps on tv.
15 ) Return 15min: + bus journey.
16) 10+ showers.
17) Changing 5 + wheels over on a car.
18) Pulling 100+ pints.
19) Listening to 10+ songs.
20) 5+ patients consulted in a surgery.
21) 1600 words typed in a pool!
22) 60+ cups tea/coffee (boiling and making)
23 ) 40min: + of no sighting of LM on Newbattle R'd (anywhere) pre meeting with DH. (Just after 6pm until approx.: 7pm
24) 240 + calls to a speaking clock
25) 20 (2min:) skinny/clothed dips in the river!
26) 7+ showers inclusive of undressing/dressing and drying body/
hair.
27) 2 (20 min:) car/porn access, inclusive of masturbation.
28) 30 + lengths of a 50mtr pool.
29) Take a 10min: stroll to the pub, order drink and food, eat and drink it, 10min: stroll back.
30) Bath a baby (undress, bathe, dry) feed and take for a 20 min: stroll.
31) Walk to class/study room, sit through a 30 min: lesson and walk onto next lesson.
32) 13 rounds of amateur boxing.
33) Just under half a game a football.
34) Completing 8 (5min:) questionnaire's
35) Just under two wedding ceremonies by registrar.
36) Just under 40 min: to drive through the Eurotunnel.
37) 8+ car washes
38) 2 (20 min:) firework displays
39) Just under 3 dog grooming sessions.
40) 3/4 of the time it took, to find a missing girl, in the dark, in dense woodland, from first being reported missing. In the dark.
41) 10 min: under the time it (possibly) took LM to arrive home after leaving DH & co, witnessed by a neighbour at 10pm
Whilst you may dwell on the above or not, put it down to utter nonsense, it does give a 'feel' for, just how long 40 - 50 mins can be. Similarly time can run away with itself. We can be gabbing away on the phone, suddenly you realise more that half an hr has passed, shit - you reaise your are late for work!
-
I don’t think it’s quite what was asked but I see what your trying to do, same could be said for an argument as that also could be any length of time. A walk of say 500 yards could take from a few mins to 10’s of mins if say a conversation or argument was part of that walk. So it doesn’t really help does it.
-
A little something else to dwell on. Giving out little snip bits of information - leaving aside all else. Areas of statements - perhaps 20 words from 1000 written/given over time.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-new-thread-t600-s190.html
CM Mias reaction (my dog):
When Luke was going up the path he was making his way to Jodis house as this was the arrangement. Mia could well have reacted on the way up but Luke would have ignored it and just told her to "come on"
When going back down the path with the family Luke told Mia "seek Jodi" as the word "seek" was used in her training. (We were being tought dog tracking by a friend of mine whose job it was , in the army, to train tracker dogs)
When she approached the 'V' in the wall she jumped up and put her front paws up against the wall and started "air sniffing".
Again the families first statements confirm this and again, by the time they are in coiurt, they deny it.
Mia didn't go over the wall. It was too high for her. Luke and Stephen helped the granny get over the wall. Janine didn't go over. She held Mia.
The family, in court said Luke turned left when he went over the wall and the prosecution said it was because he knew where the body was.
The family could not see anything at all......unless they could see through stone walls.....the wall is too high to see over.
The simple explanation for Luke going left instead of right.....he was going to where Mia was sniffing and wouldn't come away. Basic common sense really.
[/color]
Angeline Oh yes, and of course, by the time they got to trial the entire family search party had completely forgotten about the dog suddenly bolting over to the wall, "standing on it's hind legs, scratching the wall," - Kelly forgot, for example that "it's a big dog - when it was standing on its hind legs scratching the wall with its front legs, its head was level with the V"
[/color]
Freudian slip for CM? and more accurate accounts of where the dog reacted from first statements onwards?
-
There has been a few comments in the past about how there is not enough time for Luke to have carried out the murder. How long does everybody think this would have taken? Is there any evidence this was over a period of time or could it all have been carried out in a matter minutes. (As in 10/15) I use to think it would take some time but other than the cuts to the eyes, I’m not sure it would take that long. The removal of most of the clothes could have been during a struggle and the rest looks to have been cut off? Again would not take long. Was wondering was others think, and what the evidence shows? Where were the items found like her glasses and clothing, any marks on the ground to show what direction they were moving, where it started and ended etc?
well its not just comiting the murder there doing it geting back and cleaning up.
striping her have a struggel with her killing her mutliating the body puting her socks back on folding the bra
and then geting home without being witnesed then washing and changing clothes.
-
well its not just comiting the murder there doing it geting back and cleaning up.
striping her have a struggel with her killing her mutliating the body puting her socks back on folding the bra
and then geting home without being witnesed then washing and changing clothes.
Nobody has to put any socks back on.
According to Luke he returned home at around 9:20pm. So by his own admission he had enough time.
Jodi told her mother that she was going to see Luke. They had arrainged to meet.
Who else apart from Luke and Jodi's mother would have known Jodi's wereabouts?
-
Nobody has to put any socks back on.
According to Luke he returned home at around 9:20pm. So by his own admission he had enough time.
Jodi told her mother that she was going to see Luke. They had arrainged to meet.
Who else apart from Luke and Jodi's mother would have known Jodi's wereabouts?
no he was seen at a wall at 545 waiting for jodi.
that was established at the trail he has a 40 minute time window if jodi is going down the path at 505 as eye witnesses have stated.
who else would know well more or les everbody who lived plus anyone who bumped into her on the path,
this has allready meany times before.
-
no he was seen at a wall at 545 waiting for jodi.
that was established at the trail he has a 40 minute time window if jodi is going down the path at 505 as eye witnesses have stated.
He was also seen with a girl resembling Jodi around 40 minutes before this.
who else would know well more or les everbody who lived plus anyone who bumped into her on the path
,
She texted Luke to arrainge a meetup and told her mother this before she left. How would "more or less everbody" know about this? The only people who would know is Luke and Jodi's mum.
I dont find it plausibe for a stranger bumping into her on the path then taking her behind the wall to kill her.
-
He was also seen with a girl resembling Jodi around 40 minutes before this.
She texted Luke to arrainge a meetup and told her mother this before she left. How would "more or less everbody" know about this? The only people who would know is Luke and Jodi's mum.
I dont find it plausibe for a stranger bumping into her on the path then taking her behind the wall to kill her.
doesnt have to be a stranger a lot of people she knew used that path one of her cousens lived right next to it.
anybody in jodis house would becouse they saw her leaving the house.
-
He was also seen with a girl resembling Jodi around 40 minutes before this.
You're mixing up the witnesses. The person who saw a girl "resembling" Jodi (just one) claimed her sighting was around 4.53 - 4.55 - 50 minutes before Luke was seen sitting on the wall.
The witnesses (two of them) who described Jodi as she was that evening (one of whom knew her) saw her at 5.05pm - those are the 40 minutes before witnesses, but they didn't see Jodi with anyone. She was walking, alone, on the Easthouses Road.
A neighbour (who wasn't called to give evidence) saw Jodi leaving her home just after 5pm. Any number of people could have seen her, but would not have been sure because of the confusion within the first week of the times given for her leaving.
She texted Luke to arrainge a meetup and told her mother this before she left. How would "more or less everbody" know about this? The only people who would know is Luke and Jodi's mum.
Well, according to her mum, Jodi didn't tell her where she was going or who she was intending to meet. She said Jodi said she was going out and Judith "just took it that she was meeting Luke and would be mucking about up here." Although the texts were never recovered, all we actually have is Luke's word that an arrangement was made for them to meet in Newbattle "after tea." So, if Jodi left at 4.50, it's entirely possible she intended to meet someone else on her way to Newbattle (since she was leaving so early). Also, if she left at that time and was the girl seen at the Easthouses entrance to the path, how did the boys on the moped not see her? Remember, we only have their word for that as well.
The problem we have about who knew, or might have know where Jodi was headed, is that statements changed, times changed and claims were made for which there was no evidence.
I dont find it plausibe for a stranger bumping into her on the path then taking her behind the wall to kill her.
Me neither, which is why I've never included it as a serious possibility. What is possible, however, is a stranger already in the woodland strip, coming across Jodi already there - having a smoke, for example. There is no evidence Jodi climbed, or was bundled, through the V break in the wall, and there is evidence that she smoked cannabis within 2 hours of her death. Unless she smoked at home (and her family insist this would not have happened), it had to be after she left, but none of the witnesses who saw Jodi, or someone who resembled Jodi, said the girl was smoking.
-
I would need to the see the evidence from the case files to draw any conclusions. We are very much in the dark on this subject.
If Sandra wants the truth to come out, she should ask the courts for permission to post the trial transcripts.
(1) And, of course, they're just going to say, Sure, go ahead, we've no problem with that
(2) I have no authority to make such a request and, even when I did, I know for certain I would have been required to redact them
(3) The court transcripts would not, for example, demonstrate that Ferris said it was his gran who told him not to come forward, or that Judith had no idea where Jodi was going or with whom, or that no grounding was in place, or that the search trio changed their stories etc, etc, because the stories had either changed by the time it got to trial or evidence had been ignored (i.e.Ferris).
The only way people can make up their own minds is if the whole lot is made public - statements, reports, police logs, forensic and other evidence as well as transcripts - I'd do it in heartbeat if I could.
There have to be reasons for not allowing this (it's allowed in the USA, as matter of course) - do you ever wonder what those reasons might be?
-
Two posts from the red forum that beautifully show the deliberate misinformation being introduced by some posters. Someone asked Parky41
Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.
Parky41 responded
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new
SL
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt)
Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.
Then someone called Baz posted the reality
Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:
"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."
She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.
When posters are prepared to stoop to that level of deception, it merely begs the question … why? Thanks to Baz (whoever that is) for the clarification for everyone.
-
He was also seen with a girl resembling Jodi around 40 minutes before this.
You're mixing up the witnesses. The person who saw a girl "resembling" Jodi (just one) claimed her sighting was around 4.53 - 4.55 - 50 minutes before Luke was seen sitting on the wall.
The witnesses (two of them) who described Jodi as she was that evening (one of whom knew her) saw her at 5.05pm - those are the 40 minutes before witnesses, but they didn't see Jodi with anyone. She was walking, alone, on the Easthouses Road.
A neighbour (who wasn't called to give evidence) saw Jodi leaving her home just after 5pm. Any number of people could have seen her, but would not have been sure because of the confusion within the first week of the times given for her leaving
Its something I don’t understand why intelligent people who are willing to contribute to a discussion and yet accept the non-corroborated and unsubstantiated sighting of someone and to disregard the fully independently corroborated sighting. It’s the very start of the case for innocence as it can only be inferred that it was Luke who was seen and the female Jodi. The 2 witnesses mean that it couldn’t have been and so we don’t have anything to suggest Luke had left the house prior to the time he stated. We only have AB’s testimony that she was on that road at all at that time, she stated she was looking for a house that had came up for sale but that didn’t stand up to scrutiny either.
Yet when I ask if it was right to infer that a DNA sample linked to an individual could mean all samples of the same fluid could belong to the same individual when there is non corroboration isn’t right. The amount of semen samples around if not would mean a few different men depositing them and that’s not likely. Innocent transfer from the t-shirt to the outside of the bra for instance might hold a bit more leverage if it could be proven they were together when it rain, again highly unlikely. Even more obscure is that semen on the inside lining of the shoes and inside of the tongue is impossible for me.
-
Two posts from the red forum that beautifully show the deliberate misinformation being introduced by some posters. Someone asked Parky41
Parky41 responded
Then someone called Baz posted the reality
When posters are prepared to stoop to that level of deception, it merely begs the question … why? Thanks to Baz (whoever that is) for the clarification for everyone.
What a rather odd response Baz. I used an extract that SL had given from official documents. What SL's opinion is on those official documents is irrelevant for purpose. Not a single part of what I posted was 'misinformation'. You asked where I had sourced certain information from, this was one such source. Also, whilst it may be fine to question what people MAY have meant from reports, it does not make THEIR take on them correct. I, myself personally would have taken this to mean - LM's hair was dirty ( from his evenings escapade in the woods ) NOT that it HADN'T been washed at some point in the evening.
Misinformation in the form of being 'economical' with the truth - is something else.?
-
For absolute clarity. The question to Parky41 was
Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.
Parky41 responded
Quote SL:
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt)
Baz then quoted my full quote:
"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."
However you try to back-pedal on this one, the first quote was out of context and clearly intended to mislead, in relation to the question asked, which was "Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo?"
My quote is absolutely clear - the police doctor did not say Luke's hair smelled of shampoo. I'm pretty much done with this level of manipulation and twisting of words. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see what's going on here - I've neither the time or inclination to keep correcting deliberate misrepresentations.
-
He was also seen with a girl resembling Jodi around 40 minutes before this.
You're mixing up the witnesses. The person who saw a girl "resembling" Jodi (just one) claimed her sighting was around 4.53 - 4.55 - 50 minutes before Luke was seen sitting on the wall.
The witnesses (two of them) who described Jodi as she was that evening (one of whom knew her) saw her at 5.05pm - those are the 40 minutes before witnesses, but they didn't see Jodi with anyone. She was walking, alone, on the Easthouses Road.
A neighbour (who wasn't called to give evidence) saw Jodi leaving her home just after 5pm. Any number of people could have seen her, but would not have been sure because of the confusion within the first week of the times given for her leaving
Its something I don’t understand why intelligent people who are willing to contribute to a discussion and yet accept the non-corroborated and unsubstantiated sighting of someone and to disregard the fully independently corroborated sighting.
These people are not standing around with watches taking precise timings of everything they observe. The timing from the witnesses here are all estimates (within reason). Anyone with shade of sense should be able to work out that Brysons estimate of the time she saw them is incorrect by about 10 minutes. Since Lukes doppelganger along with Jodis clone did not show up 10 minutes early before Luke and Jodi.
-
Anyone with a modicum of sense can see what's going on here
[/color]
Chill :) 'To shampoo or not to shampoo' That is the Q ? "his hair smelled freshly washed" I'll leave it for those with a modicum of sense.
-
I've neither the time or inclination to keep correcting deliberate misrepresentations.
Then upload actual case material.
You must have in your possession the 200 page SCCRC report on why they refused an appeal.
Why not upload it here?
-
These people are not standing around with watches taking precise timings of everything they observe. The timing from the witnesses here are all estimates (within reason). Anyone with shade of sense should be able to work out that Brysons estimate of the time she saw them is incorrect by about 10 minutes. Since Lukes doppelganger along with Jodis clone did not show up 10 minutes early before Luke and Jodi.
so how can she be walking up the pah on her own be with luke 10 minutes before.
-
Well, according to her mum, Jodi didn't tell her where she was going or who she was intending to meet.
You say that.
The courts say this -
"the deceased had told her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and had left home at about 1650"
Who do I trust? ???
-
You say that.
The courts say this -
"the deceased had told her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and had left home at about 1650"
Who do I trust? ???
well how about the police reconstruction video that states the time as 10 minutes later.
-
These people are not standing around with watches taking precise timings of everything they observe. The timing from the witnesses here are all estimates (within reason). Anyone with shade of sense should be able to work out that Brysons estimate of the time she saw them is incorrect by about 10 minutes. Since Lukes doppelganger along with Jodis clone did not show up 10 minutes early before Luke and Jodi.
That’s not correct as the police accurately times the journey and there was a till receipt to allow for the start time, the time difference for Bryson allows for everything and a 10 min difference is massive. Ask party he will tell you everything you can do in 10 mins.
-
That’s not correct as the police accurately times the journey and there was a till receipt to allow for the start time, the time difference for Bryson allows for everything and a 10 min difference is massive. Ask party he will tell you everything you can do in 10 mins.
and how can mrs brysn of seen Jodi whn according to th police she hadn't left home yet.
-
shhhh! dont let facts get in the way lol. Sandra's personal opinion is gospel around here.
The courts report what was said in court and because the prosecution got the victory it’s now down as correct, were saying far more could have been and should have been said in court, had it been thrown out then we wouldn’t be talking about it.
What about what was said in court on the numerous miscarriages that have be proven? What is there worth now!
-
and how can mrs brysn of seen Jodi whn according to th police she hadn't left home yet.
The time estimate that Mrs Brysons remembers is wrong by 10 minutes. Or the time estimate that Jodis mother gave when Jodi left is wrong by about 10 minutes. Or it could be a bit of both. You cannot expect people to remember the precise time of events that were seemingly insignificant to them at the time.
well how about the police reconstruction video that states the time as 10 minutes later.
The police reconstruction is based on an estimate (like everything else). You seem to be treating the timings as if they are time stamped CCTV showing her leaving the building. That is not how you scrutinize this kind of evidence.
-
The time estimate that Mrs Brysons remembers is wrong by 10 minutes. Or the time estimate that Jodis mother gave when Jodi left is wrong by about 10 minutes. Or it could be a bit of both. You cannot expect people to remember the precise time of events that were seemingly insignificant to them at the time.
The police reconstruction is based on an estimate (like everything else). You seem to be treating the timings as if they are time stamped CCTV showing her leaving the building. That not how you scrutinize this kind of evidence.
and what of 4 people stating the same time and that time being wrong.
mother states 500 and 2 witneses seing see her going down the path 505.
-
The time estimate that Mrs Brysons remembers is wrong by 10 minutes. Or the time estimate that Jodis mother gave when Jodi left is wrong by about 10 minutes. Or it could be a bit of both. You cannot expect people to remember the precise time of events that were seemingly insignificant to them at the time.
The police reconstruction is based on an estimate (like everything else). You seem to be treating the timings as if they are time stamped CCTV showing her leaving the building. That is not how you scrutinize this kind of evidence.
I’m sry Judy was about 30+ out from her first statements. I will reiterate the police have the start time and taking all things into account they place the Bryson sighting almost 10 mins too early from the corroborated witnesses that place Jodi walking to the entrance to the paths. If she was there and if she saw someone it can’t be Luke and Jodi !!
-
well its not just comiting the murder there doing it geting back and cleaning up.
striping her have a struggel with her killing her mutliating the body puting her socks back on folding the bra
and then geting home without being witnesed then washing and changing clothes.
It’s just the timing behind the wall I’m trying to work out, because the boys were on the path at the v at around 1715 and Luke called Jodi’s home at 1732, I can only assume if it was Luke it was all over and he was making his way down the path by then. Meaning either the boys were at the path during the murder which just seems unlikely to me or it happened after they left leaving not a lot of time before the 1732 call. That’s the timing I’m trying to work out for now.
-
and factor that with jodi entering the path at 505 why don't see her ethere.
but they cliam they dident see Jodi or luke..
o fr tem not of seen her it would of had to of all happened before they were at the v.
or of course they could be lying about not seeing her.
-
From LM it is claimed that Jodi was coming down to his house, once he had, had his dinner. Now. Dinner was after 5.15pm. Knowing his mother didn't get in until approx.: 5.15
By 5.30 Jodi hadn't arrived (surely not expecting her until at least this time.(if after dinner) SL mentions that usual times were 6pm for meeting?
He leaves his house and when at the entrance to Newbattle R'd from Newbattle Abbey Crescent he phones her house, no reply. (Not the mums mobile, her number is already in his phone from texts, not at this point saying there is anything significant in this) , he doesn't immediately phone back or try the mobile instead, but waits 6 minutes? twiddling his thumbs on Newbattle R'd?
He is aware that Jodi shouldn't really use the path on her own (evident from having to get a taxi home on the Saturday, of being allowed out later that his curfew - to see her safely home (rather than her walking the path alone),also evident from other statements of family and friends about not using the path alone) Yes, I am aware of what is put forth, of Jodi, using the path on her own - No evidence - just snip bits of what 'may' have been said in statements and/or court proceedings.
So within a ten minute timescale of her being late (from his account of events) he proceeds to hang about on Newbattle R'd. Once walking up to Barondale cottages to see if she is in sight.
He would/was not preoccupied with anything else other than meeting her? (fair to say, time would be dragging?)
So, from approx: 5.32 until 7 pm he meanders around Newbattle R'd (NOT as far as the gate opposite the entrance to the path, the sighting of F & W)
That is nearly 1 1/2 hrs, all but? (sightings of him from 6.05 until in the company of DH?? )
From after 6.30pm he says he wandered into the Abbey grounds. No sightings?
Phones DH several times, urging him on??
Not once in all of this time of waiting, did he take the notion to daunder up this path (that his girlfriend wasn't 'really' supposed to use on her own) This path, that appears, really quite secluded in places, not once did he worry, knowing how secluded in places it could be, did he take the notion to (in that 90 minute interval) walk up the path. (CM's concerns about inhalers - asthma)
YET, when the alarm was raised 5 hrs later he then thought of checking the path?
Are these the areas as to WHY the police first drew suspicion on LM? OR because the police thought they (Luke and Jodi) had left JuJ's together? These statements that are never shown, but admittedly showing perhaps , that they were/could had been taken (written) wrongly. IF of course, it's not the auld 'being economical' with the truth scenario??
Yes, I am putting a ? of thought here solely on LM and reasons WHY? the police may have become suspicious. Taken into account, that after his very first interview, the police would have been aware that he was - for nearly 90 mins wandering around Newbattle R'd? when it takes but 15 mins: approx.: to walk up the path?
-
Parky, you said - He is aware that Jodi shouldn't really use the path on her own (evident from having to get a taxi home on the Saturday, of being allowed out later that his curfew - to see her safely home (rather than her walking the path alone)
but would that not have been at night? I can understand not using the path later at night but 5pm I think most teenagers would use it, allowed or not.
Also you said - Not once in all of this time of waiting, did he take the notion to daunder up this path (that his girlfriend wasn't 'really' supposed to use on her own) This path, that appears, really quite secluded in places, not once did he worry, knowing how secluded in places it could be, did he take the notion to (in that 90 minute interval) walk up the path. (CM's concerns about inhalers - asthma)
YET, when the alarm was raised 5 hrs later he then thought of checking the path?
But I don’t think Luke thought to check the path, he used it to get to Jodi’s house, it was the search party he met near the top of the path that wanted to go back down to check it was it not?
I agree he should have went to look for her rather than sit about waiting for over an hour, but could just be he didn’t want to miss her if she had gone another way or he might just be lazy.
-
and if Jodi wasn't allowed to use the path on her own why was that. the first place the family went to look for her.
-
surely if she wasnt allowed to use the path on her own and they thought she wouldent they would surely of searched somewhere else.
-
A dog chasing it's own tail, is what this debate is all about.
Luke is going no-where, we don't need phycopathic murders like him, let loose on our streets to murder again. He is perfecly happy in his cell reading his satanic books. Writing letters, talking perverted sick ways, to journalists posing as fake wee lassies.
This case is closed, all appeals have failed & will contniue to fail. No human will any credibilty will touch this case, only (i'll have to check the muddled up papers, that your not allowed to see)
Lets see the failed SCCRC application. I could do with a laugh.
Why would you bother then? What is it that has you guys riled after all these years?
-
Why would you bother then? What is it that has you guys riled after all these years?
James english podcasts giving a publicity boost. Maybe the alleged confession. Spooking some.
-
Like I said then why are you discussing it? Shame Ferris came back to the community isn’t it!!
-
Like I said then why are you discussing it? Shame Ferris came back to the community isn’t it!!
oh did he come back then.
-
Nope I could talk forever mate really! So can others
-
Now now that’s not nice x
-
I know Bullseye has addressed some of this, but, for the record:
From LM it is claimed that Jodi was coming down to his house, once he had, had his dinner. Now. Dinner was after 5.15pm. Knowing his mother didn't get in until approx.: 5.15
By 5.30 Jodi hadn't arrived (surely not expecting her until at least this time.(if after dinner) SL mentions that usual times were 6pm for meeting?
He leaves his house and when at the entrance to Newbattle R'd from Newbattle Abbey Crescent he phones her house, no reply. (Not the mums mobile, her number is already in his phone from texts, not at this point saying there is anything significant in this) , he doesn't immediately phone back or try the mobile instead, but waits 6 minutes? twiddling his thumbs on Newbattle R'd?
No reply, or busy? If busy, you'd wait a bit, wouldn't you? If no reply, why not? there were three people in the house, at least two of the downstairs - why did nobody answer the phone? Luke has always said this call was to let Jodi know he was out after tea. If he believed she'd left home at 4.50, why would he phone her home almost an hour later - she should have been waiting at the end of his street (if she hadn't come to the door for him) by then.
He is aware that Jodi shouldn't really use the path on her own (evident from having to get a taxi home on the Saturday, of being allowed out later that his curfew - to see her safely home (rather than her walking the path alone)
Wrong! The taxi was called because there wasn't enough time for her to get home by her usual curfew of 10pm. There was no grounding in place at that time, according to Alice and Janine (and, originally, Judith herself).
,also evident from other statements of family and friends about not using the path alone)
Wrong again. Janine admitted in court that her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone. Findlay even gave her a chance to reconsider what she had just agreed, and she agreed a second time. Alice said "Jodi would walk down the path and Luke would get her at the Newbattle Abbey end." That's important because she's not only admitting Jodi walked down the path alone,but also that she would walk from the Newbattle end of the path to Newbattle Abbey (five minutes at a brisk walk according to police timings).
Yes, I am aware of what is put forth, of Jodi, using the path on her own - No evidence - just snip bits of what 'may' have been said in statements and/or court proceedings.
Not what "may" have been said - what was definitely, categorically said. I have posted the exchange between Janine and Findlay many times and quoted AW's statement about this verbatim in the book. I don't see either of them publicly discrediting that, because they can't - they know the case papers prove what I'm saying is correct.
So within a ten minute timescale of her being late (from his account of events)
Nope. He called to say he was out. AO told him she had left, or potentially, she had "just left" (which was Judith's recollection as well - she hadn't realised 40 minutes had passed - she thought Jodi had "just left" when Luke called at 5.40pm). So if Jodi had "just left" at 5.40pm, Luke wouldn't have been expecting her until near on 10 past 6. When she didn't show then, he walked up the Newbattle road a couple of times to the bend, to see if she was coming. He did that "a couple of times" - allowing another 10 minutes or so for that, we're now at 6.20pm.
he proceeds to hang about on Newbattle R'd. Once walking up to Barondale cottages to see if she is in sight.
He would/was not preoccupied with anything else other than meeting her? (fair to say, time would be dragging?)
Not sure what you mean. he knew he'd have about half an hour to wait for her, so, yes, by the time that had passed, time would be dragging. In between, he was simply waiting for her.
So, from approx: 5.32 until 7 pm he meanders around Newbattle R'd (NOT as far as the gate opposite the entrance to the path, the sighting of F & W)
See above
That is nearly 1 1/2 hrs, all but? (sightings of him from 6.05 until in the company of DH?? )
From after 6.30pm he says he wandered into the Abbey grounds. No sightings?
None recorded, but not for the whole 1 1/2 hours. The witness going to the video store saw him around 6.15pm (from memory), when he was standing near Barondale Cottages, supporting, in part, Luke's account that he walked up that far "a couple of times."
Phones DH several times, urging him on??
Twice. Once to see if he and the others were coming over, a second time to find out where they were (there was some confusion about where they were meeting).
Not once in all of this time of waiting, did he take the notion to daunder up this path (that his girlfriend wasn't 'really' supposed to use on her own) This path, that appears, really quite secluded in places, not once did he worry, knowing how secluded in places it could be, did he take the notion to (in that 90 minute interval) walk up the path. (CM's concerns about inhalers - asthma)
For the first half hour, he'd have had no reason to do so. Jodi had used the path before to come down to Newbattle - the kids obviously didn't think it was "unsafe" - neither did Alice, who had no apparent concerns about Jodi using the path alone to get to Newbattle. Thereafter, he assumed something untoward had delayed her, hence his call to his mum to send Jodi, if she turned up at the house, over to the Abbey.
YET, when the alarm was raised 5 hrs later he then thought of checking the path?
Bullseye has addressed this.
Are these the areas as to WHY the police first drew suspicion on LM?
Can't have been the original reasons, because they knew nothing of any of this in the 20 minutes between meeting with the search party and separating Luke from the others.
OR because the police thought they (Luke and Jodi) had left JuJ's together?These statements that are never shown, but admittedly showing perhaps , that they were/could had been taken (written) wrongly. IF of course, it's not the auld 'being economical' with the truth scenario??
They could, indeed, have been taken/written wrongly and I sincerely hope they were. Nonetheless, the existence of such a mistake supports police suspicion of Luke from the off because they did not know it was a mistake. Like they did not know it was a mistake that Luke was "coming up the path on his bike" - at least we know where that one came from because, a month later, Judith agreed she'd been mistaken and Luke had told her he was coming up the path with his dog. Like they did not know Luke wasn't the only one on the path and wasn't alone when he found Jodi. All mistakes, all leading them to believe their suspicion should be focused on Luke.
Yes, I am putting a ? of thought here solely on LM and reasons WHY? the police may have become suspicious. Taken into account, that after his very first interview, the police would have been aware that he was - for nearly 90 mins wandering around Newbattle R'd? when it takes but 15 mins: approx.: to walk up the path?
Plus 5 - 7 minutes from the path to Newbattle Abbey crescent, plus 2 mins 40 from Jodi's house to the entrance of the path, plus another couple of minutes from the entrance to the path to the junction of the paths. He wasn't "wandering around in Newbattle Road for 90 minutes (even by your own admission) - he was waiting on the wall until at least six o'clock, wandered up to Barondale Cottages a couple of times then went into the Abbey around 6.30ish.
We know the police were suspicious of him before the first interview - that was the reason for the first interview! So, again, it can't be what he did on the Newbattle Road while waiting for Jodi to arrive made them suspicious because, until after Jodi's body was found, none of them could have known any of that.
-
shhhh! dont let facts get in the way lol. Sandra's personal opinion is gospel around here.
Unless she posts the documents. There is no point taking her word for it. :-\
-
And i want to see the SCCRC failed appeal, upload it..
No.
-
Unless she posts the documents. There is no point taking her word for it. :-\
i dont i take the words of the court reports made at the time.
-
Ah that old chestnut, why are you discussing it blah blah blah.
Ok, my misses watches that English podcast's. I don't bother with him, glorifying criminals and what not for a few views. She mentioned have you heard about this Luke case, of course i did, i discussed it years ago, she is from down south, so was not clued-up on it. But out of curiously i watched these podcasts & i was gobsmacked with the utter BS that was sprouted in them, walking over dead bodies, stocky men, normal lad, confessions, every witness is unreliable, never owned knifes jackets all that BS, and the utter disregard for the victims' family, it is disgusting. Thankfully my misses seen the light, after I pointed out a few things.
Then i saw some comments from your Jeremy Kyle type watchers, giving it he is 100% innocent blah blah blah re-trial blah blah. Since my comments were getting deleted on the podcasts, i decided to take a look at the forums, I figured these forums would be a lot more busy after the PR campaign, but since these Kyle types have the intelligence of a burned pie, I'm not surprised it's the same old folk on here chasing tails.
Anyway, what i want to discuss is >>> Why did the appeals fails? If Someone else done it? And i want to see the SCCRC failed appeal, upload it..
Shit mate is that all! All you had to do is look at the appeal judges decisions and there’s your answer . Sry to have taken up too much off you time c ya!
-
Sandra posts the same wether it me or you asking a question, she won’t suffer fools gladly and can see through your lot easily, let’s get back to some real discussions.
-
Has she addressed lying about SK's blood being on Jodi's body yet?
hes never denied it.
-
Trouble with that sample is that’s it’s describe as both blood/semen so it’s hard to determine which is which. If you have the ability to expand on that then be my guess as the whole forensic situation is very much up in the air.
It still exists and has to be properly accounted for!
-
SK doesn't deny his blood being on his body despite there being no evidence of it?
So I can just make something up about you you might not even know I'm saying and if you don't explicitly deny it it's true?
Wait a minute Kelly knew nothing of the forensics against him, he came on the wap site and confirmed the very same!
-
I saw those posts too. He called Sandra out about the blood lie and she couldn't back it up. Of course he knows about the semen.
are so he denys hes bloods on there but not his sperm.
intresting.
-
(my source tells me) the table of contents are
crime scene preservation
investigation management
forensic evidence
defence team decisions
other potential suspects
the point luke mitchell became a suspect
use of family liaison officer
I think she forgot the point of the appeal was to prove Luke received an unfair trial, which he didn't.
SCCRC aren't interested in other potential suspects with weaker circumstantial cases built against them by SL than Luke.
I agree with you the PF isn’t interested in procedural miss management once they have a conviction but that doesn’t allow the conviction to be sound.
-
Yeah he denies the blood that there is no evidence of.
The sperm was on his girlfriend's shirt.
This is a guy who has multiple alibis the entire evening of the murder. One being Jodi's own sister.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
he does he know his blood couldent be on his grlfreinds shirt asuming it was his girlfreinds shirt.
-
Yeah he denies the blood that there is no evidence of.
The sperm was on his girlfriend's shirt.
This is a guy who has multiple alibis the entire evening of the murder. One being Jodi's own sister.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
He denies nothing of the kind of he doesn’t even know that there is a possibility his blood is there, unfortunately it could be his semen that is there and that has to be explained.
-
Why are we still talking about blood?
Whole thing was made up.
becouse im not going to belive somthings made up just becouse you say it is.
and if the cliam is innocent transfer blood can innocntly transfer just as easly as spern can so it really doesnt make that muchh diffrence.
-
It’s not made up but it’s not inconclusive either. That sample is described as blood/ semen so why are you trying to refute it when bigger brains than yourself basically fucked upped
-
But you'll believe the blood thing without any proof? The burden of proof isn't on me here.
yes it is if you cliam somone else is lying.
-
What about the 200 page response tearing it apart?
That is what I have asked for. There is nothing to stop her posting it.
-
yes it is if you cliam somone else is lying.
From what I can gather. Someone on a forum claimed someones blood was at the scene. That person then came onto a forum denying it and asking they prove the claim. And nothing was forthcoming by the persons making the allegation.
So it does seem to me it was made up.
-
From what I can gather. Someone on a forum claimed someones blood was at the scene. That person then came onto a forum denying it and asking they prove the claim. And nothing was forthcoming by the persons making the allegation.
So it does seem to me it was made up.
that person also thrtned to take legal action I belive but for some reason failed to d so.
-
that person also thrtned to take legal action I belive but for some reason failed to d so.
Cant blame him for considering it.
-
(my source tells me) the table of contents are
crime scene preservation
investigation management
forensic evidence
defence team decisions
other potential suspects
the point luke mitchell became a suspect
use of family liaison officer
jury was misled
I think she forgot the point of the appeal was to prove Luke received an unfair trial, which he didn't.
SCCRC aren't interested in other potential suspects with weaker circumstantial cases built against them by SL than Luke.
Who were the other potential suspects apart from Peter Tobin and the Da Vinci code rapist?
-
Cant blame him for considering it.
but why did he not go through with it.
-
but why did he not go through with it.
You’d have to ask him. Solicitors are expensive.
-
You’d have to ask him. Solicitors are expensive.
well if he pops his head up again I certainly will.
I
-
oh the usual
mark kane, james falconer, steven kelly, ferris/deckie, joseph jones.
and an unconfirmed jail cell confession from convicted pedo Allan Roberts.
"it has been reported he has confessed"
really amateur stuff.
this guff is ok if being spouted to the likes of nugnug on an internet forum but the sccrc must have been rolling their eyes.
so a totally unconfirmed and uncorroborated jail cell confession from a convicted pedophile years after the murder somehow fits into a submission that Luke Mitchell received an unfair trial in 2003.
with a whole lot of "it was said..."
Just wow.
Why did Sandra Lean do this? Is she being paid by Luke’s mother?
-
Wait a minute...
Oh dear. So Luke did find the body?
are you have writan something on a grey background and I am supposed to be impressed I see.
-
Bed time for you.
why lol.
-
::) ::) ::)
I've got all night...
can you post a link to the page you found those quates on
-
You can click on where it says "Quote from: sandra L on...." above the quotation and it will redirect you to the original post matey.
why cant you post a link.
-
The police originally thought so! In the first week or so of the enquiry, police sources were being quoted as suggesting that Jodi may have interrupted a "pervert" performing a "sex act" in the woods. Unfortunately, this suggestion didn't address why Jodi would have been in the woods, or why a pervert would, having been interrupted, decide that the obvious thing to do in response would be to brutally murder a 14 year old girl, but that's beside the point
The facts of the matter are that poor Jodi was found stripped naked, her hands bound behind her back her breast, abdomen and mouth mutilated, and traces of semen and sperm found on her body and clothing. If that does not suggest a sexually motivated crime then I don't really know what does. it seems L&B tried to muddy the waters between a sexual crime in its own right, and a sexually motivated crime, for reasons of their own.
However, the act of stripping Jodi naked was, in itself, a sexual crime in law, so even that "dstinction" - if it can be called such a thing, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I never, ever understood why L&B were so determined to maintain that the attack on Jodi was not, in any way, sexual or sexually motivated, after their initial contention that it was so.
are yes i rember them saying that i allways wondered why they did.
-
Can you remind me what time of day they thing the attack happened ? or is there just a window between the time she went out and the time she was found?
It seems hard to believe that there were not more witnesses to who was around that area.
I think the parents had said she was told not to go to that particular area - is that because it was known to be frequented by particularly dangerous people - or because it was just badly lit?
yes but funnly it was he firt place her family went to look for her.
-
::) ::) ::)
I've got all night...
But was it not stated Sandra had said it was sk semen? I don’t see that in the quote you posted, only that semen was found on the body, not who it belonged too?
“While on the subject of SK, you know full well the semen trace found on Janine's shirt was too insignificant to suggest ejaculation at the scene. But you will still advertise this as "sisters bf's semen found on the body!" when it is such a trace amount that the obvious explanation is the contrary, and the one accepted by police.”
The facts of the matter are that poor Jodi was found stripped naked, her hands bound behind her back her breast, abdomen and mouth mutilated, and traces of semen and sperm found on her body and clothing. If that does not suggest a sexually motivated crime then I don't really know what does. it seems L&B tried to muddy the waters between a sexual crime in its own right, and a sexually motivated crime, for reasons of their own.
-
There was no other semen. It's one and the same.
Sandra denied saying semen was on the body and I provided proof that she has said it.
She's not talking about any other semen.
well yes she probely is becouse as i recall other profiles were found.
-
What's with the "(lm describes his clothes)"?
Can you please provide these transcripts without these omissions?
How did Luke describe his clothes Sandra?
I think we can safely assume his description corroborates the eyewitness accounts of those who saw him out and about with Jodi when he was allegedly at home. Hence they have not been typed out.
-
There was no other semen. It's one and the same.
Sandra denied saying semen was on the body and I provided proof that she has said it.
She's not talking about any other semen.
All I remember Sandra saying about sk semen over the years is that it was on Jodi’s T-shirt, which was explained as innocent transfer (as it was meant to be a shirt Jodi borrowed from her sister, sk gf, explaining the semen on the t shirt) it was also on her bra which was explained by rain water transferring from t shirt to bra. That was it from sk profile that I remember.
She also stated a number of partial deposits on the body which were not full profiles, some had markers of parts of Luke’s profile And others had markers that match part of sk profile, but as these are partials it tells us nothing as they could also be from a number of other people. Or that’s how I’ve always understood it from Sandra’s comments, but I may be wrong.
Sandra also clarified I do not believe I have ever claimed this particular semen was "on Jodi's body"
Please can you post where Sandra “lies” by saying sk semen was on her body, as I can’t find it
-
I think we can safely assume his description corroborates the eyewitness accounts of those who saw him out and about with Jodi when he was allegedly at home. Hence they have not been typed out.
only one person ever cliamed to se him with jodi that day and she wasnt sure it was him or jodi.
and other witneses contradict her story.
-
It would be good to know what Luke was wearing that night and what the witnesses described. Also if anyone from school confirmed what Luke was wearing at school that day. The 2 boys that seen him that evening and knew him, what did they say he was wearing and did it match what he was found in?
-
For sure.
Providing transcripts of the statements after altering/removing parts is just dishonest.
Let's see what Luke told police he was wearing that night Sandra, that you decided to hide from us.
have you seen the full statement then if so post it yourself.
-
I've not seen it that's why I'm asking for it.
Why is Sandra only posting transcripts after removing things Luke Mitchell has said?
Why are people accepting this?
you hve no proof anythings been removed.
-
So is it really now being suggested there is semen from 2 separate males? SK's on the clothing and another's on her body? I've never seen Sandra suggest such a thing.
She's either lying now or lying then.
Or if she wants to come on and state for the first time, and back it up with proof, that SK's semen was on the bra but another males was on the body, then I'm all ears.
Sorry I was not very clear, the semen from sk was on T-shirt and bra, all others I was talking about was dna, also some sperm heads. I think there was some issues with the labels on some samples saying semen when there was none also. In the book Sandra does say there were in total 5 dna profiles found from unidentified males and one from Sk, but one of the unidentified was later found to be jf from the condom I assume. Sorry if I caused confusion
This came from you saying Sandra had said sk semen was on the body. So if I understand correct what you are saying is there was only one semen profile found which was sk, so if Sandra is saying there was semen on the body also then, to you, it must be sk as no other persons semen has been found? I see what you mean. So either the semen she is talking about on the body is sk, or another semen sample for another person, also could be a partial, be good to get clarification on that.
-
So Sandra was lying in 2014 when she posted that traces semen and sperm were found on the body?
Think I see what you mean now, I’ve edited my previous post.
-
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s70.html
Angeline. Semen and /or sperm heads were found both on and in intimate areas of the body, as well as on outer clothing, underwear, and surface skin. None of it matched the DNA profile of Luke Mitchell.
Unidentified hairs were found all over the body itself, and white stains, believed to be saliva, were found on areas of the clothing. None of these returned DNA matches to Luke Mitchell what is unclear is whether they were, in fact, then tested for matches to anyone else. At the time of the
murder, the other two suspects had not even been identified, so it is safe to assume they were not checked for DNA matches. Male number two, identified 3 years later, was not dropped because of any lack of DNA match, since the semen showed a full profile match.
9 years on since this post by SL (Angeline)? Seems to imply that there was sperm/semen not just on the body but in 'intimate' parts. Can SL explain if this is correct?
Bearing in mind: Findlay throughout the process of the trial and subsequent appeals, would have been aware of this YET it wasnt brought up? New legal representation also aware, YET never brought up? The SCCRC also aware of this YET no referral given?
What has been implied here? What has been missed here?
-
According to the book, I think there were 27 samples labelled semen sent to be checked, 15 had no results, 6 came back as female (Jodi), 3 were mixed samples dna from unknown males, 1 was a mixed sample between named male (I’m assuming sk) and unknown male and the last 2 were unknown males, one later found to be jf. Not sure where these samples were all from/found.
So how does the labelling work, these seem to have been labelled semen before being sent to be checked?
-
Wait a minute...
LM: Well, I don’t know if she changed out of them, but that’s what, cause I never saw her after school.
DC: Aye
LM: Until I found her, but... that’s what she was wearing at school.
Oh dear. So Luke did find the body?
I don’t think he has ever denied finding the body, but he says it was the dog that alerted him to the point beyond the wall where he found her.
-
Sandra has never claimed that semen was on the body! Where was it she said that? There is only two full profiles for identified males. The dna is so fucked up there is even 1 labelled semen female sample!! There are a number of unidentified profiles and the problem with them is there’s no way of knowing how accurate these profiles are unless there matched to an individual, they may be all from the same male that have become contaminated and can be of no use.
-
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s70.html
Angeline.
9 years on since this post by SL (Angeline)? Seems to imply that there was sperm/semen not just on the body but in 'intimate' parts. Can SL explain if this is correct?
Bearing in mind: Findlay throughout the process of the trial and subsequent appeals, would have been aware of this YET it wasnt brought up? New legal representation also aware, YET never brought up? The SCCRC also aware of this YET no referral given?
What has been implied here? What has been missed here?
There was a single sperm head found-on the vaginal swab, is this where it’s getting fuzzy as we’re talking about semen and not singular sperm heads, this could be claimed to have been found on or in the body.
Findley and Turnbull has a pact not to bring DNA into the case as the defence had no funding to do anything about it, Turnbull of course from the off spoke about the SK sample meaning it and all the DNA previously known could be used as an appeal.
-
According to the book, I think there were 27 samples labelled semen sent to be checked, 15 had no results, 6 came back as female (Jodi), 3 were mixed samples dna from unknown males, 1 was a mixed sample between named male (I’m assuming sk) and unknown male and the last 2 were unknown males, one later found to be jf. Not sure where these samples were all from/found.
So how does the labelling work, these seem to have been labelled semen before being sent to be checked?
6 of the semen samples came back as Jodi’s. What a plot twist she was a man! ::)
-
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s70.html
Angeline.
9 years on since this post by SL (Angeline)? Seems to imply that there was sperm/semen not just on the body but in 'intimate' parts. Can SL explain if this is correct?
Bearing in mind: Findlay throughout the process of the trial and subsequent appeals, would have been aware of this YET it wasnt brought up? New legal representation also aware, YET never brought up? The SCCRC also aware of this YET no referral given?
What has been implied here? What has been missed here?
That’s what I’ve always found odd. There is no mention of this anywhere in any of the important material. The whole thing is a lie.
-
6 of the semen samples came back as Jodi’s. What a plot twist she was a man! ::)
I didn’t say they came back as jodis you really need to either read what is written or stop purposely adding things that are wrong, the semen sample came back as female or is labelled as female. It shows just how messed up the DNA testing was at some points.
-
6 of the semen samples came back as Jodi’s. What a plot twist she was a man! ::)
Yetah this is it. Yet another part of the case not handled correctly by lbp etc meaning so much confusion and questions still going on years later.
There is a lot more examples of this on the results found and how they were labelled it seems.
-
I didn’t say they came back as jodis you really need to either read what is written or stop purposely adding things that are wrong, the semen sample came back as female or is labelled as female. It shows just how messed up the DNA testing was at some points.
It does say in the book that - 6 came back as female, the DNA attributed to Jodi
-
Samples come back Jodi and unknown male, full sample of Jodi and another.
-
Findley and Turnbull has a pact not to bring DNA into the case as the defence had no funding to do anything about it, Turnbull of course from the off spoke about the SK sample meaning it and all the DNA previously known could be used as an appeal.
It was Scotland’s most expensive trial with Luke’s defence funded by the tax payers. This DNA stuff is a myth.
-
There was no funding procured for the defence to test the DNA, two fully identified samples is no myth unless it fits your agenda.
-
Angeline.
Quote
Semen and /or sperm heads were found both on and in intimate areas of the body, as well as on outer clothing, underwear, and surface skin. None of it matched the DNA profile of Luke Mitchell.
[/color]
Now I understand that, this may be the case, that someone whom knew little about DNA profiling - puts out in a public forum a statement like this. She does state "it's all a little confusing" BUT, pushing out information like this is very misleading. It does serve purpose, in that it draws attention to people (who can't see through it) going WTF! All this semen and sperm?
-
Tell me what it is you see when you see through it? Do you have an understanding or qualification to refute what she has written?
-
There was no funding procured for the defence to test the DNA, two fully identified samples is no myth unless it fits your agenda.
It’s not mentioned in any of the appeals. Just rumour on an Internet forum.
We need actual documented records. Sandra has already been caught out posting two pieces of disinformation in the last 24 hours. Wake up and smell the coffee. It’s not me with an agenda.
-
It’s not mentioned in any of the appeals. Just rumour on an Internet forum.
We need actual documented records. Sandra has already been caught out posting two pieces of disinformation in the last 24 hours. Wake up and smell the coffee. It’s not me with an agenda.
What’s not in the appeals? The fact finding was never secured? Or the two samples ?
-
Yetah this is it. Yet another part of the case not handled correctly by lbp etc meaning so much confusion and questions still going on years later.
There is a lot more examples of this on the results found and how they were labelled it seems.
As the post, from 9 years ago - Could it possibly be that the questions and confusion stem from wrongful information getting spouted out? I'm sorry, I don't buy this "another part of the case not handled correctly by lbp" IMO, there is no way that the DNA testing was so mixed up and mismatched. IMO the SCCRC in their investigation would have picked up on this. (did their professionals read the DNA reports correctly?) It is believed that only two further areas of testing were done - On the trousers zip? IF the DNA testing was so bad in the first place - the SCCRC would have picked up on this?
-
If the DNA testing was so good they wouldn’t have found two other samples on the zip of the trousers, they would have used anything they could of to convict Luke if the DNA supported it, nothing was used at trial. The SCCRC are not interested in what was available at the time as it’s cant be used at retrial
-
Tell me what it is you see when you see through it? Do you have an understanding or qualification to refute what she has written?
The statement put out was given by a non-professional. Someone whom is not qualified to interpret such intricate reports. That is what is clearly obvious. I'm sorry , but you don't need any qualifications to know the person making the statement-has none in this area?
-
If the DNA testing was so good they wouldn’t have found two other samples on the zip of the trousers, they would have used anything they could of to convict Luke if the DNA supported it, nothing was used at trial. The SCCRC are not interested in what was available at the time as it’s cant be used at retrial
That is a fair point - they noted through their thorough investigation that the zip had been missed? or wanted to further test it? Which one was it? Did they feel that any DNA (found previously here? if tested) from the zip was an area, with advancements of testing, could yield a full profile?
Also - IF the testing was so bad initially - would that in itself not be a ground of appeal?
What were the results?
-
The idea that they only tested the zip and no other area doesn’t sit well with me, if that’s the case then to find two new samples of dna is alarming. I was told about what happened afterwards but not sure if I should say.
-
The statement put out was given by a non-professional. Someone whom is not qualified to interpret such intricate reports. That is what is clearly obvious. I'm sorry , but you don't need any qualifications to know the person making the statement-has none in this area?
The trouble is Sandra wrote everything as it was basically in the papers so if it’s misleading then it’s the way it was recorded that misleads.
-
The idea that they only tested the zip and no other area doesn’t sit well with me, if that’s the case then to find two new samples of dna is alarming. I was told about what happened afterwards but not sure if I should say.
Best not to then. Would be unwise - it may damage future proceedings. ;)
-
The trouble is Sandra wrote everything as it was basically in the papers so if it’s misleading then it’s the way it was recorded that misleads.
:)
-
The trouble is Sandra wrote everything as it was basically in the papers so if it’s misleading then it’s the way it was recorded that misleads.
She has already been caught editing Luke's police interview transcripts. So why would you trust how she typed out these alleged DNA records?
Why didn't she just scan the documents and upload them as images like most people do? Would have been a lot easier ???
-
It’s unfair on Sandra as she’s the one who people ask questions of. Of course she’s no a psychologist,psychiatrist or forensic researcher but you want her to answer questions on these subjects, should she answer them with every bit of information or edit them to answer the pertinent question?
I’m sure you can get the trail transcripts at a price so if your that interested why don’t you pay to get them? If that’s not allowed then doesn’t that answer the question as to her ability to place them on a public forum.
-
Where can I pay for these since Sandra can't be trusted to transcribe them without editing parts out?
LOL @ actually going to the trouble of going through the interview and deleting things Luke has said before posting it here. Bizarre.
Why bother paying to get copies? The fact they have been concealed and dishonestly edited is enough for me to realise they will only confirm what we already believe.
-
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/research-guides/court-and-legal-records
-
Why bother paying to get copies? The fact they have been concealed and dishonestly edited is enough for me to realise they will only confirm what we already believe.
Ffs you keep asking for them
-
Where can I pay for these since Sandra can't be trusted to transcribe them without editing parts out?
LOL @ actually going to the trouble of going through the interview and deleting things Luke has said before posting it here. Bizarre.
Try here? http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/
Contact the High Court
First Instance
For all High Court sittings at first instance
0131 240 6908
Jurors (General enquiries, requests for excusal)
0131 240 6946
Solemn Appeals
0131 240 6909
Summary Appeals
Appeals from Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Courts
0131 240 6912
Transcripts
(Applications for transcripts of proceedings)
0131 240 6903
-
It might prove futile though
Who can request information?
• a person who appears to be a victim of the offence or alleged offence;
• a prescribed relative of such a victim where the person’s death was caused, or appears to have been caused, by the offence or alleged offence;
• a person who is to give, or is likely to give, evidence in criminal proceedings in relation to an offence or alleged offence;
• a person who has given a statement to a police officer or prosecutor in relation to the offence or alleged offence
-
How many times do I have to say it? I cannot make public the documents themselves. As for editing the transcripts, I feel pretty sure the details of what Luke said about what he was wearing were posted at the time and the later excerpts were edited to avoid continual repetition but, for the record, here's what he said on July 4th 2003:
"... My black baggies you bought me [referring to his mum], eh, my snowboarding boots, eh, my big chain belt, my black On Fire t shirt with "you laugh at me cause I'm different, I pity you cause you're all the sam" written on the back and my green bomber jacket."
Later, answering the same question (what clothes were you wearing on Monday evening?) he says:
"The same that were taken in the, my black baggies, my snowboarding boots, My On Fire t shirt and my bomber jacket, everything that I was wearing during Monday school time."
Later still
"my black baggies, my snowboarding boots, my black On Fire T shirt with I pity you, no you laugh at me cause I'm different, I pity you cause you're all the same and my green bomber jacket"
And again:
Eh,my black baggies, snowboarding boots, my black On Fire t shirt with writing on the back saying "laugh at me cause I'm different, I pity you cause you're all the same" and my green bomber jacket.
So, if I've been "caught editing Luke's interview transcripts" it's because there was no need for continual repetition of the same information at the time those posts were made.
-
Which particular semen?
-
Are you saying now there is semen not belonging to SK?
There’s many semen samples but 1 identified
-
Ok, the next post will take some time, so please be patient.
-
Taken directly from the forensic reports:
Internal vaginal swabs: one sperm head
External vaginal swabs : one sperm head
The semen on the above swabs was sent to (Laboratory)
Left breast - semen fraction and cell fraction
Right breast - semen fraction and cell fraction
abdomen - semen fraction and cell fraction
right palm - semen fraction and cell fraction
T shirt piece 1- one sperm head lower back
semen lower back
saliva outside lower back
saliva inside mid back
T shirt piece 2 - semen, inside back, left sleeve
sperm heads upper right front
sperm heads upper left front
Bra - semen, outside left cup
three sperm heads (and many cells) outside left cup
padding, left cup, semen
semen - outside edge, right cup
sperm heads - inside right cup
semen - outside right cup (different to outside edge)
Trousers - sperm head and cellular material in white stain, lower front, right leg
Underpants: Sperm heads and many cells
Many of these samples are then listed in another report, but, confusingly, some of them are labelled "blood" - likewise, the right shoe samples were originally listed as "blood" but further testing labelled them "semen/blood, and later still, semen.
A good example of this is the stain in which SK's DNA was found - it was listed in one report as BLOOD O/S Front Shirt 2 but, as you can see above, it was identified in another report as semen.
Or the right shoe, where stains were originally logged as blood, then blood/semen and finally semen.
So, there it is - clear as mud. The only full profile identified from any of these samples was 10G - O/S Front, shirt piece 2. What is obvious, though, is that there were numerous areas where semen and/or sperm heads were identified on Jodi's body and her clothing.
Then we have the unidentified males:
Condom - semen, including intact spermatoza round on inside and outside of condom (full profile, Unknown male 1 - later identified as Falconer)
Condom (Monk's Cave) - full profile - unknown male 2
T Shirt, Roan's Dyke Wall (16/20 partial profile) Unknown male 3
Blood, knife handle - partial profile - Unknown male 4
Blood, knife handle with broken blade - partial profile - unknown male 5
I don't claim that these are all the references to sperm/semen in the case papers - those are simply the ones that were easiest for me to find at the moment.
-
Sandra why did the prosecution need to come up with the transfer theory unless the semen on the bra could be married to the stain on the t shirt?
-
"... My black baggies you bought me [referring to his mum], eh, my snowboarding boots, eh, my big chain belt, my black On Fire t shirt with "you laugh at me cause I'm different, I pity you cause you're all the sam" written on the back and my green bomber jacket."
Well there you go. It corroborates Andrina Bryson witness account of seeing him out with Jodi when he claims to be at home. A "khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket" with the collar up. Hence you redacted that information.
How many times do I have to say it? I cannot make public the documents themselves.
You were doing that just now by typing out parts of those documents verbatim. So you can post the evidence but you just do not want to.
-
Well there you go. It corroborates Andrina Bryson witness account of seeing him out with Jodi when he claims to be at home. A "khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket" with the collar up. Hence you redacted that information.
You were doing that just now by typing out parts of those documents verbatim. So you can post the evidence but you just do not want to.
It doesn’t match the fishing style jacket with a collar up as bomber tend not to have collars
-
It doesn’t match the fishing style jacket with a collar up as bomber tend not to have collars
And a bomber jacket isn't hip length.
-
Sandra why did the prosecution need to come up with the transfer theory unless the semen on the bra could be married to the stain on the t shirt?
There was no DNA brought up at either the trial or the two appeals. The prosecution never needed to refuted any DNA in the first place.
Stop being Sandra's cuckold.
-
So much for patience!!! I've completed the sperm heads/semen post to the best of my ability for the moment.
-
Yes it is. Especially Luke's who wore baggy clothing.
Just another coincidence the Luke doppelganger also had a green jacket though.
The Luke doppelganger also hangs around with the Jodi doppelganger around the time and place Luke and Jodi actually arranged to meet the evening she died.
Its incredible.
-
The appeals weren’t raised on DNA were they!! There was DNA brought up at risk or why we discussing the Kelly sample, it was brought up. Nothing to incriminate Luke so couldn’t be brought into it.
Lithium stick up the pic of Luke in his bomber jacket will you
-
Well there you go. It corroborates Andrina Bryson witness account of seeing him out with Jodi when he claims to be at home. A "khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket" with the collar up. Hence you redacted that information.
Desperate! I explained why I didn't repeat the same information in order to keep discussion going. Your decision to interpret that as redaction on order to conceal is laughable - in what way does a "fishing style jacket" straight across at hip length, resemble a (waist length, pulled in at the waist) bomber jacket?
You were doing that just now by typing out parts of those documents verbatim. So you can post the evidence but you just do not want to.
Tiresome. I cannot make the actual documents public. I can quote from them, in part, but I cannot make the entire documents publicly available. Even if I typed out every word (and managed to get away with saying I was only "quoting" from them) you'd still not be satisfied - then you'd be saying you only had my word for it that I'd typed them up accurately and completely.
So, for the very last time, I cannot make post these documents, in their original form, on the internet, so please stop asking (and making up your own reasons why you think I can.)
-
Sandra why did the prosecution need to come up with the transfer theory unless the semen on the bra could be married to the stain on the t shirt?
It's bizarre, Gordo. Initially, they appear to have believed the various semen deposits on the t shirt and bra could be accounted for by rain-water diffusion ("In an attempt to ascertain whether or not there had been any diffusion of semen through the fabric due to it being saturated with rain water....." and therefore, presumably, that these deposits all came from the same source.
What's not clear is whether they knew, at that stage, that the only identified male DNA on the t-shirt was Kelly's. It may have been that they were hoping to tie all the deposits to Luke, but when the DNA results came back, they knew they couldn't follow that line so, instead, used it to support the "innocent transfer" theories.
That should have caused them some difficulty though - firstly the sperm heads had to have survived a washing machine cycle to them be transferred by rainwater (because seminal fluid would have been destroyed by enzymes in the detergent), but they weren't looking at sperm head transfer, they were looking, specifically, for semen transfer.
If the innocent transfer via the washing machine truly accounted for Kelly's DNA on the t shirt, then it should have been found in sperm heads alone.
It's difficult to say if the stains on the t-shirt and bra matched up - the descriptions are too vague to call it - upper right front, upper left front, outside of cups - best that can be said is that they were within the same regions.
-
Desperate! I explained why I didn't repeat the same information in order to keep discussion going. Your decision to interpret that as redaction on order to conceal is laughable - in what way does a "fishing style jacket" straight across at hip length, resemble a (waist length, pulled in at the waist) bomber jacket?
A witness spotted Luke with Jodi while wearing a green jacket on the night of the murder. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why after tying all that stuff out you redacted his description of the clothing he wore that night. That being a green jacket.
So, for the very last time, I cannot make post these documents, in their original form, on the internet, so please stop asking (and making up your own reasons why you think I can.)
There is no difference between paper copies and electronic text copies. If you are copying the evidence into a computer text and posting it here. You are in-fact publishing what you claim you cant be doing.
So.
Either stop what you are doing having realised its wrong. Or scan the documents either via your mobile phone or a scanner in a stationary shop, unless you have a scanner.
-
That’s funny , messed up big time and now back to let’s all disregard every aspect of the description of the jacket to just green as it’s the only point that fits lol. Pathetic!
-
The particular style of jacket is subjective. One thing, the first thing everyone notices, is the colour, and she was spot on about that.
Tell me who this couple were? Why have they never come forward? Between the 2 of them neither of them ever heard anything about this famous murder in their local area?
I agree colour would be the first thing to notice, why didn’t she just say a green jacket then ? Because she noticed aspects of the jacket, collar up, hip length and pocket on sleeve. These can’t simply be tossed aside to fit in with someone’s theory, imagine if Sandra has done that you would be all locked up tonight foaming at the mouth.
-
The particular style of jacket is subjective. One thing, the first thing everyone notices, is the colour, and she was spot on about that.
Tell me who this couple were? Why have they never come forward? Between the 2 of them neither of them ever heard anything about this famous murder in their local area?
What two people is it your talking about?
-
The two Bryson saw, its only my opinion but I believe it was Jodi moaning at her big bro for following her. Only my opinion.
-
What two people is it your talking about?
"[16] The second key was the evidence of the witness Andrina Bryson. She had seen a male and a female standing near the Easthouses end of the path at around 1650 or 1655. The female was standing close to the beginning of the path on the pavement looking towards the male, who was on the path. The witness identified the appellant from a book of photographs as being the male whom she had seen. She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans. The Crown submitted that, if she had left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the deceased would have been near the Easthouses end of the path at the time of this sighting, and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of the appellant and the deceased together."
-
The particular style of jacket is subjective. One thing, the first thing everyone notices, is the colour, and she was spot on about that.
Tell me who this couple were? Why have they never come forward? Between the 2 of them neither of them ever heard anything about this famous murder in their local area?
There were people in Jodi’s own family who did not come forward til they had to, so why would these 2 people come forward. They might not even know it’s them that was seen. I just don’t think Luke was spotted at the top with Jodi. If it was Luke I think he met Jodi at the v. Is the description of Jodi not a girl with blue jeans on and Jodi was wearing baggy black trousers?
-
"[16] The second key was the evidence of the witness Andrina Bryson. She had seen a male and a female standing near the Easthouses end of the path at around 1650 or 1655. The female was standing close to the beginning of the path on the pavement looking towards the male, who was on the path. The witness identified the appellant from a book of photographs as being the male whom she had seen. She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans. The Crown submitted that, if she had left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the deceased would have been near the Easthouses end of the path at the time of this sighting, and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of the appellant and the deceased together."
so how can Jodi be in 2 places at once.
-
so how can Jodi be in 2 places at once.
Nobody is saying she was. I have already explained the time discrepancy to you yesterday.
The time estimate that Mrs Brysons remembers is wrong by 10 minutes. Or the time estimate that Jodis mother gave when Jodi left is wrong by about 10 minutes. Or it could be a bit of both. You cannot expect people to remember the precise time of events that were seemingly insignificant to them at the time.
The police reconstruction is based on an estimate (like everything else). You seem to be treating the timings as if they are time stamped CCTV showing her leaving the building. That is not how you scrutinize this kind of evidence.
Do you really believe a Luke doppelganger and Jodi doppelganger showed up wearing the similar clothes While the actual Luke and Jodi had arraingments to meet in the same area around 10 minutes later?
The level of ignorance here is staggering.
-
Nobody is saying she was. I have already explained the time discrepancy to you yesterday.
Do you really believe a Luke doppelganger and Jodi doppelganger showed up wearing the similar clothes While the actual Luke and Jodi had arraingments to meet in the same area around 10 minutes later?
The level of ignorance here is staggering.
how can jodi be with luke and then going down a path on her own 10 minutes later how can she be in her house and somwhere else at the same time.
logic isnt your strong point is it.
is he other witness who knew heer lying would they.
-
But the witness said the male was at the entrance of the path facing Jodi who was approaching. So this doesn't work. Joseph would have had to have left before Jodi. Also the description doesn't match Joseph at all, but nevermind that eh?
If I’m honest I don’t think Bryson was even on that road at that time, she describes the female almost exactly as Judy described Jodi on her first description to the police. The one that was clearly wrong! Then when you realise her hubby was in the Jones household the morning after I think a lot was said at that time.
Oh and how could Jodi ever be described as having black hair?
Your argument that I’m wrong based on the fact Joey doesn’t fit the description and then claim it was Luke and Jodi who clearly don’t fit the description is incredible.
-
But the witness said the male was at the entrance of the path facing Jodi who was approaching. So this doesn't work. Joseph would have had to have left before Jodi. Also the description doesn't match Joseph at all, but nevermind that eh?
And not just that, if they were arguing at the foot of the path, how did they get behind the wall together?
we are not tlking about the same sighting.
-
"[16] The second key was the evidence of the witness Andrina Bryson. She had seen a male and a female standing near the Easthouses end of the path at around 1650 or 1655.
Not according to her original statements, her phone records and the supermarket till receipt. All three were negated by "bank records" - the discrepancy was never explained other than the prosecution saying the bank records "must be right." Even if the bank records were right, her car was facing the wrong direction at 16.50-55 - she would have been coming into Easthouses facing north, in which case the only chance she would have had of seeing anyone on the entrance path itself would have been by looking backwards. But her account was that she was leaving Easthouses, after the driving around to find the house for sale, etc.
The exact prosecution timings are:
Bank transaction 16.32.45 (original till receipt was 16.45.31)
Five minutes to load shopping and children into car - the time is now 16.37.45
Two possible routes to Easthouses 12 minutes and 17 minutes - the time is now either 16.49.45 or 16.54.45
But this is the arrival time at Easthouses. No time is allowed for driving up the main road, into the wrong street, finding the correct street and stopping outside the house for sale before doing a three point turn in the cul-de-sac in order to return to the the main road and make her way back the way she came, all of which took her 35 - 40 minutes, according to her own timings.
The female was standing close to the beginning of the path on the pavement looking towards the male, who was on the path. The witness identified the appellant from a book of photographs as being the male whom she had seen.
Even though she was quite sure she never saw his face and could only identify him from his clothing - in the picture shown (which experts have condemned as massively leading), Luke was wearing a black t-shirt, his hair was not "very thick and shaggy, sticking up in a clump at the back" and he doesn't look like a man in his late teens, early twenties.
She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging.
The man she described in her sighting, not the person she picked out from the photographs. She also said he was wearing "matching trousers."
She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans.
Jodi's hair wasn't black, she was wearing very baggy trousers and a black, baggy Deftones hoodie with a bright orange logo on the back and on the left sleeve (the sleeve closest to the road).
The Crown submitted that, if she had left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the deceased would have been near the Easthouses end of the path at the time of this sighting,
If the deceased left her house at 16.50, as claimed, she would have been near the entrance to the path at exactly 16.52.40. Earlier timing issues aside, Bryson couldn't have seen Jodi at 16.49, because she wasn't there yet - she was still at home. If she arrived at 1654, she may have seen Jodi, but she couldn't have seen the man standing in the path in front of her until at least half an hour later
and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of the appellant and the deceased together.
On the basis of no factual evidence whatsoever.
-
Also, Bryson did not pick out a bomber jacket as the one the man was wearing (and yes, there was a bomber jacket in the photographs shown to her), nor did she pick out the parka - she was quite clear about that in court. The parka was the "closest" to what she saw, but there were noticeable differences, which she pointed out to the police and told the court she had done so.
So Mr Fishing jacket isn't wearing a bomber jacket or a parka.
-
Not according to her original statements, her phone records and the supermarket till receipt. All three were negated by "bank records" - the discrepancy was never explained other than the prosecution saying the bank records "must be right." Even if the bank records were right, her car was facing the wrong direction at 16.50-55 - she would have been coming into Easthouses facing north, in which case the only chance she would have had of seeing anyone on the entrance path itself would have been by looking backwards. But her account was that she was leaving Easthouses, after the driving around to find the house for sale, etc.
The exact prosecution timings are:
Bank transaction 16.32.45 (original till receipt was 16.45.31)
Five minutes to load shopping and children into car - the time is now 16.37.45
Two possible routes to Easthouses 12 minutes and 17 minutes - the time is now either 16.49.45 or 16.54.45
But this is the arrival time at Easthouses. No time is allowed for driving up the main road, into the wrong street, finding the correct street and stopping outside the house for sale before doing a three point turn in the cul-de-sac in order to return to the the main road and make her way back the way she came, all of which took her 35 - 40 minutes, according to her own timings.
Even though she was quite sure she never saw his face and could only identify him from his clothing - in the picture shown (which experts have condemned as massively leading), Luke was wearing a black t-shirt, his hair was not "very thick and shaggy, sticking up in a clump at the back" and he doesn't look like a man in his late teens, early twenties.
The man she described in her sighting, not the person she picked out from the photographs. She also said he was wearing "matching trousers."
Jodi's hair wasn't black, she was wearing very baggy trousers and a black, baggy Deftones hoodie with a bright orange logo on the back and on the left sleeve (the sleeve closest to the road).
If the deceased left her house at 16.50, as claimed, she would have been near the entrance to the path at exactly 16.52.40. Earlier timing issues aside, Bryson couldn't have seen Jodi at 16.49, because she wasn't there yet - she was still at home. If she arrived at 1654, she may have seen Jodi, but she couldn't have seen the man standing in the path in front of her until at least half an hour later
On the basis of no factual evidence whatsoever.
She identified Luke and her description of his clothes matches what Luke said in his police interviews. Her timing was a little off within reason. There is nothing more to it.
You claimed the other day that Jodi never told her mum she was going to see luke. Yet the COA stated she did. So why should I believe anything else you have claimed above?
-
She identified Luke and her description of his clothes matches what Luke said in his police interviews. Her timing was a little off within reason. There is nothing more to it.
You claimed the other day that Jodi never told her mum she was going to see luke. Yet the COA stated she did. So why should I believe anything else you have claimed above?
so how is jodi in 2 places in 2 places at the same time.
how can she be walking up the path on her own and be with luke 10 minutes before.
-
She identified Luke and her description of his clothes matches what Luke said in his police interviews. Her timing was a little off within reason. There is nothing more to it.
You claimed the other day that Jodi never told her mum she was going to see luke. Yet the COA stated she did. So why should I believe anything else you have claimed above?
You just won’t asmit when your wrong will you, the description doesn’t match Luke at all.
-
Believe what you like - you do anyway!
It was Judith's statement that said Jodi didn't tell her where she was going or with whom, just like it was Judith's statement that said the previous evening, when Jodi came home, Judith didn't ask her where she'd been or with whom.
Judith also told the court a very detailed story about the lifting of a non-existent grounding - again, not my words, but the words of Alice Walker, Janine and Judith herself.
How did AB's description of the clothes match what Luke himself said? Which part of "she did not pick out the bomber jacket" did you not understand? And how did Luke's black baggies come to be described as "fishing trousers, matching the jacket" which was claimed to be khaki coloured?
-
But it matches JoJ? ::)
well that cant be proved ethere way as we dont know what joj was wearing that night.
-
how can jodi be with luke and then going down a path on her own 10 minutes later how can she be in her house and somwhere else at the same time.
logic isnt your strong point is it.
Either Jodi left her house 10 minutes earlier than her mum recalled her leaving. Or Bryson spotted Luke with Jodi 10 minutes later than the time she recalled seeing them.
Logic is my strong point 8)
-
But it matches JoJ? ::)
My opinion is based on the independent witnesses and not the non corroborated Bryson account.
-
Either Jodi left her house 10 minutes earlier than her mum recalled her leaving. Or Bryson spotted Luke with Jodi 10 minutes later than the time she recalled seeing them.
Logic is my strong point 8)
As long as fact do t stand in the way.
-
Once again, if the facts get in the way, just change the prosecution narrative, whilst continually posting the prosecution and appeal narratives as gospel.
If Jodi left 10 minutes earlier, she left 2 minutes after the last text to Luke - no time for the Rod Stewart song and sitting on the settee with her mum telling her to shoo and go out. She'd have been out before AO got home (or literally as he arrived), so that's his evidence dead in the water - can't have seen Jodi in the livingroom as he passed to go to the toilet of heard her leave while he was in there.
If AB saw them 10 minutes later, Jodi couldn't have been killed at 5.15pm - there's not enough time. She wouldn't even have been at the V point by 5.15pm.
I don't know why the prosecution went to such lengths to try to pin down the timings (as dubious as those attempts were) _ they could just have got David to come in and keep changing the narrative until nobody knew what the hell was going on.
-
JoJ's description was fat with a short back and sides.
did you mean "stocky"?
-
did you mean "stocky"?
Exactly !!
-
Stocky Man is an entirely separate sighting though.
You asked who the two were that didn’t come forward my opinion was based on the sighting of stocky man, Bryson didn’t claim to see anyone else other than the two she said. These are around the same time and one was definitely Jodi , who Bryson saw if anybody god only knows.
-
A witness spotted Luke with Jodi while wearing a green jacket on the night of the murder. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why after tying all that stuff out you redacted his description of the clothing he wore that night. That being a green jacket.
There is no difference between paper copies and electronic text copies. If you are copying the evidence into a computer text and posting it here. You are in-fact publishing what you claim you cant be doing.
So.
Either stop what you are doing having realised its wrong. Or scan the documents either via your mobile phone or a scanner in a stationary shop, unless you have a scanner.
I have seen you do the same thing - typed out text instead of posting the original document. You don't always provide links to support your MANY theories but expect others to take YOUR word. People in glass houses!
-
proof?
One of the witnesses knew jodi
-
Really what's this witnesses name?
Data protection wouldn’t allow me to tell you, you give me proof Bryson was even on that road that day?
-
Your asking about proof so I’m asking you to prove also, thing is your arguing the prosecution stance and nothing can be proven.
Why would she make it up! Maybe her hubby thought he was doing his good friends the Jones a favour.
-
The crime starts at the meeting of the path, only witness linked to the Jones family.
The very time its said the murder took place the bike the two were on is seen at that very point, linked to the Jones family
The discovery of the body, made by the Jones family and those linked to it.
Somethings are stranger than fiction.
-
I have seen you do the same thing - typed out text instead of posting the original document. You don't always provide links to support your MANY theories but expect others to take YOUR word. People in glass houses!
I have never been caught out editing the evidence I typed out and nor have I ever done such a thing. Sandra has and that is why I am asking for an actual copy and who can blame me?
Prehaps you should provide links to all this alleged circumstantial evidence against Jeremy? People in glass houses indeed. ;D
-
I have never been caught out editing the evidence I typed out and nor have I ever done such a thing. Sandra has and that is why I am asking for an actual copy and who can blame me?
Prehaps you should provide links to all this alleged circumstantial evidence against Jeremy? People in glass houses indeed. ;D
Go and get one
-
I have never been caught out editing the evidence I typed out and nor have I ever done such a thing. Sandra has and that is why I am asking for an actual copy and who can blame me?
Prehaps you should provide links to all this alleged circumstantial evidence against Jeremy? People in glass houses indeed. ;D
How would we know if you edited it? You rarely provide links to the original!
While you're on, perhaps you would like to explain how a housewife, a pensioner and a farmer managed to fool hardened police officers and the lab by faking Sheila's blood in the silencer via use of her menstrual blood - from underwear that had been soaking over night. You're in the company of top detective brain power here folks! ;D ;D His forensic breakthrough is 'leg end' ;D ;D ;D
-
Who seen the bike at that very point?
Are you claiming I’m wrong? It was part of the trial the two boys on the bike confirmed it.
-
How would we know if you edited it? You rarely provide links to the original!
People can find the photos of the documents on this forum. Feel free to compare. I am not going to be that stupid and type anything out different. Who do you think I am? That person who uploaded a photo of Sheila feet with the toe nails cropped out depspie other people having the whole photo? ;D
-
The bike the TWO were SEEN on at that very point?
Yes you are wrong, nobody seen them at that very point. Only by their own admission.
But lets get back to your original point, Who SEEN them?
Your kidding me ain’t another one who can’t read or chooses not to, I said the bike was seen, they claimed they were there. I didn’t say anyone saw them.
-
People can find the photos of the documents on this forum. Feel free to compare. I am not going to be that stupid and type anything out different. Who do you think I am? That person who uploaded a photo of Sheila feet with the toe nails cropped out depspie other people having the whole photo? ;D
That's how stupid you are - accusing someone of that when YOU had the original picture which you posted then deleted. Total drama queen! Anyone who takes you seriously needs to have a word with themselves. Expert on any murder case mentioned ::)
-
Ye raging aye?
Nope your just not good enough to catch me out and I find you boring
-
Your just not good enough to get Luke of the hook, and i find you a failure.
I’m not in the position to do so, I have never claimed to get Luke out or even trying. I’m happy in the knowledge he’s innocent and to keep that in public domain
How can I fail at something I’m not trying to do, however as your here talking about it shows I’m a success in what I’m trying to do.
-
Where have I accused anyone? Same old same old . I want to get down to discussing the case, I would love to do that with people of all angles and beliefs. It’s has now become a who can distort the facts to their advantage.
-
Really! What ever you say
-
How often have a said I do not believe Joey to be the killer, I have never accused him of anything it was my own opinion.
Your lot got smashed over the Bryson sighting today and you know it, as for me looking a knob you would be the expert there.
-
SK. Thankfully (IMO) this guy had an alibi/s. The clothing was 'stained' (Not necessarily seen by the eye) Other particles were just that - PARTICLES. (sperm heads)
NOT fresh, neither in abundance.
NO other forms of DNA found/present from this guy.
Borrowed T-shirt - NO DNA present of JaJ - sweat washes out easily in comparison to sperm!
NO ONE knows at what point of contact this transferral took place. Multiple possibilities?
The borrowed T -shirt debate - would have (IMO) been introduced from the onset! Immediately.
Snip bits given from statements and theories on the police introducing this, are just that. snip bits and theories.
HE would have known it was there! it is pretty obvious that he didn't. He could have simply taken the T -shirt and all else with him!
Evidence heard and scrutinized at trial, by the SCCRC and so forth.
https://www.forensiccontext.com/washing-out-the-stain
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508
http://ryanforensicdna.com/is-a-single-sperm-cell-evidence-of-a-sexual-assault/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280614022_Persistence_of_DNA_from_laundered_semen_stains_Implications_for_child_sex_trafficking_cases
-
The crime starts at the meeting of the path, only witness linked to the Jones family.
The very time its said the murder took place the bike the two were on is seen at that very point, linked to the Jones family
The discovery of the body, made by the Jones family and those linked to it.
Somethings are stranger than fiction.
Agree - the crime started at the meeting of the path. AB's sighting of LM and Jodi.
Agree - like, likening a total stranger to being your best buddy because the persons bro - in law knew the Jones. The other snip bits of theories - could be true, unfortunately there are that many, it becomes difficult to spot what MAY be correct. Chinese whispers with a bad translator?
Agree that the dubious duo admitted being at the V 'around' 5.15, once they'd fathomed DD's clock was wrong. No other witnesses who saw them or the bike at the 'V' though?
Agree - the discovery of the body was made (cough) by LM who was linked to the Jones family.
-
SK. Thankfully (IMO) this guy had an alibi/s. The clothing was 'stained' (Not necessarily seen by the eye) Other particles were just that - PARTICLES. (sperm heads)
NOT fresh, neither in abundance.
NO other forms of DNA found/present from this guy.
Borrowed T-shirt - NO DNA present of JaJ - sweat washes out easily in comparison to sperm!
NO ONE knows at what point of contact this transferral took place. Multiple possibilities?
The borrowed T -shirt debate - would have (IMO) been introduced from the onset! Immediately.
Snip bits given from statements and theories on the police introducing this, are just that. snip bits and theories.
HE would have known it was there! it is pretty obvious that he didn't. He could have simply taken the T -shirt and all else with him!
Evidence heard and scrutinized at trial, by the SCCRC and so forth.
https://www.forensiccontext.com/washing-out-the-stain
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508
http://ryanforensicdna.com/is-a-single-sperm-cell-evidence-of-a-sexual-assault/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280614022_Persistence_of_DNA_from_laundered_semen_stains_Implications_for_child_sex_trafficking_cases
Some of these articles are very enlightening however when the majority of techniques were developed in the last 4/5 years and all within the last 10. Applying these parameters to a case 16 years old would be wrong.
-
It would be good to have a bit more structure to the Luke thread, split into different threads so it’s not all in the one place which can be a difficult and long read for new people. It’s a massive thread and only seems to be getting bigger. Be good to have somewhere easy to find the information you require. Is there any other sites discussing this case, other than the red forum?
Is there a date for the launch of the long road to justice site as yet?
-
It would be good to have a bit more structure to the Luke thread, split into different threads so it’s not all in the one place which can be a difficult and long read for new people. It’s a massive thread and only seems to be getting bigger. Be good to have somewhere easy to find the information you require. Is there any other sites discussing this case, other than the red forum?
Is there a date for the launch of the long road to justice site as yet?
might help if w maybe started a new thread that might stop bring up the same things over and over agian.
-
Some of these articles are very enlightening however when the majority of techniques were developed in the last 4/5 years and all within the last 10. Applying these parameters to a case 16 years old would be wrong.
Agree, after all he isn't guilty and locked up. Yet, if he were, it would of course be wrong to apply any advancements in science to prove his innocence?
-
Agree, after all he isn't guilty and locked up. Yet, if he were, it would of course be wrong to apply any advancements in science to prove his innocence?
That’s just not right mate and you know it! These advancements could well mean if the crime was committed today then he may have been proven innocent(Mitchel) . I was responding to your post when you attributed these advancements in support of the Kelly sample that wasn’t put through these methods.
-
That’s just not right mate and you know it! These advancements could well mean if the crime was committed today then he may have been proven innocent(Mitchel) . I was responding to your post when you attributed these advancements in support of the Kelly sample that wasn’t put through these methods.
In this case. The only way you can prove Mitchell innocent is by proving he was elsewhere when the murder took place.
-
Taken directly from the forensic reports:
Internal vaginal swabs: one sperm head
External vaginal swabs : one sperm head
The semen on the above swabs was sent to (Laboratory)
Left breast - semen fraction and cell fraction
Right breast - semen fraction and cell fraction
abdomen - semen fraction and cell fraction
right palm - semen fraction and cell fraction
T shirt piece 1- one sperm head lower back
semen lower back
saliva outside lower back
saliva inside mid back
T shirt piece 2 - semen, inside back, left sleeve
sperm heads upper right front
sperm heads upper left front
Bra - semen, outside left cup
three sperm heads (and many cells) outside left cup
padding, left cup, semen
semen - outside edge, right cup
sperm heads - inside right cup
semen - outside right cup (different to outside edge)
Trousers - sperm head and cellular material in white stain, lower front, right leg
Underpants: Sperm heads and many cells
Many of these samples are then listed in another report, but, confusingly, some of them are labelled "blood" - likewise, the right shoe samples were originally listed as "blood" but further testing labelled them "semen/blood, and later still, semen.
A good example of this is the stain in which SK's DNA was found - it was listed in one report as BLOOD O/S Front Shirt 2 but, as you can see above, it was identified in another report as semen.
Or the right shoe, where stains were originally logged as blood, then blood/semen and finally semen.
So, there it is - clear as mud. The only full profile identified from any of these samples was 10G - O/S Front, shirt piece 2. What is obvious, though, is that there were numerous areas where semen and/or sperm heads were identified on Jodi's body and her clothing.
Then we have the unidentified males:
Condom - semen, including intact spermatoza round on inside and outside of condom (full profile, Unknown male 1 - later identified as Falconer)
Condom (Monk's Cave) - full profile - unknown male 2
T Shirt, Roan's Dyke Wall (16/20 partial profile) Unknown male 3
Blood, knife handle - partial profile - Unknown male 4
Blood, knife handle with broken blade - partial profile - unknown male 5
I don't claim that these are all the references to sperm/semen in the case papers - those are simply the ones that were easiest for me to find at the moment.
How can they find 1 sperm head on a vaginal swab. 1 sperm head on a pair of trousers and 3 sperm heads on part of a bra?
Men release anywhere between 150 million and 500 million sperm heads per ejaculation.
Finding 1 sperm head or 3 sperm heads in one area can only mean accidental transfer/contamination.
Has anyone considered that these clothes may have gone in the washing machine along with a pair of spunky underwear? :-\
-
What you guys forensic scientist now ? Lmfao
-
The singular sperm ain’t worth the paper there written on but the semen is.
-
How can they find 1 sperm head on a vaginal swab. 1 sperm head on a pair of trousers and 3 sperm heads on part of a bra?
Men release anywhere between 150 million and 500 million sperm heads per ejaculation.
Finding 1 sperm head or 3 sperm heads in one area can only mean accidental transfer/contamination.
Has anyone considered that these clothes may have gone in the washing machine along with a pair of spunky underwear? :-\
That was written verbatim and anything coming from it bolsters our case
-
Some of these articles are very enlightening however when the majority of techniques were developed in the last 4/5 years and all within the last 10. Applying these parameters to a case 16 years old would be wrong.
Yes, that's why I agreed with you, in part.
Obviously, the whole reason for all discussions, is - the proving of innocence, of LM.
Subsequently this part of the discussion being around the DNA of SK.
What information was there in relation to this, throughout the investigation and trial.
Q? when was SK's DNA sample taken?
We know that the police followed protocol when taking LM's DNA along with his clothing and initial statement, in the early hours of July 1st.
We know that protocol was not followed, by not taken AW's and SK's clothing that morning.
We can be in agreement that vital evidence, was most likely lost in that first 8 hours.
We know that suspicion fell on LM in those first hours. (I really can't/won't be misled by snip bits of statements, my stance on that is clear, an individual choice of course)
The police in those first hours take statements from all concerned, SK inclusive of this.
Subsequent statements are taken over the course of the following week.
The only? mention (early on) of 'borrowed' clothes comes from LM when he states Jodi was wearing her sisters trousers?
There are, in the first few days, no DNA results.
Something in those first statements drew suspicion upon LM?
DNA testing came back, full profiles of male DNA found to match SK.
On discovering this DNA match, reasons to why? it should be there are sought? Naturally and importantly.
Reason - not just excuses.
If something in SK's initial statements, his background checks, his alibi/s. the proof of borrowed clothing, (LM being one such proof),the proof of full DNA profiles being extracted from semen/sperm AFTER washing with detergents, the transferal of this by water also with out detergents, had come back shaky?! then I do believe suspicion would have been centred on SK. (tests were carried out at the time)
It is not just the police who checks all of this out, precognitions are done by both the prosecution and defence and statements/evidence scrutinized.
SK got put through the ringer at trial by the defence?
The Jury heard both sides relating to the presence and transferral of this DNA. Now if they did not hear 'all' of the evidence, I wonder what they would make of it now, the further advancements in testing PROVING more so, how this survival and transferral took place.
It would appear, seeing some? of these DNA reports that most of this transferral took place through a washing cycle.
There may not have been discussion at trial in relation to all partial strands of DNA, but obvious that the DNA around this, was and had to be heard.
What we are left with is, at this time, more proof of the innocent, truth behind SK's DNA. Worse still the continuous use of this guy, to draw in support for LM's case, knowing that the ejaculation of semen produces million of sperm heads which in itself provides proof, that this did not take place, in the hours before, during and after this girls was murdered.
-
That was written verbatim and anything coming from it bolsters our case
No it doesn't. Its rather apparent to me now why neither defence or the prosecution brought it up at trial. Anyone with a bit of common sense should be able to work out that those sperm results are not from the killer ejaculating in or on Jodi.
-
Yes, that's why I agreed with you, in part.
Obviously, the whole reason for all discussions, is - the proving of innocence, of LM.
Subsequently this part of the discussion being around the DNA of SK.
What information was there in relation to this, throughout the investigation and trial.
Q? when was SK's DNA sample taken?
We know that the police followed protocol when taking LM's DNA along with his clothing and initial statement, in the early hours of July 1st.
We know that protocol was not followed, by not taken AW's and SK's clothing that morning.
We can be in agreement that vital evidence, was most likely lost in that first 8 hours.
We know that suspicion fell on LM in those first hours. (I really can't/won't be misled by snip bits of statements, my stance on that is clear, an individual choice of course)
The police in those first hours take statements from all concerned, SK inclusive of this.
Subsequent statements are taken over the course of the following week.
The only? mention (early on) of 'borrowed' clothes comes from LM when he states Jodi was wearing her sisters trousers?
There are, in the first few days, no DNA results.
Something in those first statements drew suspicion upon LM?
DNA testing came back, full profiles of male DNA found to match SK.
On discovering this DNA match, reasons to why? it should be there are sought? Naturally and importantly.
Reason - not just excuses.
If something in SK's initial statements, his background checks, his alibi/s. the proof of borrowed clothing, (LM being one such proof),the proof of full DNA profiles being extracted from semen/sperm AFTER washing with detergents, the transferal of this by water also with out detergents, had come back shaky?! then I do believe suspicion would have been centred on SK. (tests were carried out at the time)
It is not just the police who checks all of this out, precognitions are done by both the prosecution and defence and statements/evidence scrutinized.
SK got put through the ringer at trial by the defence?
The Jury heard both sides relating to the presence and transferral of this DNA. Now if they did not hear 'all' of the evidence, I wonder what they would make of it now, the further advancements in testing PROVING more so, how this survival and transferral took place.
It would appear, seeing some? of these DNA reports that most of this transferral took place through a washing cycle.
There may not have been discussion at trial in relation to all partial strands of DNA, but obvious that the DNA around this, was and had to be heard.
What we are left with is, at this time, more proof of the innocent, truth behind SK's DNA. Worse still the continuous use of this guy, to draw in support for LM's case, knowing that the ejaculation of semen produces million of sperm heads which in itself provides proof, that this did not take place, in the hours before, during and after this girls was murdered.
Fantastic and very reasoned post..
I agree with much of what you are saying however with what was available to the forensic team at that time meant that the semen samples had to have been conducted after the washing of the garment , the DNA sample at the time is spun in a machine with a mild detergent added to destroy the lipids ( strands that hold the particles in place) this is then slowed and the larger particle and heavier particles are forced into a position where they can peak and a marker is determined. This sample would have been put through that process along with every other sample . With new techniques the other samples along with the singular spermheads may have thrown up other positive profiles for Kelly, this would have been damning. Why did the prosecution push for this part to be included in the trial along with the assumption that all semen samples may well have been his, all theories would be null and void.
New techniques could indeed prove if any of Luke’s samples were indeed there, if they weren’t then it would solidify our belief that their absence goes along way to Luke being innocent.
The spermheads can’t and will never now hold any sway as to who was the contributor and are lost to the whole thing. The new techniques would need to be used to prove what you are saying but they may also have the reverse effect.
As it stands the ability to produce a full profile with the techniques available mean that the sample couldn’t have been produced unless the sample was deposited after the washing of the t shirt and that conjures up more questions than answers.
-
No it doesn't. Its rather apparent to me now why neither defence or the prosecution brought it up at trial. Anyone with a bit of common sense should be able to work out that those sperm results are not from the killer ejaculating in or on Jodi.
That would depend if your talking about the spermheads or the semen samples
-
That would depend if your talking about the spermheads or the semen samples
You cant ejaculate on a woman and leave behind half a dozen sperm heads. There would be tens of millions of them in various large stains over her body and clothes if that were the case.
You can scrape the bottom of the barrell or muddy the waters all you like. But this really is a dead end.
-
Shhh.. stop with all this common sense!
Your suggestion is literally the only conceivable explanation. Sandra refuses to hear it though.
The semen is a red herring and the focus on it proves she's not interested in finding out what actually happened to Jodi, but only in getting Luke out by any technicality possible.
I'm not the first to work this out. Why do you think it never got brought up by neither the defence or prosecution in the first place?
-
You cant ejaculate on a woman and leave behind half a dozen sperm heads. There would be tens of millions of them in various large stains over her body and clothes if that were the case.
You can scrape the bottom of the barrell or muddy the waters all you like. But this really is a dead end.
Ffs mate keep up
Now I’m assuming maybe wrongly that your a man of the world , if so there could be many activities that meant not a lot of semen and I mean semen not sperm heads could be present in different compositions. The problem you have in comprehending is that singular or even 3/4 spermheads are different from semen it’s self. No one is going to count the amount of spermatozoa that is present when it comes to semen sample, only when it comes to the singular spermheads which to be fair were not even talking about here.
-
You cant ejaculate on a woman and leave behind half a dozen sperm heads. There would be tens of millions of them in various large stains over her body and clothes if that were the case.
You can scrape the bottom of the barrell or muddy the waters all you like. But this really is a dead end.
You know your becoming an absolute cliche of yourself , it’s a perfect example of why posts have to be edited so that muppets dont grab hold of the unimportant parts and start talking crap!
-
A bit rich coming from you Gogs.
Someone hear something? Nah didn’t think so.
-
You know I thought we were actually going to get some discussion until the one brain cell brigade showed up, I told you yesterday you bore me so this will be my very last response to you.
-
oh well it will all come out in the wash.
-
You know I thought we were actually going to get some discussion until the one brain cell brigade showed up, I told you yesterday you bore me so this will be my very last response to you.
gordo this is the jeremy bamber forum there is abslutly zero chance of that ever happening.
i thought you knew that.
-
You know your becoming an absolute cliche of yourself , it’s a perfect example of why posts have to be edited so that muppets dont grab hold of the unimportant parts and start talking crap!
Nothing should be edited out. And Luke’s description of the clothes he wore that day is not unimportant.
However I do owe Sandra an apology for implying that she made the forensic stuff up. :-[
-
Nothing should be edited out. And Luke’s description of the clothes he wore that day is not unimportant.
However I do owe Sandra an apology for implying that she made the forensic stuff up. :-[
I know what Luke was wearing that day is important , what I mean is we were talking about Kelly sample which was extracted from semen while the full report from Sandra contained the singulars sperm heads and your running around implying everything and anything.
-
even if the sperm did not transr innocently that would not on its own make him the the killer it could just mean he was very naughy man.
-
even if the story of innocent transer is true kelly is extremly lucky th police execepted it.
most cops wouldent of done.
-
It was the police that suggested it.
-
It was the police that suggested it.
well i know kelly wouldent of thught of that explantion himself.
extremly lucky to have the police think up an explantion for him they dont normaly do that.
normally they demand an explantion from you and if you cant give one thats it your charged.
-
It was the police that suggested it.
but was it actully the police that sugested it or did somone sugest it to them.
-
I’ve always taken it that the police had check and accepted sk alibi therefore took it that the transfer must be innocent and presented an explanation for it?
With all the talk about sperm heads etc I found this page that I thought was quite interesting - http://ryanforensicdna.com/is-a-single-sperm-cell-evidence-of-a-sexual-assault/
-
I’ve always taken it that the police had check and accepted sk alibi therefore took it that the transfer must be innocent and presented an explanation for it?
With all the talk about sperm heads etc I found this page that I thought was quite interesting - http://ryanforensicdna.com/is-a-single-sperm-cell-evidence-of-a-sexual-assault/
with most police forces an albi that had exepted earler wouldent trump fornensic evdence.
i mean there trying to get a conviction and they know a jurys more likely to convict somone on dna evdence weather they have an albi or not.
they would of at least checked the albi agian.
albis are normally only exepted at face value if theres no other evdence agianst you.
-
Or it could mean he had sex regularly with his girlfriend in a house where her sister also lived.
It's a shame the song and dance made over this is impeding serious discussion into what actually happened to Jodi.
If we are being honest with ourselves, we all know fine well SK didn't rape and kill JJ behind that wall, so ask yourself why you're going on about it.
Much like Shane Mitchell, SK couldn't even look at the pictures of the crime scene and broke down in court.
The only person who didn't is Luke Mitchell who was emotionless throughout.
Do you care about the truth or do you just want Luke free?
SK was with Janine and his dad at the time.
JoJ was in his bedroom.
There is only one male involved who Jodi would ever be behind that wall with... and it just so happens to be the guy who always carried a knife and has a mountain of circumstantial evidence against him.
I just can't see Jodi behind that wall with anyone else.
It's inconceivable it was anyone else.
Do you know how unlucky Luke would have to be and how many ridiculous coincidences would have had to have taken place for it not to be him?
I agree.
-
Or it could mean he had sex regularly with his girlfriend in a house where her sister also lived.
It's a shame the song and dance made over this is impeding serious discussion into what actually happened to Jodi.
If we are being honest with ourselves, we all know fine well SK didn't rape and kill JJ behind that wall, so ask yourself why you're going on about it.
Much like Shane Mitchell, SK couldn't even look at the pictures of the crime scene and broke down in court.
The only person who didn't is Luke Mitchell who was emotionless throughout.
Do you care about the truth or do you just want Luke free?
SK was with Janine and his dad at the time.
JoJ was in his bedroom.
There is only one male involved who Jodi would ever be behind that wall with... and it just so happens to be the guy who always carried a knife and has a mountain of circumstantial evidence against him.
I just can't see Jodi behind that wall with anyone else.
It's inconceivable it was anyone else.
Do you know how unlucky Luke would have to be and how many ridiculous coincidences would have had to have taken place for it not to be him?
why would she not go behind the wall with somone else evidence is there to back that up none.
-
You n Gordo a couple of Harvard Scholars then? :)) :)) :))
Not at all it’s all way over my head, anything I have learned has come from my sister who is a doctor of haematology and was one of the UK’s leading researchers of stem cell development, now she’s doing a professorship in haematological processes and techniques within forensic science, probably higher than that Harvard scholar your on about ;D
-
Impressive stuff gordie. If your sister ever wants to join I'd be interested in her input. Doesn't change the fact you and nugnug don't half talk some pish.
Lol really !! She doesn’t do online forums with muppets like you
-
Nugnug again with the "prove she didn't " 😅
Let's hear how she got behind that wall with someone other than her bf.
Have you ever climbed that wall. Luke had no reason to turn left and shine his torch in that space behind the wall. Or he mustve known he was looking for a body. He didn't climb it and progress forward calling out jodi. It's quite a substantial wooded area. He climbed. Stopped. Shined his torch on the ground directly left and called that he found something.
Visit the scene and retrace his steps and youl see its dodgy.
how do we know she wuldent of climbed it with somone else or even on her own its just an asumption.
w dont know what the hell she used to do.
and theres no reason to think she went over the wall.
-
how do we know she wuldent of climbed it with somone else or even on her own its just an asumption.
w dont know what the hell she used to do.
There’s nothing to suggest she went over the wall full stop. Like has been said she may well have came across someone using another route.
-
There’s nothing to suggest she went over the wall full stop. Like has been said she may well have came across someone using another route.
exactly.
-
Let's hear how she got behind that wall with someone other than her bf.
I always thought she could have gone over with the 2 boys who where there around that time, one was her cousin I think, maybe had a smoke with them before they left, also accounting for the cannabis in her system.
-
I always thought she could have gone over with the 2 boys who where there around that time, one was her cousin I think, maybe had a smoke with them before they left, also accounting for the cannabis in her system.
they were at 515 i belive she was seen entering at 505.
-
why would she not go behind the wall with somone else evidence is there to back that up none.
Since she was leaving the house to meet Luke. Who else could it be? The luke doppelganger with the green coat she was seen with shortly before she died? ;D
-
Since she was leaving the house to meet Luke. Who else could it be? The luke doppelganger with the green coat she was seen with shortly before she died? ;D
well it could well be her cousens who were actully on the path at the time.
or anyone else she might of known or bumped into on the way.
-
This is how it went down.
After jodi finding out she was being 2 timed, an argument went on at school that day.
Luke we need to meet after school, to continue this argument, several deleted text messages were exchanged after school, meet me at the easthouses end of path, Luke you nutjob. i want the truth. AB seen the argument in full flow, Luke the psychopath, tooled up, Luke pleading innocence like he does, deffo knew at this point what was about to happen, he fantasized about it previously. I have a pre-rolled joint, he said, we can't smoke it here, lets go behind the V and chill out. The rest is history.. I bet that chick in Perth is counting her blessings, It was only a matter of time before someone got it, from the self proclaimed hardman, satanic, drug dealing drug abusing psychopath.
This makes no sense to me sorry. But if Jodi knew she was being 2 timed by a boy she thought she might be in love with, had an argument at school then when home ready to go back out to continue the argument then I really doubt she would be happy when she left, her mum said she was happy I’m sure, she would have noticed there was something up, as Jodi would be devastated and angry I’d she was arguing with Luke. So I don’t think she knew before she left the house. Maybe they argued at the v, but I don’t think before due to her happy attitude when she left the house.
I remember getting a call at work from a friend saying she thought my bf was cheating on me. I could not concentrate on anything and had to leave work early. His son was there when I got home so tried my best to make out nothing was wrong but it was pretty bloody clear I was pissed off, just think it be devastating to Jodi and it would be noticeable.
-
This makes no sense to me sorry. But if Jodi knew she was being 2 timed by a boy she thought she might be in love with, had an argument at school then when home ready to go back out to continue the argument then I really doubt she would be happy when she left, her mum said she was happy I’m sure, she would have noticed there was something up, as Jodi would be devastated and angry I’d she was arguing with Luke. So I don’t think she knew before she left the house. Maybe they argued at the v, but I don’t think before due to her happy attitude when she left the house.
and theres also the fact that nobody saw them have argument.
-
This makes no sense to me sorry. But if Jodi knew she was being 2 timed by a boy she thought she might be in love with, had an argument at school then when home ready to go back out to continue the argument then I really doubt she would be happy when she left, her mum said she was happy I’m sure, she would have noticed there was something up, as Jodi would be devastated and angry I’d she was arguing with Luke. So I don’t think she knew before she left the house. Maybe they argued at the v, but I don’t think before due to her happy attitude when she left the house.
I remember getting a call at work from a friend saying she thought my bf was cheating on me. I could not concentrate on anything and had to leave work early. His son was there when I got home so tried my best to make out nothing was wrong but it was pretty bloody clear I was pissed off, just think it be devastating to Jodi and it would be noticeable.
How many 14 years olds would kill because they were dumped by the girlfriend! They had been going out for a short time and he had another one that he would spend most of the summer with. Jodi and Luke were with each other at break times during school time, they had no classes together that day. In these times they were with other friends and yet NOT one came forward to say there was anything disagreeable between the two.
-
Ascertaining of times:
Any viable sightings and timings - not taken at face value - investigated to ascertain more accurate times. Not simply set aside.
Any sightings, that WOULD definitely have been proven to show that Jodi was anywhere else other that the sighting at 4.54, would and could not simply be swept aside. Findlay, as much as he is condemned. and his team, WOULD NOT HAVE MISSED USING THIS!? It in itself would have obliterated AB's sighting. There would have been NO NEED, to try and disprove, dissolve anything she described, identified and so forth.
Example: Girl knew Jodi, she saw her walking along the road at approx. 5.02pm. She knew Jodi because she was a neighbour?, at school with her etc. The girl knew for definite it was the 30th of June, it was her friends birthday and she was meeting her. She knew for a fact that the time was 5.03pm no later. She knew this because she takes her insulin at 5pm. Alarm/reminder is set on her mobile. It goes off, she sits in a bus shelter and takes her insulin. This process takes approx. 2-3mins.
So, these other sightings, what was done to prove/disprove that they were spot on with time/day/identification?
IF, that's a big IF these sightings were viable without full proof of times, they would (IMO) still have been used to 'muddy' the waters of AB's sighting. (I simply don't just accept that Findlay and his team missed all of this - There would be reasons why they were not used - no proof )
Like not using the evidence of the dogs capabilities:
1: Because it mattered not how the dog could have reacted 40ft past the V.
2: The evidence heard was that the dog was not 40ft past the V, therefore irrelevant.
3: LM claimed not to have known about the existence of the V prior to the 30th of June. This path that he had used on numerous occasions. You can't simply not notice the V. (One of these areas that drew suspicion upon LM)
-
Reverse phycology on her mother to let her out to meet Luke, she was grounded. No way her mother would let her go, if Jodi was bubbling & greeting.
Jodi was wanting out to meet Luke to find out the truth. She knew if she told her mother about sleeze bag Luke, that would be her, not only grounded again, but banned from seeing luke too.
Do you have teenage kids?
No, but I was a teenage girl and had lots of teenage girl friends, if your “first love” cheated on you at 14, you would normally be devastated which would be very hard to hide
-
Stop lying Billy.
There is no witness seeing them argue. But regardless, nugnug is not interested in what actually happened as Lithium pointed out. He is too snowed in on it not being Luke. :-\
-
Ascertaining of times:
Any viable sightings and timings - not taken at face value - investigated to ascertain more accurate times. Not simply set aside.
Any sightings, that WOULD definitely have been proven to show that Jodi was anywhere else other that the sighting at 4.54, would and could not simply be swept aside. Findlay, as much as he is condemned. and his team, WOULD NOT HAVE MISSED USING THIS!? It in itself would have obliterated AB's sighting. There would have been NO NEED, to try and disprove, dissolve anything she described, identified and so forth.
Example: Girl knew Jodi, she saw her walking along the road at approx. 5.02pm. She knew Jodi because she was a neighbour?, at school with her etc. The girl knew for definite it was the 30th of June, it was her friends birthday and she was meeting her. She knew for a fact that the time was 5.03pm no later. She knew this because she takes her insulin at 5pm. Alarm/reminder is set on her mobile. It goes off, she sits in a bus shelter and takes her insulin. This process takes approx. 2-3mins.
So, these other sightings, what was done to prove/disprove that they were spot on with time/day/identification?
IF, that's a big IF these sightings were viable without full proof of times, they would (IMO) still have been used to 'muddy' the waters of AB's sighting. (I simply don't just accept that Findlay and his team missed all of this - There would be reasons why they were not used - no proof )
Like not using the evidence of the dogs capabilities:
1: Because it mattered not how the dog could have reacted 40ft past the V.
2: The evidence heard was that the dog was not 40ft past the V, therefore irrelevant.
3: LM claimed not to have known about the existence of the V prior to the 30th of June. This path that he had used on numerous occasions. You can't simply not notice the V. (One of these areas that drew suspicion upon LM)
The defence is there to defend against the allegations of the prosecution, I wasn’t in court and can’t explain why Findley couldn’t have some how used the two independent witnesses except that it didn’t matter in a circumstantial case, from the off the Bryson sighting is not concrete evidence and is only used to infer that it may have been Luke and Jodi. What your saying is correct but why in a Scottish court was 90% of the evidence non corroborative. To suggest that the two witnesses were not used because they were in some way not viable as witnesses and except Brysons sighting is double standards.
-
There is no witness seeing them argue. But regardless, nugnug is not interested in what actually happened as Lithium pointed out. He is too snowed in on it not being Luke. :-\
Strange isn’t that exactly what the Bryson sighting is all about?
-
There is no witness seeing them argue. But regardless, nugnug is not interested in what actually happened as Lithium pointed out. He is too snowed in on it not being Luke. :-\
yes becouse i belive facts provee it isnt
nobody say him there imposbly short time time frame to do it in.
and no credible motive
and the fact she haad briused knuckels and he dident have a mark on him.
-
It is amazing how manipulative teenagers can be towards parents to get their own way. And known she was grounded. Jodi making on she is happy and cheery, would have been her way, to convince her mother to get out that night.
But is there not a question also if she was grounded, her sister said she was not grounded and she had been out with Luke the night before and over the weekend I believe. I still don’t think she could have known before she left the house. If they did argue about it like you say and it was Luke that killed her I think it all would have happened at the v.
-
yes becouse i belive facts provee it isnt
nobody say him there imposbly short time time frame to do it in.
and no credible motive
and the fact she haad briused knuckels and he dident have a mark on him.
None of what you have said above is factual.
-
None of what you have said above is factual.
can you explian how there not factaul.
-
It is amazing how manipulative teenagers can be towards parents to get their own way. And known she was grounded. Jodi making on she is happy and cheery, would have been her way, to convince her mother to get out that night.
In her initial statement, Judith mentioned that Jodi had been "kind of grounded," but the grounding had been relaxed to doing extra chores in exchange for being allowed out before the evening of June 30th. There was no further mention of any grounding in her next three statements. Later, when the grounding re-appeared, Judith initially said it was or "skipping school and smoking dope." A few days later, she said it was for "two reasons - the dope and the sex" and three weeks after that ... "the grounding started the day I found out she had skipped school".
The day Judith found out Jodi skipped school was, according to Janine, May 14th - she knew it was that date because she had an exam that day and caught Jodi in her gran's house when she (Janine) returned early after the exam. The grounding was for four weeks - so would have ended on June 12th, something Judith further corroborated.
She said Jodi's curfew time had been extended to 10pm "recently" because Jodi was spending more time in Woodburn and needed the extra time for travelling home. But the friend with whom Jodi and Luke hung out in Woodburn was on holiday on June 30th, so the grounding and the curfew extension both had to have happened before June 30th.
Alice said the punishment had "petered out" until things returned to normal "a few weeks ago."
The taxi which took Jodi home on Saturday 28th June so that she wouldn't be too late after her 10pm curfew proves that Jodi wasn't grounded that night.
Judith's own statements stated that Jodi came in "at about 9.30pm" on Sunday 29th June, so she wasn't grounded that night either.
As for Jodi making out she was happy and cheery in order to convince her mother to let her out (even though she demonstrably was not grounded) is also not supported by Judith's own account.
She said, initially, that Jodi came in from school, dumped her bag in the hall and went upstairs to her room. She came down later and told her mother she was going out - she didn't say where she was going, but Judith "took that to mean she (Jodi) would be seeing Luke and that they'd be mucking about up here." She also said "Jodi was sitting on the settee trying to talk to me ... I was telling her to be quiet, shoo and go out." Doesn't sound like Judith was particularly interested in what Jodi had to say ... or how she was feeling, does it? And that, most likely, was because Jodi was just her normal self
-
Or it could mean he had sex regularly with his girlfriend in a house where her sister also lived.
It's a shame the song and dance made over this is impeding serious discussion into what actually happened to Jodi.
If we are being honest with ourselves, we all know fine well SK didn't rape and kill JJ behind that wall, so ask yourself why you're going on about it.
It's not the existence of semen or sperm heads from SK on Jodi's t-shirt that's important, per se. It's the way the police treated that evidence that's caused so much discussion. There was no mention of borrowed t-shirts until after the DNA results came back. To my knowledge, until it was stated in court as fact, neither Janine or Kelly had ever confirmed, conclusively, that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing was one of Janine's. The police virtually handed Kelly his "innocent explanation," apparently in an effort to make the DNA evidence "go away" ... because it didn't fit their theory about Luke and could, had it been pounced on by the defence, have seriously undermined that theory.
There was no independent DNA analysis for the defence - to this day, all we have is the analysis provided for the police - some of it from police labs - the defence never got a chance to have its own experts look at it because Legal Aid funding was either refused, or the application for it was not properly completed ... we'll never know which it was, because the Legal Aid file was lost. Given that the defence had applied for funding, it's less likely that they "failed to properly complete the application" and therefore, more likely that it was refused (just like the application for funding for cell site analysis was refused).
We have to remember that, even though Jodi was murdered on June 30th 2003, Luke's defence team didn't even come into being until April 14th 2004 and they would, then, have only had 110 days to prepare that defence against a case the police and PF had been building for 288 days and would continue to build for the remaining 110 days. The case was stacked against Luke's defence from the off. (The 110 day rule was, as it happened, ignored and Luke was held for double that time ... the prosecution was still introducing new evidence right up to the beginning of the trial -- almost 500 days after the murder).
Nobody's suggesting Kelly raped and killed Jodi - for a start, the prosecution case was always that the case was not sexual in nature (sperm heads, semen and the stripping naked of a 14 year old girl notwithstanding).
Do you care about the truth or do you just want Luke free?
I've answered this question with one of my own repeatedly for over 16 years now. Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives? I didn't know the Mitchell family or the Jones family at the time, so let me ask you, why do you think I did what I did, from the very beginning and have kept doing pretty much ever since? To suggest I'd lie in order to achieve that end is utterly ludicrous.
SK was with Janine and his dad at the time.
Maybe, maybe not. He and Janine didn't mention it until 12 days into the investigation - in fact, according to Kelly initially, he left Alice's house alone in the early afternoon to return to his dad's house for his tea. He didn't just give this account once either. Until July 12th, Janine didn't mention them going to Kelly's dad's for tea, either, nor did Alice.
JoJ was in his bedroom
.
Maybe, maybe not. We only have his mother's word for that ... and then there's the thorny issue of him being identified as out on the Easthouses Road a little after 5pm. And there's nothing and nobody to account for his whereabouts between 6pm and 7pm - since the time of death was never ascertained, it could have been any time that evening.
[There is only one male involved who Jodi would ever be behind that wall with... and it just so happens to be the guy who always carried a knife and has a mountain of circumstantial evidence against him.
I just can't see Jodi behind that wall with anyone else. It's inconceivable it was anyone else.
Really? So we're to believe Jodi reached the junction of the paths (between Lady Path and Roan's Dyke path) at about 4.56pm and starts walking down. Ferris and Dickie turn into the Newbattle end of the path just a few minutes after 5pm. This bit is irrefutable - unless either Jodi or Ferris and Dickie were behind the wall by 5.15pm, they could not have failed to see each other. If she'd walked directly down the path at a normal pace (not the marching pace timed by police) she'd have reached the Newbattle end of the path by 5.21pm, or the V point by 5.16pm. But if Dickie and Ferris turned into the path from Newbattle at just after 5pm (say 5.05pm at the latest) and rode the bike to the V point where it cut out, they would have been there by 5.08pm and would have seen Jodi walking towards them. Jodi knew Ferris and Dickie very well ... she'd arranged to meet Ferris before to collect cannabis from him (though not, to my knowledge, behind the V point).
So, since they had to see each other if the prosecution case is to stand, how is it inconceivable that jodi was there with anyone else?
Do you know how unlucky Luke would have to be and how many ridiculous coincidences would have had to have taken place for it not to be him?
Unlucky enough for people to believe that there was nobody else on the path that Jodi would have felt comfortable going over the wall with. And the ridiculous coincidence that there were people right there at the V, at the very time Jodi was walking down the path, whom she knew very well and had met secretly in the past to collect cannabis. I mean, who'd ever believe that?
-
The Bryson sighting
Man.
Hair shoulder length, sticking up at the back.
Green fishing style jacket,pocket on sleeve,collar up and thigh length.
Trousers khaki or similar colour to the jacket.
Luke.
Long straggly hair maybe even shoulder length.
Green bomber jacket shiny material, elasticated neck , elasticated waist.
Trousers black baggy jean type.
Very distinctive boots not mentioned.
Girl.
Black hair possibly in a pony.
Blue hoodie
Lighter blue trousers(presumably jeans)
Jodi.
Light auburn hair almost reddish
Black baggy hoodie with large deftones logo
Trousers black baggy cords.
Anomalies.
Bryson claims not to have seen the males face, yet picks Luke out in a contentious picture identification.
Refuses to pick Luke out in court, presumably because she doesn’t actually know what Luke’s looks like.
No way these two if even witnessed were Luke and Jodi, yet I’m accused of talking rubbish
-
IF, that's a big IF these sightings were viable without full proof of times, they would (IMO) still have been used to 'muddy' the waters of AB's sighting. (I simply don't just accept that Findlay and his team missed all of this - There would be reasons why they were not used - no proof )
The two other sightings are not in question and usually, in Scotland, two such witnesses coming forward independently of each other would be claimed as corroboration. The neighbour who saw Jodi walking past her window just after 5pm would have been a third piece of corroborating evidence. That the first two witnesses also reported Stocky Man adds further to the reliability of their statements.
But by the time the case came to trial, it was widely believed Stocky Man had been traced and eliminated. The prosecution case was that the only sighting was the Bryson sighting - Findlay could not have introduced the other three eyewitnesses without additionally introducing Stocky Man. Since the Stocky Man theory did not form part of the prosecution case, Findlay would have struggled to get that evidence allowed, since it did not directly challenge any part of the prosecution case. People are keen to cited "legal technicalities" as allowing the guilty to wriggle off the hook - rarely does anyone point out that it works the other way around as well.
Like not using the evidence of the dogs capabilities:
1: Because it mattered not how the dog could have reacted 40ft past the V.
2: The evidence heard was that the dog was not 40ft past the V, therefore irrelevant.
3: LM claimed not to have known about the existence of the V prior to the 30th of June. This path that he had used on numerous occasions. You can't simply not notice the V. (One of these areas that drew suspicion upon LM)
Again, I'm not sure I follow the logic here.
Jodi's body was found 16.3m from the V point - that's 53.5 feet. Luke said the search party had passed the V point and he'd gone "a few yards ... not even twenty yards" (roughly 50 feet maximum) ... about 10 or fifteen feet ..." when the dog reacted on the path side. Kelly and Janine didn't say how far past the V point the dog reacted, only that she did, and they continued on down the path while Luke doubled back - they were, they said, brought running back to the V point when Luke called out that he thought there was something there.
So no-one, anywhere, ever (except for the prosecutor in grand theatrical style at trial) suggested the dog reacted 40 or 50 feet past the V break. But it's not irrelevant if the dog reacted 10 - 15 feet past the V - in fact, that tallies with what the Janine, Kelly and Luke all said in their initial statements - the gran couldn't say either way because she'd fallen a little behind the others and didn't see what the dog did. But that also tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice (who was behind him and therefore closest to the V) and the others carried on down the path.
As for, "you can't simply not notice the V" - I've been down there many, many times, always with other people and always in daylight. Every single time, I have to search for the V, even knowing that I'm looking specifically for it. The overhanging trees and shrubbery disguise it, even now that it's so well known - back then, I know for certain I would have walked past it time and again without ever noticing it. Many of the people who've been down there with me have expressed surprise at how small and unimpressive (for want of a better word) it actually is - the media coverage gives an impression of a far larger, far more exposed area.
-
IF, that's a big IF these sightings were viable without full proof of times, they would (IMO) still have been used to 'muddy' the waters of AB's sighting. (I simply don't just accept that Findlay and his team missed all of this - There would be reasons why they were not used - no proof )
I'm sure we can agree, at the very least, that these sightings were the basis of the "Stocky Man" appeals early in the case - the police could hardly claim to be looking for a "Stocky Man following closely behind Jodi on the Easthouses Road around 5.05pm" if they hadn't accepted both of those statements as viable identifications of Jodi, with proven times.
I've already given the reasons they weren't used, but those reasons don't include "no proof" - in and of themselves, they were proof enough of each other to justify the entire "Stocky Man" line of enquiry.
-
Any sightings, that WOULD definitely have been proven to show that Jodi was anywhere else other that the sighting at 4.54, would and could not simply be swept aside. Findlay, as much as he is condemned. and his team, WOULD NOT HAVE MISSED USING THIS!? It in itself would have obliterated AB's sighting. There would have been NO NEED, to try and disprove, dissolve anything she described, identified and so forth.
No. All it can 'obliterate' is the time she recalled the sighting.
-
Sandra can you give us Luke and Jodi's address so I can place them on map?
-
Parkhead place and newbattle abbey crescent not sure of the numbers but might help
-
No. All it can 'obliterate' is the time she recalled the sighting.
If the time she recalled the sighting is wrong, then all of the other timings on which the prosecution case is based are also wrong.
The Bryson sighting, if these other two witnesses are credible, had to be at least two minutes after their sightings (to allow Jodi to get to the entrance to the path in time to be seen with the man standing around 10 yards into the track).
That would then place the Bryson sighting at 5.06/7. It would explain why she didn't see a mobile phone in use at 4.54 when Luke was calling the speaking clock. But, aside from the fact that her descriptions don't match those of Jodi and Luke that evening, these new timings make it impossible for Jodi to have been murdered at 5.15 and that, in turn, makes it impossible for Luke to have been the killer.
If Jodi is still on the Easthouses Road at 5.06/7, she wouldn't have reached the junction of the paths until after 5.08pm. It's unlikely she took the police pace down Roan's Dyke path whilst smoking a joint, but we'll do both scenarios anyway:
(1) She walked from the junction of the paths to the V point at a police "brisk pace" (either alone or with someone), climbed over the wall, had a joint and then an argument erupted that turned into a physical fight. Time of arrival at the V point in this scenario is 5.15pm.
(2) She walked down the path at a normal (even slow) pace, smoking a joint (either alone or with someone). Time of arrival at the V point in this scenario is 5.18 at the very earliest.
So, if Andrina Bryson was mistaken about the time of her sighting and the time of death is correct, the two people she saw could not have been Jodi and Luke.
-
Sandra can you give us Luke and Jodi's address so I can place them on map?
I'm not any more comfortable doing that on a public forum than I would be having someone do it to pinpoint my house!
Both addresses were published in the media at the time, I believe.
-
I'm not any more comfortable doing that on a public forum than I would be having someone do it to pinpoint my house!
Both addresses were published in the media at the time, I believe.
Well just the roads will do. All I can find is the general area :-\
Can you post the roads without the door number?
-
Parkhead place and newbattle abbey crescent not sure of the numbers but might help
Thanks. who's place is who's?
-
OK.
murder scene (yellow arrow)
Lukes street (Red pin)
Jodis street (Blue arrow)
(https://i.ibb.co/tmMJWG1/map.png)
-
Thanks. who's place is who's?
Same as you requested
-
Jodi's family lived in Parkhead Place ... they may still do so.
Luke's family lived in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
It's worth pointing out that the area has changed significantly since 2003. The housing estate incorporating Roanshead Crescent and the mini roundabout are new and the old Newbattle High School has been demolished and rebuilt further to the East as Newbattle Campus EH22 4SX.
The old St David's High School (that both Luke and Jodi attended in 2003) has also been demolished and replaced by housing - it used to be on Abbey Road - the housing development's streets are now named "St David's Ave", St David's Grove" etc - should help orient your search.
Finally, the new St David's High is part of the (equally new) Dalkeith Campus EH22 2PS - quite a bit outside the area of interest, but, since the campus opened in late 2003, there has been a lot of confusion about which schools people are referring to.
-
Yellow and red pins are a bit out, but you've got the general area
-
I think we can all agree that timing is not an issue here. The murder scene is literally down the road and round the corner and along a path for both of them. literally.
-
I think we can all agree that timing is not an issue here. The murder scene is literally down the road and round the corner and along a path for both of them. literally.
its abslutly an issue theres the tame taken to comit the murder clean up and go back out agian.
jodi fought back so the tusel would of taken a fair bit of time then theres striping the body and mutliting the body
and then clean up and changing clothes.
-
The two other sightings are not in question and usually, in Scotland, two such witnesses coming forward independently of each other would be claimed as corroboration. The neighbour who saw Jodi walking past her window just after 5pm would have been a third piece of corroborating evidence. That the first two witnesses also reported Stocky Man adds further to the reliability of their statements.
But by the time the case came to trial, it was widely believed Stocky Man had been traced and eliminated. The prosecution case was that the only sighting was the Bryson sighting - Findlay could not have introduced the other three eyewitnesses without additionally introducing Stocky Man. Since the Stocky Man theory did not form part of the prosecution case, Findlay would have struggled to get that evidence allowed, since it did not directly challenge any part of the prosecution case. People are keen to cited "legal technicalities" as allowing the guilty to wriggle off the hook - rarely does anyone point out that it works the other way around as well.
Again, I'm not sure I follow the logic here.
Jodi's body was found 16.3m from the V point - that's 53.5 feet. Luke said the search party had passed the V point and he'd gone "a few yards ... not even twenty yards" (roughly 50 feet maximum) ... about 10 or fifteen feet ..." when the dog reacted on the path side. Kelly and Janine didn't say how far past the V point the dog reacted, only that she did, and they continued on down the path while Luke doubled back - they were, they said, brought running back to the V point when Luke called out that he thought there was something there.
So no-one, anywhere, ever (except for the prosecutor in grand theatrical style at trial) suggested the dog reacted 40 or 50 feet past the V break. But it's not irrelevant if the dog reacted 10 - 15 feet past the V - in fact, that tallies with what the Janine, Kelly and Luke all said in their initial statements - the gran couldn't say either way because she'd fallen a little behind the others and didn't see what the dog did. But that also tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice (who was behind him and therefore closest to the V) and the others carried on down the path.
As for, "you can't simply not notice the V" - I've been down there many, many times, always with other people and always in daylight. Every single time, I have to search for the V, even knowing that I'm looking specifically for it. The overhanging trees and shrubbery disguise it, even now that it's so well known - back then, I know for certain I would have walked past it time and again without ever noticing it. Many of the people who've been down there with me have expressed surprise at how small and unimpressive (for want of a better word) it actually is - the media coverage gives an impression of a far larger, far more exposed area.
Agree and thank you.
It 'all but' concludes the area I am working around at present. Evaluating the information, all round from the area covered beyond this V. 13.9m from another post.
That the dog did not react 'parallel' to were Jodi was found? diagram and word used with the FLO. (16.3m - 53.5ft) but perhaps 10 - 15ft past the V? taken into account other members of this search parties recall?
That they had all (bar AW) walked past this V
After the initial statement, further recall given?
Kelly remembering that the dogs nose (head) was level with this V yet completely forgets this at trial?
JaJ and SK were in front of Luke on this search - is that correct? or side by side? or Luke in front?
The dog reacts, Luke, JaJ and SK all say that this is about 10 - 15ft passed this V (in first statements) the dog jumps up on the wall, scratching, head high 'air sniffing'
Luke then doubles back and SK and JaJ continue down.
Within just a few feet of JaJ and SK 10 -15ft? walking on, Luke shouts that he has found something? and SK and JaJ double back.
It is at this point that SK recalls that the dog was on his hind legs, nose (head) level with the V, whilst AW is holding the dog?
CM in her podcast states that JaJ said she saw LM turn immediately to the left? which of course can't be right if they had to double back?
LM when going over the V walked 10 - 15ft? (Just trying establish all scenarios, relating to this 10 -15ft?)
He noticed, what looked like a 'Taylors dummy' behind a large Oak tree, the 'Taylors dummy' had a red hair band? in its hair?
To combat the description of Oak tree and hair band we have.
A) A reporter who put the idea in LM's head?
B) The police who introduced the Oak tree to LM - akin to introducing the borrowed clothing to SK?
The denial of not knowing the existence of this V until the night of the 30th of June 2003.
It is not easily noticeable, due to overgrowth and being small in size.
Big enough and low enough to enable one to climb up and go through? (AW aided, fitted through it though?)
Hidden so much so that, witnesses were able to claim that they seen a moped parked at it?
Behind this V is a gang hut of the dope dealers whom LM purchased dope from. By 'appointment'
Further up in this woodland LM & JJ initials were carved into a tree?
-
can @nugnug post a source for Jodi's knuckles being bruised, cheers.
Prehaps Sandra can type out the autopsy report?
-
Prehaps Sandra can type out the autopsy report?
well maybe this will do for start its straght from the horses mouth.
https://youtu.be/DTIdhoCwnLc
-
No mention of bruised knuckles.
Can you post a source for this claim?
the source is the pathology report.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4815.html
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwis6P_cybLjAhU2QEEAHXInD3QQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F1480608%2FJodi-Jones-death-similar-to-Hollywood-killing.html&usg=AOvVaw0EzeGIFf_iGmQ6j07ZgtHl
a bit more
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwis6P_cybLjAhU2QEEAHXInD3QQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F1480608%2FJodi-Jones-death-similar-to-Hollywood-killing.html&usg=AOvVaw0EzeGIFf_iGmQ6j07ZgtHl
a bit more
No mention of bruised knuckles.
-
Yeah I'm sure she didn't know which person in court was Luke Mithcell. ::) ::) Didn't you accuse her of framing him a few pages back?
She refused to pick Luke out in court because he looked completely different. Positive ID in the photo lineup though when he looked the same as he would've done June 30th.
Jodi wasn't a red head. Dark brown hair easily mistaken for black. It was in a pony and she had a red scrunchie in her hair that Luke managed to tell police he could see when he found her, despite only seeing the body in the dark from some distance, and the bobble being covered by hair according to the pathologist.
I don't think she described any footwear at all so Luke's boots obviously weren't visible. Positive ID on the out of date haircut that hardly any young guy had at the time, and the green jacket. Ok trousers were wrong maybe she couldn't see them properly. I wonder what colour trousers police recovered from Luke's house with Jodi's DNA on it though?
How do you know Jodi didn't leave home with a blue jacket on over her deftones jumper? Wasn't a blue hoodie found at the scene?
Also why are you now discrediting this sighting of Jodi when just a few pages back you said you believed it to be Jodi and her brother arguing? Then you said you thought her husband convinced her to make the whole thing up to help the Joneses cover for Joseph.
Seriously. You don't even believe the stuff you're saying and losing track of your BS.
The bruised knuckles were caused possibly from a bite or buy hitting someones teeth, Sandra confirmed this from the pathology report.
If you believe AB honestly didn’t point him out in court because he looked different then you must believe the F&W sightings are dishonest as they did( don’t expect to hear from you on that point)
AB said she didn’t see his face but can then pick him out in a picture parade?
No way jodis hair could be described as black, it’s a light auburn and in a few pictures it has a reddish hue.
My personal opinion doesn’t matter when someone’s asking me but the facts are.
-
Nugnug just so you know. Miss Psychobabble is going on a rampage over you on the red forum. :-\
-
JoJ sighted
Bruised knuckles
AB lying to help her husbands pals
Nothing but unsubstantiated nonsense coming from you lot. Can we stick to facts please or close the thread.
who climed she was lying to help her husbands pals i must of missed that bit.
-
Hi, I need to apologise for a mistake I made earlier - the distance Jodi was found from the V is 13.6 metres, not 16.3.
A simple typo, so please don't go reading anything sinister into it.
13.6 metres is 44.6 feet.
-
Hi, I need to apologise for a mistake I made earlier - the distance Jodi was found from the V is 13.6 metres, not 16.3.
A simple typo, so please don't go reading anything sinister into it.
13.6 metres is 44.6 feet.
Any chance we can have the autopsy report? I would like to see if the knife wounds match the type of knife that would have been kept in that knife pouch he had.
-
The pouch was purchased along with the knife after the murder.
Why do you think you would be entitled to see them anyway? What qualifications do you have that would enable you to determine what knife caused the injuries when the pathologist couldnt tie that down? How also could you do it when you don’t have a picture of the knife?
-
The pouch was purchased along with the knife after the murder.
Source?
Why do you think you would be entitled to see them anyway? What qualifications do you have that would enable you to determine what knife caused the injuries when the pathologist couldnt tie that down? How also could you do it when you don’t have a picture of the knife?
I don't want to see any photos. If the knife has been thrusted into her. The length of the entrance wound and the depth of the wound could give us an idea.
-
Source?
I don't want to see any photos. If the knife has been thrusted into her. The length of the entrance wound and the depth of the wound could give us an idea.
I’ve seen the receipt and it’s widely accepted and used as a tool to lambast Corrine with.
Jodi wasn’t stabbed unless you include the tonsil that was punctured.
-
So your saying that pouch wasn’t purchased after the murder?
You don’t argue with the findings of the lie detector though so it changes nothing
-
I’ve seen the receipt and it’s widely accepted and used as a tool to lambast Corrine with.
Jodi wasn’t stabbed unless you include the tonsil that was punctured.
Where is the receipt?
-
Right now not a clue!
-
You know that how exactly ?
Skunting knifes are normally fixed blade and come with a pouch, as opposed to the Bowie knife that folds into itself and can have a pouch or not
-
Yeah I was thinking of another type sry.
-
Yeah I was thinking of another type sry.
Yeah both appear to be the same thing and both can be of various sizes.
-
He means this
No pouch came with this and the the pouch found in the house was prior to this. The knife belonging to that pouch remains missing.
Thats an order forum, not a receipt. Did this come from Lukes mum or the company?
-
Ok I agree, though I was always under the impression that was the item bought after the murder. Where is the connection between the that item and murder?
What I mean is you said yourself that you hadn’t heard of a skunting knife and the receipt shows that title, is it a mistake?
The knife handed in later on was indeed a fixed blades knife.
-
Behave
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00587/news-graphics-2005-_587835a.jpg)
If I could be bothered using hosting sites then I could post many pics of her with lighter hair, I can’t get the image size down and can’t be bothered, I still wouldn’t call it black
-
Not messing with hosting sites I can’t.
The thing is that when you put skunting knife into google it spies show you folding knife with a very similar pouch. Why then could the pouch not have belonged to a missing knife that was bought after the murder?
-
The implication is an empty pouch with a disturbing tribute to Jodi was found in Mitchell's house, and months after his girlfriend was murdered with one, his mother decided it would be a good idea to buy him another knife. Why would he need another knife if the one he had wasn't missing?
I see she also bought him a multi-tool on there, also unsuitable gift for a 14 year old.
I feel like if I had a knife obsession, and my girlfriend was murdered with one, it would put me right off them. I wouldn't want to see one ever again. How about you?
It would depend on what he was into wouldn’t it, I was never into camping or similar so I never felt the need to have a knife.
I know you won’t do it but stick the pic of Jodi playing on the kiddies bike, he hair is far from black.
-
Possibly about 8-12 months earlier but it’s outside and shows a much lighter colour , do 12-13 year olds get their hair dyed.
-
I’m still not certain that can be described as black when outside I natural light.
-
Just her hair was black. Thing is in Scotland black hair is quite rare, various shades of brown tend to be prevalent and is what I’d expect from Bryson. She stipulates black hair.
-
And a few pages back you accused AB of fabricating her sighting. If she was lying for the Joneses, wouldn't she have done a better job of it? Why would she initially describe the male as being possibly early 20's if she wanted to deflect from JoJ onto LM?
There are a lot of things wrong in her sighting, you put me in a positioning and I answered as a possibility, for instance why did she describe the girl she saw the very same as Judy had in her first calls to the police, that turned out to be completely wrong?
-
Can Sandra provide a source for AB saying she couldn't forget his eyes?
It was Fleming and Walsh that claimed the man they saw was looking to the ground and in court on the dock identification one claimed she couldn’t forget those eyes, it wasn’t Bryson. She only initially claim not to see his face.
-
What's your thoughts on the Fleming and Welsh sighting
God!! I find that more contentious lol but I would. The Bryson sighting for me could have been possibly a manipulation of her by her husband, he was in the Jones household the next morning and saw the state and effect things had on the family. He gets home and during talks with his wife she tells him she was on that road and did see two people, him knowing the details of the night before May have conditioned her to the point where she was sure it was Luke and Jodi she saw. The details though didn’t match because I’m sure she didn’t know either of them.
F & W were forced into going to the police with what they saw, in a case where a brutal murder in their community has taken place they had to have been unsure to start with regarding their information. It was their colleague who called the police to inform them of what F&W saw.
-
God!! I find that more contentious lol but I would. The Bryson sighting for me could have been possibly a manipulation of her by her husband, he was in the Jones household the next morning and saw the state and effect things had on the family. He gets home and during talks with his wife she tells him she was on that road and did see two people, him knowing the details of the night before May have conditioned her to the point where she was sure it was Luke and Jodi she saw. The details though didn’t match because I’m sure she didn’t know either of them.
Why would he ‘condition’ her to frame him and how would he know about the green coat?
-
Why would he ‘condition’ her to frame him and how would he know about the green coat?
He was in the house the next morning, he would have heard everything that was said. I never put much weight on the Bryson sighting mainly as we had two witnesses to her leaving later and a 3rd on the time she left the house. Thing is it has to be explained and the anomalies have to be addressed. I don’t know any of them so I’m applying my rationale to it. Doesn’t make it right but doesn’t make it wrong either.
-
When was he there?
-
Andrina Brysons brother in law Bill was in the Jones house a few months after the murder. Friends with Alan ovens.
How this has been twisted into Andrinas husband being in the jones house the next morning is astounding.
I can’t really say anything else, I was under the impression MB was there early on.
-
I can’t really say anything else, I was under the impression MB was there early on.
A lot of arguments for Luke not being the killer seem to be based on the wrong impressions of things.
I wonder if Nugnug has found the source for the bruised knuckles?
-
A lot of arguments for Luke not being the killer seem to be based on the wrong impressions of things.
I wonder if Nugnug has found the source for the bruised knuckles?
i alread gave the he surce ive yt to see uou post a source for any of your cliams.
-
i alread gave the he surce ive yt to see uou post a source for any of your cliams.
That telegraph article had no mention of bruised knuckles.
I am getting most my info from here.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7)
-
So to recap on the latest misinformation correction spouted by Gordo, but originated from Sandra:
Andrina Bryson's brother-in-law was in Jodi's cousin Yvonne Walker's house a few months after the murder.
How this became:
Andrina Bryson's husband was in Judy's the morning after the murder
I will never know...
I have never, ever said Andrina Bryson's husband was in Judith's house the morning after the murder and you know that.
I said Ferris claimed Andrina Bryson's brother-in-law was in Alice Walker's house the morning after the murder (July 1st). There was another witness statement to this as well.
Alan Ovens gave a statement that on July 4th Andrina Bryson's brother-in-law was in Judith's house.
These ridiculous maniplulations and misrepresentations are designed to confuse people and mire the discussion in petty arguments.
You mention that Andrina Bryson's brother-in-law was in Yvonne Walker's house "a few months after the murder, knowing that that is a different event from the one being discussed - it was six weeks after the murder and he (the brother-in-law) was in Yvonne's flat with his brother, Andrina's husband, and other members of Jodi's family.
The day after the murder and July 4th are the days on which I said, clearly and unequivocally, that witnesses (including Judith's partner) stated that the brother-in-law was in Alice Walker's house (n July 1st) and in Judith's house (July 4th.)
A bit like that lassie on Youtube saying no fire was reported in the Mitchell garden, because Sandra successfully distorted it over the years...
It's like chinese whispers except the deaf folk are spreading their interpretations as fact without having to back anything up.
Show me where I have ever said there was no fire reported in the Mitchell garden? We've already been through this - I quoted the passage from the book about witnesses talking about fires in gardens (including the Mitchell's garden) - repeating your lies and half truths doesn't make them true.
edit - oh and let's not forget Andrina's brother-in-laws girlfriend cut Judith's hair before. ::) ::) ::) Great detective work Sandra... This connection to the family is surely enough for an innocent woman to perjure herself frame a 14 year old boy to help cover up a murder.
Where did I ever say (or even suggest) Andrina Bryson had "perjured herself"? My argument was that Andrina Bryson was not as "independent" as police claimed - they knew that and failed to take into account potential influences on her recall, preferring, instead, to both capitalise and contribute to those potential influences.
I'd really love Sandra to come on here and explain why her followers believe blindly that Andrina Bryson's husband was in the Jones household the morning after the murder.
I have no "followers." I've no idea why people (any people, yourself included) believe what they do - the information I have put into the public domain is clear and available for anyone who wants to check it for themselves. When they realise what you're saying here is rubbish, you're going to look like a fool - and a liar.
-
It was me that messed up thinking it was the husband, not to mislead just wrong recall. Even the name became apparent to me once I heard it. Essentially when put into the right context it all makes more sense.
-
SL
You mention that Andrina Bryson's brother-in-law was in Yvonne Walker's house "a few months after the murder, knowing that that is a different event from the one being discussed - it was six weeks after the murder and he (the brother-in-law) was in Yvonne's flat with his brother, Andrina's husband, and other members of Jodi's family.
[/color]
Is the wrong? Perhaps Lithium knows that this bro-in law, may have been in YW's a few months after. Has he sidetracked from the event being discussed, just like the sidetracking on the podcast when asked about a fire - SL knows which fire is being meant here, yet sidetracks onto one in newtongrange? There is no dishonesty, the discussion, is after all about fires? There appears to have been a mention of a fire in Newtongrange, by the ever so accurate media?
maniplulations and misrepresentations? Politician tactics? All is fair it seems, in this search for truth and justice.
Of course - all of this sidetracking away from AB going forth on the 1st of July - giving her account and description. She doesn't really waver from this, gather information from these vast connections - take favour of this family that she stipulates from the off - that she does not know personally, and adds anything on?
Fair to take from this what it is - there was no manipulation, there was no outside forces that brought her forward in the first instance.
She didn't waver from this. She didn't change how this sighting was, to fit in with any information that she obviously had not gathered. She appears by all accounts to be open and honest.
There is nothing in any of this to show that AB or her husband knew this immediate family prior to going to the police, in this first instance.
Her husband accompanying his brother to YW's 6 weeks after this is proof of what exactly? That he chummed his bro there?
Arms, legs and puppy dogs tails - added, to somehow add weight to this being, not an independent sighting.
If along the way she had changed this to exact clothing, hair colour, logo's and parker jackets, fair enough - but the simple truth is - it wasn't changed.
-
Continual muddying the waters is whats trying to be achieved
-
It wasn’t the 1st of July that she came forward though.
-
So to recap on the latest misinformation correction spouted by Gordo, but originated from Sandra:
Andrina Bryson's brother-in-law was in Jodi's cousin Yvonne Walker's house a few months after the murder.
How this became:
Andrina Bryson's husband was in Judy's the morning after the murder
I will never know...
A bit like that lassie on Youtube saying no fire was reported in the Mitchell garden, because Sandra successfully distorted it over the years...
It's like chinese whispers except the deaf folk are spreading their interpretations as fact without having to back anything up.
We really need to start over again but this time only accept anything backed with proof or an unbiased trustworthy source.
edit - oh and let's not forget Andrina's brother-in-laws girlfriend cut Judith's hair before. ::) ::) ::) Great detective work Sandra... This connection to the family is surely enough for an innocent woman to perjure herself frame a 14 year old boy to help cover up a murder.
Good job.
The fact your attempts back then at freeing Luke was to follow these people on social media from fake accounts and find a link to the Jones family is frankly embarrassing.
I'd really love Sandra to come on here and explain why her followers believe blindly that Andrina Bryson's husband was in the Jones household the morning after the murder.
Please.
I will apologise for mixing up the relationship with the Bryson member who was in the house the next day, I also got his name wrong mainly because I know a M Bryson. When taken in context with what you said and Sandra’s post it’s very much all up in the air again.
Why did you distance BB from the statements of AO regarding him being in the house the morning after? I’m guessing he was many places in the weeks after the crime but this was done in an attempt to subvert the context of the discussion and was very misleading. I’m guessing this is information you received from a 3rd party so just who is being divisive ?
-
There simply is not any motive or reason, for any of the prosecution witnesses to lie. :-\
-
SL
Is the wrong? Perhaps Lithium knows that this bro-in law, may have been in YW's a few months after. Has he sidetracked from the event being discussed, just like the sidetracking on the podcast when asked about a fire - SL knows which fire is being meant here, yet sidetracks onto one in newtongrange? There is no dishonesty, the discussion, is after all about fires? There appears to have been a mention of a fire in Newtongrange, by the ever so accurate media?
maniplulations and misrepresentations? Politician tactics? All is fair it seems, in this search for truth and justice.
Of course - all of this sidetracking away from AB going forth on the 1st of July - giving her account and description. She doesn't really waver from this, gather information from these vast connections - take favour of this family that she stipulates from the off - that she does not know personally, and adds anything on?
Fair to take from this what it is - there was no manipulation, there was no outside forces that brought her forward in the first instance.
She didn't waver from this. She didn't change how this sighting was, to fit in with any information that she obviously had not gathered. She appears by all accounts to be open and honest.
There is nothing in any of this to show that AB or her husband knew this immediate family prior to going to the police, in this first instance.
Her husband accompanying his brother to YW's 6 weeks after this is proof of what exactly? That he chummed his bro there?
Arms, legs and puppy dogs tails - added, to somehow add weight to this being, not an independent sighting.
If along the way she had changed this to exact clothing, hair colour, logo's and parker jackets, fair enough - but the simple truth is - it wasn't changed.
What is a statement! A rendering of an event or occasion based on primary and factually correct interpretation! We have seen that many of the people involved in this case had on a few occasions to change theirs, indeed it is one of the major contentions in this case. So what AB didn’t need to change hers, she was either so secure in her observations that she didn’t need to, or was she so scared to divert from the information for fear of it leading to more questions.
Indeed if its the former then we have to take her description and circumstances at face value, she believes that what she described she saw. No one has ever accused her of getting her observations wrong so the jacket style,colour and all the various specifics have to be correct to her as a true representation of what she believed. Again meaning for myself that two they saw weren’t Luke and Jodi.
-
Are you kidding?
Didn't you see Sandra's post earlier in the thread revealing that one of the witnesses to the burning allegedly once referred to Corinne as a tart?!?!
What more evidence do you need?!?!
Embarrassing.
The only people that have been caught out lying and have motive to lie are Corrie and Shane.
-
You're still not getting it. No Bryson member was in the Jones house the next day.
Contrary to statements then
-
Allen ovens .
-
"There was another statement to this as well"... proceeds to mention a conflicting statement.
::) ::) ::)
Still before she came forward and again both occasions are different.
-
Alan Ovens said it was the next day? July 1st?
Nope.
Sandra's done a number on you big yin.
We’re talking about July the 1st!
-
Wit???
The day after the murder was the 1st of July!
-
It’s a far cry from what you tried to interject with though isn’t it. Ok I got the name of the brother in law wrong , it’s a fair cop and you can twist that as much as you want but it doesn’t detract from the rest of those statements.
-
I'm all ears if anyone has some real, compelling reasons why Luke is innocent.
Same. The DNA stuff and the attempt to undermine Bryson has been exposed.
What's next?
-
Really !! I’m out for the night so have a good one
-
Looks like we are ready to close the case here.
Case closed?
-
Why did Luke phone his mum and ask if Jodi had arrived yet even though he had been waiting at the end of the path and she couldn't possibly have gotten to his house without passing him?
To let her know where to send Jodi should she have turned up
-
The only people that have been caught out lying and have motive to lie are Corrie and Shane.
funy the charges agianst them were were dropedl
-
Same. The DNA stuff and the attempt to undermine Bryson has been exposed.
What's next?
shes allready undermined by the other witness.
-
I'm not sure what you're getting mixed up about so I'll outline all of the "evidence" of the tenuous connection "uncovered" by Sandra between the 2 families intended to discredit the witness. ::)
1. Mark Bryson, and his brother, Andrina Bryson's husband Alan Bryson, were pictured in the home of Jodi’s cousin Yvonne Walker a few months after the murder.
2. Jodi's sister Janine Jones said at trial that Andrina's brother-in-law Mark Bryson visited her grandmother, and that Mark Bryson's girlfriend had previously cut Jodi's mum's hair.
3. Judith Jones' partner Alan Ovens mentioned in his statement a conversation he with his friend Mark Bryson within 48 hours of the murder regarding Andrina's sighting.
and that's it...
that's the "close" relationship between the witness and Jodi Jones.
To think that this actually made up a substantial part of the SCCRC submission (intended to prove LM received an unfair trial) is utterly laughable.
To call AB a liar because she didn't think when asked if she knew Jodi Jones "hmm maybe my husbands brother's friend who doesn't have the surname Jones is this girl's mums partner... or maybe one of my husbands brother's girlfriend's customers was the mother of this girl?"
Just ridiculous levels of reaching that really shows how little Sandra has.
I won't be commenting further on this. It's a red herring, irrelevance, non-event, total nothingness.
I'm all ears if anyone has some real, compelling reasons why Luke is innocent.
source
-
You want me to provide a source for a lack of connection between the families?
I've to prove they don't know each other more than that?
Again with this?
You don't really get this do you?
I'm glad you've asked for a source though, it shows you're surprised by this, that it isn't what you were led to believe, and agree there's nothing there.
What if I told you the 3 "links" i posted are all Sandra has to say about AB's connection to the victim in her SCCRC submission?
Weak eh?
;D ;D ;D
you havent got one hae you i allready no theres a concetion by searching facebook
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
Great detective work!!!
Luke will be out in no time after this ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
-
But he asked "has she arrived yet?"
He asked his mum if Jodi was there.
Not possible without passing him.
He told his mum before he left where to direct her if she turns up, (not over the phone) then went and stood around waiting in an area where Jodi couldn't have turned up at his door without passing him.
And still phoned his mum to ask has she turned up.
Use your noggin.
Let's apply some common sense to this and take a look at Luke's behaviour that evening.
Mate your just making it up as you go along
-
i think this needs a new thread this one is far to long.
-
How you know what Luke said on the phone to his mother, let’s start there.
-
Corinne said it herself in the James English interview ya balloon.
So your saying you agree with everything Corrine says now! Or just when it’s suits
-
Is this really the level of debate you want to be having
What are you on about
Sandra has found a rumour that someone else may have owned a green jacket and Nugnug found that the Jodi family and Bryson family have mutual facebook friends.
Soon the real killer will be revealed! ;D ;D ;D
-
(https://i.imgur.com/9AygOiI.jpg)
(http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/J.K.-Simmons-Laugh.gif)
-
Evidence to support innocence.
Nugnug (The distractor of facts)
Gordo30 (Friend is a forensic scientist and sister a professor)
Sandra Lean (Criminologist and author - Justice campaigner)
Corrine Mitchell.(Mother of a convicted murderer)
Use tantalizing snip-bits of misinformation to draw support. For what?
Example:
We have a confession from the stocky man.
We have an ID of the stocky man (doesn't matter though as the stocky man has confessed - no need for ID unless to prove, the stocky man is who he says he is!)
The stocky man - no doubt that his confession, gave valuable insight as to how they managed - to commit this crime, removing all traces of their DNA whilst leaving others. An area that has caused great wonderment for the above - applause for stocky man for enlightening them to how this was done.
Does that now make LM inclusive again if this confession is false - after the enlightenment of the know how? of above!
We have the informer JF - used to entice the murderer into making some rash move. The confession?
Oh wait a minute - the informer is no longer required as we have the confession.
The discussion around AB needs be no more - she is closely connected to the Jones' family - twas by way of elimination the 'stocky' man she saw. She decided to cover up for the Jones' by ID'n LM. She must feel such a fool now, tad angry at the 'stocky' man confessing. Perhaps they were having an affair.
SK - Oh is he the stocky man - Cant be surely - AB would only have covered for the Jones' with this intimate list of connections. Has a thorough surge of facebook revealed another connection to SK?
JF - well no, because he is the informer and provider of valuable statements. He is surely thinking what the actual F - I cut my hair off for you!
The accomplice GD, of not the informer, but the one who looked like JF with a haircut. Oh aye, the 'stocky' man.
What does this all tell us - the crime was not solved by the above.
The 'stocky' man. decided to come clean - all by himself or did the 'informer' snip-bit draw him out.
Or is CM lying in her podcast - surely not - she wouldn't lie- would she?
-
Or is CM lying in her podcast - surely not - she wouldn't lie- would she?
You cant blame his mother for thinking someone else must be the killer. Nor can you blame Luke for maintaining his innocence after everything his mum has done for him while incarcerated.
It really is a sad state of affairs. :(
-
You cant blame his mother for thinking someone else must be the killer. Nor can you blame Luke for maintaining his innocence after everything his mum has done for him while incarcerated.
It really is a sad state of affairs. :(
so did luke comit the murder after he made the 532. call to jodis house or before.
-
505 jodi enters the path.
515 to lads on the moped seen at the path.
532 look calls jodis house.
545 luke is seen waiting for jodi outside his own hose.
so at exactly what time did he comit the murder.
-
Moped boys weren't there at the right tine
Cyclist heard the murder and seen no moped.
so he heard her being murdered before she had even entered the path.
-
505 jodi enters the path.
515 to lads on the moped seen at the path.
532 look calls jodis house.
545 luke is seen waiting for jodi outside his own hose.
so at exactly what time did he comit the murder.
Considering the pathologist noted signs of strangulation and the cyclists heard something of that nature riding past the area where her body was found. I would say it took place in the time frame the cyclists gave. Between about 5:05 and 5:20
-
Considering the pathologist noted signs of strangulation and the cyclists heard something of that nature riding past the area where her body was found. I would say it took place in the time frame the cyclists gave. Between about 5:05 and 5:20
but at 515 there were 2 lads on a moped there who cliam they saw nothing.
-
but at 515 there were 3 lads on a moped there who cliam they saw nothing.
And? The sound of the moped engine would cancel out anything they could or would have heard like the cyclists did. How long does it take to get from one end of that path to the other on a moped? about 10 - 15 seconds.
-
And? The sound of the moped engine would cancel out anything they could or would have heard like the cyclists did. How long does it take to get from one end of that path to the other on a moped? about 10 - 15 seconds.
but they cliam not to have seen anything ethere.
if it happens at 520 then luke has 12 minutes to do it all.
-
And? The sound of the moped engine would cancel out anything they could or would have heard like the cyclists did. How long does it take to get from one end of that path to the other on a moped? about 10 - 15 seconds.
Brilliant , the cyclist wouldnt have heard screaming ,shouting, arguing and the moped is propped at the v at the time of the murder and the guys on ir shouldnt have to account for there where abouts because benny hill said so
-
Brilliant , the cyclist wouldnt have heard screaming ,shouting, arguing and the moped is propped at the v at the time of the murder and the guys on ir shouldnt have to account for there where abouts because benny hill said so
not to mention the fact that they both lied about the time they were on the path.
-
Brilliant , the cyclist wouldnt have heard screaming ,shouting, arguing and the moped is propped at the v at the time of the murder and the guys on ir shouldnt have to account for there where abouts because benny hill said so
LK was on this path prior to the 'dubious' duo on the bike. If he entered the path from Newbattle R'd just after 5.05pm , this was BEFORE the duo.
The noises heard by LK would, most certainly indicate that from this point there would have been no further noises to be heard.
The duo were spotted in the yard of Basically Tool Hire at closing time of 5pm.
Witnessed on Newbattle R'd after this, then at the foot of this Path by passing motorists. At least a 10 min: (IMO) timescale. Giving the dodgy bike with starting problems.
Lots of sightings of these boys on the bike, not hiding away like LM. (out-with the 20mins he wanted to be seen)
The exact timing of being at the V of 5.15pm came from whom/where? how would the duo have known the exact time? More so, IF someone else witnessed the bike at the V around this time, were those witnesses?! on the path too?
The duo claimed that they first thought they had arrived at GD's house at 4.30, discovering later that the clock, in the house was an hour slow?
The trouble with little snip - bits of information, given from separate statements and court minutes tied together, results in nonsensical mis-matched theories.
More than feasible that the duo did not see or hear anything. Dense area (locus) of woodland. CM in her pod cast highlights 'how you could hardly move without branches getting stuck in your hair'
The Jury witnessed the locus first hand. This would be winter time whilst the growth was low, their conclusion being, that it was not easy to see! (IMO) )
The duo went over the V for how long? If they did? More than feasible, that IF they hadn't, walked some distance to the left, by a narrow? (difficult?) access area along the inside of this wall, you know? right to the actual spot! then nothing could be seen?
Whilst the discussion can go on for ever and a day - Was there DNA from a double attack, from this duo? NO!?
Was there even less of any timescale that is harped on about in relation to LM?
SCCRC aware and studied all of this. Heard at the trial. Put through their paces by Findlay. Checked out thoroughly and eliminated by the prosecution.
-
LK was on this path prior to the 'dubious' duo on the bike. If he entered the path from Newbattle R'd just after 5.05pm , this was BEFORE the duo.
The noises heard by LK would, most certainly indicate that from this point there would have been no further noises to be heard.
The duo were spotted in the yard of Basically Tool Hire at closing time of 5pm.
Witnessed on Newbattle R'd after this, then at the foot of this Path by passing motorists. At least a 10 min: (IMO) timescale. Giving the dodgy bike with starting problems.
Lots of sightings of these boys on the bike, not hiding away like LM. (out-with the 20mins he wanted to be seen)
The exact timing of being at the V of 5.15pm came from whom/where? how would the duo have known the exact time? More so, IF someone else witnessed the bike at the V around this time, were those witnesses?! on the path too?
The duo claimed that they first thought they had arrived at GD's house at 4.30, discovering later that the clock, in the house was an hour slow?
The trouble with little snip - bits of information, given from separate statements and court minutes tied together, results in nonsensical mis-matched theories.
More than feasible that the duo did not see or hear anything. Dense area (locus) of woodland. CM in her pod cast highlights 'how you could hardly move without branches getting stuck in your hair'
The Jury witnessed the locus first hand. This would be winter time whilst the growth was low, their conclusion being, that it was not easy to see! (IMO) )
The duo went over the V for how long? If they did? More than feasible, that IF they hadn't, walked some distance to the left, by a narrow? (difficult?) access area along the inside of this wall, you know? right to the actual spot! then nothing could be seen?
Whilst the discussion can go on for ever and a day - Was there DNA from a double attack, from this duo? NO!?
Was there even less of any timescale that is harped on about in relation to LM?
SCCRC aware and studied all of this. Heard at the trial. Put through their paces by Findlay. Checked out thoroughly and eliminated by the prosecution.
so why did they lie about the time they were on there.
-
So she was making a choking noise while unconscious
-
More of a fight first for me thats why the defensive wounds
Then she was overcome. We wont know unless they get stocky man for me
-
I'd like to hear more about the defensive wounds. Something more detailed than merely "defensive wounds" which is very ambiguous. Nugnug has already falsely reported bruised knuckles. Why is the unemployed "Doctor" always too busy to release anything worthwhile? I'd put everything I could out there if it pointed to Luke's innocence... think we can all guess what's in the files though.
There were bruised knuckles like Sandra explained that they resembled a bite mark or possibly from hitting someone’s teeth. There was also A slice that went to the bone and would have proved fatal without medical attention. Bruising to the head and hair torn out in clumps, again for some reason this hair was found in jodis hands. Possibly being conscious enough to feel for the wounds on her head with bloodied hands( conjecture of course and just my take on it) .
I suppose you could add the cut lip which had bled so she was alive at that point, maybe not a defensive injury but part of the fight that ensued.
-
My point was I think it would have turned very quickly and been over in a matter of minutes. No one will ever know other than Luke and Jodi, I reckon she was hit over the head blunt force when trying to run away after the first blow. She would have fell to the ground possibly semi-conscious where the strangling would have happened. Maybe came round during it and tried to fight, she wouldn't have been able to scream with Luke's hand choking her unconscious. Then when he found himself there with a lifeless body his morbid curiousity which we know he had took over and he pulled out his knife which we also know he would have had. Just speculation, no one will ever know unless Luke confesses.
The pathologist stated that she was strangled and the knife wounds were carried out either while she was semi conscious or already dead.
Hopefully Sandra can post the autopsy report. But I doubt that will happen. As we already know the more she reveals the more apparent it is that Luke is guilty.
-
The pathologist stated that she was strangled and the knife wounds were carried out either while she was semi conscious or already dead.
Hopefully Sandra can post the autopsy report. But I doubt that will happen. As we already know the more she reveals the more apparent it is that Luke is guilty.
he also said itwas unlikely that luke was the killer but you seem to have missed that bit.
-
he also said itwas highly unlikely that luke was the killer but you seem to have missed that bit.
How can I have missed that "bit"? You just made that up. ;D
-
How can I have missed that "bit"? You just made that up. ;D
your really making a fool of yourself ive got the footage to prove it.
https://youtu.be/DTIdhoCwnLc
-
The pathologist stated that she was strangled and the knife wounds were carried out either while she was semi conscious or already dead.
Hopefully Sandra can post the autopsy report. But I doubt that will happen. As we already know the more she reveals the more apparent it is that Luke is guilty.
Like I said before why would you be entitled to it!! Why is it everything she says makes her look worse? Why aren’t you asking lithium for the substance to what he says?
In the last week I have heard much of what he has said and he has never backed it up! Its great to be able to sit their and expect Sandra to provide proof and then take what an anonymous poster on a forum says as gospel without the same provenance, wheres your rebuttal of him?
The difference is that’s we know Sandra has the source, no one could make an application to the SCCRC without the relevant material to do so. Therefore when you ask her for proof it based on 1 of 4 things.
1. That you believe what she says is lies, thing is we have lithium who professes to be from the area, has personal knowledge of everything we’re talking about, you would think then that if it were lies he would simply inform the individuals involved, we would see even the simplest medium like the area newspaper who would love to print anything that may well be proven outright lies. Nothing has ever happened.
2. That she has written everything verbatim from the case files, we are allowed to determine in which context they should be taken and we provide our assertions as to what they mean. Something Sandra can’t be held responsible for.
3. The she has put her own spin or interpretation on the relevant true facts , something that over the years I have never found with her. In many private conversations I have never known her to deviated from what’s actually in the papers, never once been drawn on speculation or theory.
4. Simply that anything she writes is used to denigrate the case for people’s own agendas. Without the necessary application to do so. Say as much as you can and suddenly anyone new to the case can’t work out what’s going on.
You see your asking me to believe that someone who just last week had me believe that Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie on top of the black one, therefore wearing light blue jeans over the black cords and wearing a black wig over her brown hair. I will not take anything anyone says based on nothing so step up and and prove what your saying!!
-
Like I said before why would you be entitled to it!!
There are many autopsy reports on this site. Same goes for other sites that investigate alleged MOJs. What makes this case any different?
-
your really making a fool of yourself ive got the footage to prove it.
https://youtu.be/DTIdhoCwnLc
Once again you misquote and distort information. He was saying that the absence of any trace of Jodi on Luke makes it "less likely" to be him. Does he take into account his missing jacket and the date he was examined? No. Does the interviewer even put that to him? No.
I'm not the one making a fool of myself here pal.
-
Once again you misquote and distort information. He was saying that the absence of any trace of Jodi on Luke makes it "less likely" to be him. Does he take into account his missing jacket and the date he was examined? No. Does the interviewer even put that to him? No.
I'm not the one making a fool of myself here pal.
have you actully bothred to listen it.
he said it makes it suprising and less likely in other words he doesnt think he did it.
i havent distorted anything.
-
have you actully bothred to listen it.
Yes.
This is what you said he said -
"it was highly unlikely that luke was the killer"
This is what he actually said -
"It does not tell us that it could not have been him. But it makes it surprising and less likely that it was him."
::)
-
Yes.
This is what you said he said -
"it was highly unlikely that luke was the killer"
This is what he actually said -
"It does not tell us that it could not have been him. But it makes it surprising and less likely that it was him."
::)
needless pedantry it means he thinks luke dident do it.
i said unlikely he said suprising and less likely.
i dident rember the exact words but it more or less the same thing.
-
he said it makes it suprising and less likely in other words he doesnt think he did it.
i havent distorted anything.
Yes you have distorted things. And now you are putting words in the guys mouth.
-
Yes you have distorted things. And now you are putting words in the guys mouth.
how are else are you supposed to interpret the words suprising and less likely.
if somone says its suprising if hes the killer it clearly means they think he isnt.
-
needless pedantry it means he thinks luke dident do it.
i said unlikely he said suprising and less likely.
i dident rember the exact words but it more or less the same thing.
You said "highly unlikely" and you have now edited your original post.
If you didn't remember what he said, fair enough. But if your not going check things, just write IIRC (If I remember correctly) before whatever you post. That is what I always do, if I cant be bothered to go over stuff.
-
You said "highly unlikely" and you have now edited your original post.
If you didn't remember what he said, fair enough. But if your not going check things, just write IIRC (If I remember correctly) before whatever you post. That is what I always do, if I cant be bothered to go over stuff.
so what does somone think if they say they would it suprising hes the killer does that mean they think he did it or does it mean they think dident do it.
-
so what does somone think if they say they would it suprising hes the killer does that mean they think he did it or does it mean they think dident do it.
This is what he said -
"It does not tell us that it could not have been him. But it makes it surprising and less likely that it was him."
There is no need to twist, rephrase or misquote him. Unless you are trying to misrepresent what he is actually saying.
-
This is what he said -
"It does not tell us that it could not have been him. But it makes it surprising and less likely that it was him."
There is no need to twist, rephrase or misquote him. Unless you are trying to misrepresent what he is actually saying.
so what does suprising and less likely mean
then does it mean he thinks or does it mean he think its unlikely he did it.
obviosly hees not goin to say lukes innocent.
-
Got a few point to put out there, will apologise now for the length, been a while since I’ve had time to post a lot. Please let me know if anything I say is wrong, seems I’ve been getting mixed up over some facts recently. I thought best to spilt the posts so it’s not one big rant, but lots of smaller ones lol
AB - she did not identify Luke in court, that’s enough for me, it was not Luke at the top of the path. To say it’s because he looked different at court it total bs imo, as then any murder accused just needs to dye/cut their hair and grow a beard so any witnesses can’t identify them, come on! She did not identify Luke as she knew it was not him imo.
The description of Jodi’s clothes do not match at all so imo was not Jodi either.
People at bottom of path, what is the significance of their sighting, I’ve never really understood this? Maybe someone can explain what the relevance of this was and what it proved please?
-
If it was Luke I’ve never been able to fit into the timing what happened to his shoes and clothes the soles would definitely have evidence on them, if nothing else. He would need to have either had a spare set of clothes and shoes with him to change into after the murder (which I highly doubt) or went home and got cleaned up, then just dump the stuff in any old bin which was picked up and emptied the following day. But if he went home I just don’t see how he could have committed the murder and all the injuries and other act carried out, get home and cleaned up, changes and back out to be seen by the 2 boys that knew him.
I just can’t get it to fit, if we say Jodi left the house at 1650 as stated and went directly to the path, that apx 15 mins from her house to the v, 1705. The cyclist says he did not see the Jodi, the boys or the bike, but heard a noise. As the boys on the bike did not see or hear anything then that means they must have been there before the cyclist went up the path, so the boys have to had seen Jodi imo, I think they bumped into Jodi went over the v to have a smoke with then then they left Jodi there, maybe with the last of the joint. At this point I think the murderer appeared, Luke or someone else, then the cyclist came up the path and heard the start of the assault, meaning it needs to have taken place after the moped left, after 1715, leaving Luke less than 15 mins to do everything before the call at 1732. Not a lot of time, but then from 1732, to being seen by 2 boys around 1750, 20 mins to get home from v, changed, cleaned up and back to the end of his street. Is that enough time?
-
Another reason for doubt on my part is lack of DNA, no dna of Luke found on Jodi, only partials that could be Luke or also a number of other people, some of Jodi dna found on Luke’s clothing in his house, but I assume there was no blood found and it was not what he was found wearing that night so imo it has to be innocent transfer from gf to bf in the days previous (same as the sk profile found,as he was the sisters bf and Jodi was said to be wearing the sisters T-shirt ) maybe he got lucky with the rain washing the evidence away but I think the only way to be sure is a retest of everything, it’s been years, forensic science has came on a fair bit.
The other little things going round over the years that shows Luke’s ‘guilt’ just doesn’t sit right
Luke found the body - I have always found it acceptable the dog alerted him
Burning of the clothes - then it would be everything he had on, trousers, top, jacket and shoes (would not take the risk, so burn it all) in that burner in one night?? I think that would be very noticeable to all the neighbours in the area as it would have taken some time and caused some nasty smells. I think it’s more likely they clothes were dumped if it was Luke.
Black dahlia/Manson connection, imo there is none
-
The only things that don’t sit right with me is his attitude and lack of emotion from finding Jodi to being found guilty, then his reading and writing choices in prison, some of the hear say stuff that came out after the murder etc but absolutely none of this is evidence he is a murderer, strange and not what people consider normal maybe but no evidence he killed Jodi and i feel it would be wrong for me, or anyone, to judge his guilt on his personality and interests or hear say alone. What hard factual evidence is there? Really the only thing for me is his brothers alibi for him, again he did not support this in court, like I said about ab not pointing out Luke in court because she knew it was not him, the same stood for my opinion on Shane, he did not confirm his statement in court because it was not true, Luke was not home. But I now have doubt over this due to the way Shane was questioned, and the explanations put forward for why he did not confirm luke was home, as it makes me have doubts, the only way for me is to hear it from the horses mouth, Shane to come out and clarify, was Luke home? As the answer to that is case closed for me.
-
Another reason for doubt on my part is lack of DNA, no dna of Luke found on Jodi, only partials that could be Luke or also a number of other people, some of Jodi dna found on Luke’s clothing in his house, but I assume there was no blood found and it was not what he was found wearing that night so imo it has to be innocent transfer from gf to bf in the days previous (same as the sk profile found,as he was the sisters bf and Jodi was said to be wearing the sisters T-shirt ) maybe he got lucky with the rain washing the evidence away but I think the only way to be sure is a retest of everything, it’s been years, forensic science has came on a fair bit.
The other little things going round over the years that shows Luke’s ‘guilt’ just doesn’t sit right
Luke found the body - I have always found it acceptable the dog alerted him
Burning of the clothes - then it would be everything he had on, trousers, top, jacket and shoes (would not take the risk, so burn it all) in that burner in one night?? I think that would be very noticeable to all the neighbours in the area as it would have taken some time and caused some nasty smells. I think it’s more likely they clothes were dumped if it was Luke.
Black dahlia/Manson connection, imo there is none
According to the Judge there was a similarity between the wounds on Jodi’s face and the Manson paintings.
"I do not feel able to ignore the fact that there was a degree of resemblance between the injuries inflicted on Jodi and those shown in the Marilyn Manson paintings of Elizabeth Short that we saw. I think that you carried an image of the paintings in your memory when you killed Jodi."
But I would have to see the wounds myself (not that I want to). In order to form my own opinion.
-
I think you outlined why so many of us believe Luke innocent very well bullseye. On the Shane testimony I believe he just didn’t know if Luke was in or not, I’m guessing the two weren’t as close to each other or bothered with each other much.
The judge was summing up after the appeal, anything the appeal involved is considered correct. Short had her lips and beasts cut off, drained of all blood and severed in two. Jodis wounds were more similar to the Ripper killing down to the precise cutting of the eye lids,cut to the cheek and abdomen and no reference was made to that.
-
Spot on bullseye :)
-
Got a few point to put out there, will apologise now for the length, been a while since I’ve had time to post a lot. Please let me know if anything I say is wrong, seems I’ve been getting mixed up over some facts recently. I thought best to spilt the posts so it’s not one big rant, but lots of smaller ones lol
[/color]
AB - she did not identify Luke in court, that’s enough for me, it was not Luke at the top of the path. To say it’s because he looked different at court it total bs imo, as then any murder accused just needs to dye/cut their hair and grow a beard so any witnesses can’t identify them, come on! She did not identify Luke as she knew it was not him imo.
The description of Jodi’s clothes do not match at all so imo was not Jodi either.
[/color]
I would imagine here, that if an appellant, set out to change the way in which they looked so drastically, it would be picked up on - you are of course correct, it would be extremely difficult to pick them out.
Luke didn't need to change the way he looked (Out with growing his hair long and tying it firmly back - the passage of time and aging process did the rest)
Would imagine that she most certainly did know it was him in court, she did not pick him out as she was going 'straight by the book' He did not look the same. She very easily, could have chosen not to watch media reports, should they influence her.
This sighting by AB, crucial and i understand totally, the attempts at ripping it apart.
Nothing less than perfection is required when the life imprisonment of a young laddie is at stake.
IF AB had gotten everything correct, to the last detail, would it have mattered. no?
People would be up in arms, as to how she managed to take so much detail in. We are talking recall here.
It was Luke whom captured her attention primarily. His actions of beckoning the female. In her recall she remembered these things.
There was a male and a female, the male was beckoning this female. The male was wearing green clothing.
Her mind piecing together this green clothing likens it to fishing style gear. It throws up other images.
His collar appears to be up and the jkt is hip length. A parka jkt has draw cords, these could have been pulled in, sitting the jkt around his hips. The hood is back and the top area where the zip meets is sticking up at each end, her mind pieces together a collar.
His hair is sticking out. Lukes hair is not poker straight when at neck length (unless pulled tightly back)
The females hair is long, it appears to be tied in a ponytail (there was a hair tie found tangled in her hair)
The females hair is black, her recall is of dark hair, her mind likens it to black.
She is wearing clothing that is dark, she tries her best to recall the colours, black-blue, her clothing is loose fitting. Does the hood hide the logo, it would appear so?
This lady is approaching a bend, she would have to slow down, the entrance of this lane (lane which leads onto the top end of this path?)
This bend, does not appear to be a highly difficult manoeuvre, taken into account that she is driving in what would appear to be, an area with a 30mph limit in the first place. It is at a school, could even be less (20mph) Unlikely to be driving out with this - has children in the car.
Tie this sighting in with Jodi leaving home to meet Luke around 4.50.
It appears to be a usual meet place.
The timings 'roughly' tally.
This male and female 'IF' not Luke and Jodi - have never come forward.
To combat this we have:
This being Jodi with another male - simply can't have it all ways though?
AB not sighting any one at all - made it up to help the Jones'
This couple was neither of them - they just didn't bother to come forward.
People at bottom of path, what is the significance of their sighting, I’ve never really understood this? Maybe someone can explain what the relevance of this was and what it proved please?
[/color]
The people at the bottom of the path.
The relevance of this, is that Luke was identified standing at a gate, on Newbattle R'd, very close to the entrance of the path. Luke has only ever admitted walking as far as Barondale cottages. The first thing here therefore is the denial of this being him.
These witnesses did pick him out in court - simply followed the media in depth - watched the change in this laddie, knew it was him through this - picked him out.
They could have easily watched all media reports.
This also ties in with Luke being both at the top and bottom of the path - the main point of it.
Example: You see a young person (a cousin perhaps) frequently over a passage of time - they very much stay the same.
You don't see this person for nearly a year and a half - The change in them is remarkable. This example is a cousin though - they would of course still know them.
Behind this gate are little woodland paths. One of which leads into the bottom half of Newbattle Abbey Cres: For this you must cross the River Esk.
This 'instant' non traceable washing facility, is in my opinion - what was used to clean most of the blood etc away. There are many gaps in time, over the evening, in which to repeat this task. The result being that, any dna picked up from the scene, upon his own person (clothes excluded) was taken by this river. Remembering, that this is surface contamination - not deep set over a longer period of time. (couple of hrs in the woods, mucking around)
-
Spot on bullseye :)
The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.
-
The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.
You have not seen the crime scene photos, autopsy reports, or the pathologists court testimony. We need to see this material in order to make a our on judgement. Does Sandra expect people on the forum to investigate an alleged miscarriage of justice without seeing the material that convicted him?
If we had the material this thread would probably be 40 pages instead of 400.
PS: The circumstantial evidence is enough to infer that she would not have marked him.
-
The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.
What do we actually know about these statements, other than that they changed - from the dog scrambling, reacting at the wall to not reacting at all.
Is the discrepancy in where the dog reacted? rather than the reaction of the dog?
An example is given from one statement by SK, which is in connection with the dog being on its hind legs - nose level with the V?
What was actually said in those first statements that drew suspicion upon LM?
Did they all say that the dog scrambled about, around the V area?
Did LM further say that he had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
Did they all say that they had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
CM states in her podcast that JaJ gave evidence in court, to the effect that she had said, LM shone his torch to the left through this V? or saw LM shine his torch to the left? Appears she means whilst LM was over the V as she scoffs at the ability of JaJ being able to see through walls, as she wouldn't have been tall enough to see over this V?
SL:
So no-one, anywhere, ever (except for the prosecutor in grand theatrical style at trial) suggested the dog reacted 40 or 50 feet past the V break. But it's not irrelevant if the dog reacted 10 - 15 feet past the V - in fact, that tallies with what the Janine, Kelly and Luke all said in their initial statements - the gran couldn't say either way because she'd fallen a little behind the others and didn't see what the dog did. But that also tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice (who was behind him and therefore closest to the V) and the others carried on down the path.
[/color]
This omits to mention that, when giving a statement to the FLO, LM drew a diagram as to where this dog reacted. X marks the spot so to speak?
He shows the FLO where he and Mia? were on one side of the wall - using the words 'parallel' to where Jodi was on the other side?
Were the other members of the search party, also inclusive on this diagram? would imagine they would be of course.
Being parallel does suggest some 40ft past the V for this is how far it was?
Important in relation to the dog being able to strongly pick up a scent?
We know the Jury were taken to the locus, were the search party taken at any point - to clarify whom was where?
It is however relevant IF the dog did react JUST 10-15ft past this V rather than 40ft?
However, the dispute appears to have been, where everyone was when they all saw the dog reacting?
Was it around the V?
The theatrical style used at trial to determine this?
Think about it this way:
The search party walk 10-15 ft past this V, by this point AW is just approaching the V? about 10 -15 ft before the V?
Do all of the search party say in their statements, that they left this elderly woman on her own? That she had fallen someway behind?
The dog scrambles about at the wall, up on its legs air sniffing (at something 30 ft down from this point?)
We don't know which way the wind was blowing - what we do know is, its a damp, dreek night? It's a thick wall.
LM backtracks to the V in the wall whilst SK and JaJ continue down?
By the time LM gets to the V (mere seconds) AW has reached it?
He gives the lead to AW and goes over?
Not sure how, at this point JaJ sees him shining his torch to the left?
However, by the time LM is back, at the V, climbs over, walks down to the left - how far do we assume SK and JaJ have gone?
He shouts out and they backtrack to the V?
The dog at this point is on its hind legs at the V or was this on the way down?
Did the search party stop at the V on the way down?
Whose stories 'tallied' about the dogs lead getting handed to AW?
Were they all, around the V when this happened?
Your comment about the wee 'naff'? The bigger they are the harder they fall - comes to mind.
-
What do we actually know about these statements, other than that they changed - from the dog scrambling, reacting at the wall to not reacting at all.
Is the discrepancy in where the dog reacted? rather than the reaction of the dog?
An example is given from one statement by SK, which is in connection with the dog being on its hind legs - nose level with the V?
Luke admitted in the police interview that he 'found' the body
-
You have not seen the crime scene photos, autopsy reports, or the pathologists court testimony. We need to see this material in order to make a our on judgement. Does Sandra expect people on the forum to investigate an alleged miscarriage of justice without seeing the material that convicted him?
If we had the material this thread would probably be 40 pages instead of 400.
PS: The circumstantial evidence is enough to infer that she would not have marked him.
Investigate? You're just a bloke on an internet forum David! I really do think you forget that ::)
-
What do we actually know about these statements, other than that they changed - from the dog scrambling, reacting at the wall to not reacting at all.
Sorry mate but that to me is just long winded clap trap
Is the discrepancy in where the dog reacted? rather than the reaction of the dog?
An example is given from one statement by SK, which is in connection with the dog being on its hind legs - nose level with the V?
What was actually said in those first statements that drew suspicion upon LM?
Did they all say that the dog scrambled about, around the V area?
Did LM further say that he had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
Did they all say that they had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
CM states in her podcast that JaJ gave evidence in court, to the effect that she had said, LM shone his torch to the left through this V? or saw LM shine his torch to the left? Appears she means whilst LM was over the V as she scoffs at the ability of JaJ being able to see through walls, as she wouldn't have been tall enough to see over this V?
SL:
This omits to mention that, when giving a statement to the FLO, LM drew a diagram as to where this dog reacted. X marks the spot so to speak?
He shows the FLO where he and Mia? were on one side of the wall - using the words 'parallel' to where Jodi was on the other side?
Were the other members of the search party, also inclusive on this diagram? would imagine they would be of course.
Being parallel does suggest some 40ft past the V for this is how far it was?
Important in relation to the dog being able to strongly pick up a scent?
We know the Jury were taken to the locus, were the search party taken at any point - to clarify whom was where?
It is however relevant IF the dog did react JUST 10-15ft past this V rather than 40ft?
However, the dispute appears to have been, where everyone was when they all saw the dog reacting?
Was it around the V?
The theatrical style used at trial to determine this?
Think about it this way:
The search party walk 10-15 ft past this V, by this point AW is just approaching the V? about 10 -15 ft before the V?
Do all of the search party say in their statements, that they left this elderly woman on her own? That she had fallen someway behind?
The dog scrambles about at the wall, up on its legs air sniffing (at something 30 ft down from this point?)
We don't know which way the wind was blowing - what we do know is, its a damp, dreek night? It's a thick wall.
LM backtracks to the V in the wall whilst SK and JaJ continue down?
By the time LM gets to the V (mere seconds) AW has reached it?
He gives the lead to AW and goes over?
Not sure how, at this point JaJ sees him shining his torch to the left?
However, by the time LM is back, at the V, climbs over, walks down to the left - how far do we assume SK and JaJ have gone?
He shouts out and they backtrack to the V?
The dog at this point is on its hind legs at the V or was this on the way down?
Did the search party stop at the V on the way down?
Whose stories 'tallied' about the dogs lead getting handed to AW?
Were they all, around the V when this happened?
Your comment about the wee 'naff'? The bigger they are the harder they fall - comes to mind.
-
Sorry i meant to say that no offense intended but that is just alot of long winded clap trap
-
Luke admitted in the police interview that he 'found' the body
After the dog reacted at the wall and he doubled back and went over the v. Who else was going to find it?
-
After the dog reacted at the wall and he doubled back and went over the v. Who else was going to find it?
How do you know that happened and who does that come from?
According to this, Luke had lied about the circumstances of his dog leading him to the body.
"[94] The appellant's actions had also amounted to an attempt to construct a false defence; his explanations to police officers, and to the deceased's mother, as to why the deceased might not have arrived to meet him contradicted his knowledge of her movements on the evening of her death; he told David High that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear; and he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased. This was conduct from which incriminating inferences could be drawn."
That's from an appeal ruling. Now I'm all up for challenging an appeal courts claim but I need actual evidence to do that. 95% of what I have to go on here are the public appeal rulings. The other 5% being either Sandra typing docs verbatim or Newspapers. :-\
-
Mate, this information has been the case since the beginning and anyone who has followed the case knows about this information and where it came from. Its not anything new.
Obviously there going to say lukes lying at appeal.
Goan read the thread mate cos there is no point in answering your posts at the moment
-
I would imagine here, that if an appellant, set out to change the way in which they looked so drastically, it would be picked up on - you are of course correct, it would be extremely difficult to pick them out.
Luke didn't need to change the way he looked (Out with growing his hair long and tying it firmly back - the passage of time and aging process did the rest)
Would imagine that she most certainly did know it was him in court, she did not pick him out as she was going 'straight by the book' He did not look the same. She very easily, could have chosen not to watch media reports, should they influence her.
This sighting by AB, crucial and i understand totally, the attempts at ripping it apart.
Nothing less than perfection is required when the life imprisonment of a young laddie is at stake.
IF AB had gotten everything correct, to the last detail, would it have mattered. no?
People would be up in arms, as to how she managed to take so much detail in. We are talking recall here.
It was Luke whom captured her attention primarily. His actions of beckoning the female. In her recall she remembered these things.
There was a male and a female, the male was beckoning this female. The male was wearing green clothing.
Her mind piecing together this green clothing likens it to fishing style gear. It throws up other images.
His collar appears to be up and the jkt is hip length. A parka jkt has draw cords, these could have been pulled in, sitting the jkt around his hips. The hood is back and the top area where the zip meets is sticking up at each end, her mind pieces together a collar.
His hair is sticking out. Lukes hair is not poker straight when at neck length (unless pulled tightly back)
The females hair is long, it appears to be tied in a ponytail (there was a hair tie found tangled in her hair)
The females hair is black, her recall is of dark hair, her mind likens it to black.
She is wearing clothing that is dark, she tries her best to recall the colours, black-blue, her clothing is loose fitting. Does the hood hide the logo, it would appear so?
This lady is approaching a bend, she would have to slow down, the entrance of this lane (lane which leads onto the top end of this path?)
This bend, does not appear to be a highly difficult manoeuvre, taken into account that she is driving in what would appear to be, an area with a 30mph limit in the first place. It is at a school, could even be less (20mph) Unlikely to be driving out with this - has children in the car.
Tie this sighting in with Jodi leaving home to meet Luke around 4.50.
It appears to be a usual meet place.
The timings 'roughly' tally.
This male and female 'IF' not Luke and Jodi - have never come forward
When I read this I wasn’t sure if you actually believed this or were just trying to show that there were possibilities, now I’m not sure.
You see AB is quite definite in that she describes the girls top as blue. She describes the jeans as a lighter colour of blue in respect to the top and presumed they were jeans, you see both items of clothing are in confirmation of each other. She is sincere and happy with her ability to recall what the girl was wearing! I have said before it’s truly hard to find an actual Scottish female to have black hair, in my experience the majority of those I meet have very light, middle to dark brown and real black is normally dyed, however it’s not outwith the realms of possibility but just unlikely.
Its similar to what the male was wearing in regards to the colour, as stated before the colour would normally be the first thing to be noticed and it appears that it was, green jacket and khaki trousers, had the description remained rudimentary like that I could understand her maybe allowing her mind to fit pieces into the wrong places but she didn’t did she? She described the jacket quite accurately! Fishing style(notice though it’s only a style as opposed to say a fishing gillet with large pockets) therefore she’s not claiming the garment was one she would expect to be used by fishermen. Hip length with pocket on the sleeve, collar up. Now I defy anyone to be able to not disseminate between a bomber,parka and fishing style jacket as there all very prenounce style wise.
-
To combat this we have:
This being Jodi with another male - simply can't have it all ways though?
AB not sighting any one at all - made it up to help the Jones'
This couple was neither of them - they just didn't bother to come forward
I have to agree personally I don’t think of these two actually exist that they are not part of the crime but let’s look at possibilities as to why if they were two different people with no involvement might not come forward.
The usual things like two people who had partners who met up with each other having already been under suspicion by their partners might not want that meeting to come out, would that be justified when after all a brutal crime had been committed and their information could be invaluable! I don’t think so but others might look at self preservation first.
Most likely could be a young girl looking to buy drugs from a guy who wasn’t willing to give her what she wanted until she had paid, was this why the hands were out stretched in an attempt to show her he wasn’t willing to offer anymore tic until she had paid her bill. Possibly more likely that in the event of them being placed at a murder scene they would remain silent.
There are a few more for example a father who shouldn’t have been seeing his daughter after a split etc.ect.
-
The people at the bottom of the path.
The relevance of this, is that Luke was identified standing at a gate, on Newbattle R'd, very close to the entrance of the path. Luke has only ever admitted walking as far as Barondale cottages. The first thing here therefore is the denial of this being him.
These witnesses did pick him out in court - simply followed the media in depth - watched the change in this laddie, knew it was him through this - picked him out.
They could have easily watched all media reports.
This also ties in with Luke being both at the top and bottom of the path - the main point of it.
Example: You see a young person (a cousin perhaps) frequently over a passage of time - they very much stay the same.
You don't see this person for nearly a year and a half - The change in them is remarkable. This example is a cousin though - they would of course still know them
Normally when someone in Scotland has been charged with an offence the media isn’t allowed to show pictures or comment on the case so as not to prejudice possible jurors. That kind of makes your assumption redundant, even so both did a dock identification so it would mean that they had colluded with each other! I have no problem with that as the judge already knew they had when at various points at the trial they had displayed many things that were shown to have proven that collusion had taken place and they were warned that they could be held in contempt.
-
Behind this gate are little woodland paths. One of which leads into the bottom half of Newbattle Abbey Cres: For this you must cross the River Esk.
This 'instant' non traceable washing facility, is in my opinion - what was used to clean most of the blood etc away. There are many gaps in time, over the evening, in which to repeat this task. The result being that, any dna picked up from the scene, upon his own person (clothes excluded) was taken by this river. Remembering, that this is surface contamination - not deep set over a longer period of time. (couple of hrs in the woods, mucking around
This bit astounds me mate..,
With everything that was occurring that you feel he had the time to pop down to the river to strip and wash away any blood on his body!! Without getting his cloths wet and then making his way back to his house to change, get his mum to dispose of all the clothing that would have been contaminated also that he would have had to have put back on. Then make his way back to the point where he is positively seen.
Never mind that you call it instantly untraceable which is miles away from the truth , we have the whole eco system of the river, algae,larvae ,pupae and eggs never mind the enzymes and other identifiable naturals structures that would have been caught in areas of the body that would show that he had.
-
Behind this gate are little woodland paths. One of which leads into the bottom half of Newbattle Abbey Cres: For this you must cross the River Esk.
This 'instant' non traceable washing facility, is in my opinion - what was used to clean most of the blood etc away. There are many gaps in time, over the evening, in which to repeat this task. The result being that, any dna picked up from the scene, upon his own person (clothes excluded) was taken by this river. Remembering, that this is surface contamination - not deep set over a longer period of time. (couple of hrs in the woods, mucking around
This bit astounds me mate..,
With everything that was occurring that you feel he had the time to pop down to the river to strip and wash away any blood on his body!! Without getting his cloths wet and then making his way back to his house to change, get his mum to dispose of all the clothing that would have been contaminated also that he would have had to have put back on. Then make his way back to the point where he is positively seen.
Never mind that you call it instantly untraceable which is miles away from the truth , we have the whole eco system of the river, algae,larvae ,pupae and eggs never mind the enzymes and other identifiable naturals structures that would have been caught in areas of the body that would show that he had.
That’s not how it needs to have unfolded. The people that saw him did not take a close look at his clothes nor would they have been in any state of mind to at that time. The police did not search his house until five days after the crime. Neither do you address the fact they never recovered the green coat he was seen wearing and admits to wearing on the day of the crime.
-
That’s not how it needs to have unfolded. The people that saw him did not take a close look at his clothes nor would they have been in any state of mind to at that time. The police did not search his house until five days after the crime. Neither do you address the fact they never recovered the green coat he was seen wearing and admits to wearing on the day of the crime.
They took his green bomber jacket!! Why the hell would I comment on his state of mind it wasn’t in parky41’s post!
-
When I read this I wasn’t sure if you actually believed this or were just trying to show that there were possibilities, now I’m not sure.
You see AB is quite definite in that she describes the girls top as blue. She describes the jeans as a lighter colour of blue in respect to the top and presumed they were jeans, you see both items of clothing are in confirmation of each other. She is sincere and happy with her ability to recall what the girl was wearing! I have said before it’s truly hard to find an actual Scottish female to have black hair, in my experience the majority of those I meet have very light, middle to dark brown and real black is normally dyed, however it’s not outwith the realms of possibility but just unlikely.
Its similar to what the male was wearing in regards to the colour, as stated before the colour would normally be the first thing to be noticed and it appears that it was, green jacket and khaki trousers, had the description remained rudimentary like that I could understand her maybe allowing her mind to fit pieces into the wrong places but she didn’t did she? She described the jacket quite accurately! Fishing style(notice though it’s only a style as opposed to say a fishing gillet with large pockets) therefore she’s not claiming the garment was one she would expect to be used by fishermen. Hip length with pocket on the sleeve, collar up. Now I defy anyone to be able to not disseminate between a bomber,parka and fishing style jacket as there all very prenounce style wise
[/color]
Thank your for your response. It is of course, as expected. It is, as important as it is valid, for those close at heart to this case, set firmly in their beliefs to become defensive in a somewhat valiant way. I respect your views totally. I understand how deeply this involvement affects you.
I don't enter into, in-depth debate on these matters - I accept readily, each individuals choice of beliefs, especially with those who are very close to this case. You have spent the best part of 16yrs fighting for this laddies innocence. Within my own areas of study I have of course drawn my own conclusions. Some of which I put out for study purpose, some of personal evaluation, some to remind others of other mitigating factors.
Your response completes this area, for which I appreciate your help with humble gratitude, in highlighting my post.
We can conclude from this:
That ABs description was one of recall.
This was not some memory test, akin to someone being showing an image then later being asked certain questions in relation to this image.
This was a person who saw two people on her way home.
Her attention was drawn slightly more to these people because of the males actions.
An incident happens.
Her memory throws up this sighting. This sighting that was brief, she did not think ' Oh wait a minute, I better stop, have a good look at everything this couple is doing, perhaps take out her notepad and write a full 100% description down.
This witness does not go to the police and state:
That all of the clothing she describes is 100% correct.
She relates, to the best of her ability what her memory recalls.
It is neither exact or precise.
She ID's LM. It is him, that is implanted in her memory.
-
This bit astounds me mate..,
With everything that was occurring that you feel he had the time to pop down to the river to strip and wash away any blood on his body!! Without getting his cloths wet and then making his way back to his house to change, get his mum to dispose of all the clothing that would have been contaminated also that he would have had to have put back on. Then make his way back to the point where he is positively seen.
Never mind that you call it instantly untraceable which is miles away from the truth , we have the whole eco system of the river, algae,larvae ,pupae and eggs never mind the enzymes and other identifiable naturals structures that would have been caught in areas of the body that would show that he had.
[/color]
Agree: There wasn't time to pop down to any old river, this river being but feet from this gate, it was en-route to his home - he didn't need to shower when he got home, leaving any traces within the plumbing system.
All he needed at this point, was a quick change of clothing. I would have to see the forensic reports in full to see if any tests were done for algae, larvae, pupae and eggs or any other identifiable materials relating to rivers.
Taking into account of course, that whilst there would be all of the above in rivers - this isn't some slow flowing, almost stagnant water source.
What examples were taken that morning of the 1st? A hair sample, finger nails, check of body and clothing? Or just a check of body in general, DNA sample and clothing?
Apologies, I can understand why you may have picked up on this wrong.
By the exclusion of clothing - I simply meant, anything from himself thus nothing in the plumbing system, some 5 days later.
His clothing of course, would at this point have been in the river, especially his footwear.
There are no witnesses to any effect, either in this woodland area, going home - which is not surprising.
There are no witnesses of him at all between 17.42 and 17.55 on this 'very busy' R'd.
All that was needed in this short time frame was an immediate initial clean up, ( via this river )
Quick change of all clothing/footwear on, when entering the house and then onto Newbattle R'd to be witnessed.
His mother need not have seen him at this point.
He is sighted from 5.55 until 6.15 - then there is nothing until his meet with DH around 7pm
He leaves their company at 9pm which is unusual for him. (according to CM) That's if he did arrive home at 9pm.
They both state that he is home until 10.30 - he is witnessed at 10pm by a neighbour. It appears this house, is easy to access and depart from without others, within the household noticing.
We have this initial 13mins - could compel a list of things achievable? We also have from 17.32 until 17.38 a further 6 mins.
We have 45mins from 17.15 until 7pm
We have from 21.00 until approx. 23.00.
Over the course of the evening that is approx: just under 3hrs for disposal of evidence. Ample opportunity to be rid of any personal contamination and to get dirty from muckying it up in the woods.
There is more - as stated above, these are simply things I put out for different reasons - not for entering into some in-depth debate, which in itself is futile - there is no swaying of opinions to be had or attempted.
-
All the above doesn’t allow for the clean up at the scene, not just dna but footprints from very unusual boots , fibres caught on branches and all other possible sources.
-
All the above doesn’t allow for the clean up at the scene, not just dna but footprints from very unusual boots , fibres caught on branches and all other possible sources.
Agreed. Which applies across the board if the killer is another. They too doing a clean up whilst leaving traces of others behind.
-
Agreed. Which applies across the board if the killer is another. They too doing a clean up whilst leaving traces of others behind.
Except there were full profiles there!!
Plus many other returned non reportable, they couldn’t have been Luke’s or they would have been used, if however they were instructed to only compare them against Luke’s that may account for it.
-
as ab claims she dident know Jodi and at he time no pictures of Jodi had been released yet hw te hell could she of thought she had seen her.
-
Ok parky41 let’s look at possible disposal of the items that would incriminate the killer, what’s your opinion of using a scrapyard who could have a smelter or furnace but more probably a crusher that could lose the incriminating clothing and murder weapon?
-
Ok parky41 let’s look at possible disposal of the items that would incriminate the killer, what’s your opinion of using a scrapyard who could have a smelter or furnace but more probably a crusher that could lose the incriminating clothing and murder weapon?
Handy - Smelter being the best option.
If however we include the bike, CM's podcast - then both.
-
as ab claims she dident know Jodi and at he time no pictures of Jodi had been released yet hw te hell could she of thought she had seen her.
Perhaps the statements will inform us - Somewhere around the point when she states;
I saw Jodi and a male standing at the lane next to a high school, I knew it was Jodi as my husbands brother popped in and said - hey! do us a favour will ya, trot along to the local nick and say ?
Maybe she knew CM? took a leaf out of her book - silly boy S! trot along back to the local nick and tell um we had a burnt pie for dinner with floppy broccoli.
-
Perhaps the statements will inform us - Somewhere around the point when she states;
I saw Jodi and a male standing at the lane next to a high school, I knew it was Jodi as my husbands brother popped in and said - hey! do us a favour will ya, trot along to the local nick and say ?
Maybe she knew CM? took a leaf out of her book - silly boy S! trot along back to the local nick and tell um we had a burnt pie for dinner with floppy broccoli.
if you dont know somone and havent seena picture of them how can you thnk youve seen them.
-
Perhaps the statements will inform us - Somewhere around the point when she states;
I saw Jodi and a male standing at the lane next to a high school, I knew it was Jodi as my husbands brother popped in and said - hey! do us a favour will ya, trot along to the local nick and say ?
Maybe she knew CM? took a leaf out of her book - silly boy S! trot along back to the local nick and tell um we had a burnt pie for dinner with floppy broccoli.
There are no statements on here. No case documents. This is just an echo chamber of rumours, speculation and misinformation.
-
https://t.co/Vzoz8xcxgO?amp=1
why did john ferris cut his hair straght after the murder.
-
well not many people are so keen they do it themselves.
-
Why does anyone cut their hair?
Its seems that anyone is a suspect for any nonsensical reason. Yet the one and only suspect with considerable circumstancial evidence against him, is exempt from any suspicion.
-
Its seems that anyone is a suspect for any nonsensical reason. Yet the one and only suspect with considerable circumstancial evidence against him, is exempt from any suspicion.
Oh the irony! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The only way to cast serious doubt on ABs testimony is to show she could have seen somebody else.
A good example for what I am talking about here is the Timothy Hennis case. Prosecution witness reported the guy on the right(defendant) walking down the street in the middle of the night where the crime took place. Defence witness was the guy on the left who lived round the corner from the scene, he testified that he would often go out walking at night when he could not sleep.
(https://i.ibb.co/Q8HxGTs/hennis.png)
-
Some might call that a striking resemblance.
You should see the polar difference between 14 year old Luke Mitchell and irrelevant red herring Mark Kane back then. ;D ;D ;D
Sandra really has nothing.
The most compelling part is that she "heard" he owned a jacket at the time of the murder similar to the one that she has assured us is irrelevant because Luke didn't own his til after the murder.
And that he also liked Marilyn Manson... But apparently Luke wasn't a fan and there was no connection.
hahaha.
What made her get involved with the case? :-\
-
Much Like Luke's closest friends at the time who knew him best... Daddy thinks Luke is guilty - as does his apparant alibi Shane. I'd love to see Sandra come on and lie that they don't... I have it on good word that Shane will put her right if he sees her claiming such a thing, so go on Sandra prove me wrong. ;)
Also I have submitted a request for the full audio recording of Luke Mitchell's trial in terms of section 93 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and have paid the cost to Epiq Europe Ltd. If my request is accepted I should have the files within 15 days so we will have a fuller picture. Too bad Luke Mitchell sat there stone-faced and didn't say a word in his own defense. If James English does manage to get him on camera, it will be painfully obvious he's guilty. He has never been able to hide his arrogant smirk and dead eyes.
Whoever said earlier that Sandra witholds info because the more details released, the guiltier Luke appears = spot on.
have you bollocks.
-
Is nugnug Corrine Mitchell or Billy Middleton? That is the question
No one types like that
I know dyslexic people who don't type like that
Clearly a disguise.
Nugnug have you bollocks or not? :-\
-
Its seems that anyone is a suspect for any nonsensical reason. Yet the one and only suspect with considerable circumstancial evidence against him, is exempt from any suspicion.
being at amurder scene at the exact time the murder is supsed to have happend and then lying about the time they were on there then changing the apearence is nonsensical reason to suspect somone is it.
i see
-
Much Like Luke's closest friends at the time who knew him best... Daddy thinks Luke is guilty - as does his apparant alibi Shane. I'd love to see Sandra come on and lie that they don't... I have it on good word that Shane will put her right if he sees her claiming such a thing, so go on Sandra prove me wrong. ;)
Also I have submitted a request for the full audio recording of Luke Mitchell's trial in terms of section 93 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and have paid the cost to Epiq Europe Ltd. If my request is accepted I should have the files within 15 days so we will have a fuller picture. Too bad Luke Mitchell sat there stone-faced and didn't say a word in his own defense. If James English does manage to get him on camera, it will be painfully obvious he's guilty. He has never been able to hide his arrogant smirk and dead eyes.
Whoever said earlier that Sandra witholds info because the more details released, the guiltier Luke appears = spot on.
His own alibi witness thinks he is guilty? Then he can’t have been at home at the time of the murder.
Hopefully your request for the trial audio will come to fruition. Sandra is probably praying that it won’t.
-
His own alibi witness thinks he is guilty? Then he can’t have been at home at the time of the murder.
Hopefully your request for the trial audio will come to fruition. Sandra is probably praying that it won’t.
what is your source for cliaming that.
-
what is your source for cliaming that.
I put a question mark at the end of the sentence did I not?
PS: If you are indeed Corrine Mitchell as some suspect, surely you would know Shane’s position.
-
I put a question mark at the end of the sentence did I not?
PS: If you are indeed Corrine Mitchell as some suspect, surely you would know Shane’s position.
i have no idea what shanes postion is
i know lithum. has a history of making up crap.
-
What have I made up?
You've been caught misquoting people a few pages ago and lying about bruised knuckles.
Now you're stating as fact that GD and JF were at the scene at the time of the murder. No one knows that.
They were seen "on the path" that afternoon on their bike.
How this has been twisted into their bike being propped against the V in the wall at the suspected time of murder, is just another example of Sandra's handy work.
the path is the scene and we fromm the trail reporting what time hey were on there.
it also comfirms that they lied abut the time they were on.
-
They lied but Shane and Corine were all just "mistaken".
The path isn't the scene. If that tool hire employee didn't walk directly past the v-break in the wall at 5:15 he can't say the bike was parked their unmanned. Are you saying now he passed the v-break at 5:15?
Will Sandra provide this person's statement? I'm guessing no because it's flimsy af considering it wasn't mentioned in the SCCRC submission.
erm they admitted to bein there.
-
The idea that Nugnug is CM, does make a lot of sense to me.
Who else other than Corrine Mitchell would spend 10 years on internet forums debating the case and not work out the obvious?
It explains the apparent emotional investment and zealotry also. :-\
-
The idea that Nugnug is CM, does make a lot of sense to me.
Who else other than Corrine Mitchell would spend 10 years on internet forums debating the case and not work out the obvious?
It explains the apparent emotional investment and zealotry also. :-\
why would cm have an intrest in the jeremy bamber case.
and my conidereble intrest in other cases as well. such as denisdechane nd nora jackson.
seems you have given up on acully debating the facts of the case.
and what do you mean by zealotry theres people eaually passionate about jeremys case there not related to him.
-
seems you lot of given up on arguing the case.
and just decided o make daft personal coments.
says a lot really doesn't bther me if the threads closed its already far to long.
-
seems you lot of given up on arguing the case.
and just decided o make daft personal coments.
says a lot really doesn't bther me if the threads closed its already far to long.
What is there left to argue?
-
you lot
who is "you lot" ?- everyone els, other thn those few who buy into sandra unsubstanciated guesses and theorys?
-
who is "you lot" ?- everyone els, other thn those few who buy into sandra unsubstanciated guesses and theorys?
Even they seem to have gone quiet.
-
"you lot" lol does nugnug think it's balanced?
There's about 3 people who believe Luke is innocent.
:)) :)) :))
When will we know if your request for the trial will be accepted on not?
-
No idea, weeks probably. I'm not hopeful, I'm not sure my reason is enough and she said requests are declined for all different reasons.
OK.
-
No idea, weeks probably. I'm not hopeful, I'm not sure my reason is enough and she said requests are declined for all different reasons.
So, if the rules on releasing copies are that strict, then to be fair to Sandra, I can quite understand why she won't post her copies on a public forum.
-
"you lot" lol does nugnug think it's balanced?
There's about 3 people who believe Luke is innocent.
:)) :)) :))
And about 3 that listen to your hearsay
-
Nothing to argue, if you want to spend another 10 years arguing the same nonsense over & over again, then i suggest you see a psychiatrist (you probably have already) Unless we see the documents, then it is absolutely pointless to discuss this any farther.
I think that seems pretty obvious to be the reason you have appeared mate, to try to stop it from being discussed.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/anMnuw2.gif)
Laughing at your own jokes now mate, you da man.
Ie told you for a long time who it was.
-
Or do we want to discuss AB for the gazillion time?
Or how about stocky man for the gazillion time?
How about the jacket?
On & on & on.
Non of it got past the SCCRC, because it is a joke.
this is the jeremy bamber forym his conviction has be/en debated for over 30 years
so if a thirty year old conviction can still be debated a a 14 year old one ceranly can.
-
Aww that is cute.
Lets discuss then.
A load of pages back, Lean claimed some bloke from the tip held back on emptying bin lorries, because he was hoping the police would call. Who was the bloke? What authority did he have to hold up the bin lorry service, in the hope the police would call? Why did this bloke or the council not call the police and ask? Let's not forget about the health & safety reasons, regarding leaving shit in the back of lorries for long periods of time. So many holes in this comment she made.
I also want to know what the guy/guys at the tool hire place said in their statements, word for word, not a cut/edited Lean version. Did they see F&D and the moped at the V or not? It is the impression that has been giving. Or did they just chase them from the yard?
JF stepped over the body? TWICE. Prove it > discuss.
Id like to know how sk spunk was on birds wee sis bra and t shirt anaw big ane , haha. An naw i dinnae think ee kilt er.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.2970.html
Quote from: Lithium on October 17, 2015, 12:06:PM
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?
[/color]
Quote nugnug
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.
[/color]
In this short space of time - There are 3 sightings proposed of Jodi, two of people who may have known her, witnessed on Easthouses R'd. I had always assumed this was a Road a few minutes away from her house and further still away from the Entrance to this path from Eashouses itself?(SL's timings of 8mins to this path entrance?) There appears to be two Easthouses Roads? One which runs directly in front of this girls house. It cuts off from another Easthouses Road which appears to be far busier. If these two sightings were on the busier one, more so these being the sightings with Stocky man? Stocky man subsequently being eliminated from the investigation.
One of these girls witnessed someone giving a high-five. She recognized him as being Stocky man. He was traced, he had been in another country but had been on this R'd prior to going away? Thus the elimination, this sighting was on a different day?? Stand to be corrected here, if these sightings were definitely on the 30th? what the police did to back this up? If this was indeed the same day - did the girl who gave a wrongful ID then confirm the other girls sighting by way of ID? The guy from a funeral? Is there corroboration?
Did AB go to the police and say she saw Jodi? confused - did she not go to the police and say she saw a male and a female?
Of these couple of sightings , these people just vanish. We are not talking about multiple sightings of many - which in turn would give more odds on just 3 not coming forward. Coincidently being around the times of the deceased leaving home to meet with her boyfriend. Coincidently, broadly matching the description of the deceased and her boyfriend.
-
Qoute Lithium
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?
[/color]
Qoute Sandra L
Could have been anybody, since none of the descriptions fitted Luke or Jodi, and all of the timings were changed. We don't know for sure what time Jodi left - 4.50, just after 5 or 5.30. Andrina Bryson's sighting described a girl in blue bootcut jeans slightly lighter than the plain blue sweatshirt she was wearing. (The colour of the Newbattle High School sweatshirt, incidentally). Jodi was wearing very baggy trousers with a black zip up hoodie with a huge orange "Deftones" logo across the back, and two smaller logos on the sleeve and the front.
[/color]
Clarification here? AB's description, initially as above then perhaps shown some pictures of clothing? Where the clothes described as being dark blue top with lighter bootcut jeans? Or medium blue top with light denim jeans? What shade of blue sweatshirts do this school use? I googled their school colours (cant post pic as involves images of people) Their blue sweatshirts are not much darker than the colour of this forum? Quite a distinct difference?
Quote Sandra L
Andrina Bryson's description was of a youth "late teens to early twenties" with brown, thick, messy hair with a clump standing up at the back. He was wearing "fisherman" style clothes - jacket and trousers both of the same colour/design. Her sighting was originally much later - well after 5pm.
[/color]
Shoulder length with sticky bits at back? Shoulder length being on a level with the shoulder - not running along the top of this jacket flowing onto the shoulders? The other 11 pics shown in the photo ID , did any of them have hair as you describe above - outwith the white background, did they all look exactly the same or a good mix of different styles and colours, age etc? Yet she chose the one with light hair -sticking out at the bottom of his neck? Not poker straight? Police ended up using bank receipts as opposed to till reciept - more accurate. but used in conjunction with till receipt perhaps, when they were trying to determine what time she had passed this entrance? Much like they did with lots of other timings to ascertain more levels of accuracy?
-
Quote from: Lithium on October 17, 2015, 12:06:PM
Quote nugnug
In this short space of time - There are 3 sightings proposed of Jodi, two of people who may have known her, witnessed on Easthouses R'd. I had always assumed this was a Road a few minutes away from her house and further still away from the Entrance to this path from Eashouses itself?(SL's timings of 8mins to this path entrance?) There appears to be two Easthouses Roads? One which runs directly in front of this girls house. It cuts off from another Easthouses Road which appears to be far busier. If these two sightings were on the busier one, more so these being the sightings with Stocky man? Stocky man subsequently being eliminated from the investigation.
One of these girls witnessed someone giving a high-five. She recognized him as being Stocky man. He was traced, he had been in another country but had been on this R'd prior to going away? Thus the elimination, this sighting was on a different day?? Stand to be corrected here, if these sightings were definitely on the 30th? what the police did to back this up? If this was indeed the same day - did the girl who gave a wrongful ID then confirm the other girls sighting by way of ID? The guy from a funeral? Is there corroboration?
Did AB go to the police and say she saw Jodi? confused - did she not go to the police and say she saw a male and a female?
Of these couple of sightings , these people just vanish. We are not talking about multiple sightings of many - which in turn would give more odds on just 3 not coming forward. Coincidently being around the times of the deceased leaving home to meet with her boyfriend. Coincidently, broadly matching the description of the deceased and her boyfriend.
hy would you go and a female ffs what se would that be.
-
Exactly
both made up by Lean.
Condom Man would have actually had to make some conscious effort to go out of his way to step over the body when you consider where the condom was found in relation to the body. But Sandra wants youtube viewers to think he seen the body and simply stepped over it twice. Complete fiction but sounds the part.
I also think it's Sandra who decided the employee seen it parked directly at the V. She's the only source for this so until she provides proof that anyone said this, I don't believe it.
If there was a condom, is it not far more likely that it was deposited there before Jodi was killed?
-
Sandra on other forum now becaus she isnt supportd here?
internationalskeptics.com
The theory about Jodi finding out about the other girlfriend and the ensuing fight getting out of hand was dreamed up by SIO Dobbie, but the interrogating officer in the Section 14 interview on August 14th 2003 (six weeks after the murder) was trying to suggest that Luke killed Jodi in a fit of jealousy that she might be cheating on him (even though, again, there was no evidence to support such a suggestion).
...except txt msgs found on luke phone and her statemntss
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #2943 on: October 12, 2015, 06:57:AM »
Qoute Sandra L
Wrong question, I'm afraid - it should have been, when did this increase from 20 to 50. The first references to the condom stated "20 yards from the body," This later changed to "within a 20 yard radius" and then, later still, to "within a 50 yard radius."
Each of the subseequent changes were in reports from experts who were asked to examine specific factors - the DNA and the condom lubricant - so these changes occurred over a 6 month period. By the time the case came to trial, the "50 yard radius" was the favoured term.
It always struck me as a strange way to refer to something speciific found near a murder scene - within a "radius" means it could have been north, south, east or west of the body. 20 yards in a particular direction is very specific, and allows investigators to make assumptions about the owner of the condom - either he came from the west (Newbattle end) and dropped the condom 20 yards from body, or he came from the east, passed right by the body and carried on for another 20 yards before dropping it. Of course, they had no information about the owner in 2003, and were clearly of the impression the condom could have been linked to Luke, hence the amount of interest in it. Falconer's own explanation in 2006 tells us the owner came from the east, passed the body and carried on for 20 yards, dropped the condom, then retraced his steps, passing the body a second time.
If he didn't see the body, this raises serious questions about the claimed time of death - the route he claimed to have taken meant he had to literally step over the body twice - he could not have failed to see it. So either (a) he lied about not seeing the body, (b) he dropped the condom before 5.15, but told the police it was much later or (c) the body was not lying where it was found between 8pm and 9pm. Interestingly, this is one of the estimated times (8-9pm) given by Dickie senior as to when he was over the wall with 8 dogs, and neither he nor they noticed anything either.
[/color]
Would the interest not have been that within these perimeters of searching they found more than one condom (another being in a monks cave). That these simply could not be discarded - testing of them surely showing thoroughness in this investigation. Certainly , if after testing, it had been Luke's DNA then it would have been attributed to him having been in the woodland area. Which, as with the owner - would have been somewhat silly to leave this behind, yet showing carefulness in the leaving no other traces of DNA.
This walking passed? Is there an actual path that goes right passed - there appears to be the one LM and co walked, narrowly, directly on the inside of this wall? Did JaF state that he had walked, directly along the inside of this wall? Not in the actual woodland?
Slightly puzzled here?
It appears this girl was left almost hidden - throughout the course of this evening, until being found no-one came across her. EVEN IF, that's a big IF JaF had to have stepped over her?? She clearly wasn't in easy sight of anyone who would have been on the woodland side? She was not found?
This is with dog walkers being out and about, of that evening.
With the search party - LM, SK and AW , they had to go some distance, along the inside of this wall, with torches on, seeing something behind a large tree? This large wall beside them too?
The first pathologist could not get over this V. Does this show that there was no other easier access to this locus?
Simply put - does JaF say he went over this V, walked along the inside of this wall for More than a 100ft? does it go that far? (given the minimal of 20yds and not 50 radius?) More so if it is nearer to the 50yds does the path go 150ft? Or does JaF walk into the woodland and follow a path?
This does not appear to be an open expanse area? CM stating, you could hardly move for bits of branches etc getting caught in her hair??
-
why would anybdy walk into a police station and say they had seen a boy and a girl what the hell significance would it be.
surely she would say boys and girls walking down the street all the time.
and more importantly why would the police be intrested in such a sighting.
-
If there was a condom, is it not far more likely that it was deposited there before Jodi was killed?
What does seem apparent is that the location of where it was found - did not appear to be in sight of where the deceased was. This area of woodland being somewhat dense. I feel in any investigation, that if this warranted further - widespread DNA testing, believing that it was somewhat involved in the crime - this would have happened.
I just can't get my head around, a condom that was left full of sperm (not directly next to the deceased)being dumped in a woodland area, pointing towards the 'killer'.
IF any of the sperm samples found on the clothing etc - threw up a match to this condom, this would obviously be entirely different - also anything from the condom, DNA of the victims?
Outwith this - I get, that three years later his identity became known. Using perhaps his whereabouts to ascertain if he would have seen anything, this in the very least trying to determine 'another' TOD.
If he had been involved at the time or witnessed anything - surely his directions given, would have taken him away from the immediate locus?
Whatever the directions given - it would seem clear that he did not see anything?
Three years to think, of all and every possible route distanced from the immediate situ? if his DNA was ever to enter the database?
His somewhat 'odd' habit to some may be very tame in comparison with others - who are we to judge?
It appears he did the very same again, within days of this discovery?
-
She is all over the place, any forum that talks about this case, she pops up with her nonsense. I noticed one poster, posted pics of the Easthouses end of the path from google maps, and goes on some long-winded rant, about left & rights, i wonder if Lean will tell him, that the area has changed dramatically since, so posting updated google map imagines & basing your theories on that, is a bit daft. But i guess she needs the attention, without getting pulled up and asked back-up her nonsense. Lithium absolutely owns her here.
It is quite simple, she needs to back up what she is saying, she is unemployable, so she has plenty time to get a pdf file and start uploading witness statements. She can start with the tool hire guys.
[/color]
I believe the basis of this, is determining if AB had been travelling into Easthouses or on her way out?
It seems pretty clear from her evidence, that she was leaving:
She had been into Easthouses to look at a property for sale,
Driving into a cul-de-sac and out again - then heading back to Morris R'd and home at the 'Bryans'?
She mentions Findlay, 'maybe' cottoning onto her driving in the wrong direction, then simply leaves it, pushing the issue no further?
Could it simply be that Findlay was trying to trip her up?
She was sticking to her facts thus he gave up?
I noted, that the poster was determining if these bends were difficult to manoeuvre?
A school area - speed restrictions - All which spell - slow speed.
She was looking onto this lane as she was approaching the bend.
The male caught her attention.
-
She is all over the place, any forum that talks about this case, she pops up with her nonsense. I noticed one poster, posted pics of the Easthouses end of the path from google maps, and goes on some long-winded rant, about left & rights, i wonder if Lean will tell him, that the area has changed dramatically since, so posting updated google map imagines & basing your theories on that, is a bit daft. But i guess she needs the attention, without getting pulled up and asked back-up her nonsense. Lithium absolutely owns her here.
It is quite simple, she needs to back up what she is saying, she is unemployable, so she has plenty time to get a pdf file and start uploading witness statements. She can start with the tool hire guys.
What makes her unemployable? Its not often you get someone with a PhD on the dole. ???
-
PhD in trolling forums? She has not worked for years.
I remember this subject coming up a few weeks ago.
Sandra wrote
Why is my occupation relevant? In the time I've been involved with this case, I've worked in a Natural Health Centre, as a care assistant, an events co-ordinator for a government organisation, in a d-i-y store, as a guest lecturer and as a clinical hypnotherapist. What relevance do any of those have to the case?
-
Well thanks for that, a nice informative post. You should maybe hook up with Lean & join the cause, you could scare the opposition with your weegie growl, that will get him off the hook.
Just thought you might understand me better
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #3055 on: October 20, 2015, 07:30:AM »
Quote Sandra L
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.
Much of the immediate family's testiony was unsubstantiated and allowed to be taken at face value. Take, for example, Judith's claim that she returned to the Mitchell home a second time to ask Luke why he hadn't called back that night when Jodi didn't show.
From the statements, this was claimed to be after the first raid on Friday 4th July (specifically, the evening of Saturday 5th.) By the police's own admission, Luke was a suspect from July 3rd (it has now been proven it was earlier than that) - why did they allow Judith to enter the home of their prime suspect? In any other case, that would be considered an attempt at entrapment (as was the deployment of the liaison officer.) But Judith's claim - that she asked Luke why he hadn't called back- is completely unsubstantiated. Joseph was with her that evening - why wasn't he called to the stand and asked to corroborate Judith's claim? Why was what was, in law, simple hearsay, allowed to stand as evidence? They had the means to corroborate it - why didn't they use it? So many rules broken in this one piece of "evidence" alone.
[/color]
This shows that the police, FLO and press weren't there 24/7?
I presume Luke's response to this question was witnessed?
What was his response to the question?
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #1689 on: August 21, 2012, 12:40:PM »
Sorry I couldnt get back on to post sooner - my internet connection at home has been down since Monday morning. As I'm not at home, though, I don't have access to the papers, so please bear with me!
I have already explained that I cannot post the actual documents which provide the sort of "proof" Lithium is asking for, but to deal with some of the points which have come up since I've been offline:
Judith mentioned Joseph's illness in court, during her evidence, so that information is in the public domain. The background to that evidence is not public nowledge, however, but there have been discussions about it on several inernet sites. So no,, he was not just a regular, healthy guy, sadly, he had a mental illness which had been, according to Judy herself, "difficult" for the family to deal with. I have seen the statements which make reference to these matters, and they confirm the extent of the illness - I can't, obviously, quote from the medical reports, as that would be both unlawful and completely inappropriate.
Those of us who try to highlight the various points in this case are continually hampered by the ridiculous state of afairs in Scotland whereby we can't simply post the documents and be done, but that is the way of it.
Joseph's illness does not make him a murderer, and no-one on WAP has ever made such a claim. The questions raised by his illness, and the behaviours that illness had previously manifested, are what concern me - why were they not properly checked out?
[/color]
Whilst nattering away with a fellow student (whom is studying in different criteria around MOJ's) Discussing aspects of disclosure. We got onto the subject of evidence put before Jurors etc. I had been highlighting an area you mention quite frequently, around 'airbrushing' certain people and areas of evidence. Joey? as some appear to call him came up in this discussion. Sometimes, as you all will be aware - discussion on a given subject helps in clarification. It appears here that Joey's medical reports are in the case files? - Obtaining a persons medical reports are done primarily for, in depth knowledge of a person and their health, mental or otherwise? It troubled us somewhat therefore, that this person most certainly must have been checked out properly as opposed to being 'airbrushed. Through-out this investigation medical reports were obtained. Also, (above) having seen "the statements" which appear to be many? given in-depth insight into Joey's mental health problems. Showing that he was far from being airbrushed out his investigation.
It has been noted before that he had no alibi when his parents visited a grave?
That a sighting of stocky man may have been him?
Is this the same stocky man from another witness whom identified someone in a group of males?
Is it the same witness who then went onto identify another guy from a funeral?
Was the high five at a funeral?
Simply - how many stocky men are there?
Which of the Easthouses roads were these sightings?
-
To proceed with any conviction, are not all known males (if males are attributed to said crime) thoroughly investigated, if for no other purpose than that of securing 'no surprises' within the trial? and for further stumbling blocks upon appeal procedures? Certain protocols of investigation are followed to prohibit further actions re appeals and so forth.
I do agree however, that all of the 'other' males in this investigation were eliminated.
That 'other' behavioural tendencies, by far out weighed, what may have been apparent in Luke.
That these most certainly beg the question, why did the police set their sights on Luke as their prime suspect?
It matters not how many times one may say 'there was absolutely no evidence against Luke'
He simply was not targeted, just for the sheer hell of it? Especially more so, with all these other prime candidates?
Any investigation would have been whooping in delight, when full DNA profiles were obtained of a male, within close proximity of this case.
Would it really have mattered therefore, that if the police were needing to get results, for the public to get a 'killer' seemingly off the streets? who they chose? Why not go with Kelly, GD, JF, MK, JaF and Joey? If there is so much accumulative evidence against them?
In agreement though, that the failure to obtain direct evidence against their prime suspect, resulted in procuring an arrest and conviction a somewhat difficult task.
They chose not to go with easy options of fitting up more definable 'others', they chose to go with the person they clearly thought responsible. And there would definitely have been sound reason for their suspicion. Yes I used the word 'sound' albeit circumstantial.
There was a meeting to be had,
There was a sighting of two people.
There was a very unsound alibi.
There was time for this crime to take place - this is without having to go over every minute detail.
There was a further sighting.
There was ample opportunity over that night to dispose and clean of incriminating DNA
There were ample lies told throughout.
There is no substantial DNA to merit it being another - transfer of sperm included. DNA alone does not make a 'killer'
The most telling sign of any defence in attack is what may lie within the victims finger nails.
These were not tested wrongly - feeble excuse for there being none of the attackers DNA there.(IMO)
There simply, was none of the attackers DNA in the fingernails.
That does not eliminate Luke, it is across the board. It is a major tell tale sign of how incapacitated the victim became from the off. So much emphasis put on how unlikely it is for a 14yr old to commit this heinous crime - not enough put on the fear in which this young girl of 14 would have endured. Flight rather than fight would be a fairer assumption.
This does point at the victim being in this locality with someone she knew and trusted. Is there anything to suggest she would have wandered into this woodland alone?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this would have been with Joey. DNA across the board - unlike Luke it would be more answerable to, living in the same house. He had mental health problems, in your eyes he should have endured more after being thoroughly investigated. Put him through the ringer more - without any evidence, stand him in court and accuse him ( like GD,JF and SK) because you feel he deserved it? because you feel the Jury had a right to know of his illness without any proof of being suspect in his sisters murder. And this is the type of justice you fight for?
There is nothing to suggest that this would have been with Kelly, GD an JF. Again across the board with DNA.
We have by all accounts - this duo on the bike being in this vicinity for all of 20mins? We are to believe that they came across this girl, got her into the woods for drugs? killed her, leaving nothing of themselves behind, toddled of home to be witnessed by other people, without nothing on them either? Nothing at all to direct anything towards a meet with them? Their bike 'may' have been around this V for a couple of minutes - are you suggesting it could have happened in that time? They have a gang-hut "just feet" from where this girl was found? How many feet was this? .
There is nothing to suggest that this would have been with a stranger. (If a stranger then defence would have been in an instant - more probable that there would have been DNA trace within the fingernails. To be in this secluded woodland, senses alert for 'strangers' about. On guard for anyone pouncing out. That's IF the sighting by AB was not Luke and Jodi. That's If there is anything to suggest she would go into this woodland alone. Anything concrete? Rather than speculation. Fight of flight again - dependant totally on the IF's of being in this woodland alone.
The safety of Luke's conviction should not be at the expense of producing those eliminated from the case before the Jury. To 'muddy' the waters. If we were to apply this across the board on any trial - cases would go on for ever and a day. There has to be a line somewhere. In this case, the most attributable males, closely connected were investigated - of those needing further ?s upon them, that the Jury did need to be made aware of were present, SK, JF, GD and the awareness of the condom? Others in subsequent appeals.
People are aware of the consistent claims of new evidence, major breakthroughs yet here it is 16yrs later and nothing majorly new has come to light. More importantly nothing in these claims were agreed by the SCCRC or appeals beforehand.
This new full DNA profile from sperm heads upon the deceased trousers, led to believe that one is waiting on a match to happen? This has come in the form of little drops in debates - no one is shouting from any roof tops that new, unknown sperm DNA full profiles? were found? Why is that? What is the actual accuracy in this new found DNA from 6 yrs ago? It has been simply panned off by - the SCCRC not being interested in new suspects? Really? I as many, would imagine that 'new' fully marked up profiles of another person in the form of sperm would result in something? There is a question mark in the balance here - was there a full profile obtained from this DNA? We know it did not match Luke - Did it match Kelly or is it a completely. new full profile? Or a full profile at all?
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #3125 on: October 23, 2015, 07:52:PM »
Quote
[quote]Fifty witnesses if I remember correctly said he was wearing a green army shirt were they all wrong then[/quote]
Quote Sandra L
more than fifty witnesses, for accuracy! Green army shirt, with descriptions that matched Luke "to a T" - not a single one of them called to give evidence - and not a single statement from any of them in the defence papers.
Where did they go? What happened to them? How do we account for "evidence" in august 2003 changing so dramatically by April 2004?
[/color]
Qoute Baz
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.
[/color]
Quote Sandra L
And Baz and I were talking about the 50 plus witnesses the police said, in August 2003, had seen Luke tht evening in a green army shirt. Those 50 plus descriptions, they said, matched Luke "to a T."
So what happened to them? And why, when they had such strong descriptions in August 2003 did they go looking, in April 2004, for a Parka jacket? Did they suddenly accept that all 50 plus were mistaken? If so, why?
[/color]
Confused? On the night in question 50+ witnesses came forward and stated they saw someone "matching Luke to a T" in a green army shirt?
Where about? On Newbattle Road? In this Abbey? In Easthouses?
-
Is this why Sandra has fled this forum?
No, you should no the answer to that , warrior.
-
His explanation to why he was there, Seems quite plausible to me, odd behaviour? Maybe, but probably not as uncommon as people think. But to suggest that he stepped over a body twice, ignored what he saw & went about his daily business without a second thought of what he stepped over, is utter madness.
Agree - If this is to show suspicious behaviour in locality of locus to which direction he had taken.
There was a high wall which seems to have a narrow path along its inside.
There is a large 'oak' tree which blocked the view of this search party (LM's description)
The deceased was behind this tree.
In what way could he have managed to step over? - through this wall, through this tree?
Perhaps he was apt in long jump?
-
The narrow path goes right up to and past the tree. He probalbly cane from another direction imo
-
Bearing in mind there was blood on various objects and clothing scattered around he would have had to have come from the opposite direction not to hve seen anything imi
-
Whos lying
-
The narrow path goes right up to and past the tree. He probalbly cane from another direction imo
Thanks - I feel you are probably correct. It does not appear to be feasible that there are multiple 'walked' routes around situ. This girl lay undiscovered this entire summers evening.
-
Bearing in mind there was blood on various objects and clothing scattered around he would have had to have come from the opposite direction not to hve seen anything imi
There appears to be no information as to where exactly this condom was discarded.
From this, there is no way of telling which way he may have travelled.
Like most of the information put out - JaF's direction some 3 years later, are in the hands of SL.
I have discovered already that she had the search party walking backwards - whilst walking 'directly' to this path??
Hinting at ulterior motives for the search trio, having one aim in mind - to get to this path asap?
That they did not phone nor search anywhere else?
Scotts caravans are mentioned. (Mitchell business?)
The search party seemed to have been informed that Jodi had not been with her boyfriend that evening,
Why would they therefore go into a business, which one would suppose was closed? on her own without her boyfriend?
-
Also would like to see the statement from the tool hire employee stating they seen the moped propped against the v at 5:15pm. I believe this to be another stretch of the truth by Sandra.
SL has went into detail before stating that this 'V' is well hidden. If therefore, there are witnesses to the bike being at this 'V', at no less or more that 5.15pm, these witnesses, surely must have been on this path too?
-
Sandra doesn't even know, she has said both 50 meters and 20 yards. So how she can decide he had to step over the body is ludicrous.
Im sure sandra said origionally it was reported as 20 yards/ metres, by tthe time it hit the papers and stuff it had increased to 50.
Even if it was 10 yards from the body he still wouldn't have any reason to step over Jodi to leave it there. Pure sensationalism from SL.
-
Also would like to see the statement from the tool hire employee stating they seen the moped propped against the v at 5:15pm. I believe this to be another stretch of the truth by Sandra.
Why? They admitted to being there, but couldnt explai. What tbey were doing there.
From sl from case papers before i get asked
-
Sorry was meant to say origionaly reported as 20m but for some reason was later extended to 50m from the body
-
There appears to be no information as to where exactly this condom was discarded.
From this, there is no way of telling which way he may have travelled.
Like most of the information put out - JaF's direction some 3 years later, are in the hands of SL.
I have discovered already that she had the search party walking backwards - whilst walking 'directly' to this path??
Hinting at ulterior motives for the search trio, having one aim in mind - to get to this path asap?
That they did not phone nor search anywhere else?
Scotts caravans are mentioned. (Mitchell business?)
The search party seemed to have been informed that Jodi had not been with her boyfriend that evening,
Why would they therefore go into a business, which one would suppose was closed? on her own without her boyfriend?
Search party walking backwards?
Going toscotts caravans is new to me.
-
Why is Sandra going off media reports?
Doesn't she have the documents?
The profile wasnt matched till 3 years later so it was later reported as 50m
-
Wait what? First off that is not the impression that has been given, the tool hire guys seen it apparently. Second, you need to make up your mind, if these two are telling the truth or not, you cant pick parts of what they have said, then dismiss other things that have been said, there is a word for that double standards.
Whoever spotted the moped at the v point wasnt on the path so the cyclist wouldnt have seen them. To be fair i cant remember if it was the tool hire worker or not. But the two on the moped admitted to being over tbe v break in the wall but couldnt remember what they were doing over there.
So where was the moped then if it wasnt propped against the v when they admit they were over the wall at the alleged time of the murder
-
50 meters or 20 yards - why is Sandra saying he'd have to step over Jodi's body twice to leave it there??? Have you visited the murder scene?
I have, many times. Thats why i meant earlier he would have had to have came and went back the same way he came for to have not seen anything. But i dont know in what direction from the body the condom was found, so, so im personally saying that it is possible imo to have missed the body, clothes and various other things that were all lying about
-
Search party walking backwards?
Going toscotts caravans is new to me.
Apologies Marty - I had thought you were well versed on these issues.
-
I'm certain at this point this statement from the tool hire employee has been muddied and twisted by Sandra Lean.
Much like AB's husband being in the Jones house the morning after the murder.
Or Condom Man having to step over the body twice.
Or there being no reports of burning in Mitchell's garden.
etc etc
What witnesses were these if not the Tool Hire employee?
Don't forget Luke's admission that he had a green jacket on that day. = (Luke describes his clothes)
-
Why? They admitted to being there, but couldnt explai. What tbey were doing there.
From sl from case papers before i get asked
What seems to be relevant here is these claims that this bike was witnessed at this 'V'.
For other person/s to have witnessed this at the 'V' suggests they must have been on this path also?
This in itself is extremely important.
-
I'd love Sandra to post a map showing the location of the body and location of the condom 50 meters away and repeat that he would have to had step directly over the body twice. She won't. There's a reason this diagram doesn't already exist.
Agree.
-
The profile wasnt matched till 3 years later so it was later reported as 50m
Was it not 50yards at trial - not 3 years later?[/list]
-
I have, many times. Thats why i meant earlier he would have had to have came and went back the same way he came for to have not seen anything. But i dont know in what direction from the body the condom was found, so, so im personally saying that it is possible imo to have missed the body, clothes and various other things that were all lying about
I presume you have been made privy to this map/directions given and exact location of body/clothing and so forth?
I am under the impression that the deceased was very much hidden from view?
Basing this on the fact that she was not discovered over the course of this evening?
TOD - surely gave some indication?
Within X amount of time or greater than X amount of time.
Dobbie, couldn't/wouldn't get away with estimating this TOD without some form of back up?
I'm under the impression - due to climate factors this could not be exact, which makes complete sense.
-
She never even knew them back in the day.
would not be so certainabout that
-
We know you are lurking Lean.
The tool hire business is approx 0.4 miles from the V by foot.
Did the tool hire worker see the bike at the V or not? That is the impression that has been giving.
If so, then why did he go chasing after them? What did he hope to achieve? Leaving his work place, do his collogues confirm this?
The moped broke down? then how did this worker not catch them before the V? I can imagine it won't be easy pushing a moped with someone chasing you.
Why did the cyclist not see this tool hire worker, standing out like a sore thumb, acting all suspicious and all? Was this worker a suspect? If not why? Since according to you he was at the V, at the approx time of murder.
Or does he have some kind of marvels superpower, that he can see though tree & bushes, up hills, round bends, up embankments?
If you are too scared to answer here, you can always do another you tube video, playing poor me victim type trait that you have, while you answer questions that suit your agenda.
You need to back up and prove the actions of this tool hire guy.
And where is my pal Gogs? He seems to have gone AWOL.
sandra i dont know if your reading this but your sex cae stalker wants to hear from you
-
Come on Sandra get back on here and defend yourself.
Surely you've not just made this up.
Let's see this worker's statement saying he saw the moped propped at the V-break at 5:15.
would she efend herself agianst a load of anon weirdos making shit up
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #2836 on: October 04, 2015, 09:22:AM
Qoute Sandra L
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.
[/color]
Most of the time an example, given from statements - put forward, is in relation to Kelly? his description of the dog AT THE V? Not some distance past it?
Let’s see how this particular piece of speculation stands up to scrutiny. The dog reacted to the left of the V – all of the search party said so. Luke doubled back a bit, to the V in the wall (where it was easier to climb through) – all of the witnesses said so. He climbed through, and turned to the left, towards where the dog had reacted on the other side. Three of the witnesses changed their story by trial, but their original statements still exist – they all say it was the dog which alerted them.
[/color]
Here we have "to the left of the V - is this a foot or two to the left or 44 ft? Luke's diagram that he drew for the FLO - showing that the dog reacted "parallel" to where Jodi was-on the opposite side of this wall?
Oh yes, and of course, by the time they got to trial the entire family search party had completely forgotten about the dog suddenly bolting over to the wall, "standing on it's hind legs, scratching the wall," - Kelly forgot, for example that "it's a big dog - when it was standing on its hind legs scratching the wall with its front legs, its head was level with the V"
[/color]
Again - description given of the dog at this V. If all of the search party claimed the dog was reacting around the V - slightly to the left? This is far removed from reacting some distance passed this point?
If the dogs reaction was closer to the V, rather than a considerable distance passed. Tallying with the more accurate details of this search party - perhaps? What does this tell us?
Does this make the dogs powers of tracking, on a damp night, through a thick - high wall even less believable?
Craig D0bbie
"We made it clear he was under caution - it was only fair to him to do so. This was when he further entrenched his position.
"This was a few days on after the killing so what he was saying at this stage was probably more accurate
[/color].
"There were critical differences in what he was saying about when the body was found. The family were consistent in their evidence.
"They all said Luke never walked past the V in the wall before climbing over and discovering the body. But Luke’s version was completely different.
"He said he walked past the wall a considerable distance and the dog reacted at the point relating to where Jodi’s body was.
"We couldn’t get away from this conflict in versions. We tried to eliminate Luke from our inquiries but we just couldn’t."
[/color]
From those very first statements it appears the police noticed significant differences?
Did all of the statements, in those first few hours, state that 3 members of this search party, walked a considerable distance past this V?
Did they all say the dog was 'air sniffing' (strange for all 3 to use the same words?) on its hind legs passed this V or nose level with this V?
They could surely not, liken this to the V, in the dark, if some distance passed it?
Were any of the search party taken to this path (like the Jury) to go over their statements.
Luke especially so with his diagram?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/999MhAQ.png)
Bring it on
Perhaps a reason why, the 3 in 1 person/people have been busy/quiet?
-
I have removed a number of posts from this thread. Please avoid personal insults when responding to posts. In addition please refrain from suggesting identities behind usernames here.
-
Does anyone have the footage of this interview?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECrY7y9XoAMaaXJ.jpg)
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #2004 on: November 04, 2012, 12:06:AM »
Quote Patti.
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?
[/color]
From what I can gather - Luke denied frequenting this area of woodland, he stated that he only discovered the existence of this V in the wall that night, not on the way up but when in the company of the other search party members.
This is a route - I would imagine, mainly in daylight hours he would have walked many times. A route taken on previous occasions to meet with his girlfriend.
A route taken to get to the family business - this is in the bottom half of an adjoining village to Easthouses. - Mayfield?
The route the search trio had taken from AW's house which appears to be close to the family business. (Scotts Caravans)
His denial of frequenting this area of woodland was met with evidence being produced in court - that of a tree with the initials of LM and JJ carved into it.
Sandra has mentioned a gang-hut of JF and GD, somewhere they dealt cannabis from - by appointment.
It had been established that Luke had been supplied with cannabis from JF - fair to assume at this 'dealing' gang-hut?
In Corrine's James English Podcast - there is much emphasis put on the speed in which Luke and this dog, covered the distance from his house to the top of this path.
By way of searching - it was on the narrowness of this path itself - "If Jodi had been on this path, he would have tripped over her" .Which clearly shows that there was no searching at this point, he was simply 'speeding' up this path.
Could this be the very reason AW wanted to go back down this path - to search it properly? Since Luke had only done so - with his feet?
Where Shane is concerned :
It was shown that Luke had claimed to be in the house, listening to music whilst cooking the dinner;
Shane had been surfing the net - car sites and porn.
He admitted to 'probably' having masturbated with the door ajar - LISTENING out for anyone coming home?
He did not hear any music, he did not smell any burning.
IMO - when faced with a possible court sentence, he still did all he possibly could - to not drop his brother in it by saying "I don't know"
The crucial part of his evidence is in the contrast - to Corrine's and majorly so.
There were no full DNA profiles found of Luke's.
-
Does anyone have the footage of this interview?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECrY7y9XoAMaaXJ.jpg)
yes skys news
-
Sandra.
She'll never release it due to Corinne and Luke acting like a couple of creepy bastards in it and Luke's duper's delight/lack of emotion.
It was used as evidence by the prosecution in court, she has access to it.
no she wont realese becouse its the copyriht of sky news
ask sky to realese it.
-
CM should have done time inside for preventing the course of justice, it is quite clear to me, she tried to manipulate Shane to lie in court.
well tey could do if they wanted funny they wont.
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #3708 on: November 30, 2015, 09:46:PM »
Sorry, marty, cross posted.
What's really odd is the original police approach (which stood for quite a few weeks) was that Jodi might have disturbed someone performing a sex act in the woods. For that to be their line of reasoning, they had to be of the opinion that Jodi was on the woodland side of the wall, on her own. Why would they have thought that?
[/color]
Perhaps looking at all possibilities, not simply taking this 'not allowed to use the path alone scenario' at face value, Using common sense and still trying to eliminate Luke as being the murderer?
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #3711 on: November 30, 2015, 10:03:PM »
Quote
Well that's easily explained despite how suspicious you attempt to make it sound.
[/color]
Quote Sandra L
I was asking what seems, to me, to be a fairly obvious question - if Jodi had been missing for over 6 hours, of which 5 had been broad daylight, why did it not occur to Alice that at any point during those 5 daylight hours, Jodi could have gone over the wall, and become hurt there? She said she thought Jodi might be lying hurt somewhere, but the only place the search trio had any intention of looking was the path itself so basic logic says Alice thought Jodi may be lying hurt somewhere on or near the path - I can think of no other interpretation of ths information, unless I'm missing something?
So, if they thought Jodi might be lying hurt on or near the path, and they hadn't found her on the path (and a second check of the path at that,) isn't it just common sense that places right next to the path would be the next obvious place to look?
[/color]
Agree. Only the actual path was checked by Luke, and only by, not tripping over anything in his haste to walk up it? not to either side? AW wanting to check to the sides of this said path? LM taking the initiative to look over this wall? All good?
Luke climbs this wall at a gino?? spot and shines his torch into the woodland, he doesn't go into the woodland itself to look at this point - therefore the, looking into this woodland happened well before? this path had been searched for,( "and a second check of the path at that") any length of time and distance?
The dog, being a dog I would imagine, would be scurrying about in the undergrowth on either side of this path and up against this wall - scenting and leaving scents?
At or around this V point, that Luke noticed for the first time, ever? He goes into the woodland, turns to his left, barely walks 10-15ft and shouts he has found something?
Now I'm back to this girl not being discovered over the course of this evening, yet easily found in the dark?
We have what appears to be, consistent in the statements of the search party - that they had not walked some distance passed this V at all?
It appears that If anything , it was just to the left of this V?
More than one of them saw Luke hand the dogs lead to AW?
Kelly comments about the dogs head being level with this V
How can that possibly be?
If the search party had all said they had walked 10 - 15ft not even 20yds past this V, The time it took Luke to double back, the other members walking even further down?
How could Kelly and the sister give account of AW getting this lead and the dog with its head level with this V?
How could the sister have witnessed Luke shining his torch to the left? (CM's podcast)
All appears quite significantly different from these claims, of how much the search party's statements changed. Or highlights more how different they seemed to be from the onset?
-
CM should have done time inside for preventing the course of justice, it is quite clear to me, she tried to manipulate Shane to lie in court.
If it did go to trial. They would have to prove to a Jury that Colleen Mitchell knew what she was saying was incorrect. The defense would argue that she was mistaken and believed what she was saying was true. Colleen Mitchell could and would almost certainly use her right not to testify. Thus the only prosecution witness will be Shane who is not going to help send his mum to prison.
From a legal stand point it was not achievable.
-
Much Like Luke's closest friends at the time who knew him best... Daddy thinks Luke is guilty - as does his apparant alibi Shane. I'd love to see Sandra come on and lie that they don't... I have it on good word that Shane will put her right if he sees her claiming such a thing, so go on Sandra prove me wrong. ;)
Also I have submitted a request for the full audio recording of Luke Mitchell's trial in terms of section 93 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and have paid the cost to Epiq Europe Ltd. If my request is accepted I should have the files within 15 days so we will have a fuller picture. Too bad Luke Mitchell sat there stone-faced and didn't say a word in his own defense. If James English does manage to get him on camera, it will be painfully obvious he's guilty. He has never been able to hide his arrogant smirk and dead eyes.
Whoever said earlier that Sandra witholds info because the more details released, the guiltier Luke appears = spot on.
ok so where is it then.
-
Still waiting idiot.
If I PM you my phone number will you phone me and prove you're a real person. Or not BM or CM? If not I think I'm going to stick you on ignore. :-\
ok when are you likely to have it then.
-
Don't forget Luke's admission that he had a green jacket on that day. = (Luke describes his clothes)
im sure wasnt the only person in the town to be wearing a green jacket.
-
im sure wasnt the only person in the town to be wearing a green jacket.
And it was described as a 'fishing' type jacket not a bomber jacket. Don't get me wrong, I think he's probably guilty but just owing a 'green' jacket is the flimsiest of evidence!
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #4210 on: January 29, 2019, 10:49:PM »
Quote Baz
Thanks for the information Sandra, I will check out the book, still to read the first one too sorry! I sent you a PM hope you got it, I’ve no idea how to use these sites lol
So there is nothing other than a guy on a bike that heard a noise behind the wall at 1715 , to say that this is the time of the murder 1700 to 1730? So it really could have been anytime? And there is a credible sighting of the bike at 1715 at the V (sorry I wasn’t asking for a name, I just wondered if someone else on the path to see them) Then it’s very unlikely to have been then, as they would have heard or seen something or scared anyone away I’d have thought? So it would need to be after that. Timing just doesn’t fit for me to think it’s Luke. Then he is just sitting meters away from her body minutes after he has meant to have killed her for an hour, she could have been found at anytime, he would have no idea if there was any blood dna etc on him.
Turnbull said there where 3 key points that showed Luke’s guilt.
Shane’s statement
AB sighting
Luke finding body, not the dog
Shane’s statement - someone has to have made the tea, just because he could not confirm he seen Luke does not mean Luke was not home. His mum confirmed Luke was home, only she and Luke know the truth on this but to give an alibi for such a horrendous crime, and continue to stick by this and show full support make me tend to believe her. Only thing that I don’t understand is why Shane has never spoken out to clarify this over all these years and also show his support. I know I would.
[/color]
I have to agree with this Baz. His denial of seeing his brother in the house at this crucial time spoke volumes. I have read many times this somewhat important remark of "someone has to have made the tea"? If it wasn't Shane nor Corrine - who was it? the dog? (nugnug)
From that very first 24 hrs or so - CM hears what he has said to police and sends him back off to tell the story about this pie? Why was it so urgent to get this in place quickly - why could it not have waited until the police contacted them again?
Many a concocted story is based around 'some' truth.
This wasn't any old day of the week, this was the day that shopping hadn't been done, there were no fresh vegetables, there was a young lad of 14 whom made dinner for all of the family?
Not quite so, I would doubt that Shane and Luke had much of what Corrine ate - she was a vegetarian. She didn't have burnt chicken pies - she had prawns? which she cooked herself?
I have read comments about there being no close relationship between these brothers? (nothing untoward - quite an age gap) How happy would one brother be at having to cook for the other - after all, he was a young lad who had been at school most of the day. (most days) Perhaps it is more accurate to assume that some days they made their own, other days Corrine for them all.
Perhaps a more accurate account of this day is:
Luke phoned his mothers work, (4.25pm) asking her what he could make for dinner - informed to make chicken pies (out freezer) , tatties and broccoli?
He's got some of his favourite tunes playing?- happily puts the pies in the oven and sets off out after the first text from Jodi around 4.32?
Shane arrives home - does not hear any music and goes upstairs.
The pies are cooking away nicely in the oven - by the time Corrine gets home - they are burnt.
Luke perhaps has two phones - swaps sim from one to the other - this results in data being lost and the clock being off.
He phones the speaking clock near the Easthouses end of this path - to get the correct time.
Jodi arrives - she is off the impression that they are going to be staying in Easthouses - the male is beckoning her onto the path?
He has a joint ready and they share.
AB sighting - In my opinion the clothing does not match Jodi so i would not have taken that as a positive sighting, also she did not confirm Luke being the boy she saw.
Luke or the dog find the body - Only Luke and the family know the truth to this one. But I’ve never understood this really. Why the family statements all changed. First they all confirmed in more than one statement over a few weeks that the dog alerted them to the wall, there was no question to that. Then the statement changed, why, I’m not sure how that can be mistaken as they said they saw the dog jump at wall originally. But why would they change this, did they remember later they didn’t actually see the dog alert, they had just taken Luke’s word for it? It makes me uncomfortable to think how much of an affect this had to the trial, it wasn’t just a bit of evidence, it was a key point, one of the 3 key points Turnbull raised with the lack of any dna, etc. As I said only Luke and the family know if the original statement was correct or mistaken. if the dog was a trained tracker I would tend to believe the original statement that the dog alerted them to the wall. But just my opinion guys!
[/color]
The question really to be asked here, yet again - is what were these changes in statements - it is becoming more apparent that none of the search party - outwith Luke - claimed they had walked any where near where this girl lay - that the connection, in recollection was actually 'around' the V, most certainly not near enough - for this dog to sense anything?? They were not in this woodland but on the other side of a wall, over 8ft high? thick, on a dreek nights where the air would not be clear? (IMO)
-
im sure wasnt the only person in the town to be wearing a green jacket.
Yeah the Luke doppelganger that was seen with the Jodi doppelganger had a green coat seen around the time and place Jodi and Luke agreed to meet up ;D
-
Yeah the Luke doppelganger that was seen with the Jodi doppelganger seen around the time and place Jodi and Luke agreed to meet up ;D
dispite the fact that the description doesnt actully match jodi and jodi hadent left her house at the time she was supposed to have been seen.
and another witness puting jodi somwhere else.
-
dispite the fact that the description doesnt actully match jodi and jodi hadent left her house at the time she was supposed to have been seen.
and another witness puting jodi somwhere else.
These "facts" have already been explained to you. Nobody can understand them for you.
-
These "facts" have already been explained to you. Nobody can understand them for you.
ive allready debunked those alleged facts and unlike yourself ive posted sources to back up my argument.
-
What sources have been posted? Most certainly not original sources. From statements about timings?
Lets take some prime examples of timings.
Shane Mitchell initially stated he had arrived home at his usual time of 3.30pm - Further investigation, into clarifying this simple timing, was ascertained more accurately, in finding out he had dropped off to help a friend.
CM, her timings of arriving home that day - evidence via CTV, in a local store showing her buying cigarettes - timings used from this to ascertain, more accurate timings of arrival home.
AO (stepfather) Was in the loo when he heard the door closing (did he hear anything else - shout of goodbye?) Was this song? playing when he was in the loo?
CTV footage was found of him - local petrol station, on his way home - timings used from this to ascertain arrival home. Determined that it was Jodi who had left the house whilst he was in the loo? He did not see Jodi when he came out the loo, he did see Joey? - had dinner together?
The timings of this showed that AO was in the loo at 4.50pm when he heard the outside door being closed?
AO did not see Jodi that evening - clearly shows she had left this house by 4.55pm?
These timings were used to give a more accurate account than that of first timings.
No timings were taken at face value?
AB - shopping receipts, bank receipts - used to determine when it was this sighting approx: took place.
F & W - again, other factors taken into consideration to determine more accurate timings.
The sighting at 5.10-15pm - again other factors used to determine more accurate timings.
The boys on the pedal bikes - other factors used to determine more accurate timings.
MK - other factors used to determine more accurate timings - CTV near the off licence he was going to - around 9pm that evening? In Dalkeith?
Timing of sightings by the girls who witnessed stocky man following a girl - what was done to show that these timings were 5.05pm?
More importantly - Stocky man appears to have been eliminated after one of these girls Identified him in a crowd, he gave a high five to someone. This man was traced, he was out of the country.
He had been in the area prior to going away - girl mixed up with days?
JF and GD - other factors used to determine when this duo were in the vicinity of this path - witnessed multiple times - a lot more than Luke, who was supposedly on Newbattle R'd for nearly 1 1/2 hours? Yet these two acquired more sightings in the space of 15mins?
These phone calls from LM at 5.32 and 5.38pm - first call unanswered then tries again.
This girl had not been away from her home, for little more that 40mins?
Why would this merit alarm bells going off?
She was 14 not 7? If she had been a 7 yr old, who hadn't been nipping to a friends house, some 2mins away who hadn't arrived - that would give cause for concern.
Not so with a 14yr old teenage girl?
There are no further calls - nothing to cause alarm that this young couple were not together.
It appears that this girls parents, had obviously thought this girl, had (even if it is eventually) met with her boyfriend.
It was only some 6 -7 hrs later that her parents became alarmed - when realising that she had not been with him at all?
I would imagine at this point - what one is supposed to do, what one may do ( walking this path alone - going into woods) is irrelevant. The girls is missing.
The connecting area for these meet ups - locality of homes, is this path.
It appears both ends of this search party head to this path to search - Luke from his end and the girls family from the other.
-
What sources have been posted? Most certainly not original sources. From statements about timings?
Lets take some prime examples of timings.
Shane Mitchell initially stated he had arrived home at his usual time of 3.30pm - Further investigation, into clarifying this simple timing, was ascertained more accurately, in finding out he had dropped off to help a friend.
CM, her timings of arriving home that day - evidence via CTV, in a local store showing her buying cigarettes - timings used from this to ascertain, more accurate timings of arrival home.
AO (stepfather) Was in the loo when he heard the door closing (did he hear anything else - shout of goodbye?) Was this song? playing when he was in the loo?
CTV footage was found of him - local petrol station, on his way home - timings used from this to ascertain arrival home. Determined that it was Jodi who had left the house whilst he was in the loo? He did not see Jodi when he came out the loo, he did see Joey? - had dinner together?
The timings of this showed that AO was in the loo at 4.50pm when he heard the outside door being closed?
AO did not see Jodi that evening - clearly shows she had left this house by 4.55pm?
These timings were used to give a more accurate account than that of first timings.
No timings were taken at face value?
AB - shopping receipts, bank receipts - used to determine when it was this sighting approx: took place.
F & W - again, other factors taken into consideration to determine more accurate timings.
The sighting at 5.10-15pm - again other factors used to determine more accurate timings.
The boys on the pedal bikes - other factors used to determine more accurate timings.
MK - other factors used to determine more accurate timings - CTV near the off licence he was going to - around 9pm that evening? In Dalkeith?
Timing of sightings by the girls who witnessed stocky man following a girl - what was done to show that these timings were 5.05pm?
More importantly - Stocky man appears to have been eliminated after one of these girls Identified him in a crowd, he gave a high five to someone. This man was traced, he was out of the country.
He had been in the area prior to going away - girl mixed up with days?
JF and GD - other factors used to determine when this duo were in the vicinity of this path - witnessed multiple times - a lot more than Luke, who was supposedly on Newbattle R'd for nearly 1 1/2 hours? Yet these two acquired more sightings in the space of 15mins?
These phone calls from LM at 5.32 and 5.38pm - first call unanswered then tries again.
This girl had not been away from her home, for little more that 40mins?
Why would this merit alarm bells going off?
She was 14 not 7? If she had been a 7 yr old, who hadn't been nipping to a friends house, some 2mins away who hadn't arrived - that would give cause for concern.
Not so with a 14yr old teenage girl?
There are no further calls - nothing to cause alarm that this young couple were not together.
It appears that this girls parents, had obviously thought this girl, had (even if it is eventually) met with her boyfriend.
It was only some 6 -7 hrs later that her parents became alarmed - when realising that she had not been with him at all?
I would imagine at this point - what one is supposed to do, what one may do ( walking this path alone - going into woods) is irrelevant. The girls is missing.
The connecting area for these meet ups - locality of homes, is this path.
It appears both ends of this search party head to this path to search - Luke from his end and the girls family from the other.
well the police reconstruction video newspaper articals writtan at the time thats more thean anybody else has posted.
-
Exactly.. Which shows that they were working around timings before and after 5pm. Nothing set in stone until clarification of accuracy obtained.
-
Exactly.. Which shows that they were working around timings before and after 5pm. Nothing set in stone until clarification of accuracy obtained.
i doubt they would of put a reconstruction video that had the wrong time on it.
even there not that daft.
-
Highly unlikely they would have been aiming for the exact minute either.. Especially when looking for information.. Around a given time.. Of approximation. Be rather silly..
-
Highly unlikely they would have been aiming for the exact minute either.. Especially when looking for information.. Around a given time.. Of approximation. Be rather silly..
the witness saying they jodi going to the path at 5pm is consistent with the 500 pm time orginaly given by the family for jodi leavin home.
that witness knew jodi and was postive it was her.
-
Fantastic. Another witness who saw Luke too?
Oh, going to the path, so never seen him?
Was this witness on Easthouses Road, if so, which one?
With Stocky man?
Stocky 1, 2,3,4 or 5.
Good that there was another person. Not checked but airbrushed over.
-
Highly unlikely they would have been aiming for the exact minute either.. Especially when looking for information.. Around a given time.. Of approximation. Be rather silly..
This has already been explained to Nugnug a few weeks ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453439.html#msg453439 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453439.html#msg453439)
Just goes in one ear and out the other.
-
Fantastic. Another witness who saw Luke too?
Oh, going to the path, so never seen him?
Was this witness on Easthouses Road, if so, which one?
With Stocky man?
Stocky 1, 2,3,4 or 5.
Good that there was another person. Not checked but airbrushed over.
that witness saw jodi entering the path on her own followed by sombody who looks nothin like luke
luke mitchell was not stocky as you can tell by looking at him.
-
This has already been explained to Nugnug a few weeks ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453439.html#msg453439 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453439.html#msg453439)
Just goes in one ear and out the other.
Simply the distracter of facts.. Their role to play.
They do it well, fierce determination which can only be admired.
Pointless in substance though.
-
The time estimate that Mrs Brysons remembers is wrong by 10 minutes. Or the time estimate that Jodis mother gave when Jodi left is wrong by about 10 minutes. Or it could be a bit of both. You cannot expect people to remember the precise time of events that were seemingly insignificant to them at the time.
The police reconstruction is based on an estimate (like everything else). You seem to be treating the timings as if they are time stamped CCTV showing her leaving the building. That is not how you scrutinize this kind of evidence.
and what about the witness who saw jodi at more or less that exact same time.
-
This has already been explained to Nugnug a few weeks ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453439.html#msg453439 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453439.html#msg453439)
Just goes in one ear and out the other.
yur explantion is not even vaguely credible.
-
Simply the distracter of facts.. Their role to play.
They do it well, fierce determination which can only be admired.
Pointless in substance though.
ive posted somthing you have consitantly failed to do.
-
Totally agree. Nugnug.
You most certainly have posted far more than I have been able to.
Can't get fairer than that.
Total respect.
Posted far more of a lot of things, that I or many others have failed to do.
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #6059 on: Yesterday at 07:11 PM »
Quote from: Parky41 on Yesterday at 07:04 PM
Simply the distracter of facts.. Their role to play.
They do it well, fierce determination which can only be admired.
Pointless in substance though.
Quote nugnug
ive posted somthing you have consitantly failed to do.
Facts? or misinformation? for distraction ----------------- without substance?
Quote nugnug.
the witness saying they jodi going to the path at 5pm is consistent with the 500 pm time orginaly given by the family for jodi leavin home.
NO witness said they saw Jodi going to the path (They could not possibly have known this)- There were witnesses who claimed they had seen a girl, who could have been Jodi - on a pavement, on Easthouses Road.
There was nothing - when these timings were being ascertained, for accuracy that, any of the sightings - were bang on, an exact time.
Quote nugnug
that witness knew jodi and was postive it was her.
This being a different witness to the other two girls?, whom saw a girl, that could have been Jodi, walking on a pavement on Easthouses Road (which road and which girl?)
Fact - one of these sightings was proven to be wrong - the ID of stocky man - was shown to have been on a different day, he had been out of the country on the 30th.
Quote nugnug
that witness saw jodi entering the path on her own followed by sombody who looks nothin like luke
luke mitchell was not stocky as you can tell by looking at him.
AB witnessed a girl at the entrance of the lane, that leads onto Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. AB makes no mention of a male, walking in the same direction as she was driving, whilst approaching the bend, where this lane entrance is. She did however see a male, a few feet into this lane, beckoning to the girl.
There are no other witnesses who saw Jodi walking into this lane/path.
From the main Easthouses Road entrance, of the smaller Easthouses Road, it is approx: a qtr of mile to the lane which leads onto Roansdyke Path.
To recap:
Nugnug has a girl leaving her house at 5pm - this girl is then seen walking into the path, by a witness who knew the girl - this sighting of the girl walking into the path is also 5pm.
He ties this together as being one and the same - we therefore have Jodi in her garden and walking into this path - at the exact same time.
Perhaps I am being, just a little pedantic here???? being a stickler for exact timings given - by simply shown the lack of substance - in this distractor of facts???? posts.
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #6059 on: Yesterday at 07:11 PM »
Quote from: Parky41 on Yesterday at 07:04 PM
Quote nugnug
Facts? or misinformation? for distraction ----------------- without substance?
Quote nugnug.
NO witness said they saw Jodi going to the path (They could not possibly have known this)- There were witnesses who claimed they had seen a girl, who could have been Jodi - on a pavement, on Easthouses Road.
There was nothing - when these timings were being ascertained, for accuracy that, any of the sightings - were bang on, an exact time.
Quote nugnug
This being a different witness to the other two girls?, whom saw a girl, that could have been Jodi, walking on a pavement on Easthouses Road (which road and which girl?)
Fact - one of these sightings was proven to be wrong - the ID of stocky man - was shown to have been on a different day, he had been out of the country on the 30th.
Quote nugnug
AB witnessed a girl at the entrance of the lane, that leads onto Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. AB makes no mention of a male, walking in the same direction as she was driving, whilst approaching the bend, where this lane entrance is. She did however see a male, a few feet into this lane, beckoning to the girl.
There are no other witnesses who saw Jodi walking into this lane/path.
From the main Easthouses Road entrance, of the smaller Easthouses Road, it is approx: a qtr of mile to the lane which leads onto Roansdyke Path.
To recap:
Nugnug has a girl leaving her house at 5pm - this girl is then seen walking into the path, by a witness who knew the girl - this sighting of the girl walking into the path is also 5pm.
He ties this together as being one and the same - we therefore have Jodi in her garden and walking into this path - at the exact same time.
Perhaps I am being, just a little pedantic here???? being a stickler for exact timings given - by simply shown the lack of substance - in this distractor of facts???? posts.
Then we hade the bruised knuckles that never was and then we hade the pathologists words being distorted and misquoted.
Someone would only do this if they have a hidden agenda.
-
Then we hade the bruised knuckles that never was and then we hade the pathologists words being distorted and misquoted.
Someone would only do this if they have a hidden agenda.
More BS about hidden agenda's! So anyone thinking this guy is innocent has an agenda and anyone thinking Bamber is guilty has an agenda? Basically, anyone who doesn't agree with YOU has an agenda! What's YOUR agenda for making conflicting statements along with pathetic excuses for making them? ALL of the above can apply to the Bamber case but you think he's innocent! ;D ;D
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #6059 on: Yesterday at 07:11 PM »
Quote from: Parky41 on Yesterday at 07:04 PM
Quote nugnug
Facts? or misinformation? for distraction ----------------- without substance?
Quote nugnug.
NO witness said they saw Jodi going to the path (They could not possibly have known this)- There were witnesses who claimed they had seen a girl, who could have been Jodi - on a pavement, on Easthouses Road.
There was nothing - when these timings were being ascertained, for accuracy that, any of the sightings - were bang on, an exact time.
Quote nugnug
This being a different witness to the other two girls?, whom saw a girl, that could have been Jodi, walking on a pavement on Easthouses Road (which road and which girl?)
Fact - one of these sightings was proven to be wrong - the ID of stocky man - was shown to have been on a different day, he had been out of the country on the 30th.
Quote nugnug
AB witnessed a girl at the entrance of the lane, that leads onto Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. AB makes no mention of a male, walking in the same direction as she was driving, whilst approaching the bend, where this lane entrance is. She did however see a male, a few feet into this lane, beckoning to the girl.
There are no other witnesses who saw Jodi walking into this lane/path.
From the main Easthouses Road entrance, of the smaller Easthouses Road, it is approx: a qtr of mile to the lane which leads onto Roansdyke Path.
To recap:
Nugnug has a girl leaving her house at 5pm - this girl is then seen walking into the path, by a witness who knew the girl - this sighting of the girl walking into the path is also 5pm.
He ties this together as being one and the same - we therefore have Jodi in her garden and walking into this path - at the exact same time.
Perhaps I am being, just a little pedantic here???? being a stickler for exact timings given - by simply shown the lack of substance - in this distractor of facts???? posts.
Who is stocky man then that he was out the country on the 30th?
There was a witness who saw a man following closely behind a girl believed to be jodi heading towards the entrance to the path.
Ab witnessed a man standing in the entrance to that lane with his palms facing outwards towards a female. She didnt know jodi and gave a completely wrong description of her .
This was at the same moment as luke was calling the speaking clock.
-
Then we hade the bruised knuckles that never was and then we hade the pathologists words being distorted and misquoted.
The bruised knuckles you have been told about more than once and you know that.
Pathologists report , claimed knuckles were bruised and could have been done on teeth or something else i cant remember , sorry.
Someone would only do this if they have a hidden agenda.
-
Who is stocky man then that he was out the country on the 30th?
There was a witness who saw a man following closely behind a girl believed to be jodi heading towards the entrance to the path.
Ab witnessed a man standing in the entrance to that lane with his palms facing outwards towards a female. She didnt know jodi and gave a completely wrong description of her .
This was at the same moment as luke was calling the speaking clock.
[/color]
Which stocky man Marty - perhaps now, would be a good time for some proper clarification.
Did these two girls - at the same time, see a male, described as stocky, walking on this same stretch of road, behind a girl that may have been Jodi?
Did the police put out for information on this stocky man to come forward?
Did one of these girls pick him out from a crowd of people - giving a high five?
Was he then traced - he had been out of the country, he was therefore eliminated from the enquiry?
You have been following this case closely for a long time.
There appears to be a further ID of a guy from a funeral.
Was this by the other girl then? or the same girl? she got it wrong once did she do so again?
Or, was it shown, that the guy who had been abroad had been in the area on a different day?
Therefore, the police in their enquiries, took this sighting to be of no significance - it could not be shown that;
It was indeed at the crucial time. of this crucial day.
One girls sighting eliminating the other?
Certainly, none of them being at the entrance of this crucial path?
The speaking clock takes seconds - Silly point really - not from you, but in general.
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #6059 on: Yesterday at 07:11 PM »
Quote from: Parky41 on Yesterday at 07:04 PM
Quote nugnug
Facts? or misinformation? for distraction ----------------- without substance?
Quote nugnug.
yes they did i allready posted a source for that lets have the sources for your cliams.
NO witness said they saw Jodi going to the path (They could not possibly have known this)- There were witnesses who claimed they had seen a girl, who could have been Jodi - on a pavement, on Easthouses Road.
There was nothing - when these timings were being ascertained, for accuracy that, any of the sightings - were bang on, an exact time.
Quote nugnug
This being a different witness to the other two girls?, whom saw a girl, that could have been Jodi, walking on a pavement on Easthouses Road (which road and which girl?)
Fact - one of these sightings was proven to be wrong - the ID of stocky man - was shown to have been on a different day, he had been out of the country on the 30th.
Quote nugnug
AB witnessed a girl at the entrance of the lane, that leads onto Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. AB makes no mention of a male, walking in the same direction as she was driving, whilst approaching the bend, where this lane entrance is. She did however see a male, a few feet into this lane, beckoning to the girl.
There are no other witnesses who saw Jodi walking into this lane/path.
From the main Easthouses Road entrance, of the smaller Easthouses Road, it is approx: a qtr of mile to the lane which leads onto Roansdyke Path.
To recap:
Nugnug has a girl leaving her house at 5pm - this girl is then seen walking into the path, by a witness who knew the girl - this sighting of the girl walking into the path is also 5pm.
He ties this together as being one and the same - we therefore have Jodi in her garden and walking into this path - at the exact same time.
Perhaps I am being, just a little pedantic here???? being a stickler for exact timings given - by simply shown the lack of substance - in this distractor of facts???? posts.
-
Then we hade the bruised knuckles that never was and then we hade the pathologists words being distorted and misquoted.
Someone would only do this if they have a hidden agenda.
excuse me i havent made a load of wank about a forensic breakthrough that doesnt exist.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9933.0.html
-
It takes a minute to walk from jodis house to the entrance of the lane parky41 equally silly point about timings
-
Open your curtains & tell us how the weather in Lerwick is the day.
I do not think nugnug lives in Lerwick. Please do not continue suggesting an identity for a forum member - we all realise what you are suggesting and I have deleted several posts on this thread for this reason.
The weather in Lerwick today is overcast (not that you are interested).
-
Open your curtains & tell us how the weather in Lerwick is the day.
Why ask? It Always rains ;D
-
Which stocky man Marty - perhaps now, would be a good time for some proper clarification.
Did these two girls - at the same time, see a male, described as stocky, walking on this same stretch of road, behind a girl that may have been Jodi?
Did the police put out for information on this stocky man to come forward?
Did one of these girls pick him out from a crowd of people - giving a high five?
Was he then traced - he had been out of the country, he was therefore eliminated from the enquiry?
You have been following this case closely for a long time.
There appears to be a further ID of a guy from a funeral.
Was this by the other girl then? or the same girl? she got it wrong once did she do so again?
Or, was it shown, that the guy who had been abroad had been in the area on a different day?
Therefore, the police in their enquiries, took this sighting to be of no significance - it could not be shown that;
It was indeed at the crucial time. of this crucial day.
One girls sighting eliminating the other?
Certainly, none of them being at the entrance of this crucial path?
The speaking clock takes seconds - Silly point really - not from you, but in general.
Marty?
-
Not being rude, just dont have time at the moment
-
Have you walked it?
I have
-
Not being rude, just dont have time at the moment
No problem Marty, thank you for replying.
-
Great a mod that picks sides, are you fit for purpose? Do your job impartially.
I do my job impartially. I have never expressed a view on this case. Suggesting an identity for a forum member is not permitted.
-
And why am I banned?
Your ban has ended. You were banned for making a threat of physical violence to another member by PM.
As you have been told if you do that again you will receive a permanent ban.
-
Your ban has ended. You were banned for making a threat of physical violence to another member by PM.
As you have been told if you do that again you will receive a permanent ban.
That reminds me, any chance of Nigel getting his ban lifted? ;D
-
That reminds me, any chance of Nigel getting his ban lifted? ;D
The ban is lifted.
-
The ban is lifted.
Are you sure? His account is not listed on the members list and he cannot be PM'ed either.
I thought starting open topics about what prosecution witnesses he wanted to kill was the end of him. :-\
-
Are you sure? His account is not listed on the members list and he cannot be PM'ed either.
I thought starting open topics about what prosecution witnesses he wanted to kill was the end of him. :-\
The ban is now lifted but if he does return he will have to be very careful.
-
The ban is now lifted but if he does return he will have to be very careful.
Was he banned all this time by mistake? :-\
-
Was he banned all this time by mistake? :-\
No, certainly not. He should actually have been banned earlier than he was. Even a permanent ban is normally reviewed after a period of time.
-
Was he banned all this time by mistake? :-\
There's that beak again! ::)
-
Well this thread has turned into a farce.
For all you lurkers, to or for. Sign up, join the fun, not that you will get answers.
NumptyNugs runs to the mod's when he don't get his own way, but it is ok for him to be abusive & provoke.
Marty is a complete waste of time.
Lean has wen't missing, after she gets asked to provide proof of what she says. You just have to take her word for it, aye right. My dog makes more sense than her.
Gogs is another who cannot handle the heat & disappeared.
Anyone else? Come on sign up. Let's discuss.
Let's discuss, Walking over dead bodies, condoms left 20 yards? 50 meters? Which one was it? Fishermen use the path? Like Lean claimed in her podcast? What to walk to that little stream to catch tadpoles? The same path that is like a New York traffic jam, with people aye right.. DID the tool yard workers see the moped at the V or NOT? As Lean states in her podcast, the collage is yards away from the crime scene, is it? Think it is a wee bit farther away than yards, but i guess that won't suit the story of doper ganger MK doing it, and making up BS about him having scratches all over his face, but we all know, he looks nothing like luke, don't even dress the same. Let's discuss, change my mind.
oh looks compaghn have asked me to thank you for all the good work your doing.
-
Nugnug with all due respect. You have no alternative suspect and no evidence that any of the prosecution witnesses lied.
To argue for a MOJ in that position is futile.
-
Nugnug with all due respect. You have no alternative suspect and no evidence that any of the prosecution witnesses lied.
To argue for a MOJ in that position is futile.
I have several alternative suspects.
futile or not im still going to argue for it.
of its not cerdbly a moj then paddy hill and moj would never have taken the case.
how can a conviction by completly beyound doubt when the crown paholgist qustions the convicted mans guilt.
-
To be honest I can see why Sandra has not been replying to messages, she gets nothing but grief most of the time and she has gone over things time and again, here and on other sites. Plus I’m sure she is busy with more important things! I think a problem is the size of the thread and lack of order. There is so much info here but unless you are willing to read all the pages it’s hard finding what you need.
There use to be a lot more information easily available on the old site, pics, reports etc. I hope when Sandra does get her new site up and running she will make all the evidence, she legally can, freely available on that site. There has been a lot of valid points made here and questions raised on information Sandra has put out there, which I do agree need answered or clarified.
-
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 517
Re: Unasked and Unanswered Questions
Reply #54 on Apr 7, 2010, 3:56pm
Deadhead: I find the idea that Jodi's whole family would be involved in her death a bit hard to swallow
[/color]
Jigsawman (GOD)
Indeed, it does seem like a stretch too far. But what if, having taken certain decisions and steps, family members found themselves inextricably implicated, so that telling "the truth" would have been virtually impossible.
Let me run a hypothetical line of reasoning here. A male member of Jodi's extended family has had a run in with Jodi earlier in the day. He also has a history of violence and unpredictable behaviour. (This scenario, in fact, can be applied to various male members of the extended family.)
Mother/Granny later get wind that something has happened between Jodi and this male, as a result of the earlier run in, but at this stage, they are not quite sure what, and don't, even in their wildest nightmares, imagine the worst. The concern here would be to find Jodi, and "sort it all out" without the involvement of the authorities, since that involvement would mean family male would be in deep trouble.
By the time Jodi has been found, horribly murdered, several members of the family have already been in contact with each other, in order to "sort out" whatever it was they thought had happened - how to now explain that to the authorities?
Then the cops take over, and, almost instantly, set their sights on Luke.
In their shock and disbelief over what has happened to Jodi, the family members can justify their earlier actions to themselves - they were just afraid that one of their own family members had possibly hurt Jodi, but their fears were unfounded, since it was Luke who had done this terrible thing to her.
[/color]
For the best part of 9 years and more, this poster, Jigsawman (GOD) has had their mind tuned into, this girls family being responsible and complicit for, not only the cover up of their own but the incarceration of Luke.
They have been steadfast, in their belief that one mother, inconceivably would aid their child in anyway upon the death of his girlfriend. A girl whom is not close to her heart, and her son, who had barely been seeing this girl for 3 months.
Yet, upon their reasoning of the evidence - they believe, that not only would the mother of this girl, cover and aid her other child in the murder of her youngest. That the extended family did the very same. It is easy to see why they would come to this conclusion:
For Luke to be innocent - then all of the evidence from this family has to be false. To aid in this complicity, We have further extended people throughout this investigation , whom also aided this family, in this cover up.
The reasoning behind that, for Jigsawman is also very simple - the police chose to treat these two families differently, what could be the reasoning, as to why they should have been treated the same, or indeed the Jone's family, with more, justified suspicion, After all:
This is a family of delinquents - The Jones' (and extended family). The daily trash reader type. Or,
The other family, of middle class, respectability - The Mitchell's. Reader of the Guardian.
It is appalling and unbelievable that respectable people like the Mitchells should have their son targeted when the obvious reputation of the Jones' deserved so much more.
We don't need to look at evidence we just need to look at reputation, to hang with everything else.
The scenario, given above is of the most basic - polite that I have witnessed over these years. You can almost feel the curl of the fingers and picture the grimace upon this posters face, as they try their best, to answer the question from Deadhead - without appearing to directly blame this family.
This 'what if' scenario should really read ------------
"Indeed, it does seem like a stretch too far" BUT:
Did you know Deadhead, there is a history of violence and unpredictable behaviour that runs rife through the very core and beyond of this family. This family knew something had happened, that this male member had hurt his sister but didn't know, to what extent. They had already began in their cover up. Hoping to find them both, before things went too far. To them it was a blessing, a turn of good fortune for them, that someone else was going to take the rap. It is better to lose one child than two. Easier, to justify themselves for any actions they may take, in helping the police to frame Luke. After all, what did it matter to this other mother, this family had no moral or sense of right, they are that closely connected in deviance - it was easy to get everyone to join forces, It did not matter, the horror in which this young girl met her end neither did the safety of others cause concern. Their only aim was to protect this male, within this large family circle. Nobody else got a second thought - they happily read the rags, blessed in relief that this wee laddie was getting fitted up and one of their own would be safe??
Does that all seem just a stretch too far - I wonder?
It was ascertained that this girl had left her family home at or around 4.50pm - done by timings of the father getting home from work.
Both this mother and father stated that, the brother was in the house at this time - having dinner. For this male member to be responsible, then this three were lying. Plain and simple.
If at this point they were lying then it stands to reason that this visit to a graveyard was also a lie - were they out looking for this male member?
They (at the very least the father) were most certainly home when Luke called the landline at 5.38 there was no connection at 5.32. Were they out at his point too looking - from the father getting home?
There obviously at this point was no dinner together, all lies?
Where did they go to look, who did they phone?
I would presume at this point, there has been several calls, consistently being made to this male members phone, from his mother and father?
Calls also to various other family members, in their search for both Jodi and her brother, from the father getting home, from Jodi going out and throughout the course of the evening?
That is, if of course, Jodi did not leave the house at all until much later.
This of course takes away any sightings, so safe to assume she had left, by at least 5.30.
This family, now by this stage and for several hours, several of them are still trying to locate this brother and sister.
They have to quickly put a plan into action - just incase their worst fear comes to pass.
The mother plays it cool.
She texts Luke's phone - telling her daughter to get home, She knows her daughter isn't with Luke, its all a ploy to protect the brother.
Luke phones her back, she fakes concern.
There is no frantic call to the granny - the granny already knows the concern about this brother and sister.
Now I'm stuck.
"The family want to get this all sorted without the involvement of the authorities"?
Why did the mother phone the police at this point?
Simple really. The plan had already been hatched, the call to the police was their first point in the cover up, for this male member?
Is everyone thinking the same as me here? Where actually at this point, is this male member?
Has he still been out the whole of the evening, previous efforts to trace and look for him, fell flat?
So they actually dont know where he is, takes us back to, why call the police? they still havent traced him?
Which takes us onto present day events?
CM infers heavily that the search party are looking for someone else, not Jodi? maybe both still?
SL has the search party at the top of this path prior to 11pm?
They are tying the two together?
They could not possibly have been on the path, if they had just found out Jodi was missing, just after 10.40pm?
Yet, of course there are two people missing, the inference still to this day that the family were searching for both?
So, AW, SK, JuJ, AO and JaJ all at this point have concocted their story?
AW wants to re check this path, not because Luke checked with his feet, but she is determined to find JoJ and Jodi,
she is not worried her grandaughter may have hurt herself, she is worried that JoJ may have hurt her?
So again at this point - Where was JoJ? when did he turn up?
The answer to this of course if very simple, he was in his house, he went with his mother and father to this path when Luke made the discovery.
For some unknown reason?? - this appears to have been lost along the way, I wonder why?
Discussed many times on the Fact or Fiction site along with others, it would not suit purpose for this to be reminded?
It rather sullies, this speculation of searching for him on this path?
So whilst this search trio, arrived at this path looking for JoJ he was in his house, why were they looking?
Did JuJ forget to mention this to them, or had they not become part of this concocted plan by then?
Did JuJ and AO let them lead a merry dance of worry, whilst they helped JoJ in this cover up?
So it appears JoJ in all his mental health problems is in police company from an early point of this enquiry?
Yet, however. In those first interviews from the family, these immediate members did not mention any altercations with this sister and brother.
This mother and father, gave an account, that must have been so far reached, yet did not raise questions of suspicion from the police.
That AW, SK and JuJ also gave statements, concocted to the extreme, that these too, did not bring suspicion upon them.
Instead the police found suspicion in Luke, CM and SM's statements.
Could that very first statement from SM, in its vague account of events have drawn suspicion.
We have a mother, giving indepth detail about SM in relation to the dinner - in contrast from SM there was nothing. He could not remember.
They could not wait until further questioning - he was urged by his mother, to return to the police station, to give the account his mother had put forward.
So, yes Deadhead, it appears if is far easier, to disprove all of this families evidence, that they had, from early in that evening, set out to try and defuse some family altercation, between these two siblings.
That they some how managed to fool the investigating team, involve immediate and extended family into this cover up. That there would of course be proof in abundance, should the need arise to show this.
The first basic thing being phone records - which in total contrast, would not I imagine, show quite substantial calls, from many parties to this males phone? Perhaps, even then, in this early cover up, they chose not to make calls - they knew these would be checked? So what exactly did they do, to find this missing couple??
There is much more as we go onto other suspects.
What is evident, to this point and to this day, that this poster, Jigsawman (GOD) had indepth knowledge of this case. That from very early in this case, they had drawn the conclusion of A another being the killer. This somehow appears to have warped their sense of all reason, upon actual evidence to suggest this.
Not every crime is about DNA it is about so much more.
What we do have, is a case that shows, a clear sequence of events that firmly puts Luke Mitchell as being the person responsible.
There is clearly, no clear sequence of events that puts any of this girls family members, anywhere close.
You simply can't take part of one person, SK, with nothing else to back this up, tie it in with parts of JoJ, again with nothing else, onto JF and GD and similarly tie them in with nothing else.
There are no sequence of events, there was nothing in this investigation that could clearly point to these others.
We have the DNA of Kelly, we have the locality of the duo on the bike, we have the health problems of JoJ - in this we have other behavioural problems amongst them.
One thing is clear though - to involve any of these people directly - it does point to a much larger attempt at conspiracy and complicity. Not just 3 people, as was, with the Mitchells.
3 of these people were before this Jury - it is clear that the above poster feels the brother should have been too?
For what purpose, I ask again? Does that make the system fairer, if we were to drag others in, simply to cause diversion of thought with a Jury, when there is no evidence for doing so?
It has been shown clearly, that whilst there may be mitigating, aspects of these people, DNA, locality and behavioural problems. All known to the police whilst this investigation was ongoing.
It has been shown clearly, that if the police were looking to fit someone up - there were far more likely and easier candidates to pursue.
Throughout this investigation - the suspicion that fell upon this laddie, from the onset only grew stronger.
The stumbling blocks that were met, the difficulty no doubt of elimination, especially when one member of this families DNA was clearly present.
Did not sway the police, in whom they believed was clearly responsible.
They did not simply 'have it in' for this laddie - there were clear reasons from which this supicion was warrented.
They did not toss some bloody coin, as one poster once commented - heads or tails, you'll do, lets make up some shit?
This utter disbelief in the evidence against him. the time frame and everything amidst it.
What I wonder, if one day this laddie was to admit his guilt - would these conclusions then draw?
That indeed, all was possible. No.
What will be said is:
So what! he still shouldn't have been found guilty on the evidence produced.
This wasn't some flimsy circumstantial case, there was nothing, clearly that pointed to this crime being committed by A another.
We all can be proven wrong. He may very well, turn out to innocent - stranger things have happened.
What should not happen, is the release on some technicality, of something wrong in law.
It should only happen, if one day, there is clear and precise evidence that A another did commit this crime.
At this point and throughout these years - there has been nothing to show this.
Not once ever, has there been any reality in how this laddie was - from the pro-innocence camp.
The weight put upon this 'goth' and Manson fanatic, debate as to why this laddie was found guilty, not only by trial by media - by trial itself.
Used to distract away from the real evidence.
For me and many others - there is clarity in trophies, keeping things close, akin to the crime committed.
There was another knife purchased, likened to one that could have caused these injuries.
Readily at hand, from the one disposed of.
A knife reappearing after this house had been thoroughly searched. In a bag under dog bowls - the dog meat, in the bowls, itself searched?
There was a cd purchased, free or not from a magazine that showed the horrific death, by a bladed instrument of a girl in the woods.
There was another jacket purchased, in likeness to the one supposed missing.
The pouch of this new knife was inscribed by insane writing. Done at a point when this laddie thought it was safe.
These items, keeping this horrific murder, close at heart.
-
Jigsawman was Sandra Lean.
Is that a fact or a suspicion?
PS: Where has Sandra gone?
-
She's left imo because she's been found out for misleading sensationalism about the tool hire employee stating the bike was parked at the V, that JaF had to step over the body, and all the rest. It was all going to come tumbling down eventually.
I think it was revealed on another forum she was jigsawman and she never denied it and made some excuse for it.
OK. I heard shes now on another forum somewhere.
-
Here is a post from nugnug on that forum -
“Jodi didn't have a "normal" time to come to our house. different days different times. They usually hung about outside and went to her grans quite a lot.”
Our house? :o
That's a mistake. I misread the post on my mobile. It was CM that said that.
-
To be honest I can see why Sandra has not been replying to messages, she gets nothing but grief most of the time and she has gone over things time and again, here and on other sites. Plus I’m sure she is busy with more important things! I think a problem is the size of the thread and lack of order. There is so much info here but unless you are willing to read all the pages it’s hard finding what you need.
There use to be a lot more information easily available on the old site, pics, reports etc. I hope when Sandra does get her new site up and running she will make all the evidence, she legally can, freely available on that site. There has been a lot of valid points made here and questions raised on information Sandra has put out there, which I do agree need answered or clarified.
well they ask her to explan herself then screm liar at why at when she does.
wwhy should she bother.
-
You see bullseye, i have no sympathy for Lean what so ever, imo, she is a master at misinformation, manipulation and quite frankly blatant lies. You have to remember, innocent people have been basically accused of this murder, witnesses when it suits are being accused of lying. 100's of people are in on this conspiracy to fit up a 14-year-old lad, it is utter nonsense. Can you imagine being MK and being accused of murder? Condom man? And the others, these types of accusations have real life affects. She has no idea if condom man stepped over the body, but what the hell ill spread that BS about anyway, i could continue. That is the issue i have with all this, making these claims, but having nothing to back it up, it is why she has failed more than once to get this case looked at again, why the Mitchell's bothered with her, after her first failure ill never know, my best guess, is that nobody with any credibility wants it. If she just stuck to what her papers say, without edited/deleting parts that suits her story, then she may get a wee bit of respect, but i won't hold my breath. Things like what exactly did the tool hire guy say in his statement, i understand all the legal stuff around it, i get that, but it has not stopped her posting from statements etc, but why does she leave certain bits out? I think we know why.
if condom man had come forward at the itme of the murder when he was asked to instead of 3 years later when he was the hes dna came up on the database there would not be any speculation it is entirly his own fault.
and donald findley was the firt person to mention him as a suspect not sandra.
-
She's left imo because she's been found out for misleading sensationalism about the tool hire employee stating the bike was parked at the V, that JaF had to step over the body, and all the rest. It was all going to come tumbling down eventually.
I think it was revealed on another forum she was jigsawman and she never denied it and made some excuse for it.
misleading sensatlissm is that why the lad on the bike admiting to being n the path in a court of law is it.
was the court guilty f mileading sesenaslism
-
He was on the path on his bike. No one is denying that. I want proof the bike was at the v-break at 5:15 unmanned. I don't see how anyone can state such a thing categorically and it needs further explanation.
I'd go as far as saying it would change my view on the whole thing if someone can provide proof that bike was there at that time with Ferris and Dickie nowhere to be seen. (Other than Findlay getting Ferris to agree that it was after establishing that Ferris didn't really have a clue what time he was on the path - no wonder the jury never fell for it.)
What's wrong with asking for more information regarding this possible vital piece of information that Sandra has made public? Which Tool Hire employee testified that he walked past the v-break at 5:15 and seen the bike parked right at it riderless? What's his name? Why isn't he a potential suspect since he was apparently at the scene at this time? Did anyone actually ever say this?
I shall assume It's all hot air until proven otherwise. Sandra has typed out the DNA reports and parts of Luke's police questioning. Both of those are part of the case material she supposedly cannot publish, yet has done. So why not post the tool hire guy material? :-\
-
I shall assume It's all hot air until proven otherwise. Sandra has typed out the DNA reports and parts of Luke's police questioning. Both of those are part of the case material she cannot supposedly publish, yet has done. So why not post the tool hire guy material? :-\
And you should know!
-
He was on the path on his bike. No one is denying that. I want proof the bike was at the v-break at 5:15 unmanned. I don't see how anyone can state such a thing categorically and it needs further explanation.
I'd go as far as saying it would change my view on the whole thing if someone can provide proof that bike was there at that time with Ferris and Dickie nowhere to be seen. (Other than Findlay getting Ferris to agree that it was after establishing that Ferris didn't really have a clue what time he was on the path - no wonder the jury never fell for it.)
What's wrong with asking for more information regarding this possible vital piece of information that Sandra has made public? Which Tool Hire employee testified that he walked past the v-break at 5:15 and seen the bike parked right at it riderless? What's his name? Why isn't he a potential suspect since he was apparently at the scene at this time? Did anyone actually ever say this?
so him agreaging to it in a court of law is not an admission he was there.
as for both of them not knowing what the time was did neather of them have a mobile on the them.
what is the chances of them both not knowing what the time wa.
i belive they knew perfectly well what th time was ad the chose to lie about it.
-
my point is i dont think its vaguely credible that neather of them knew what the time what are the chances of the both thinking its one hour earler than it actully is a man on his own i could belive but not to people.
that means the cluded to lie about the time they were there.
-
I still want to see proof a tool hire employee seen the bike exactly there.
Is that unreasonable?
Like JaF, it appears this duo were doing one thing only - thinking of themselves. Whatever dodgy dealings they were up to were their prime concern.
From the off, trying to distance themselves from this horror. Scared incase they would find themselves incriminated.
Coming forward, only when they had to.
Everything about this duo would have been deciphered and investigated in great detail. For two reasons, to ascertain whether there was anything, feasible to suggest that they had been involved, also, it is part of what has to be done in this process. The police and prosecution have to try and cover every area.
This utter nonsense about being eliminated within 48hrs, and before DNA results were back. Bollocks! The search for this duo, the finding of them, is what was eliminated, like stocky man - the searching was eliminated. - Not the people, until fully investigated.
Where does this kind of, pardon the language, shite come from?
Outwith this time frame, of perhaps 10mins that this duo were on this path, before going onto Ladypath, what else was there to confirm their movements for the remainder of that evening - these would have been checked out thoroughly. Every aspect of their behaviour.
The only thing that has come to the fore is Ferris cutting/hacking (whatever words to emphasize- suspicious) his hair off.
Shaking whilst watching the news about the appeal for the moped duo?
Gloves down a radiator with condoms in them - these gloves would have been tested, showing nothing to connect with this crime. Not washed but damp? taking for testing thus not eliminated, being checked out?
What were the movements of this duo over the course of this evening?
But you don't get to hear of these results, of the proper accounts of statements, again just snip bits of this duo claiming to be at x y and z.
What about the people to back this up? the company they were in?
Not one but two people - who managed to commit this crime in record breaking time of mere minutes, double the odds of leaving no trace, having DNA upon them, double the clean up, more people involved in aiding them.
This girl, by chance, meeting them also - no phone records, nothing to show any meet, from the duos phones, from this girls mothers phone - nothing.
Nothing at all in this investigation to enable tying these two, into having been responsible.
Dubious pair of twats! Had run ins with the law before? Knew that suspicion would, perhaps fall upon them, when it was known they were in the locality. Did not trust the police?
MOJ's - A prime pair of candidates, whom, if there had been more evidence, circumstantial and otherwise - could have been fitted up for this. IF
the aim of the police was to get results, IF there was not clear reason for, Luke being responsible.
Does not matter how many times it is said - this was no easy fit up of a young laddie,
The police did not choose him, because of his age, because they thought it would be easy to break a young smite - they did not choose him- the evidence against him, made this so.
The fact that LK heard noises behind this wall, prior to this duo being on this path.
Even IF this duo did stop at the V, even IF they went over this break, for mere minutes -
There is nothing to show that they must have seen/heard/been part of this murder or that it did not take place around this time.
It is pretty evident - that this girl was silenced before this.
It is pretty evident that she was hidden - dense woodland in the height of summer, in an area not frequented - off the beaten track.
She lay undiscovered over the course of this evening.
There were other people about over the course of the evening - kids playing, dog walkers, not many, but none witnessed anything except LK.
The only clear thing this does show - is how quickly this girl was killed. It proves that the attack was not prolonged, it proves that she had little opportunity of time - to make noise, to be heard. It shows that this path was also far from being like 'Piccadilly Circus'. Users scattered over the evening.
The only thing that matters, about the claim of someone witnessing this bike, unmanned at the V point, is the locality of this person, having to have been on this path too.
It appears this was not used at trial? as names would have been mentioned. Nothing else is given of this if true - this person would, if they exist, would no doubt confirm, any noise from before this sighting from the bike, of the bike at a standstill, and afterwards more noise of being restarted. Clearly showing, if true, that the bike had stopped for a fragment of time. They were back in Dickies by 5.30! (originally saying 4.30 because clock being out by an hr?)
Sometimes however - you almost get the impression, that these 'other' witnesses are akin to media 'sources' - handy to use when non existent - to back up futile points, to add weight to nonsense. To exaggerate the truth in its economical sense.
-
She's been exposed. For the first time there's a few people actually challenging her claims and she's ran away.
Wonder what else is out there that she's exaggerated/sensationalized or just plain assumed/made up and touted as fact.
Scary tbh.
Good thing the appeal courts/SCRRC can easily see through what the daft James English viewers can't.
Close thread imo.
Any news on the material you have requested :)
-
Haven't run away, Lithium. Just not prepared to spend time interacting with people who are blatantly misquoting me and then claiming I'm the one who's being misleading.
Just one example - show me where I ever said this:
A tool hire employee walked past the v-break in the wall and seen the bike propped there with GD and JF nowhere in sight!!!
I didn't, did I?
The timing of the AB sighting and the timing of the call to the speaking clock. You tell me the exact times of both, as they're supported by the evidence - then tell me AB could have missed it.
Not once did I say Falconer "stepped over the body" - I said if what he said in his statement had been true, he would have had to step over, or virtually had to step over (depending on where I said it) - not that he did - only that if his own words were true, that was what they would have meant.
Anyway, I'm done with playing your games. Carry on posting your utter bullsh*t - I don't care.
-
Haven't run away, Lithium. Just not prepared to spend time interacting with people who are blatantly misquoting me and then claiming I'm the one who's being misleading.
Just one example - show me where I ever said this:
I didn't, did I?
The timing of the AB sighting and the timing of the call to the speaking clock. You tell me the exact times of both, as they're supported by the evidence - then tell me AB could have missed it.
Not once did I say Falconer "stepped over the body" - I said if what he said in his statement had been true, he would have had to step over, or virtually had to step over (depending on where I said it) - not that he did - only that if his own words were true, that was what they would have meant.
Anyway, I'm done with playing your games. Carry on posting your utter bullsh*t - I don't care.
I think Lithium is a bit harsh in what he says about you. But then again you have inadvertently created an echo chamber of misinformation due to not posting any material for people to go on. Overtime it will just get distorted every time its repeated.
-
A tool hire employee walked past the v-break in the wall and seen the bike propped there with GD and JF nowhere in sight!!!
I didn't say the bike wasn't seen - that's ridiculous, of course it was seen. My point was that I did not say, ever, that a tool hire employee walked past the V break in the wall and saw the bike there.
This is why I stopped posting here - it's impossible.
David 1819, I've said it a zillion times, I cannot post the documents themselves.I can quote from them, I cannot put copies of them online. This is Scotland - our rules are different from, for example, England and Wales. If I could, I'd put the whole lot online, but I can't.
-
She's now saying no one said they were at the v-break to witness the bike there riderless, yet has been happily telling the world that bike was at the v-break riderless :o and thinks this doesn't need elaborated on.
Something has been seriously twisted here.
so when are you going to the tape of lukes yu said you were going to get then.
you said you would have it in 14 days.
-
I said I'd hear back within a few weeks actually. I don't think they're giving me them.
i thought they thought they might not do seeing s the legl act you quated doesnt exist.
-
Sandra Lean
International Skeptics Forum
Join the International Skeptics Forum to discuss and promote critical thinking across the planet.
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 8
Rolfe:
Sandra Lean:
Got it in one - however, it's not about this being. the. "only time" Luke Mitchell could have murdered Jodi, it is the clear time that fits around the evidence, once police had established timings.
It actually. only gets messy, when you try to bear with SL's many different attempts at trying to break this evidence down. It's not an easy feat - to dissolve something that has many mitigating factors to back it up.
Interestingly here we have this first basis of truth - the sightings around 5.55pm and 6.15pm.
Luke claims to have made the call to the Jones household from the entrance, at this wall he was sitting on at 5.32pm.
This being. one of the two times in a day that this road is at its busiest with commuters. No sighting for a whole 25mins. - except of course F & W around 4.40 once he had come into sight, when crossing over from his exit from path, after making these calls, hidden from view.
Why," let's say" they had gone with the timing between 6.15pm and 7pm - there is nothing to go on here outwith there being no sightings of him.
You can't simply assume someone committed a murder because they were not seen. What about all of the other factors? He had no alibi set in place for this time, the reason why, is because only he knew, by this point which time this murder had taken place. The time he would most definitely need an alibi.
On the 30th of June until after his first interviews, Luke had no way of knowing if these texts had been erased from her mothers phone.
He solely has to go on this information alone.
That her parents would know she was meeting him.
That he would have known she was getting out earlier than expected.
The time of her leaving her house to go and do so.
That crucial area of time, that would be focused on, once the police had this information in their hands.
This is not about looking for any window of opportunity, over the period of this evening it is about the window of happening.
The police did not pick this time frame of alibi, the evidence in itself did so.
Those first statements of Judith and Alan, the similarities in them - his arrival home from his work, of Jodi leaving whilst in the toilet. He did not see her that day.
Timings which would have differed as they were not concocted to try and give false witness on anything.
The police checking this out, Alan seen on CTV in a petrol station that he had stopped at on his way home, which ties in with his first accounts.
The police take the timing of this visit and drive the route to their house, approx.: time in the loo, this is what established Jodi's time of leaving.
Not any guesstimated times, of anyone.
Other factors also no doubt given. Jodi getting out earlier than expected, that she was going to meet Luke.
AB - did the police think, yes, first timing after 5.30pm, Luke has no claimed alibi at this point. - No, like everything else, every account of information of whereabouts, the police look for other solid factors to ascertain more accurate times.
CM on CTV in local shop - route driven to estimate time home.
SM also other factors sought to give a more accurate account.
F & W, boys on the bike, lady going to video shop, boys on the moped, LK on the path. The search party - multiple accounts form statements and phone records.
The police did not manipulate all of these, there were sound areas of evidence used. CTV, bank and till receipts, phone records and so forth. Routes taken and timings ascertained.
Resulting in:
Shane not seeing his brother in the house at that time.
A rather neat set of accounts given by Luke and Corrine on what happened in that 'window of opportunity/happening'
For nearly 90mins, a very small window of sightings, in which Luke makes himself seen.
He phoned this girls landline, as above because at this point he knows it is he, whom Jodi is supposed to be with. That her parents know this.
We have a sighting by AB which, once investigated ties in with the time established of Jodi leaving her house.
We have from 4.25 (call to Scotts caravans from the Mitchell landline) until the sighting of the boys on the bike around 5.55pm. From AB's sighting until then we actually have around 60minutes - For this meet, for attack/murder and initial clean up. Sounds quite different now. The we have a further substantial amount of time up until 7pm and thereafter for further disposal. Then we have from 9pm until 11pm. For disposal.
Whilst there may have been some slim chance of this girls being found, from where she was clearly hidden - there is the timescale of Identification.
Whatever way you look at it - Luke had all of this time, over this evening to dispose, clean and so forth.
To set his story straight - yet it was by these very means, of rather eccentric accounts that drew this suspicion from the off.
As above.
why do you never post a link to the actull website or thread.
-
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12812387#post12812387
Rolfe:
The only time Luke Mitchell could have murdered Jodi Jones was 5.15. If she was murdered at 5.15 then the only time she could have been seen by Andrina Bryson at the end of the path was ~4.50. If Andrina Bryson saw her at ~4.50, then Mrs Bryson must have been driving north, towards the house she wanted to see, not south away from it (as she stated in her original statement?) If Andrina Bryson saw Luke Mitchell in Easthouses at ~4.50 then his mother and brother are lying about him having been at home, in the house, until 5.30. Bingo we got him!
Sandra Lean:
You got it in one!
What dictated the police timeline? Please bear with me - this gets messy!! Basically, the other evidence that couldn't be manipulated. The 5.32pm call from Luke's mobile to the Jones' landline was on record. He was seen sitting on a wall at the end of his street at between 5.50pm and 6pm by boys who knew him. A woman returning videos to a rental store saw him on the Newbattle Road at 6.15pm.
Got it in one - however, it's not about this being. the. "only time" Luke Mitchell could have murdered Jodi, it is the clear time that fits around the evidence, once police had established timings.
It actually. only gets messy, when you try to bear with SL's many different attempts at trying to break this evidence down. It's not an easy feat - to dissolve something that has many mitigating factors to back it up.
Interestingly here we have this first basis of truth - the sightings around 5.55pm and 6.15pm.
Luke claims to have made the call to the Jones household from the entrance, at this wall he was sitting on at 5.32pm.
This being. one of the two times in a day that this road is at its busiest with commuters. No sighting for a whole 25mins. - except of course F & W around 4.40 once he had come into sight, when crossing over from his exit from path, after making these calls, hidden from view.
Let's say they'd gone for the time between that 6.15pm sighting and 7pm when he met his pals. That would have knocked out the Bryson sighting - for Luke to have got from the Newbattle Road to the Easthouses end to be seen by Bryson, he'd have needed 18 - 20 minutes (depending on where, on the Newbattle Road, he started off), then another 9 minutes to get back down the path to the V break. He'd need 10 minutes back from the murder scene to where he met his pals. So the to-ing and fro-ing alone would have taken up 37 - 39 minutes of that 45 minute window (leaving not enough time for the murder) and lost them the only eyewitness they had.
Why," let's say" they had gone with the timing between 6.15pm and 7pm - there is nothing to go on here outwith there being no sightings of him.
You can't simply assume someone committed a murder because they were not seen. What about all of the other factors? He had no alibi set in place for this time, the reason why, is because only he knew, by this point which time this murder had taken place. The time he would most definitely need an alibi.
On the 30th of June until after his first interviews, Luke had no way of knowing if these texts had been erased from her mothers phone.
He solely has to go on this information alone.
That her parents would know she was meeting him.
That he would have known she was getting out earlier than expected.
The time of her leaving her house to go and do so.
That crucial area of time, that would be focused on, once the police had this information in their hands.
This is not about looking for any window of opportunity, over the period of this evening it is about the window of happening.
The police did not pick this time frame of alibi, the evidence in itself did so.
Those first statements of Judith and Alan, the similarities in them - his arrival home from his work, of Jodi leaving whilst in the toilet. He did not see her that day.
Timings which would have differed as they were not concocted to try and give false witness on anything.
The police checking this out, Alan seen on CTV in a petrol station that he had stopped at on his way home, which ties in with his first accounts.
The police take the timing of this visit and drive the route to their house, approx.: time in the loo, this is what established Jodi's time of leaving.
Not any guesstimated times, of anyone.
Other factors also no doubt given. Jodi getting out earlier than expected, that she was going to meet Luke.
AB - did the police think, yes, first timing after 5.30pm, Luke has no claimed alibi at this point. - No, like everything else, every account of information of whereabouts, the police look for other solid factors to ascertain more accurate times.
CM on CTV in local shop - route driven to estimate time home.
SM also other factors sought to give a more accurate account.
F & W, boys on the bike, lady going to video shop, boys on the moped, LK on the path. The search party - multiple accounts form statements and phone records.
The police did not manipulate all of these, there were sound areas of evidence used. CTV, bank and till receipts, phone records and so forth. Routes taken and timings ascertained.
Resulting in:
Shane not seeing his brother in the house at that time.
A rather neat set of accounts given by Luke and Corrine on what happened in that 'window of opportunity/happening'
For nearly 90mins, a very small window of sightings, in which Luke makes himself seen.
He phoned this girls landline, as above because at this point he knows it is he, whom Jodi is supposed to be with. That her parents know this.
We have a sighting by AB which, once investigated ties in with the time established of Jodi leaving her house.
We have from 4.25 (call to Scotts caravans from the Mitchell landline) until the sighting of the boys on the bike around 5.55pm. From AB's sighting until then we actually have around 60minutes - For this meet, for attack/murder and initial clean up. Sounds quite different now. The we have a further substantial amount of time up until 7pm and thereafter for further disposal. Then we have from 9pm until 11pm. For disposal.
Whilst there may have been some slim chance of this girls being found, from where she was clearly hidden - there is the timescale of Identification.
Whatever way you look at it - Luke had all of this time, over this evening to dispose, clean and so forth.
To set his story straight - yet it was by these very means, of rather eccentric accounts that drew this suspicion from the off.
The other problem with this scenario is that Jodi would have had to leave home at 6.14pm, but her mother and step-father were out by then on their run to the cemetery, so there would have been no statements to confirm what time Jodi left.
The next available "window" is between 9.30pm, when Luke got home from playing with his mates and 10.38pm, when Judith texted his phone looking for Jodi. Luke was seen in Newbattle Abbey Crescent by a neighbour at 10pm - given the timings above, he couldn't have committed the murder after 9.30pm and been back in his street by 10pm, nor could he have committed the murder after 10pm and been home by 10.38pm.
His being home by 10.38pm is witnessed only by his mum and brother. What if they were lying? Well, the contents of the various phone calls between Luke and Jodi's mother are consistent with him leaving his home at 10.52pm (following a call from Jodi's mother at 10.49pm) and arriving at the Newbattle end of the path at 10.59pm, when they spoke again on the phone. The timings from there to the meeting of the search trio at the junction of the paths etc all support the claim that Luke was at home when the 10.38pm text came in and thereafter made his way to and up the path.
And that's it. For Luke to be the killer, Jodi had to be murdered prior to 5.50pm, less enough time for Luke to escape, clean up and be sitting on the wall at the end of his street. It was unlikely she was being murdered at 5.38 or 5.32, when Luke was ringing her mother's landline, so it had to be earlier than that. But it couldn't be earlier than a time constrained by a leaving time for Jodi of no earlier than 4.45pm (so that there was another witness, other than her own mother) to her leaving.
From all of that, the police were left with a window of 4.45m - 5.32pm, from which they had to subtract enough time for Jodi to get to the V point (almost 12 mins) and still leave enough time for the attack etc before Luke's first phone call to the landline.
As above
-
For this post I'm going to work backwards, these highlight some of the areas that stood out amongst the miraculous coincidences in this case.
At 10.40pm this girls mother sent a text to Luke's phone, she appears somewhat miffed at her daughter being 40mins past her curfew time, at this point.
Luke upon receiving this text phones Judith, he informs her that he has not been with Jodi, at all that evening.
It is upon this phone call that Judith becomes instantly worried, this isn't some short time as earlier in the evening, at this point her daughter has not been, where she was supposed to have been for nearly 6hrs.
The instant worry this brings and what appears to be panic - shows that this is something that is not of the norm. There may have been an occurrence at some earlier date, in which, this girl had stayed out late, her mother subsequently tracking her down. There is nothing in this earlier occurrence that is made clear upon the circumstances. What it does show, is that this, appeared to be singular incident, thus highlighting it was not a frequent event.
What is sure about the evening of the 30th of June 2003, is that Judith had been of the sound opinion, that Jodi was with Luke and nowhere else, it is this that draws this deep concern. And rightly so.
It appears at this point Judith contacted her mothers house to see if Jodi was there, she wasn't, which furthers this mothers worry.
Judith phoned Luke back, she informs him that she is going to phone the police, that she is most definitely, by this point, somewhat frantic with worry.
Between this first text at 10.40pm until just after 11pm, there appear to be a series of calls between various people. Luke, Judith, the gran, sister and the police.
SL puts the gran, sister and Kelly at this path at 10.58pm. A somewhat precise time?
There is no information as to why she has this time, no source - nothing, but uses this to infer the search party had left the house before knowing this girl was missing?
What is clear, is that there is numerous times of contact between Judith, Luke and the grans house phone, who do we imagine Judith was talking to when the house phone was answered in the grans? And presumably more calls to this grans mobile whilst out. Why does SL miss out all of those, along with any information given.
Is this precise 10.58pm yet again another mystery source.
We know that one of SL's sources for information is JF whom she claims, said in one of his statements that, the search party walked passed YW's house, which in itself would mean that this search trio walked backwards, rather than head directly to said path? Did he give a time, did SL subsequently walk this backward route, and determine the time being at 10.58pm?
We have also seen mention, as to why this search trio did not go into Scotts Caravans on their way past? Which begs the question why? She had not been with Luke all evening, why go into his mothers work place?
It is also clear, that in one of these conversations, Luke informs Judith that he is at the Newbattle end of this path - there appears to be some confusion between a bike and a dog? by SL's information given.
What would appear correct is that Judith informed the other members of her family as to Luke's whereabouts. It is these factors that seem to determine why all four met on this path.
Kelly, Janine and this gran heading to meet Luke to search and vice versa. It also appears that this meet had taken place near the Easthouses entrance not at the entrance. Whilst Luke was approaching an area of sight he saw the other members heading towards him, not at a standstill, plus the entrance not being within sight itself.
Would be fair to assume here?, that both parties knew they were going to meet up to search.
When they met, this trio had already been searching to this point on the path, they realised that Luke had not searched, only that he had not noticed anything on the actual path, on his haste up it. It was this it would seem, that got them all walking down to actually search, properly.
This not being allowed to walk this path alone, seems quite prominent in any debate, why search a path Jodi was not supposed to use - would it not be fair, at this point for this to be of no value, she was to meeting Luke, the connecting area is this path, by whatever conversations between the parties, the agreement was to search this path.
What does seem evident, that whilst 3 members of this search party, looked in the field and overgrowth, to the side of this path, she shouldn't really have used, it did not enter their heads to search this woodland - unlikely perhaps in their minds, that it was one thing, this girl maybe walking this path alone, walking in the woods alone was something else, entirely different. It was only Luke whom saw fit to do so?
They reach a Gino point (graffiti on the wall) where the wall is slightly broken on top. Luke climbs up on this wall and shines his torch into the woodland.
At his point, without any alert from his dog, he already puts in motion to look into this wood. Perhaps showing at this point, it is an area that he knew Jodi to go into with him. Even though he is later to deny having frequented the woodland side of this wall. Evidence produced to the contrary. One of the first slip ups whilst trying to distance himself, from any knowledge of being in this woodland before, far less of frequenting it.
From this point all members are searching to the field and to the overgrowth beside the wall, until, they reach the V point. At this point again, Luke shines his torch into the woodland.
It is in those very first accounts by this search party that there is a dispute, as to whether this dog reacted, first where and the reaction itself.
There is nothing it would appear in any of those statements that tally with Luke's version of events, to where this dog reacted, outwith around this V.
His first account being that he had walked not even 20yds when his dog bounded over to the wall, scrabbling and sniffing the air?
The only accounts given by the search party, are of the dog standing against this wall, nose level with the V.
Luke after shining his torch over, climbs over at this easier access point and turns to his left, this is witnessed by other members of the search party.
Contrary to not being able to see over, it would appear that the bottom (V) of this V is somewhat 4ft from ground level and opens out up in its shape.
Here's what to think of, two members give account of seeing Luke turn left over this V,
What is also shown is that he hands the dogs lead to this granny? witnessed by other search party members. This clarifies that all members of this search party where around this V point when this happens, and not some distance away, in the dark.
If 3 member of this party had walked some distance passed, then Luke backtracked, Kelly and Janine would have been some 30+ passed by this point.
Unable to see this handing over of the dog lead. The dogs head level with this V or indeed see Luke and the granny at all?
He goes over and turns left, direction he is shining his torch.
It is at this point that Kelly and Janine continue to walk this 10 - 15ft passed when Luke shouts he has found something.
They then back track to this V point beside granny.
What was clearly shown in court is whilst they had walked this 10-15ft so had Luke on the other side, it was from this distance into the overgrowth of this woodland that he managed to see something, some 30ft down?
He not only in his first statements gave details of how far he had walked but of this red bobble and large Oak Tree.. Now whilst it may be so, that an interviewing office may have mentioned this tree, it was after Luke doing so, further on, into his statements. Same with this bobble, how ridiculous is it to hint at the press putting this in his head?? Really?
So to highlight main points here, there is nothing in those first statements that clearly say, that all members of this search party, gave any indication, whatsoever of having walked some distance passed this V point, and at that point the dog jumping up onto this wall. It is clear that this happened around the V.
As further statements were taken, these events in their clarity showed how vastly different they all were. From Luke within 3 days drawing a diagram for his Flo. These were what drew suspicion.
That this search trio had not been out searching before realising this girl was missing - ludicrous in its stretching to the extreme of any actual facts.
Did this search party, in its infancy in investigation give rough times which were later determined by other factors. Phone records and so forth. Like all investigations, first accounts are investigated, went over and flaws picked out. It is clear whose statements showed major flaws.
One thing that is very evident in all of this, is:
This girl was hidden from any usual thoroughfare of walked routes, on this woodland side of this wall.
She was not discovered in the course of this evening.
Within approx.: 20mins of this search party meeting up she was discovered, in the dark, in this hidden area by the only person to look there.
Both at the Gino point and the V.
This dog was nowhere near to where Jodi lay on the other side of this wall - there is nothing in any of the search party members statements, from the off, that say it did.
This is why, it was pointless for Findlay to introduce evidence from dog tracking experts.
Him, in his expertise saw the futility in this.
There would have been nothing to show, that this family guard dog/pet had the abilities to sense this girl from the distance they were at.
People appear to be somewhat confused by dog walkers finding bodies. yes, it the dog is actually in an accessible area, running around.
This dog had no access, it was a damp, dreek night.
He did give statements which showed vast difference in the account of this happening between those of the other search party members.
SL has a somewhat bad habit of taking timings from accounts that had been determined to be wrong after investigation.
Those of this girls mother in her first statements of given an approximate timing of events. A mother whom clearly was blocked mentally by this horrific discovery of her child, as those of the search party were too, all but Luke and CM whose accounts sang totally in tune.
Whatever those accounts given by this girls family of their first recollection of events on the 30th of June, did not sing in tune, there clearly was no concoction of stories to prove false, to show that they were hiding anything. Timing tied together, of the fathers account getting home to this girl leaving. He did not see her. Clearly shows that she had infact left before 5pm.
These other sightings - girl whom knew Jodi, is this the girl who saw her on the main Easthouses road? not outside her own home, and showing to be at an earlier time, off the school bus perhaps?
This neighbour, what neighbour? again a loose feeble point. not disregarded but shown to be not after 5pm on this day, upon further investigation.
IF there had been anything untoward in respect of this male member, be it JoJ or Kelly it would have stood out, it didn't.
This account also of why the granny. sister and Kelly and not the mother, father and brother went searching? What else is in those statements, what were the reasons given for this?
The only thing that seems feasible in all of this, is. The speed at which all of the above events took place, from that first text to the finding of this girl.
The call to the police? Were these other members simply waiting on the police arriving at this girls house? The granny making the decision to go and search with Luke whilst this happened?
None of this family, at any point imagining the events which would unfold so quickly.
So again, this somewhat bizarre coincidence, that in reality, once all four members were together, that this girls body was found, within an extremely short timescale.
This in itself showing clearly that only the person responsible would have been able to show where this girl was - and he did. Not his dog, which was nowhere near to where Jodi lay.
What is clear in all of this is the somewhat blinkered view. From a person whose sole source of information came mainly from the Mitchell household. From their belief in innocence becoming stronger once POA was established. The pushing out of economical truths with heavily biased opinion. The result somewhat nonsensical.
-
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12812387#post12812387
Rolfe:
Sandra Lean:
Got it in one - however, it's not about this being. the. "only time" Luke Mitchell could have murdered Jodi, it is the clear time that fits around the evidence, once police had established timings.
It actually. only gets messy, when you try to bear with SL's many different attempts at trying to break this evidence down. It's not an easy feat - to dissolve something that has many mitigating factors to back it up.
Interestingly here we have this first basis of truth - the sightings around 5.55pm and 6.15pm.
Luke claims to have made the call to the Jones household from the entrance, at this wall he was sitting on at 5.32pm.
This being. one of the two times in a day that this road is at its busiest with commuters. No sighting for a whole 25mins. - except of course F & W around 4.40 once he had come into sight, when crossing over from his exit from path, after making these calls, hidden from view.
Why," let's say" they had gone with the timing between 6.15pm and 7pm - there is nothing to go on here outwith there being no sightings of him.
You can't simply assume someone committed a murder because they were not seen. What about all of the other factors? He had no alibi set in place for this time, the reason why, is because only he knew, by this point which time this murder had taken place. The time he would most definitely need an alibi.
On the 30th of June until after his first interviews, Luke had no way of knowing if these texts had been erased from her mothers phone.
He solely has to go on this information alone.
That her parents would know she was meeting him.
That he would have known she was getting out earlier than expected.
The time of her leaving her house to go and do so.
That crucial area of time, that would be focused on, once the police had this information in their hands.
This is not about looking for any window of opportunity, over the period of this evening it is about the window of happening.
The police did not pick this time frame of alibi, the evidence in itself did so.
Those first statements of Judith and Alan, the similarities in them - his arrival home from his work, of Jodi leaving whilst in the toilet. He did not see her that day.
Timings which would have differed as they were not concocted to try and give false witness on anything.
The police checking this out, Alan seen on CTV in a petrol station that he had stopped at on his way home, which ties in with his first accounts.
The police take the timing of this visit and drive the route to their house, approx.: time in the loo, this is what established Jodi's time of leaving.
Not any guesstimated times, of anyone.
Other factors also no doubt given. Jodi getting out earlier than expected, that she was going to meet Luke.
AB - did the police think, yes, first timing after 5.30pm, Luke has no claimed alibi at this point. - No, like everything else, every account of information of whereabouts, the police look for other solid factors to ascertain more accurate times.
CM on CTV in local shop - route driven to estimate time home.
SM also other factors sought to give a more accurate account.
F & W, boys on the bike, lady going to video shop, boys on the moped, LK on the path. The search party - multiple accounts form statements and phone records.
The police did not manipulate all of these, there were sound areas of evidence used. CTV, bank and till receipts, phone records and so forth. Routes taken and timings ascertained.
Resulting in:
Shane not seeing his brother in the house at that time.
A rather neat set of accounts given by Luke and Corrine on what happened in that 'window of opportunity/happening'
For nearly 90mins, a very small window of sightings, in which Luke makes himself seen.
He phoned this girls landline, as above because at this point he knows it is he, whom Jodi is supposed to be with. That her parents know this.
We have a sighting by AB which, once investigated ties in with the time established of Jodi leaving her house.
We have from 4.25 (call to Scotts caravans from the Mitchell landline) until the sighting of the boys on the bike around 5.55pm. From AB's sighting until then we actually have around 60minutes - For this meet, for attack/murder and initial clean up. Sounds quite different now. The we have a further substantial amount of time up until 7pm and thereafter for further disposal. Then we have from 9pm until 11pm. For disposal.
Whilst there may have been some slim chance of this girls being found, from where she was clearly hidden - there is the timescale of Identification.
Whatever way you look at it - Luke had all of this time, over this evening to dispose, clean and so forth.
To set his story straight - yet it was by these very means, of rather eccentric accounts that drew this suspicion from the off.
As above
why do you not go on that forum and debate with her then.
-
https://i.imgur.com/p8igNEn.png
sof if that's a genuine letter why do you not have them.
-
Ok it's fake "letter" mate you got me.
::)
Fuckin morons.
well he ustions stands why do you not have it.
-
Lean is a coward, jogs on over to that sceptic's forum, cause a few folk are toeing the line. Can't handle the heat in here.
well why don't you go and debte with her on the sceptics forum.
-
Could Luke's camp have any less credibility at this point.
Did they ever have any to begin with?
-
Did they ever have any to begin with?
look whos talking.
-
Could Luke's camp have any less credibility at this point.
i dont need credibility to ask a qustion.
how about giving an anser.
-
She's now saying no one said they were at the v-break to witness the bike there riderless at 5:15pm, yet has been happily telling the world that bike was at the v-break riderless at 5:15pm. :o and thinks this doesn't need elaborated on.
Something has been seriously twisted here.
Keep up Lithium. I never, ever said someone was at the v break to witness the bike there at 5.15pm. I said the bike was seen there, by a witness, at 5.15pm - the one thing I've never said is where it was seen from. Now, can we get our heads around this?
The witness has never been publicly named, just like the male relative claimed to be in Alice Walker's house when she was apparently telling Ferris not to go to the police - I've never named anyone who wasn't already in the public domain and I'm not about to start doing so now. Sorry if you don't like it.
-
This Davie, is what you call the truth.
-
I just knew it wouldn't be the case
Like I said if this evidence was even close to credible it would have made me reconsider.
I'm almost disappointed tbh.
when you going to answer my qustion about the transcripts.
-
This is an extract - taken from https://paulviking.websitetoolbox.com/post/Infamous-Cases-4689531?trail=15 , from No Smoke by Sandra Lean.
Once again, we are faced with serious anomalies in the prosecution case. Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or Jodi, or indeed, any of the others, on the path. At this point, the murderer is highly likely to have been heavily bloodstained, probably scratched or having other injuries consistent with having been in a fight, almost certainly behaving in an agitated manner, and attempting to flee the scene. It is possible, once these factors are taken into consideration, that Jodi Jones was not murdered at the time all of these other people were known to be on the path, and we are required, once more, to consider the original time of Jodi leaving home as reported at 5.30pm.
The extract is said to be from Sandra Leans book No Smoke.
I do not have this book, I have no way of known, if the poster has edited it - or indeed, if it this is their own take of the original.
There are inconsistences from what would appear to be, the actual facts from this case.? Anomalies by this very writer of the above?
Perhaps simple errors? These simple errors however adding a crucial difference when stitched together - wrongly?
Above mentions a minimum of five witnesses, "as having been ON the path at the critical time that evening".
We have the two Dickies, JF, SK, "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance" "and the mystery man seen following Jodi onto the path"
Firstly - which most people know, it was LK who heard the disturbance.
These minimum 5 people appear to be JF, GD, DD,SK! and the mystery man.
The "mystery man" seen "following Jodi" was not shown to have been on "the path" or entering it. This does however add weight to 'A' another being responsible.
Neither was Jodi seen to be on the path.
Nor is there any proof, of anyone following this girl, anywhere.
The only 'mystery male' and female, at the time of establishing identity,shown to be on and at the entrance to said path - were the sighting of AB. Of Luke and Jodi.
Written in the way it has been above - gives the distinct impression that SK whose DNA was later discovered - was on this path at the time of this murder - grossly wrong.
If the extract is not, exactly how it is in the book, then the poster has made a crucial error in her work.
If however it is, as the book - How could this author make such a critical mistake. When a person writes a piece of work, they go over it several times, correcting mistakes and so forth - more so before it goes to print. LK was a witness in this case, his evidence has been discussed, many times prior to No Smoke being written, both people, being prominent in this case.
People whom read, posts and extracts, as above would clearly tie the DNA, the person and being at the scene (at the crucial time) together - adding substance to suspicion?
A deliberate 'clanger' or simple error?
This going with the first time, 'not timing' of this girl leaving at 5.30pm, to assume that the murder was less likely to have happened prior to 5.30pm
What perhaps is really important to highlight here , is the minimum of time these others were most definitely on this path from those with no proof.
JF and GD, clearly shown here to have been on this path for around 15mins.
LK for around 10mins.
Certainly no mystery man seen on this path, at any point in time and definitely no SK.
So there is no sighting of any stocky man, walking into this path behind any girl. Grossly wrong.
Who we do have is LK who was cycling up this path, he did not see Luke or Jodi, yet heard a noise from behind this wall.
JF and GD, again after LK, why therefore would they have seen Luke or Jodi?
Interestingly here, there is no mention of any other seeing this bike at the V point, so no - one else on this path at this time?
But now we are given more information, after much deliberation - that the person who claims to have seen this motor bike, unmanned at this V point, at exactly 5.15pm was not on this path.
Remembering also, SL's claims about how hidden this V is, how one could walk passed it numerous times and be unaware of its existence - this of course, when given in defence of Luke's claims, of having no knowledge of this V until that night. A laddie who had walked this path, many times prior. Yet there is another 'mystery' witness, not even on this path, who has claimed to have seen this bike, at this hidden V, at no less or more than 5.15pm? The estimated TOD. Coincidently still that, this is the approx: time of LK hearing noises from behind this wall - yet saw no duo on their bike.
Luke and Jodi's initials were carved into a tree, near to a broken entrance, in this wall at the Easthouses end of this path.
Why would they walk down the path, if they were used to frequenting behind here, going to have a smoke of weed. It is more than likely, it is at this point they entered this woodland.
This takes away any chance of being seen on this path, for having that fly smoke. Fair to assume, that whilst being seen having a fag at this age, may warrant untoward attention, smoking dope certainly would.
So again, yes and again - There is no corroborated alibi for Luke Mitchell.
He was to meet Jodi from when she left her house at 4.50pm.
She was murdered in a stretch of woodland that she frequented with her boyfriend.
There most definitely was the timescale for this to happen.
She most definitely was attacked ferociously.
She was hidden in an area of unfrequented use.
She was not discovered over the course of this evening which proves the latter.
The determined sequence of events, show quite clearly, how quickly this girl, was sadly and horrifically silenced.
Why would the factors (in their inaccuracy) above, lean toward this murder happening at another time.
Was this path not used by anyone, over the remainder of this evening?
There is absolutely nothing that warrants another TOD.
-
This is an extract - taken from https://paulviking.websitetoolbox.com/post/Infamous-Cases-4689531?trail=15 , from No Smoke by Sandra Lean.
The extract is said to be from Sandra Leans book No Smoke.
I do not have this book, I have no way of known, if the poster has edited it - or indeed, if it this is their own take of the original.
There are inconsistences from what would appear to be, the actual facts from this case.? Anomalies by this very writer of the above?
Perhaps simple errors? These simple errors however adding a crucial difference when stitched together - wrongly?
Above mentions a minimum of five witnesses, "as having been ON the path at the critical time that evening".
We have the two Dickies, JF, SK, "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance" "and the mystery man seen following Jodi onto the path"
Firstly - which most people know, it was LK who heard the disturbance.
These minimum 5 people appear to be JF, GD, DD,SK! and the mystery man.
The "mystery man" seen "following Jodi" was not shown to have been on "the path" or entering it. This does however add weight to 'A' another being responsible.
Neither was Jodi seen to be on the path.
Nor is there any proof, of anyone following this girl, anywhere.
The only 'mystery male' and female, at the time of establishing identity,shown to be on and at the entrance to said path - were the sighting of AB. Of Luke and Jodi.
Written in the way it has been above - gives the distinct impression that SK whose DNA was later discovered - was on this path at the time of this murder - grossly wrong.
If the extract is not, exactly how it is in the book, then the poster has made a crucial error in her work.
If however it is, as the book - How could this author make such a critical mistake. When a person writes a piece of work, they go over it several times, correcting mistakes and so forth - more so before it goes to print. LK was a witness in this case, his evidence has been discussed, many times prior to No Smoke being written, both people, being prominent in this case.
People whom read, posts and extracts, as above would clearly tie the DNA, the person and being at the scene (at the crucial time) together - adding substance to suspicion?
A deliberate 'clanger' or simple error?
This going with the first time, 'not timing' of this girl leaving at 5.30pm, to assume that the murder was less likely to have happened prior to 5.30pm
What perhaps is really important to highlight here , is the minimum of time these others were most definitely on this path from those with no proof.
JF and GD, clearly shown here to have been on this path for around 15mins.
LK for around 10mins.
Certainly no mystery man seen on this path, at any point in time and definitely no SK.
So there is no sighting of any stocky man, walking into this path behind any girl. Grossly wrong.
Who we do have is LK who was cycling up this path, he did not see Luke or Jodi, yet heard a noise from behind this wall.
JF and GD, again after LK, why therefore would they have seen Luke or Jodi?
Interestingly here, there is no mention of any other seeing this bike at the V point, so no - one else on this path at this time?
But now we are given more information, after much deliberation - that the person who claims to have seen this motor bike, unmanned at this V point, at exactly 5.15pm was not on this path.
Remembering also, SL's claims about how hidden this V is, how one could walk passed it numerous times and be unaware of its existence - this of course, when given in defence of Luke's claims, of having no knowledge of this V until that night. A laddie who had walked this path, many times prior. Yet there is another 'mystery' witness, not even on this path, who has claimed to have seen this bike, at this hidden V, at no less or more than 5.15pm? The estimated TOD. Coincidently still that, this is the approx: time of LK hearing noises from behind this wall - yet saw no duo on their bike.
Luke and Jodi's initials were carved into a tree, near to a broken entrance, in this wall at the Easthouses end of this path.
Why would they walk down the path, if they were used to frequenting behind here, going to have a smoke of weed. It is more than likely, it is at this point they entered this woodland.
This takes away any chance of being seen on this path, for having that fly smoke. Fair to assume, that whilst being seen having a fag at this age, may warrant untoward attention, smoking dope certainly would.
So again, yes and again - There is no corroborated alibi for Luke Mitchell.
He was to meet Jodi from when she left her house at 4.50pm.
She was murdered in a stretch of woodland that she frequented with her boyfriend.
There most definitely was the timescale for this to happen.
She most definitely was attacked ferociously.
She was hidden in an area of unfrequented use.
She was not discovered over the course of this evening which proves the latter.
The determined sequence of events, show quite clearly, how quickly this girl, was sadly and horrifically silenced.
Why would the factors (in their inaccuracy) above, lean toward this murder happening at another time.
Was this path not used by anyone, over the remainder of this evening?
There is absolutely nothing that warrants another TOD.
no it isnt.
-
Wow @ that extract. I've never bothered reading that book. She really claims in it that SK was on the path at the time of murder? :o :o :o
so why havent you got these transcripts then when y going to answer this qustion.
-
They're clearly not giving me them retard
Why don't u email a request lol
so why would they not be giving them if you have done the things they asked.
https://i.imgur.com/p8igNEn.png
-
no it isnt.
Are you saying here, that the extract and Link I put up is not from any book by Sandra Lean, that it is a different piece of work altogether Nugnug?
It could be interesting to try to take the evidence in Sandra Lean's book, which is very detailed, and try to see if it's possible to tease a probable timeline/sequence of events out of it, if not actually identify who the most probable suspect is. But the book is only available in hard copy, not an eBook. The chapter on the case in her earlier book is online though, https://paulviking.websitetoolbox.co...89531?trail=15
Infamous Cases
LUKE MITCHELL: PART 1 The case of Luke Mitchell On the night of June 30 th , 2003, ...
I followed this link from the IA thread, and it turns out to be a transcript of the chapter of Sandra Lean's book about the Mitchell case. So if you don't want to shell out for the book, here you are.
https://paulviking.websitetoolbox.co...89531?trail=15
-
Are you saying here, that the extract and Link I put up is not from any book by Sandra Lean, that it is a different piece of work altogether Nugnug?
Infamous Cases
LUKE MITCHELL: PART 1 The case of Luke Mitchell On the night of June 30 th , 2003, ...
it doesnt state that it is.
-
The person whom posted the link has however read this book.
They state it is a extract.
Simply going on the knowledge that this person, who has read the book, clearly believes it is.
If they are wrong, then I've already highlighted, that I hadn't read the book, first hand.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3aZ5DBlHTk
-
The only similarity is both luke and Steven are guilty af.
Steven Avery has the victims bones hidden on his property. The victims belongings in his bedroom and burn barrel. And the murder weapon hanging up on his wall.
Innocent they say? What a joke!
-
Just ordered this book (how many people featured in it have since confessed guilt? ::)) and if it does indeed make the libelous claim that S.K. was on the path at "the critical time", I'll be advising him to contact a lawyer. Might be time for Sandra to get a job.
he has threatned to do that before funnly enough it never happend.
-
Steven Avery has the victims bones hidden on his property. The victims belongings in his bedroom and burn barrel. And the murder weapon hanging up on his wall.
Innocent they say? What a joke!
Umm please quote correctly David, 40% of her bones were found in the pit and burn barrels, including the Dassey barrels, 60% were either found miles away in the quarry or never found,
What items of Teresa were found in his trailer
Gun is very disputable ......
I used to think you spoke a lot of sense now I know you do all this just so you can feel important and boost your ego.
This link is turning into the wreck Sandra leans career forum and I don’t agree with it one bit. Everyone has a right to their opinion but there simply isn’t any real discussion it’s the david and lithium show, quite frankly it pisses me off!!!!
-
Umm please quote correctly David
OK lets quote correctly
40% of her bones were found in the pit and burn barrels, including the Dassey barrels,
Not all her remains where found because those bones got completely incinerated. Lets QUOTE from the trial anthropologist
"Q: Great. Um, and what -- what we know, then, is that there are -- there are pieces missing?
A: We know there are pieces that are missing. That's correct.
Q: Not recovered?
A: Or not there to recover after the burning episode.
Q: Exactly.
A: Correct.
Q: The reasons for not being recovered may be just complete reduction to ash or something
unrecognizable by fire --
A: Correct."
Steven Avery placed the big bones he could not destroy in his sisters burn barrel. Lets QUOTE from the prosecution closing
"Bones were moved in this case. There's no question of that. Who moved the bones? To the State, or for the theory of the prosecution is easy. Mr. Avery moved the bones. He moved the big bones. He moved the big bones, the ones he could identify as human bones, from his burn pit, over to his sister's burn barrel. All right. That's a couple hundred feet away. If you think about the selfishness involved in that particular act, that I think is one factor. But I guess more importantly is directing attention away from himself. Might be that first night, might be the 31st, might be the 1st or the 2nd, because he has got a couple of days, as it turns out, before the police officers actually start the investigation."
60% were either found miles away in the quarry or never found,
None of her remains where found in the quarry. The bones in Avery's burn pit yielded human DNA and Teresa's DNA the bones at the quarry on the other hand yielded nothing despite being more thoroughly tested. Hence they are not the same bones and not even related to case. Lets QUOTE from the summing up of the experts
"These bones in the quarry, I'm going to take about 20 seconds to talk about, because the best anybody can say is that they are possible human. What does possible human mean? Well, it means we don't know what it is. All right. The best anthropologists in the world don't know what these bones are. Dr. Eisenberg didn't know what they were. Dr. Fairgrieve didn't know what they were, he agreed with that. And you heard a stipulation being read to you by a person by the name of Les McCurdy. Stipulation just means an agreement between the parties, that these bones, we felt it important enough, were sent out to the FBI. And Les McCurdy from the FBI determined that these bones were so degraded, that they were in such a shape that even through testing, what's called mitochondrial DNA testing, whether they are human or not, could not, even by the FBI, be determined. So the bones in the quarry are really not evidence in this case."
I used to think you spoke a lot of sense
I still do.
Now I know you do all this just so you can feel important and boost your ego.
I am actually trying to stop you being conned by this BS TV show and murderer. If you have to view me in a bad light so you can think Avery is the harmless teddy bear he is portrayed on MAM. That's your problem not mine.
-
Career? She still working in a shop? Or a home help? Either way I don't see how this discussion affects her career. Please don't call her involvement in this case anything more than a creepy hobby/obsession.
Ps She chose to make it the lithium and Davie show by refusing to contribute when asked to back up her bias/evidence twisting/sensarionalism/exaggerations/misinformation.
whats wrong with working in a shop or being exactly.
-
https://youtu.be/3hG4Y-rhH3c
-
back to mitchell case
does any one know what the jury majority was in the trial out of 15 jurors? have not ever seen it conmfirmed here, only speculated. thanks
-
1. If something that you read on forums is pissing you off, i suggest you find a new hobby, that does not affect your mental health.
2. Why don't you contribute to the debate, instead of popping in, once in a blue moon, to have a go at David.
3. Lean does not have a career to wreck, But let's say for argument’s sake that she does, she is doing a grand job of wrecking it herself, by being an internet troll, spreader of misinformation & an accuser.
4. I cannot speak for the others. But i will make sure people will see things from another perspective, and i will also challenge her lies.
The reason my mental health isn't affected is because unlike you I don't spend my life on this or any other forum,. its something I am interested in yes but actually I have a life
there isn't much point in contributing to the debate if you can call it that as we are stale mate, you believe in his guilt I believe in his innocent. I don't see the point in going round in circles just to give you and David an ego boost ,
I do not know Sandra Lean, however I find her work to be completely up front and far more plausible than anything you and david and lithium spout. She speaks facts and not one of you have convinced me to look at it differently.
-
Career? She still working in a shop? Or a home help? Either way I don't see how this discussion affects her career. Please don't call her involvement in this case anything more than a creepy hobby/obsession.
Ps She chose to make it the lithium and Davie show by refusing to contribute when asked to back up her bias/evidence twisting/sensarionalism/exaggerations/misinformation.
Oh dear Lithium, I think it is you that needs some mental health help, you really dislike her and it comes across very well. her involvement is because this interests her and she doesn't want a miscarriage of justice. she hasn't just decided to support a guilty man she has decided to support an innocent man and do what she can and she has far more qualifications to do that than you do by the sounds of it.,
she has contributed far more than many of us and her arguments are backed up, yours are not in my oponion
-
OK lets quote correctly
Not all her remains where found because those bones got completely incinerated. Lets QUOTE from the trial anthropologist
"Q: Great. Um, and what -- what we know, then, is that there are -- there are pieces missing?
A: We know there are pieces that are missing. That's correct.
Q: Not recovered?
A: Or not there to recover after the burning episode.
Q: Exactly.
A: Correct.
Q: The reasons for not being recovered may be just complete reduction to ash or something
unrecognizable by fire --
A: Correct."
Steven Avery placed the big bones he could not destroy in his sisters burn barrel. Lets QUOTE from the prosecution closing
"Bones were moved in this case. There's no question of that. Who moved the bones? To the State, or for the theory of the prosecution is easy. Mr. Avery moved the bones. He moved the big bones. He moved the big bones, the ones he could identify as human bones, from his burn pit, over to his sister's burn barrel. All right. That's a couple hundred feet away. If you think about the selfishness involved in that particular act, that I think is one factor. But I guess more importantly is directing attention away from himself. Might be that first night, might be the 31st, might be the 1st or the 2nd, because he has got a couple of days, as it turns out, before the police officers actually start the investigation."
None of her remains where found in the quarry. The bones in Avery's burn pit yielded human DNA and Teresa's DNA the bones at the quarry on the other hand yielded nothing despite being more thoroughly tested. Hence they are not the same bones and not even related to case. Lets QUOTE from the summing up of the experts
"These bones in the quarry, I'm going to take about 20 seconds to talk about, because the best anybody can say is that they are possible human. What does possible human mean? Well, it means we don't know what it is. All right. The best anthropologists in the world don't know what these bones are. Dr. Eisenberg didn't know what they were. Dr. Fairgrieve didn't know what they were, he agreed with that. And you heard a stipulation being read to you by a person by the name of Les McCurdy. Stipulation just means an agreement between the parties, that these bones, we felt it important enough, were sent out to the FBI. And Les McCurdy from the FBI determined that these bones were so degraded, that they were in such a shape that even through testing, what's called mitochondrial DNA testing, whether they are human or not, could not, even by the FBI, be determined. So the bones in the quarry are really not evidence in this case."
I still do.
I am actually trying to stop you being conned by this BS TV show and murderer. If you have to view me in a bad light so you can think Avery is the harmless teddy bear he is portrayed on MAM. That's your problem not mine.
What a load of crock. why give the bones from the quarry back to the halbachs then. Teeth how hard is it to get rid of them into dust. 33 teeth missing. oh god david its you that's being taken in , why did the dogs track her into the quarry. there are so many whys in this case, you have not convinced me, try again.
-
The reason my mental health isn't affected is because unlike you I don't spend my life on this or any other forum,. its something I am interested in yes but actually I have a life
there isn't much point in contributing to the debate if you can call it that as we are stale mate, you believe in his guilt I believe in his innocent. I don't see the point in going round in circles just to give you and David an ego boost ,
I do not know Sandra Lean, however I find her work to be completely up front and far more plausible than anything you and david and lithium spout. She speaks facts and not one of you have convinced me to look at it differently.
I agree, the topic is supposed to be about the Luke Mitchell case but once again, the concentration has become about a poster and not the topic. Fair enough, she has written a book on the subject so debate the issues instead of what she does for a living etc. People seem completely unable to disagree without making it personal.
-
I agree, the topic is supposed to be about the Luke Mitchell case but once again, the concentration has become about a poster and not the topic. Fair enough, she has written a book on the subject so debate the issues instead of what she does for a living etc. People seem completely unable to disagree without making it personal.
I'm sure that there's some "ism" attached to suggesting that a home help of shop worker is incapable of rational and intelligent thoughts.
-
Hypocritical is it not? You rant about this topic being about Luke, but then you agree with someone that has came on this topic and started speaking crap about a completely different case? Deary me.
Only person doing any ranting here is you. You sound very angry, perhaps you should calm down?
Notsure didn't bring up Steven Avery, someone else dragged that into the mix.
NO reason to distract, I'm not invested in this case but perhaps a change of attitude might get a better response from Sandra. No wonder she doesn't want to reply!
-
I'm sure that there's some "ism" attached to suggesting that a home help of shop worker is incapable of rational and intelligent thoughts.
Sums them Up as far as I’m concerned Jane.
-
You are the one ranting on a forum off topic, first thing on a Monday morning. That does indeed suggest, you don't have a life.
You believe he is innocent? Wrong, you are LEAD to believe he is innocent, massive difference.
Thank you for admitting you don't know Lean. So with that said, how do you know, she has a career? How do you know she is qualified in anything? And how do you know if she is telling the truth or not?
You are the one that came on here off topic to attack another poster. You have nothing to contribute to this topic, because you cannot think for yourself, you need others to do that work for you. Whether it's a one sided Netflix documentary, or a conspiracy theorist like Lean.
We’ll make your mind up first I just pop in now and again then I don’t have a life because I post first thing on a Monday morning.
No I believe Sandra’s leans version over yours. Simple, she tells a better story than yours !
-
No I believe Sandra’s leans version over yours. Simple, she tells a better story than yours !
this is not how truth is establishd. in fact its one of main criticisms of modern uk court system. prosecution story vs defence story. truth be damned
-
this is not how truth is establishd. in fact its one of main criticisms of modern uk court system. prosecution story vs defence story. truth be damned
There is something in what you say. The courtroom is a stage, the case is a script, defence and prosecution the actors, witnesses have supporting roles, jury the audience. There are some who are natural orators, with no need of a script for support, who have audiences eating out of their hands. An inflection here, a pause for effect there. There are actors who respond better to some scripts than others. There are those for whom acting per se is impossible and stick to reading from a script. At the end of the day, it matters less who is right or wrong -they are simply presenting a script to the best of their ability- it's the effect their presentation has on the jury.
I would argue that there are probably more correctly arrived at results than MoJs -which I concur is of no comfort to those who become victims of them- but we're never going to get everything 100% right so it's no use stamping our feet and saying it's not fair. Find me the book which says it is. The most we can do is close loopholes. Preventing the obviously guilty from being released on technicalities might be a good place to start?
-
There is something in what you say. The courtroom is a stage, the case is a script, defence and prosecution the actors, witnesses have supporting roles, jury the audience. There are some who are natural orators, with no need of a script for support, who have audiences eating out of their hands. An inflection here, a pause for effect there. There are actors who respond better to some scripts than others. There are those for whom acting per se is impossible and stick to reading from a script. At the end of the day, it matters less who is right or wrong -they are simply presenting a script to the best of their ability- it's the effect their presentation has on the jury.
I would argue that there are probably more correctly arrived at results than MoJs -which I concur is of no comfort to those who become victims of them- but we're never going to get everything 100% right so it's no use stamping our feet and saying it's not fair. Find me the book which says it is. The most we can do is close loopholes. Preventing the obviously guilty from being released on technicalities might be a good place to start?
I would agree. The thing thatfrustrate me most about sandras involvement in this case (i know, we always end up talkin about sandra) is that i actually agree with her that adversary court system can let truth slip, its one of flaws of system. But then she actively promotes exactly thesame thing, sensationalised version of events with obvios exclusions or inaccuracies, to present a convincing onesided story, truth be damned.
i do think the court system isnt perfect and agree that closing loopholes is the best we can do, along with advancemnet in dependeble science and yes, the subjective opinion of expert witness, being used in courtrooms.
-
Every case needs a " Colombo " on the scene !! Fictional, yes, but like a dog with a bone and that's how the law should be towards criminals, until they break. Never mind giving up until a case runs cold !
-
I would agree. The thing thatfrustrate me most about sandras involvement in this case (i know, we always end up talkin about sandra) is that i actually agree with her that adversary court system can let truth slip, its one of flaws of system. But then she actively promotes exactly thesame thing, sensationalised version of events with obvios exclusions or inaccuracies, to present a convincing onesided story, truth be damned.
i do think the court system isnt perfect and agree that closing loopholes is the best we can do, along with advancemnet in dependeble science and yes, the subjective opinion of expert witness, being used in courtrooms.
what has been sensanlised/
-
Every case needs a " Colombo " on the scene !! Fictional, yes, but like a dog with a bone and that's how the law should be towards criminals, until they break. Never mind giving up until a case runs cold !
What criminals are needing broken? in this case? by this dog with a bone?
In contrast to the police in their "Colombo" act within this scene
They being relentless with their bone in the form of Luke Mitchell - unwilling to let go, most certainly having no intention of letting this case run cold.
Their persistence being rewarded in the jailing of said criminal above.
In complete contrast to there being nothing to warrant their belief in Luke's guilt, there was ample marrow in their bone enabling them to keep gnawing away.
It was Luke's actions, Luke's testimony that reeked such a stench, giving these police "dogs" no opportunity to let go - no sleeping dogs to leave lying, continuously keeping them alert with just about everything he put forward.
What we have in place now is something possibly akin to a rabid dog, let loose in their attack of all involved in this case -
This simply has not been the role of dishing out facts, more so the riddler packed full of Jokerman - or should that be Jigsawman?
A massive misrepresentation of facts - economical with truth to the point of ridicule - A Jigsaw that has never been completed.
Simply not possible to do - no matching of pieces in the puzzle - unlike the case against Luke, which fitted together wonderfully.
There is absolutely nothing Just in the Justice they cry out for.
A mismatch of information that would never stand the test of a trial - simply no case to be had in this wilderness of theories.
But it's good to keep pushing that information out - it matters not of the people involved, their innocence stands for zero.
It's good to be reminded constantly though of the deserved privacy of Shane and his father.
The only four people who count for anything are this family - no other person/s deserve to be left alone.
Even IF, and that is an almighty IF, one of those others were to be guilty - what about the rest?
For even in that almighty IF 95% roughly have to be innocent of anything statistically.
So What - it is each and everyone's own fault for either knowing this girl or having been brought up in the investigation to catch the above criminal.
And IF it should so happen one day that innocence is proven for this laddie, that other lives may have been infected and affected in this search,
causing irreversible damage.
They are after all, only pawns.
I often wonder if some new followers of this rather rabid pack, may one day seek vengeance on the many suspects spouted out, time and time again.
Much like the vigilantes who burnt down the Mitchell business - those of the nature who may reek some action upon any of these chosen suspects.
But no blame will lie at the feet of those who feed them - after all, the leader of the pack is only pushing information out - its up to each how they interpret it.
Mark Kane deserves all that he gets - its his fault for any actions he may have taken up in his life. Absolutely nothing to warrant him being listed as a suspect. This leader of the pack knows fine well he was on CTV much later in the evening and he did not walk passed Roansdyke path but in the opposite direction - tough. He had scratches on his face, certainly not from the victims fingernails and bollocks to being tested wrong!
He supposedly wrote an essay - denied by the tutor this was linked to.
Guess what though - he owned a parka jacket, bugger the fact that he would have had to have been - both at the top and bottom of this path wearing it.
For this male was obviously, one and the same - don't let little things like remarkable coincidences get in the way.
That this girl did not know him but decided to wander in to the woods with him.
Know what - what does it really matter, it's only someone else, innocent someone else who is getting chucked into the mix.
Absolutely nothing, with any sense that ties him into this girls murder.
That it is possible it may have been him rather than Luke at this wooden gate - not that the leader Is implying any involvement but that this could simply be a answer to F & W's sighting? of mistaken identity?
you know the sighting that wasn't a sighting of anything at all?? Figment of their imagination.
Fair and Just?
John Ferris and Gordon Dickie - they truly deserve all that is heaped upon them, they did not come forward.
Because they did not come forward, because they were on this path for all of 10 mins, this surely must merit guilt, in some form.
Are the lies they told, anything in comparison to the consistent lies of Luke Mitchell?
That he did not possess knives.
That he did not supply cannabis.
That he had no contact or planned meet with KT from Aviemore.
That he did not frequent this woodland area.
That he knew not of the existence of this V break in the wall.
Are but five of the most simplest of lies from Luke.
That he did not say to David or Judith about Jodi "not coming out" perhaps because she had "been grounded again"
Back to the duo:
It does not matter of any other person who may have been in these lads company, after their trip up this path.
It does not matter if there was nothing - to show anything that connected them to this murder.
What we have instead is a multitude of little snip bits thrown in to draw more suspicion upon them.
We have a traveller in car, going up the Beeches who spotted this duos bike unmanned on Roansdyke Path.
There is no certainty of time established.
They had no way of known how long this bike was at a standstill.
They most certainly did not see this bike unmanned at this V but close to it?
We have a gang hut thrown in, that this duo used for dealing drugs, in this woodland strip.
By appointment it would seem.
Now this gang hut isn't just anywhere in this woodland, it is feet! away from where Jodi was found.
Would that be some 100+ feet away - does not matter because technically it is still feet - isn't it?
Close to this V, well most areas of this path, are technically close to this V.
John cut his hair - nope, sorry he hacked it off.
Thrown in with this is the constant message of fine hair found at the locus.
It wasn't this dudes hair though - oh wait, we don't know that because they only tested this hair against Luke's.
More bollocks.
This dude didnt hide the fact he had been on the path, he readily spread the word within hours of this girl being found.
Lets chuck in the family ties of not only John being a cousin but Gordon is Johns cousin so all nice and cozy.
The truth being that John Ferris is not Jodi's cousin making Gordon even more distant.
Sounds a lot better though to imply all are close - implication stronger that family may cover for each other.
Little trivial things really, in their reality - but dam it sounds better to draw it in.
To hang with the actual truth.
So what did this duo do that merits these claims of?
Not being those two who were actually on this bike!
That John hacked his hair off to look like someone else!
Who was it he was trying to look like exactly?
Maybe his cousin - family can often be similar in looks -
wait a minute though - the person implied to look alike, isn't even a cousin?
Maybe just one of those strange things, where two people, unrelated can be uncannily similar.
Like MK and Luke - well not really but we know we all have that doppledanger somewhere.
Jodi certainly did - both her and KT, the girlfriend from Aviemore most definitely were.
The gloves down a radiator with a condom inside - ah so more than one condom in the mix of suspicion.
Well we will never know if they were from the same pack, will we - because, guess what again -
they were never tested - is that more bollocks? The implication being, yet again that neither gloves or condom were tested,
shoddy work for the ever consistent bad police work.
They did not test for anything other than Luke's DNA.
God knows how JaF popped up then after three years, or Kelly's DNA or the unknown sperm head on trainer.
You know that wee minute amount again - most likely picked up from traipsing in said woodland.
So yes, whilst there is no full DNA profiles to point this murder at Luke, there most certainly isn't any,
to strongly point it at A another either.
The probability that most of those sperm heads came from Kelly in transferral.
We know from Luke's statements that Jodi was wearing her sisters trousers.
We know from the investigation that Jodi was wearing her sisters t-shirt.
All rubbish of course, it was those policemen again putting ideas in peoples heads,
or perhaps it was a journalist?
The reality here of course being - this duo were spotted numerous times, in that short period of time.
Luke spent nearly 1 1/2 hours, supposedly on and around Newbattle R'd, witnessed, by his account,
only between 5.55pm and 6.15pm. Pretty good going?
Steven Kelly.
Guess what - this guy deserves all he gets or may get too.
Dam him for having an intimate relationship with Jodi's sister.
Absolutely nothing other than this minute amount of sperm DNA that ties him in with this murder.
And yes minute - couple of full profiles obtained from the millions ejaculation releases.
Even if ejaculation had taken place that evening - the rain would not have washed away so much,
leaving in its place an old stain - that had some sperm heads in it - not multitudes.
This guy, not only witnessed this horror that evening - he too was shown pictures of the deceased in court.
The fumbling around with his statements, trying to break them down into something suspicious.
What is blatantly clear about them - there was no concoction of story, nothing preplanned to say.
There simply was no need to do so.
His alibi from his father - guess what. The leader of the pack has never seen it.
Guess what again - it must have been buried, only to be unburied by the SCCRC.
Does this tell us, all is not in this leaders hands, as claimed.
Making the bias of information even more so.
The guy is married. children, trying to get on with life after this traumatic experience.
He deserves nothing, because he had sex with this girls sister.
Poor Shane - to hell with Kelly.
Fair and Just?
JaF - reeks of guilt.
Silly policemen.
Here's a whole condom of my sperm, it don't get better than that.
Did you miss it, here's some more.
Map reading skills of this pack leader.
The one who walks backwards when going from A to B?
The one who claims this V is easily missed when supporting Luke's lies, yet is readily seen by others..
The one who doesnt know there is a woodland path behind ye old wooden gate on Newbattle Road.
A path that takes you into Newbattle Abbey Crescent out of site from traffic on Newbattle Road.
The one who misses out 97% of statements only seeing/using the required parts.
Why not, its what is played out at trial - with combat skills. These facts that are dished out, would be swiftly swept into oblivion.
The one who shows that Newbattle high school colours are anything but dark blue,
maybe she sent her daughters in the wrong colours?
Sounds good though to drop that clanger in - re AB's description.
Again economical with the truth - when established the colour was not described as a lighter blue.
This guy did the same sex act the next again day.
Appears he may like the thrill of perhaps being caught, more in the open this time.
What does that really tell us about where this sex act happened in this woodland stretch.
Hidden away on route past where this girl was hidden or completely in the opposite direction,
more on the beaten track rather than deeper away from it.
The main area of access and easiest being this V break.
More importantly - why did the SCCRC read this guys directions of route - completely different?
Guess that will be another work man and tools scenario.
It's not the leader of the packs fault if the SCCRC did not see from their point of view - in what was submitted by them.
After all it wasn't all their work - lots of fully qualified professionals done most - pro bono?
Maybe is was simply all their work that didn't ring true - the leaders, very little so not responsibility there.
The brother:
It's so unfair, here is a dude with mental health problems.
Closely known to the victim, yes they're siblings.
History of carrying and threatening with bladed instruments.
Unpredictable behaviour.
Cannabis user.
Charges, convictions of this violent behaviour with bladed instruments.
Correct, there appears to be none.
Attacking his mother with a knife.
Threatening to murder the leader of this pack.
How did this violent, unstable thug manage to escape the police radar,
or worse still, get simply pushed aside whilst they went after an
innocent wee laddie.
We have already established that far from being swept aside, there was;
medical reports obtained for this brother.
There were statements taken.
He was in police presence from the onset.
This threatening to murder/ABH turned out to be a visit to the leaders door.
He was so unstable, threatening, that she invited him into her home,
to show him the DNA results.
He was charged it seems, with what?
ABH? carrying of weapons or fists? or breach of the peace? aggravating behaviour?
Let's exaggerate like Nugnug, that of murder - sounds dam good.
Clearly not anything serious - no conviction? Again truth in its economical sense being
stretched to the extreme, to make it sound better, give it that edge.
How serious do we therefore take these other claims.
Let's include them all with the realisation, that these would have been known to the police at the time,
that they would have been investigated thoroughly.
In all of that there warranted nothing to suggest or make possible,
that he had caused harm to his sister that day.
Let us also be fair here and include those of Luke.
We have already established that he can't possibly be a clone for JF with his hair hacked off.
As with Kelly, there appears to be no setting of stories, no concoction of events that rang alarm bells.
Again as before, that people connected in some way, are thoroughly investigated prior to elimination,
not because they are suspects but because it is part of the procedure.
These people, especially those with ? marks against them, have to be properly eliminated.
Behaviour does not make a murderer.
DNA does not make a murderer.
Locality does not make a murderer.
A clear sequence of events does:
There was only one person in this investigation that the latter applied to.
That person was Luke Mitchell.
It was his account, his testimonies that were so full of holes - that police could not eliminate him.
From his very first account of what happened on the evening of the 30th of June.
His following accounts only highlighting more the suspicion drawn from the first.
-
what has been sensanlised/
are you being serious?
started with this kind of fanciful use of english language
"Hacked off his hair"
"Brandishing the brocolli"
"lied about the time they were on the path"
progressing to... things that are really just total misrepresentation and lies
"...he would, almost literally, have had to step over the body."
"their bike was at the V break without them at 5.15pm"
kidding on she actually understands the dna evidence and can get more info from it than expert witnesses were able to conclude
cherry on top, baseless allegation of a confession that cant be proven and no one knows details of.
-
are you being serious?
started with this kind of fanciful use of english language
"Hacked off his hair"
"Brandishing the brocolli"
"lied about the time they were on the path"
progressing to... things that are really just total misrepresentation and lies
"...he would, almost literally, have had to step over the body."
"their bike was at the V break without them at 5.15pm"
kidding on she actually understands the dna evidence and can get more info from it than expert witnesses were able to conclude
cherry on top, baseless allegation of a confession that cant be proven and no one knows details of.
all those thins are established facts.
exept for the confesion
-
all those thins are established facts.
exept for the confesion
Except theyr not
location of found condom vs location of deceased, with knowlege of layout of the area makes "...he would, almost literally, have had to step over the body." laughable
"their bike was at the V break without them at 5.15pm" never been able to confirm the name of the guy who claimed this and if he was able to say that he was at the scene at the time, therefore shouldve had to have been eliminated. funny that eh
"Brandishing the brocolli" - wasnt at home, as established
etc etc etc
-
Except theyr not
location of found condom vs location of deceased, with knowlege of layout of the area makes "...he would, almost literally, have had to step over the body." laughable
"their bike was at the V break without them at 5.15pm" never been able to confirm the name of the guy who claimed this and if he was able to say that he was at the scene at the time, therefore shouldve had to have been eliminated. funny that eh
"Brandishing the brocolli" - wasnt at home, as established
etc etc etc
half of this was established aat the trail.
waetherfalconer did or did not step over the body would depend what route he climed to have takrn in his statment ferris admited to cuting his hair and lied about what time he was on the path that was established atthe trail.
-
Lets draw in at this point: COINCIDENCES.
The coincidence of Jodi getting out earlier than anticipated:
The coincidence of leaving to meet Luke at this earlier time:
The coincidence that there is no other form of evidence, to suggest she was doing anything other than this.
The coincidence that a male and female were spotted at their usual meet place, on the Easthouses entrance of this path.
The coincidence that this matched the time it would take Jodi to get there.
The coincidence that according to Judith, they were to be hanging around in her area.
The coincidence that the description given of these two's clothing were of similar colour and style. Dark, baggy and green.
The coincidence that Luke's hair did stick out.
The coincidence that Jodi's hair was tied back.
The coincidence that not one but two male youths, were witnessed at both the Eashouses and Newbattle area of this path.
The coincidence that these two males, in appearance were one and the same.
The coincidence that IF not Luke, or the female being Jodi, that these TWO have never been traced.
The coincidence of time between these two sightings and the disappearance of this female - most certainly.
The coincidence of cannabis being in this girls system, no more than an hr before death.
The coincidence that this would be with someone whom she smoked it regularly with.
The unlikely coincidence of this being prior to her leaving home - due to recently being punishment for smoking.
The coincidence of this girl being murdered in a stretch of woodland she most definitely did frequent with Luke.
The coincidence of him lying about frequenting this woodland.
The coincidence of the initials in the tree to show he was lying.
The coincidence of LK hearing noises from this woodland around the presumed TOD.
The unlikely coincidence of this girl walking this path alone - far less in this woodland alone.
The coincidence of the duo on the bike, being on this path after these noises, heard by LK.
The coincidence that stocky man was eliminated, he was out of the country on this day.
The further coincidence of yet another mystery source, of yet another stocky man, being claimed.
The coincidence of calling the landline rather than her mothers mobile at 5.32 and 5.38,
the point of contact that had been used earlier by Jodi. - why not text or call this, when making out he believed she would still be at home? When there was no answer the first time, or rang long enough, to be heard to be answered.
The coincidence of two unrelated people - stating that Luke had said, he thought Jodi had been grounded again, and not coming out.
The coincidence that he had been told, Jodi had already left - why therefore grounded or not coming out?
The coincidence of claiming to be in a given area for 90mins with very little sightings -
The coincidence of phoning his friends more than once, wondering where they were?
The coincidence of claiming to be in his house by 9.00pm rather than his usual 10pm.
The coincidence of claiming to be in his house until 10.30pm but coincidently seen by his neighbour,
entering his house at 10pm
The coincidence of there being a fire in the Mitchell garden - on this dreek night.
The coincidence of buying a parka jacket matching one that the police were looking for.
The coincidence of knowing what colour her hair fastener was - in the dark, from a distance.
The coincidence of knowing that she lay behind a large Oak tree..
The coincidence of buying another knife of the type used to murder this girl.
The coincidence of this knife not being found after the house being thoroughly searched, by a professional search team.
The coincidence of this knife supposedly being in a bag under the dogs bowls - the search team had run their fingers through said meat in these bowl, yet missed this bag.
The coincidence of purchasing a magazine that had a free CD which showed the murder of a girl, by a bladed instrument, in a woodland.
The coincidence of not knowing of the existence of this V break in the wall, on a path he had used many, many times, leading into the woodland he claimed not to frequent.
The coincidence that from that very first text there are no witnesses to him being at home.
The coincidence that his brother has absolutely no memory of seeing him that day at that time.
The coincidence of being asked to go back and change his statement, by his mother - urgently.
The coincidence of music claiming to be played - clearly there wasn't - Shane didn't hear it.
So the coincidence of not only his brother not seeing him at home, but did not hear him at home either.
The coincidence of his mother remembering clearly what he had been wearing.
The coincidence of cooking other items for dinner, to replace the brandishing broccoli.
The coincidence of this laddie cooking the family dinner, yet did nothing else at home.
The coincidence of pies being burnt, whilst this laddie was watching over them - or
the coincidence of these pies being put onto cook prior to him leaving - then they burnt.
The coincidence that this laddie supposedly waited for his mothers arrival home, before asking her about the broccoli.
The coincidence that dinner that day was to be upon the mothers arrival home, rather than around 5.45pm
The coincidence that dinner, had obviously been implied to have been made earlier, thus;
the coincidence of Luke and his mother, finishing off making this tea, after her arrival home at 5.15,
the ensuing conversation about the limp broccoli, the making of the prawns, the scraping of the burnt bits,
the mashing of the tatties, the heating of the beans, the dishing out of said food, was completed, the collecting of this dinner by Shane and taking his upstairs, Corrine into the wet garden to eat, Luke into the livingroom. Dinner is over, he gets ready and leaves his house by 5.30pm. The clear description of his clothing noted by his mother. The conversation had around it.
The coincidence that he claims, to have waited until he got out, onto Newbattle Road, before phoning the Jones landline.
The coincidence that he is hanging around, with a phone in his hand, waiting to make a further call due to the first not connecting, on a road with little pedestrians yet was not seen.
The further coincidence that F&W spotted his doppledanger further up Newbattle Road, yet did not spot, the dude at the gates doppledanger, further down the road - that would be something that would definitely stand out.
The coincidence that their first statements stated they saw this youth on Newbattle road near to where the Abbey is.
The coincidence that when you are driving this road, you are at this Abbey entrance, in a car in seconds.
The coincidence when going over this route with the police - they gave the exact location as being the wooden gate.
The coincidence being that they spotted him whilst driving towards him, once passing, again by looking in rear view mirror,
the coincidence that by this point, you are approaching a turn in the road, enabling the cyclist to be seen also, further ahead.
Let's not forget the coincidence again of this youth in green clothing was a doppledanger for the one at the Easthouses entrance of this path.
The coincidence of no further communication from Jodi to Luke, to keep him informed as to why she had not turned up.
The further coincidence that shows the holes as to why this neither concerned him, either.
The remarkable coincidence that he did phone the Jones household, needing only to speak once,
the coincidence that this shows, he had to be seen, to be implying looking for her - he did not know those texts were erased, he knew for a fact that her parents would be expecting her to be with him and only him.
The rather strange coincidence of his mothers word given of " ach, she will have met up with some girlfriends and got gabbing" when he arrived home, as claimed at 9pm. Corinne knowing too that this girl was, technically not supposed to use this path alone, that she had been going to meet with Luke, that she had not turned up - simply said "ach, she will have met up with some girlfriends and got gabbing" for 4hrs. Not, oh I think you should call her to check and make sure everything is ok.
The further coincidence of when Judith text Luke's phone this changed to, worrying that she may have had an asthma attack?
Which takes us onto the biggest coincidence of all.
That this girls mother had text Luke's phone at 10.40pm.
That he met with members of this girls family shortly after 11pm
That by 11.40pm this girl had been found:
In an area of woodland, off the beaten track, behind a tall, thick wall.
Not only the coincidence of how hidden this girl was, out of sight of anyone, who may go into the usual walk way of this woodland. She was indeed behind a large Oak tree, and she did have a red fastener in her hair, tangled out of sight,
so much so that the pathologist did not spot it at first.
The rather odd coincidence of claim of this girl being moved prior to the pathologist arrivals.
What you can be sure of here, this would have been done with great care and respect.
This moving would NOT have tangled this hair fastener out of sight.
It was clearly known by Luke to have been in her hair for one reason only.
The coincidence being that the account given by this search party,
were so far removed from Luke's version of events - they rang alarm bells instantly.
That of:
The amazing abilities of said, partially trained guard dogs tracking skills.
The remarkable coincidence that Luke did search the path on the way up -
no wait a minute he did not search the path on the way up-
One account given as to why the search party wanted to continue down the path he had come up,
if Luke had already searched it.
The other account given that he did not put the dog in tracker mode, he was at haste to get up this path,
The dog may have been acting frantically on the way up whilst nearing the parallel spot, he did not notice this,
he just wanted up this path quickly.
Yet, yes he had already searched it? choosing to use his tracker skills rather than the dogs?
Messy, eh?
And further coincidences, the gran wants to continue down this path, to search properly, worried that her granddaughter may have falling and hurt herself - something worse probably not entering her mind, the unthinkable.
They all know that Jodi isn't supposed to walk down here on her own, searching the woodland behind this wall does not enter their heads - bar Luke.
He coincidently climbs this wall near to where they meet - at the 'Gino' spot.
Further down at this V point he again looks into the woodland - the dog is jumping about.
He goes over and walks down to his left - he barely covers any distance and shouts he has found something.
A remarkable account of amazing coincidence - that not only in the dark, but the darkness of this woodland,
he is able to see this red hair fastener, and knows the type of tree. That they had barely been on this path together for 20 mins and this girl is found, within seconds of him entering this dark woodland.
She had not been found in daylight that entire evening - left hidden.
And people wonder why suspicion fell upon Luke.
They claim there was absolutely no evidence to warrant that suspicion.
They claim that the police badly shoehorned evidence together.
Would that be the - no evidence shoehorned together.
We have these coincidences of Luke being officially a suspect by the 3rd of July, and that this girls family were treated differently.
Those first statements are why this family became less suspect and Luke more so.
There clearly were, no alarm bells ringing from the accounts they gave.
Why therefore should they have been treated the same?
Because this brother has health issues and behavioural problems? yet
absolutely no evidence to support claims of suspicion, that warranted extra grief being heaped on this family.
But it's not fair is it, it does not matter if there is no evidence to merit him being put through the ringer like Luke.
These claims and innuendoes of said brother;
Lets apply back that same rod to Luke outwith the above:
Holding a knife to a girls throat, threatening to gut her.
Brushed off afterwards as a joke.
Threatening another girl with a knife, if she did not have sex with him.
Habitually carrying a knife around with him -
not some little camping tool but a skunting knife
Reports of worrying behaviour meriting suggestion of external help/counselling.
Heavy user of cannabis at 14.
Allowed to smoke.
Allowed to drink.
Allowed to have under age sex at home.
Allowed to drive.
Allowed to get a tattoo at 15.
Jabbing Jodi in the leg with a knife.
Buying large quantities of cannabis at 14 and dealing it out.
Pulled up at cadets for possession of a knife.
Knives bought for him after the brutal murder of his girlfriend with a knife.
So heavily sedated - its claimed, thus no emotion, yet
out partying up town within weeks of this girls murder.
Still sharing sleeping quarters with his mother some 9 months after this murder.
The storing of bottles of urine in his coup of a room, clearly showing he used these stairs frequently whilst, supposedly heavily sedated.
Allowed to drink alcohol whilst under claimed medication.
Reports of numerous accounts of cruelty to animals.
Describing the best way to kill someone, by slitting their throat.
Tie this in with the other coincidences above.
Was the evidence badly shoehorned -
or does it simply stand out on its own?
Did the police choose to target an innocent wee smite,
with absolutely nothing to go on?
Did the police let the real killer go -
the one or more who had no evidence, of a clearly disturbing set of events against them?
Did they choose to go with the easy target? rather than the clear suspect?
Was their aim solely to get results, to get any old, made up killer off the streets?
Did the police not care if they were going to be leaving this danger out on the streets,
with the likelihood of killing more innocents young girls.
Or did the police firmly believe they were getting this killer off the streets,
that they could neither turn a blind eye to the evidence above or eliminate it?
-
Lets draw in at this point: COINCIDENCES.
The coincidence of Jodi getting out earlier than anticipated:
The coincidence of leaving to meet Luke at this earlier time:
The coincidence that there is no other form of evidence, to suggest she was doing anything other than this.
The coincidence that a male and female were spotted at their usual meet place, on the Easthouses entrance of this path.
The coincidence that this matched the time it would take Jodi to get there.
The coincidence that according to Judith, they were to be hanging around in her area.
The coincidence that the description given of these two's clothing were of similar colour and style. Dark, baggy and green.
The coincidence that Luke's hair did stick out.
The coincidence that Jodi's hair was tied back.
The coincidence that not one but two male youths, were witnessed at both the Eashouses and Newbattle area of this path.
The coincidence that these two males, in appearance were one and the same.
The coincidence that IF not Luke, or the female being Jodi, that these TWO have never been traced.
The coincidence of time between these two sightings and the disappearance of this female - most certainly.
The coincidence of cannabis being in this girls system, no more than an hr before death.
The coincidence that this would be with someone whom she smoked it regularly with.
The unlikely coincidence of this being prior to her leaving home - due to recently being punishment for smoking.
The coincidence of this girl being murdered in a stretch of woodland she most definitely did frequent with Luke.
The coincidence of him lying about frequenting this woodland.
The coincidence of the initials in the tree to show he was lying.
The coincidence of LK hearing noises from this woodland around the presumed TOD.
The unlikely coincidence of this girl walking this path alone - far less in this woodland alone.
The coincidence of the duo on the bike, being on this path after these noises, heard by LK.
The coincidence that stocky man was eliminated, he was out of the country on this day.
The further coincidence of yet another mystery source, of yet another stocky man, being claimed.
The coincidence of calling the landline rather than her mothers mobile at 5.32 and 5.38,
the point of contact that had been used earlier by Jodi. - why not text or call this, when making out he believed she would still be at home? When there was no answer the first time, or rang long enough, to be heard to be answered.
The coincidence of two unrelated people - stating that Luke had said, he thought Jodi had been grounded again, and not coming out.
The coincidence that he had been told, Jodi had already left - why therefore grounded or not coming out?
The coincidence of claiming to be in a given area for 90mins with very little sightings -
The coincidence of phoning his friends more than once, wondering where they were?
The coincidence of claiming to be in his house by 9.00pm rather than his usual 10pm.
The coincidence of claiming to be in his house until 10.30pm but coincidently seen by his neighbour,
entering his house at 10pm
The coincidence of there being a fire in the Mitchell garden - on this dreek night.
The coincidence of buying a parka jacket matching one that the police were looking for.
The coincidence of knowing what colour her hair fastener was - in the dark, from a distance.
The coincidence of knowing that she lay behind a large Oak tree..
The coincidence of buying another knife of the type used to murder this girl.
The coincidence of this knife not being found after the house being thoroughly searched, by a professional search team.
The coincidence of this knife supposedly being in a bag under the dogs bowls - the search team had run their fingers through said meat in these bowl, yet missed this bag.
The coincidence of purchasing a magazine that had a free CD which showed the murder of a girl, by a bladed instrument, in a woodland.
The coincidence of not knowing of the existence of this V break in the wall, on a path he had used many, many times, leading into the woodland he claimed not to frequent.
The coincidence that from that very first text there are no witnesses to him being at home.
The coincidence that his brother has absolutely no memory of seeing him that day at that time.
The coincidence of being asked to go back and change his statement, by his mother - urgently.
The coincidence of music claiming to be played - clearly there wasn't - Shane didn't hear it.
So the coincidence of not only his brother not seeing him at home, but did not hear him at home either.
The coincidence of his mother remembering clearly what he had been wearing.
The coincidence of cooking other items for dinner, to replace the brandishing broccoli.
The coincidence of this laddie cooking the family dinner, yet did nothing else at home.
The coincidence of pies being burnt, whilst this laddie was watching over them - or
the coincidence of these pies being put onto cook prior to him leaving - then they burnt.
The coincidence that this laddie supposedly waited for his mothers arrival home, before asking her about the broccoli.
The coincidence that dinner that day was to be upon the mothers arrival home, rather than around 5.45pm
The coincidence that dinner, had obviously been implied to have been made earlier, thus;
the coincidence of Luke and his mother, finishing off making this tea, after her arrival home at 5.15,
the ensuing conversation about the limp broccoli, the making of the prawns, the scraping of the burnt bits,
the mashing of the tatties, the heating of the beans, the dishing out of said food, was completed, the collecting of this dinner by Shane and taking his upstairs, Corrine into the wet garden to eat, Luke into the livingroom. Dinner is over, he gets ready and leaves his house by 5.30pm. The clear description of his clothing noted by his mother. The conversation had around it.
The coincidence that he claims, to have waited until he got out, onto Newbattle Road, before phoning the Jones landline.
The coincidence that he is hanging around, with a phone in his hand, waiting to make a further call due to the first not connecting, on a road with little pedestrians yet was not seen.
The further coincidence that F&W spotted his doppledanger further up Newbattle Road, yet did not spot, the dude at the gates doppledanger, further down the road - that would be something that would definitely stand out.
The coincidence that their first statements stated they saw this youth on Newbattle road near to where the Abbey is.
The coincidence that when you are driving this road, you are at this Abbey entrance, in a car in seconds.
The coincidence when going over this route with the police - they gave the exact location as being the wooden gate.
The coincidence being that they spotted him whilst driving towards him, once passing, again by looking in rear view mirror,
the coincidence that by this point, you are approaching a turn in the road, enabling the cyclist to be seen also, further ahead.
Let's not forget the coincidence again of this youth in green clothing was a doppledanger for the one at the Easthouses entrance of this path.
The coincidence of no further communication from Jodi to Luke, to keep him informed as to why she had not turned up.
The further coincidence that shows the holes as to why this neither concerned him, either.
The remarkable coincidence that he did phone the Jones household, needing only to speak once,
the coincidence that this shows, he had to be seen, to be implying looking for her - he did not know those texts were erased, he knew for a fact that her parents would be expecting her to be with him and only him.
The rather strange coincidence of his mothers word given of " ach, she will have met up with some girlfriends and got gabbing" when he arrived home, as claimed at 9pm. Corinne knowing too that this girl was, technically not supposed to use this path alone, that she had been going to meet with Luke, that she had not turned up - simply said "ach, she will have met up with some girlfriends and got gabbing" for 4hrs. Not, oh I think you should call her to check and make sure everything is ok.
The further coincidence of when Judith text Luke's phone this changed to, worrying that she may have had an asthma attack?
Which takes us onto the biggest coincidence of all.
That this girls mother had text Luke's phone at 10.40pm.
That he met with members of this girls family shortly after 11pm
That by 11.40pm this girl had been found:
In an area of woodland, off the beaten track, behind a tall, thick wall.
Not only the coincidence of how hidden this girl was, out of sight of anyone, who may go into the usual walk way of this woodland. She was indeed behind a large Oak tree, and she did have a red fastener in her hair, tangled out of sight,
so much so that the pathologist did not spot it at first.
The rather odd coincidence of claim of this girl being moved prior to the pathologist arrivals.
What you can be sure of here, this would have been done with great care and respect.
This moving would NOT have tangled this hair fastener out of sight.
It was clearly known by Luke to have been in her hair for one reason only.
The coincidence being that the account given by this search party,
were so far removed from Luke's version of events - they rang alarm bells instantly.
That of:
The amazing abilities of said, partially trained guard dogs tracking skills.
The remarkable coincidence that Luke did search the path on the way up -
no wait a minute he did not search the path on the way up-
One account given as to why the search party wanted to continue down the path he had come up,
if Luke had already searched it.
The other account given that he did not put the dog in tracker mode, he was at haste to get up this path,
The dog may have been acting frantically on the way up whilst nearing the parallel spot, he did not notice this,
he just wanted up this path quickly.
Yet, yes he had already searched it? choosing to use his tracker skills rather than the dogs?
Messy, eh?
And further coincidences, the gran wants to continue down this path, to search properly, worried that her granddaughter may have falling and hurt herself - something worse probably not entering her mind, the unthinkable.
They all know that Jodi isn't supposed to walk down here on her own, searching the woodland behind this wall does not enter their heads - bar Luke.
He coincidently climbs this wall near to where they meet - at the 'Gino' spot.
Further down at this V point he again looks into the woodland - the dog is jumping about.
He goes over and walks down to his left - he barely covers any distance and shouts he has found something.
A remarkable account of amazing coincidence - that not only in the dark, but the darkness of this woodland,
he is able to see this red hair fastener, and knows the type of tree. That they had barely been on this path together for 20 mins and this girl is found, within seconds of him entering this dark woodland.
She had not been found in daylight that entire evening - left hidden.
And people wonder why suspicion fell upon Luke.
They claim there was absolutely no evidence to warrant that suspicion.
They claim that the police badly shoehorned evidence together.
Would that be the - no evidence shoehorned together.
We have these coincidences of Luke being officially a suspect by the 3rd of July, and that this girls family were treated differently.
Those first statements are why this family became less suspect and Luke more so.
There clearly were, no alarm bells ringing from the accounts they gave.
Why therefore should they have been treated the same?
Because this brother has health issues and behavioural problems? yet
absolutely no evidence to support claims of suspicion, that warranted extra grief being heaped on this family.
But it's not fair is it, it does not matter if there is no evidence to merit him being put through the ringer like Luke.
These claims and innuendoes of said brother;
Lets apply back that same rod to Luke outwith the above:
Holding a knife to a girls throat, threatening to gut her.
Brushed off afterwards as a joke.
Threatening another girl with a knife, if she did not have sex with him.
Habitually carrying a knife around with him -
not some little camping tool but a skunting knife
Reports of worrying behaviour meriting suggestion of external help/counselling.
Heavy user of cannabis at 14.
Allowed to smoke.
Allowed to drink.
Allowed to have under age sex at home.
Allowed to drive.
Allowed to get a tattoo at 15.
Jabbing Jodi in the leg with a knife.
Buying large quantities of cannabis at 14 and dealing it out.
Pulled up at cadets for possession of a knife.
Knives bought for him after the brutal murder of his girlfriend with a knife.
So heavily sedated - its claimed, thus no emotion, yet
out partying up town within weeks of this girls murder.
Still sharing sleeping quarters with his mother some 9 months after this murder.
The storing of bottles of urine in his coup of a room, clearly showing he used these stairs frequently whilst, supposedly heavily sedated.
Allowed to drink alcohol whilst under claimed medication.
Reports of numerous accounts of cruelty to animals.
Describing the best way to kill someone, by slitting their throat.
Tie this in with the other coincidences above.
Was the evidence badly shoehorned -
or does it simply stand out on its own?
Did the police choose to target an innocent wee smite,
with absolutely nothing to go on?
Did the police let the real killer go -
the one or more who had no evidence, of a clearly disturbing set of events against them?
Did they choose to go with the easy target? rather than the clear suspect?
Was their aim solely to get results, to get any old, made up killer off the streets?
Did the police not care if they were going to be leaving this danger out on the streets,
with the likelihood of killing more innocents young girls.
Or did the police firmly believe they were getting this killer off the streets,
that they could neither turn a blind eye to the evidence above or eliminate it?
ive seen this done before right an absuredly long post listing points that have allready been adressed.
knowing that nobody willbe bothred to adress the points all the points you have made.
if anybody does bother to adress them ignore them nd posts the same points agian eventully people give up and it looks like you have one the argument.
trouble is thats been done so many times on here everybody knows the trick.
-
Parky41’s post is too long for me to address every point, so I’ve just taken the first handful and addressed those (this alone runs to some 5 A4 pages). In advance, I’m not “avoiding” any of the points raised by parky, I just do not have the time to go through every single one of them. I’m sure people will get the idea from the following:
The coincidence of Jodi getting out earlier than anticipated:
The coincidence of leaving to meet Luke at this earlier time:
The coincidence that there is no other form of evidence, to suggest she was doing anything other than this.
“Jodi came in from school, dumped her bag in the hall and went upstairs. She came back down a bit later and said she was going out. I took that to mean she was meeting Luke. It was about 5 o’clock.” – Judith Jones, statement
“She had been kind of grounded but that had changed to her doing chores in exchange for being allowed out” – Judith Jones, statement
“Jodi had been grounded, but it had petered out until things went back to normal a few weeks ago” Alice Walker, statement
“Jodi was grounded for skipping school. It was May 14th – I had an exam that day and came home early and caught her skipping school.” Janine Jones, statement
“Jodi had been spending more time in Woodburn, so she needed the extra time for travelling,” Judith Jones, statement. (The friend Jodi was spending time with in Woodburn was on holiday the week of June 30th, so the “extra time” arrangement must have been in place prior to that).
Taxi driver statement – picked Jodi up just before 10pm on June 28th from Luke’s home.
So, according to the family’s own evidence, Jodi was not grounded, therefore she was not “getting out earlier than anticipated.” According to her mother’s evidence, Jodi was in her room at the time she was claimed to have been seen by Andrina Bryson.
The coincidence that a male and female were spotted at their usual meet place, on the Easthouses entrance of this path.The coincidence that this matched the time it would take Jodi to get there.
“Sometimes Luke would come to the house, sometimes he would go to her gran’s and sometimes they’d meet somewhere on the way” Judith Jones, statement
“If Jodi was going to Newbattle, Luke would get her at the main road at his end” Alice Walker, statement.
“I called Luke to ask which way Jodi would walk if she was going to his,” Janine Jones, statement. (She didn’t call Luke to ask this question, but that’s another matter).
According to the family’s own statements, there was no fixed meeting place and they had no idea where Luke and Jodi would meet up “somewhere on the way” to anywhere except Newbattle – in which case, Jodi would walk down the path alone and Luke would meet her at the Newbattle end. Remember, these are Jodi’s family’s statements.
The coincidence that according to Judith, they were to be hanging around in her area.
See above – there was no mention of where they would be hanging around originally.
The coincidence that the description given of these two's clothing were of similar colour and style. Dark, baggy and green.
The male was late teens to early twenties, medium build, with very thick, sandy coloured hair sticking up in a clump at the back. He was wearing a waist length fishing style jacket with a bulging pocket on the sleeve and matching fishing style trousers. Green or khaki. The girl was wearing a dark blue sweatshirt with lighter blue bootcut jeans. I couldn’t guess an age.” Andrina Bryson statement.
Jodi was wearing very baggy black trousers and a very baggy, black hoodie with a bright orange Deftones logo across the back, left sleeve and left front.
The coincidence that Luke's hair did stick out.
The coincidence that Jodi's hair was tied back.
Evidence for the first statement?
“There might have been a kink or a wave in her hair where a hair tie might have been.” Andrina Bryson, statement, 6 weeks later.
The coincidence that not one but two male youths, were witnessed at both the Eashouses and Newbattle area of this path.
The coincidence that these two males, in appearance were one and the same.
Easthouses male: late teens to early twenties, medium build, with very thick, sandy coloured hair sticking up in a clump at the back. He was wearing a waist length fishing style jacket with a bulging pocket on the sleeve and matching fishing style trousers. Green or khaki. Andrina Bryson
Newbattle male – 14 – 17, straight, thin, dark hair, fringe covering his face, slim (or very slim) build, dark coloured jeans, jacket past his bum, may have been dark green, possibly a parka, but only because of the length. – Fleming and Walsh.
The coincidence that IF not Luke, or the female being Jodi, that these TWO have never been traced.
“The time [of her sighting] was 5.40 – 5.45pm” Andrina Bryson. (based on a call received “about half an hour” after she got home. She double checked the time of the call – it was logged on her phone at 6.17pm.) Nobody was looking for a female and a youth at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 5.40 – 5.45pm. Even the appeal judges concluded only that the jury could infer that the female “may have been” Jodi -not that she definitely was.
The coincidence of time between these two sightings and the disappearance of this female - most certainly.
Which time? Just after 5 o’clock, when her mother originally said she left? Or 5.40 – 5.45pm, when AB originally said she made her sighting? Nobody knows for sure what time Jodi “disappeared” – she was seen by two witnesses on the road just outside her home at 5.05pm, 15minutes after she was claimed to have left home.
The coincidence of cannabis being in this girls system, no more than an hr before death.
The coincidence that this would be with someone whom she smoked it regularly with.
The unlikely coincidence of this being prior to her leaving home - due to recently being punishment for smoking.
What about the coincidence of 9oz of cannabis in her home that afternoon? What about the coincidence of her “cousin” delivering cannabis from that 9oz bar to another relative? What about her mother’s statement that Jodi’s brother was “sitting on the settee, stoned”? The punishment was originally for skipping school.
The coincidence of this girl being murdered in a stretch of woodland she most definitely did frequent with Luke.
The coincidence of him lying about frequenting this woodland.
The coincidence of the initials in the tree to show he was lying.
They “frequented” to top area of the woodland strip, just behind Newbattle High School at the big break in the wall (as did many other kids their age). The initials in the tree were at this end of the woodland strip. There is no evidence from anyone, anywhere, that either Luke or Jodi were ever in the woodland strip as far down as the V break prior to the night of the murder.
The coincidence of LK hearing noises from this woodland around the presumed TOD.
LK, whose original description was “It was a rustling sound, like leaves rustling, like an animal or something. I stopped to listen, but the noise had stopped.” Or whose statement was changed from a “struggling” sound to a “strangling sound.” Or who couldn’t explain in court how a “rustling sound, like an animal or something” came to be “a struggling sound” … or better still, sounded like a “heid-lock.”
The unlikely coincidence of this girl walking this path alone - far less in this woodland alone.
Donald Findlay: Your mother knew perfectly well that Jodi used that path alone, didn’t she?
Janine Jones : Yes.
Donald Findlay: Really?
Janine Jones: Yes.
“The path’s a shortcut between Easthouses and Newbattle Abbey Crescent. Jodi would walk down the path and Luke would get her at his end, on the main (Newbattle) Road” – Alice Walker.
"The only way Jodi would have gone over that wall was with someone she knew. No stranger would have got her over that wall" - Alice Walker, evidence.
Jodi knew Ferris and Dickie very well. Ferris knew the area behind the V point very well, by his own admission. They were on the path between 5.05pm and 5.30pm by their own admission. The bike was at the V point at 5.15pm by their own admission.
The coincidence of the duo on the bike, being on this path after these noises, heard by LK.
All three of them were on the path between 5.05pm and 5.30pm – they all claimed to have heard nothing of note (see LK original statements above). This suggests that the murder did not happen at 5.15pm
The coincidence that stocky man was eliminated, he was out of the country on this day.
The further coincidence of yet another mystery source, of yet another stocky man, being claimed.
Stocky man was never eliminated. The man thought to be stocky man (who was not in Scotland the night of the murder) was not stocky man – it was a mistaken identification by a witness. There was only ever one stocky man. It was claimed he was never identified. The SCCRC found an identification in the files in 2014. That identification was never released to the defence.
The coincidence of calling the landline rather than her mothers mobile at 5.32 and 5.38, the point of contact that had been used earlier by Jodi. - why not text or call this, when making out he believed she would still be at home? When there was no answer the first time, or rang long enough, to be heard to be answered.
Jodi texted Luke from her mother’s mobile – he texted back to the same contact. He was calling her home – the landline is the obvious choice, since her mother may have gone out and taken her mobile with her.
The coincidence of two unrelated people - stating that Luke had said, he thought Jodi had been grounded again, and not coming out.
One person claimed Luke said Jodi was not coming out. The two others present (excluding Luke) said either they did not hear that being said or that it was not said. It was during the police interrogation, pushing Luke to give reasons why he thought Jodi might not be coming out, that Luke said, “I don’t know, she might have met someone and gone off with them, she might have given her mum cheek and been grounded…” He was never claimed to have said Jodi had been grounded again to his friends.
The coincidence that he had been told, Jodi had already left - why therefore grounded or not coming out?
“Jodi never knew when a punishment would start or end” – Judith Jones, statement.
The coincidence of claiming to be in a given area for 90mins with very little sightings
5.40 – 6.05pm on a wall at the end of his street. Sightings, confirmed. 6.15pm, Barondale cottages, sighting, confirmed. 6.15 – 7pm, in the grounds of Newbattle Abbey, no confirmed sightings, so 45 mins, not 90 mins.
The coincidence of phoning his friends more than once, wondering where they were?
The second call was to confirm meeting place (misunderstanding about exact place) – confirmed by statements from other boys.
The coincidence of claiming to be in his house by 9.00pm rather than his usual 10pm.
One boy had to be home for his curfew, walked with Luke along to the main road just before 9pm.
-
Parky41’s post is too long for me to address every point, so I’ve just taken the first handful and addressed those (this alone runs to some 5 A4 pages). In advance, I’m not “avoiding” any of the points raised by parky, I just do not have the time to go through every single one of them. I’m sure people will get the idea from the following:
“Jodi came in from school, dumped her bag in the hall and went upstairs. She came back down a bit later and said she was going out. I took that to mean she was meeting Luke. It was about 5 o’clock.” – Judith Jones, statement
“She had been kind of grounded but that had changed to her doing chores in exchange for being allowed out” – Judith Jones, statement
“Jodi had been grounded, but it had petered out until things went back to normal a few weeks ago” Alice Walker, statement
“Jodi was grounded for skipping school. It was May 14th – I had an exam that day and came home early and caught her skipping school.” Janine Jones, statement
“Jodi had been spending more time in Woodburn, so she needed the extra time for travelling,” Judith Jones, statement. (The friend Jodi was spending time with in Woodburn was on holiday the week of June 30th, so the “extra time” arrangement must have been in place prior to that).
Taxi driver statement – picked Jodi up just before 10pm on June 28th from Luke’s home.
So, according to the family’s own evidence, Jodi was not grounded, therefore she was not “getting out earlier than anticipated.” According to her mother’s evidence, Jodi was in her room at the time she was claimed to have been seen by Andrina Bryson.
“Sometimes Luke would come to the house, sometimes he would go to her gran’s and sometimes they’d meet somewhere on the way” Judith Jones, statement
“If Jodi was going to Newbattle, Luke would get her at the main road at his end” Alice Walker, statement.
“I called Luke to ask which way Jodi would walk if she was going to his,” Janine Jones, statement. (She didn’t call Luke to ask this question, but that’s another matter).
According to the family’s own statements, there was no fixed meeting place and they had no idea where Luke and Jodi would meet up “somewhere on the way” to anywhere except Newbattle – in which case, Jodi would walk down the path alone and Luke would meet her at the Newbattle end. Remember, these are Jodi’s family’s statements.
See above – there was no mention of where they would be hanging around originally.
The male was late teens to early twenties, medium build, with very thick, sandy coloured hair sticking up in a clump at the back. He was wearing a waist length fishing style jacket with a bulging pocket on the sleeve and matching fishing style trousers. Green or khaki. The girl was wearing a dark blue sweatshirt with lighter blue bootcut jeans. I couldn’t guess an age.” Andrina Bryson statement.
Jodi was wearing very baggy black trousers and a very baggy, black hoodie with a bright orange Deftones logo across the back, left sleeve and left front.
Evidence for the first statement?
“There might have been a kink or a wave in her hair where a hair tie might have been.” Andrina Bryson, statement, 6 weeks later.
Easthouses male: late teens to early twenties, medium build, with very thick, sandy coloured hair sticking up in a clump at the back. He was wearing a waist length fishing style jacket with a bulging pocket on the sleeve and matching fishing style trousers. Green or khaki. Andrina Bryson
Newbattle male – 14 – 17, straight, thin, dark hair, fringe covering his face, slim (or very slim) build, dark coloured jeans, jacket past his bum, may have been dark green, possibly a parka, but only because of the length. – Fleming and Walsh.
“The time [of her sighting] was 5.40 – 5.45pm” Andrina Bryson. (based on a call received “about half an hour” after she got home. She double checked the time of the call – it was logged on her phone at 6.17pm.) Nobody was looking for a female and a youth at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 5.40 – 5.45pm. Even the appeal judges concluded only that the jury could infer that the female “may have been” Jodi -not that she definitely was.
Which time? Just after 5 o’clock, when her mother originally said she left? Or 5.40 – 5.45pm, when AB originally said she made her sighting? Nobody knows for sure what time Jodi “disappeared” – she was seen by two witnesses on the road just outside her home at 5.05pm, 15minutes after she was claimed to have left home.
What about the coincidence of 9oz of cannabis in her home that afternoon? What about the coincidence of her “cousin” delivering cannabis from that 9oz bar to another relative? What about her mother’s statement that Jodi’s brother was “sitting on the settee, stoned”? The punishment was originally for skipping school.
They “frequented” to top area of the woodland strip, just behind Newbattle High School at the big break in the wall (as did many other kids their age). The initials in the tree were at this end of the woodland strip. There is no evidence from anyone, anywhere, that either Luke or Jodi were ever in the woodland strip as far down as the V break prior to the night of the murder.
LK, whose original description was “It was a rustling sound, like leaves rustling, like an animal or something. I stopped to listen, but the noise had stopped.” Or whose statement was changed from a “struggling” sound to a “strangling sound.” Or who couldn’t explain in court how a “rustling sound, like an animal or something” came to be “a struggling sound” … or better still, sounded like a “heid-lock.”
Donald Findlay: Your mother knew perfectly well that Jodi used that path alone, didn’t she?
Janine Jones : Yes.
Donald Findlay: Really?
Janine Jones: Yes.
“The path’s a shortcut between Easthouses and Newbattle Abbey Crescent. Jodi would walk down the path and Luke would get her at his end, on the main (Newbattle) Road” – Alice Walker.
"The only way Jodi would have gone over that wall was with someone she knew. No stranger would have got her over that wall" - Alice Walker, evidence.
Jodi knew Ferris and Dickie very well. Ferris knew the area behind the V point very well, by his own admission. They were on the path between 5.05pm and 5.30pm by their own admission. The bike was at the V point at 5.15pm by their own admission.
All three of them were on the path between 5.05pm and 5.30pm – they all claimed to have heard nothing of note (see LK original statements above). This suggests that the murder did not happen at 5.15pm
Stocky man was never eliminated. The man thought to be stocky man (who was not in Scotland the night of the murder) was not stocky man – it was a mistaken identification by a witness. There was only ever one stocky man. It was claimed he was never identified. The SCCRC found an identification in the files in 2014. That identification was never released to the defence.
Jodi texted Luke from her mother’s mobile – he texted back to the same contact. He was calling her home – the landline is the obvious choice, since her mother may have gone out and taken her mobile with her.
One person claimed Luke said Jodi was not coming out. The two others present (excluding Luke) said either they did not hear that being said or that it was not said. It was during the police interrogation, pushing Luke to give reasons why he thought Jodi might not be coming out, that Luke said, “I don’t know, she might have met someone and gone off with them, she might have given her mum cheek and been grounded…” He was never claimed to have said Jodi had been grounded again to his friends.
“Jodi never knew when a punishment would start or end” – Judith Jones, statement.
5.40 – 6.05pm on a wall at the end of his street. Sightings, confirmed. 6.15pm, Barondale cottages, sighting, confirmed. 6.15 – 7pm, in the grounds of Newbattle Abbey, no confirmed sightings, so 45 mins, not 90 mins.
The second call was to confirm meeting place (misunderstanding about exact place) – confirmed by statements from other boys.
One boy had to be home for his curfew, walked with Luke along to the main road just before 9pm.
its ment to be to long to adress at every point thats the trick other people other people have used it on here before.
-
Yes, I know, nugnug, but at least nobody can say I didn't try!!!
I've no intention of going through the whole post - I copied it into a word document and it ran to 10 pages with just the responses I posted above. But the responses here are Jodi's family's own words -are the guilters now going to try to change what her own family members said, in their own words, in an attempt to bolster their already fatally flawed arguments???
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #6213 on: Today at 08:58 PM »
Parky41’s post is too long for me to address every point, so I’ve just taken the first handful and addressed those (this alone runs to some 5 A4 pages). In advance, I’m not “avoiding” any of the points raised by parky, I just do not have the time to go through every single one of them. I’m sure people will get the idea from the following:
Quote
The coincidence of Jodi getting out earlier than anticipated:
The coincidence of leaving to meet Luke at this earlier time:
The coincidence that there is no other form of evidence, to suggest she was doing anything other than this.
“Jodi came in from school, dumped her bag in the hall and went upstairs. She came back down a bit later and said she was going out. I took that to mean she was meeting Luke. It was about 5 o’clock.” – Judith Jones, statement
“She had been kind of grounded but that had changed to her doing chores in exchange for being allowed out” – Judith Jones, statement
“Jodi had been grounded, but it had petered out until things went back to normal a few weeks ago” Alice Walker, statement
“Jodi was grounded for skipping school. It was May 14th – I had an exam that day and came home early and caught her skipping school.” Janine Jones, statement
“Jodi had been spending more time in Woodburn, so she needed the extra time for travelling,” Judith Jones, statement. (The friend Jodi was spending time with in Woodburn was on holiday the week of June 30th, so the “extra time” arrangement must have been in place prior to that).
Taxi driver statement – picked Jodi up just before 10pm on June 28th from Luke’s home.
So, according to the family’s own evidence, Jodi was not grounded, therefore she was not “getting out earlier than anticipated.” According to her mother’s evidence, Jodi was in her room at the time she was claimed to have been seen by Andrina Bryson.
Exactly, thank you for clarifying something that was not listed.
My coincidence did not mention grounded - did it?
My coincidence was clear, that this girl did not know she would be allowed to go out earlier that evening -AS there had been restriction on her time - due to the chores she would have to do.
She can hardly have been free to go if restricted by chores.
On the 30th of June the concidence was, that all punishments were fully lifted - there were no restrictions,
thus here time was hers, she was free to go out earlier, than expected.
You have a rather odd habit of bringing up this grounding - over and over, trying to make some rather odd points,
now you have clarified what was meant by this girl getting out, right away, unexpectedly.
You obviously knew what this meant, from the beginning of time, of this being mentioned - yet held to this, implication of, she could not possibly have been grounded - she had been getting out.
When it is clear, all along that you knew she had been restricted, she was still on a form of punishment.
She had chores to do first before getting out.
Was good to miss all of that though?
Wasn't it?
The problem highlighted yet again - with badly stitching snip-bits, awkwardly together.
And of course the coincidence that, of ignoring all established timings, yet again - to suit.
It has been shown clearly how these times were established.
I have yet to see anything, where this family actually claims that this girl had still been fully grounded?
You have shown above. that they clearly did not say this.
You have shown above, clearly why this girl was getting out earlier than expected, she had no way of known if she would have chores to do - would she?
-
Entirely predictable.
-
What is highly predictable, is that:
For every selective snip-bit of, small extracts from statements there is guaranteed to be multiple, more in-depth accounts.
Let's say for every 5% of one liners given there would 95% more to clarify, everything in it's entirety.
In a previous post I made an example of this.
I extracted one line from a post made by SL.
This was, as predicated 'pounced' on immediately, in which she showed the dangers of pulling out certain areas without including the rest.
The good old court room play in a trial.
These extracts pulled out and combatted against others.
I remember studying this once;
The defence had been highlighting some areas of a statement, questioning the witness.
Good bloody points being made - thinking clearly, well that answers that then.
The AD rose, swiftly turned the page of said statement and read the first line out,
this instantly quashed all that the QC had shown.
Clever.
Playing along with statements, extracting partial liners from multiple accounts, then badly trying to stitch them together.
Messy.
The sole purpose of taking multiple statements - clarity and consistency.
Rather a futile exercise to:
Take the time from statement 3, jump to the time of statement 2, then move onto 4 and skip right back to 1.
How do you feel that would be met in this play within a trial?
Further still take any account from these different statements and jump continuously back and forth.
This red hair fastener - miss out all of the accounts given of it - Jump to some reporter mentioning it.
Messy.
This coincidence of sighting at a usual place of meeting with the sighting of AB.
Jump to. If Jodi walked down to Luke's he would meet her at the Newbattle end of this path, coincidently, yet
It would not be coincidental for this girl to meet at the entrance of said path, at her end, If Luke was coming to meet her.
Messy
-
https://youtu.be/EOPKAviAgYM
-
https://youtu.be/PazM5FHuM70
-
These You Tube videos, made for the purpose of the old WAP forum.
The one that could not keep running, for various reasons.
One founder no longer having POA.
No charitable monies submitted.
Said founder leaving before the year ending - when these monies were due.
One of the claimed wrongly accused being another founder.
Another of the claimed wrongly accused - admitting guilt.
Another claimed, wrongly accused persons mother being banned from this forum.
This person, being the mother of the main topic - that of Luke Mitchell.
A site that was full, of these selective snip-bits from numerous statements.
Videos, like that one's posted above made from these selective snip-bits.
Which is all fair and well - what is clear from these videos, is that neither:
Show the search party leaving from Mayfield? walking backwards first,
then after going backwards they walked passed the house of YW?
The one remember, they omitted to pop in to, to check and see if this girl was there.
Having one purpose only, to reach this path, as quickly as possible.
The same search party that did not stop, after their detour, passed YW's
into Scott's caravans. A place that is implied would be one of the obvious to look,
after all, this girl had not been with Luke all evening - makes complete sense therefore,
to go into his mothers work place, more so since it shut at 5pm?
What is also clearly missing from the videos (from the founders of the WAP)
is the speed in which Luke travelled, once he left his house, this should really be edited to,
nearer 7mph - even his own mother states, over and over the speed and fitness of both himself,
and that of his dog.
What should also be edited is the word searching - applied to him.
It has been clearly shown - that he did not search upon leaving his house.
That his point of actually searching - was after meeting everyone else.
-
Lean getting owned again.
Notice how she avoids answering the coincidence's regarding the Mitchell's. Make excuses(as per) about it being to long a post.
Then we have nugs trying to distract, by posting his own videos from his own WAP forum from years ago. Pathetic.
well we are used to the long post trick on this forum.
-
Sticking with the case itself (rather than drowning posts in superfluous and irrelevant material)
Show the search party leaving from Mayfield? walking backwards first,
then after going backwards they walked passed the house of YW?
The one remember, they omitted to pop in to, to check and see if this girl was there.
The relevant point - did the search trio check Yvonne Walker's flat before setting out to find Jodi, given that Jodi had been found in Yvonne Walker's flat when she was previously not to be found elsewhere? And given the Yvonne Walker had lied to cover for Jodi previously? The answer is no, they did not. My question is why not? It would have taken them just a couple of minutes to do so - why didn't they?
Having one purpose only, to reach this path, as quickly as possible.
The same search party that did not stop, after their detour, passed YW's
AW/SK : We didn't turn our torches on or start calling out for Jodi until we got to the path.
Donald Findlay: If not for Luke, you would have walked right past Jodi and carried on to Newbattle.
Janine Jones: We weren't going to Newbattle, we were only going to the path.
from Parky's previous post
The coincidence that according to Judith, they were to be hanging around in her area.
The relevant point: why weren't they looking for her there? At the time they set out to look for Jodi, they did not know she was planning to go to Newbattle that evening - the only information they had came from Judith, who believed Jodi was going to be hanging about in Mayfield/Easthouses.
into Scott's caravans. A place that is implied would be one of the obvious to look,
after all, this girl had not been with Luke all evening - makes complete sense therefore,
to go into his mothers work place, more so since it shut at 5pm?
Judith Jones: "They sometimes hung about at the caravan place Luke's mother owns."
The relevant points: Jodi was believed to be planning to hang out in Easthouses/Mayfield. Scotts Caravans, in Mayfield, had a night watchman. Why not ask him if he' seen Jodi? What if she'd gone there expecting to meet Luke and something had happened to her in the grounds there? Jodi and Luke had hung around there after closing time in the past (confirmed by other witnesses). The family did not know where Jodi and Luke met up away from either her mother's, Alice Walker's or Yvonne Walker's homes - why did they not even consider the possibility that Jodi may have gone into the grounds of Scotts Caravans? They did not know when they set out to look for her what her plans were, other than to hang about in Easthouses/Mayfield. Why did they not look for her there?
What is also clearly missing from the videos (from the founders of the WAP)
No relevance to the case whatsoever, answered only to highlight misleading information posted in a futile attempt to discredit stronger arguments.
I was a member of WAP, James English, Paul Capaldi, Sgiath Films and Professor Bussuttil have no association with WAP whatsoever.
is the speed in which Luke travelled, once he left his house, this should really be edited to,
nearer 7mph - even his own mother states, over and over the speed and fitness of both himself,
and that of his dog.
Random speed selection there? On what do you base 7mph?
Relevant point: if Luke got to the junction of the path earlier (as this point implies) and the search trio were waiting there for him (as all of their statements insist) then they also got there much earlier than they claimed - which, in turn, means they definitely left to search for Jodi before it was known she was missing. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.
Alternatively, if you're suggesting Luke got up the path more quickly and did something else before the search trio got there - what was it he is supposed to have one? Couldn't have been committing the murder, so what is your point? Even if accepted, what relevance does this speed have to the murder?
What should also be edited is the word searching - applied to him.
It has been clearly shown - that he did not search upon leaving his house.
That his point of actually searching - was after meeting everyone else.
LM: I told her mum I'd walk up the path. If I didn't find her there, I'd go to the house.
"Luke said he was coming up the path on his bike" - Judith Jones (statement)
"I said before Luke was coming up the path on his bike. I realise now he said with his dog." Judith Jones (statement an month later)
Relevant point: no claim of "searching" - just checking the path on his way to Judith's house. He walked quickly up the path with his dog and a torch, which, according to his account, he was sweeping from side to side - if Jodi had been lying, hurt, on the path (something Alice Walker claimed to be a possibility she was considering), she would have been clear to see on the path.
Further relevant point
BUT, the family search trio left under the impression Jodi was supposed to be in Easthouses/Mayfield, not on a path to Newbattle. They made no attempt whatsoever to look for her (far less search) in that area. At least Luke turned his torch on - the search trio didn't even do that until they got to the path.
It was Alice Walker who suggested a double check. Logic - if Luke was Jodi's killer and had spent the whole evening "distancing" himself from the murder (as the police and prosecution claimed) why, over five hours later, would he decide to "lead" the others to the body? He could not have known they would suggest a double check, so it must have been a last minute decision to "lead" them to the body. Why?
He was 14 years old. His mother could have said, "You're not going out on your own at this time of night - leave it to the adults", in which case, he'd have the perfect excuse (if he'd been the murderer) not to be anywhere near when Jodi was found. What reason (something plausible and believable, please) would he have, in all of the circumstances that night, to "lead" the others to Jodi's body?
Why did the others change their stories about what happened at the wall? Did the dog react/alert? Yes, according to three out of the four searchers, for a whole month. Luke went over the wall in response to the dog's behaviour, according to three out of four searchers, for a whole month.
Janine Jones; "I knew it was something bad from the tone of his voice"
Janine Jones; "He [Luke] looked as if he was in shock. His eyes were wider than normal
Janine Jones; "Everyone was in hysterics"
Operator: "The laddie's in a bit of a panic ... "
Why did they claim at trial that there was no reaction from Luke - that he was completely emotionless?
Why did Janine Jones ask Kelly, on the way to the school car park, after the finding of Jodi's body, "Was she naked?"
-
So there we have it, no need for the you tube videos to be altered, the star witness John Ferris is not being taken into consideration neither is the back up mystery source - both whom Ms Lean claims, stated that the search party, walked passed YW's house on their way to the path. Of which Ms Lean has used to put weight to this search party "even walking right passed" without stopping in to check.
We have already seen that within the files there was a statement from Mr Kelly, that of his son having dinner with him. Ms Lean missed this, the SCCRC in their thoroughness of checking - read it.
We also have the stocky man - again in the files, Ms Lean missed it yet the SCCRC in their thoroughness read it.
Outwith this second identity of the male from a funeral - I wonder what else the SCCRC read.
We have the mention of stairs, two sets of them, the going to the local takeaway.
Messy
Further to this we have that these were not known to the defence.
Does this tell us Ms Lean is not so thorough - or that all has not been in her hands.
We also have phone records.
Ms Lean implies that the first text sent that afternoon was from Luke to Jodi, as that is the sequence in the files,
does this tell us that there are missing accounts transferred over - that the phone records are not complete.
We have the post by Lithium about obtaining said records and cost - are the minutes of these transcripts somewhat off? that there are obvious, missing parts.
One being these sequence of texts?
Does is make any sense for Luke to have text the mothers phone first? rather than phoning the landline first?
After all, by Ms Leans own word - " he wouldn't know if" her mother was in or not?
We know from previous here, that there is mention of phone calls to family and friends.
Are these lost in these, incomplete files also?
Also again, the rather silly notion to add weight to - air.
To divert away from a usual meeting place being the Easthouses entrance of this path - on occasion Luke would be coming up to meet Jodi.
Does it make sense, that if Luke was coming up to meet Jodi, that he would walk right past her street end, continue up to Scotts caravans and meet her there.
This of course would make sense if this girl had been at her grans, and was meeting Luke "somewhere"
This girl was not at her grans - she was at her house.
Why therefore, would it be feasible to check Scotts caravans.
What does this night watchman do, if not check the grounds?
Remembering here of course, that it was daylight until after 10pm.
The watchman onsite from closing time at 5pm.
Feasible again to think, that this girl had wandered in here (remember she had not been with Luke)
had a blether with said watchman, then fell on way out, way in yet never noticed.
This place isn't some secluded woodland - is it?
Further to this we have the gaping holes in both Ms Mitchells and Ms Leans accounts.
Of searching, of not searching, of speeding up this path, of searching this path - is that at speed or not.
Or is there something further in this?
Was Luke actually out and about when he first got that call?
Is it his accounts that cause concern?
Is it Luke who puts this search party at the top of this path at 10.58pm precisely?
Again that missing 95% Messy.
I'll continue later on another post. Try to keep them shorter.
-
It's like nailing jelly to a tree.
At the very least, Parky, if you're going to quote me, try to get it right. The exchange of texts between Luke and Jodi? She texted him first. Not just my interpretation, the evidence of the phone logs and Jodi's mother. I've never, ever suggested Luke texted Jodi first - not once.
While you're happily ignoring the factual evidence posted here as direct quotes from statements/court testimony, in favour of dragging in any number of unrelated or spurious factors, I'll leave you to it - I'm not prepared to waste my own time pointing out the huge flaws in your posts.
As for details being "missed," you actually make a good argument. If documents were not released to the defence (withheld and/or concealed), how were they supposed to construct a fair and reasonable defence? Unfortunately, some of what you claim was "missed," you have misrepresented - again, just wasting everyone's time.
People, ultimately, will make up their own minds about what they believe to be adequately supported by evidence ... or not.
-
He was 14 years old. His mother could have said, "You're not going out on your own at this time of night - leave it to the adults", in which case, he'd have the perfect excuse (if he'd been the murderer) not to be anywhere near when Jodi was found. What reason (something plausible and believable, please) would he have, in all of the circumstances that night, to "lead" the others to Jodi's body?
Firstly I'll address the first part - His mother did say that though, surprises me somewhat therefore your comment, have you forgotten her evidence? She clearly states in her podcast - "you're not going out on your own at this time of night laddie" to which he replied "it's not up for debate", he was having none of it.
I'll try and make this next part short.
For others of course-I have stated before that entering into an actual full on debate is somewhat futile.
When people, like yourself are very closely linked to a case, it no doubt becomes very personal, as I stated to Gordo before.
I may not agree with 95% of all that is put out - bit of a stickler for the unknown.
Irrespective of certain posts that I have put out, I do respect how personal this is for yourselves.
I obviously don't agree with your perspectives - would never attempt in the slightest to change any views - a futile exercise.
Have come across so many flaws, selectiveness, economical areas of truth I have posted on.
I do not claim them all to be correct - I don't have all the files, and evidence.
I do however notice certain areas that - plainly don't make any sense.
These are the areas of my original question, to myself as others - as to why? the police sought to 'target' Luke.
My list of coincidences, along with other posts - are the conclusions I have come to - to date.
There is so much more in those grey areas.
My posts are somewhat long - these little selective areas and answers - don't fit together well.
There is no short answer to you question.
What is clear by this point for him and from over the evening is that evidence had been disposed of.
And yes there is clear time over the evening to do so -
From this final act of killing there is until 5.55pm until sighting by boys from school.
Then from 6.15pm until after 7 when he meets with his friends.
From around 6.30pm there is a fire in the garden.
From 9pm until he actually meets with the search trio.
He knows from where this girl was left hidden that the chances were slim of her being discovered.
There is no further call to her parents house, he knows it is highly unlikely that they will become worried.
They would, in all likliehood however, have become worried if he had phoned back later - thus no call.
He knows, that even if this girl is discovered, there is then the timescale of identity - no one would know who she was.
He knows, the likelihood that, this girl will be looked for after her curfew time.
This is the time that is aimed at for disposal and so forth.
Therefore, when he is in the company of this search party - mostly all is dealt with,
or so he believes.
There is of course no surety that there is going to be a search with all of them together-
no-one had anyway of knowing this.
What he is sure of is, that when this does happen, it gives him further opportunity to see what he had done.
For a murderer - this could be quite a bonus, in their somewhat disturbed mind.
More so, it did not matter, disposal had mainly taken place - stories set in motion.
Which takes the circle back to:
The remarkable coincidence, that is was only because Luke and this search party got together that this girl was found - by Luke in an amazingly short timescale.
IMO personally - it really could not have played out any better for him, (so he thought, at the time) yet it was his over eagerness,
when the opportunity arose, to see what his hands had done that became his downfall.
Sure in the knowledge that his story was straight, the evidence disposed of, yet so flawed.
Not so sure in the knowledge that this unplanned story of find - that of the dog was to seal the deal.
No pre concoction of events there, made up from that point as it panned out.
So no, I do not feel, it would be last thing he would have wanted to do, IF he had been the killer.
He was, as sure as he could be - that all was covered.
It had to be, by this girls curfew time - when he knew her parents would be looking for her.
-
Gotcha ;)
oh youve got me have you why is that.
-
Also, again, this is utter bullshit. Neither admitted this.
What actually happened, in reality, is that Findlay got Ferris to agree on the stand merely that the "bike was parked at a break in the wall, behind which jodi was killed"... The wall behind which Jodi was killed is very long and this could mean anywhere, and this is after establishing Ferris didn't even know what time it would be.
And again, Findlay is basing this on a witness statement which is demonstrably impossible... You don't care that this particular sighting is a physical impossibility though do you? we know you won't apply the same scrutiny to those statements, you're not interested in the truth.
in other words admited this in a court of law.
-
Just for clarity,
The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered, and that he seemed to be "piling up a rather substantial list of coincidences". He said he did not know why he had not gone to the police for several days, nor told any of Jodi’s family he had been on the path that evening.
So not just anywhere - at the break behind which Jodi's body was found. This isn't difficult.
And it's not true that he didn't tell any of Jodi's family he had been on the path, is it?
For all the criticisms of me using the words "hacked" or "hacking" in relation to Ferris:
Under lengthy cross-examination by the defence QC, Donald Findlay, he agreed that after the death he changed his appearance by hacking off his hair, delayed in going to the police, mis-stated the time he had been at the path, and had been ostracised by some of Jodi’s family.
Lithium would have us believe Ferris was somehow coerced into saying these things on the stand. Hmmm. At least five other witnesses to the time the two of them came through the Tool hire place and turned onto the path. At least two other witnesses to the change of hairstyle. Jodi's own mother telling the police he had been ostracised. Just hit him with it on that day in court, did they? Where's the bullshit now?
On the day of the killing he had ridden an old moped down Roan’s Dyke path to meet his cousin and close friend, Gordon Dickie, at Newbattle. The court was told that witnesses in the area put the time of hearing a noisy moped and seeing two youths at or shortly after 5pm. Mr Ferris said the pair used the path on the return journey.
Mr Findlay asked what time Mr Ferris had told the police he and his cousin were heading up the path. The witness said: "Around five o’clock." Mr Findlay told him to be careful and asked again. He said: "Before five o’clock... I cannot exactly remember."
The QC read from a statement which said "about half-past four". He suggested that that time was about 45 minutes out, and asked for an explanation. Mr Ferris said he had looked at a clock when he got into Mr Dickie’s house, and it said a quarter to five. It had been wrong.
Lied to the police. Tried to lie on the stand. Before we get any of the "it was a long time, how was he supposed to remember?" nonsense, they were pulled back in for questioning weeks later when it was discovered they lied about the time. The statement about Alice telling them not to go to the police was on the basis that they were "on the path too early" - so presumably, he lied to her about the time as well. He was able to tell the police approximately what time he arrived at Dickie's, what time Dickie's Jobcentre appointment was, but somehow, was reliant on a clock telling the wrong time to ascertain what time they got back to Dickie's house? Dickie knew what time his Jobcentre appointment was. He knew what time he called Ferris to come and meet him. Should I continue?
Now, for the record, one last time, none of this means Ferris or Dickie lied about knowing anything about Jodi's death. It means, plain and simple, they lied about the time they were on the path, well before the suggested time of death was fixed, well before a final leaving time for Jodi was set and somehow, their lie removed them from the path at precisely the time that would later be the exact claimed time of death.
That's important for a number of reasons. If they were there at 5.15pm (and they, themselves concede that they were) and they heard nothing, that would suggest Jodi was not being violently murdered just metres away. But it raises questions about why they lied to remove themselves at that particular time. Coincidence? Nobody's saying they killed Jodi (well, except Donald Findlay, maybe) but there are questions that need answering - a blind man in a hurry can see that.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-of-cousin-jodi-1-563199
-
he admits in a court of law to being at a murder scene at the time the murder is suposed to hve happend he then admits that he gave the wrong time to the police.
-
The bullshit can stop now
It's over
Ur found out
Do one
Oh, dear. It's not over, Lithium, not by a long shot. I quoted a newspaper article because I didn't have time to search through the transcripts. I'll be working all day, but I'll have a look this evening ... or tomorrow ... or whenever I have time. The information's in there, you know it is - I'm not going to jump to attention the minute you demand because I can't - I have other things to do. But I'll be back with the information you seek, when I have time. Likewise, the phone records - I don't have time to search through dozens of boxes but when I do, you'll have your proof.
But I'm not going anywhere - sorry if you don't like that!
-
He agreed that "[he] and Dickie may have been in the area at or about the time that Jodi may have been attacked"
This is not even close to admitting to " being at the murder scene at the time of murder."
No matter how much Sandra tries to spin it, it will never be that.
there no may about it he amite they were.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Basically+Tool+Hire,+Newbattle+Rd,+Newbattle,+Dalkeith+EH22+3LJ/The+Beeches,+Dalkeith/@55.87715,-3.0718921,1001m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x4887bebd22025c73:0xdd3eff7b3f287f4c!2m2!1d-3.0699985!2d55.8794958!1m5!1m1!1s0x4887be986ce0383d:0x3f6e9b543d9e3bb!2m2!1d-3.0645618!2d55.8748043
Whilst there is no evidence in the newspaper reports of this duo going over into the woodland.
There is the report of said bike being at a standstill and of witnesses to this effect.
There most certainly were no witnesses on this path of this.
There is the claim from Ms Lean that these witnesses had seen the boys from when they were leaving work.
then again after having to return to work.
This sighting on the path, taking place whilst travelling in a car on The Beeches.
Firstly if you look at the map, which shows this road before it enters the housing scheme at Lady Road.
Far across the field is Roansdyke path, clearly marked by the long stretch of woodland.
Whilst it may be feasible for a bike to be seen on this path, this may be so, they had already seen the bike,
easy to tie the two together, without the clarity of it being close up.
What is virtually impossible are several things.
One the seeing of this V break in wall -
what we can determine here is that these witness's who may know this path, said that they saw the bike CLOSE
to where this V break is. Any bottom half of this path , is technically close to where this V is.
However, a good part of the start of this path, is secluded from sight, entirely - it has trees both on the field and wall side.
It Is impossible to see the actual break in the wall.
So these witness's, knowing this path, give a rough indication as to where this sighting was.
Remembering here also that they were travelling, they saw this bike, at what appeared to be a standstill briefly.
There is no evidence, whatsoever of this bike being stationery for any length of time.
They did not see the boys with this bike, taken into account here also, that it is virtually impossible to see people,
from this distance.
So they say they saw this bike at a standstill, they did not see the boys because it is impossible to do so.
The did not see the V because it is impossible to do so.
Imagine you are being questioned:
You have already gave the wrong time as to being in this area.
You have already not come forward.
There has been a brutal murder.
You have been caught, not only as being in the vicinity but around that crucial time.
The intent questioning that follows.
You are getting told that there are not only witnesses that saw your bike, but that it was at a standstill,
that you were knowhere to be seen.
You are asked over and over "what were you doing, where were you" The heat is on.
You are constantly saying - I don't know, because there is nothing clear in your mind about being away from this bike,
yet you are being told you were and so forth.
You are like, FFS, you are not going to believe me, I have already lied, you are telling me there are witnesses who saw me doing something - I don't remember this, I don't know what I was doing, you are implying it must have been me - it wasn't.
What do these boys actual statements say?
I'll let you digest that - keep the post shorter
-
Let's move onto the point of the actual, claimed TOD.
Of these boys not seeing or hearing anything.
We know clearly that they were on this path AFTER - LK.
LK most certainly heard noises - these noises were enough for them, to sit in his head.
He was unsure what these were - one thing for sure,was, they were not the normal type
noise, he had heard before, on this quiet path.
Along the lines of AB, she saw people, there was something odd in the behaviour of the male,
it got locked away in her memory duo to this.
This is, as it was with LK. Did not strike as anything significant - just odd.
Both these peoples mind - don't think murder, do they?
What is clear that there was no screaming, no cries for help, why would he stop to look.
It was however, something odd.
The duo on the bike:
A noisy motorbike, do you imagine for one second here that Luke did not hear this bike?
Coming from the bottom entrance of this path?
We know already LK had heard noises - and if these noises are to be determined as this girl being silenced,
why the hell would this duo on the bike have seen or heard anything - really??
Especially considering the noise this bike made.
So this rather odd remark of "even a blind man!" really answers itself - doesn't it?
-
Lets push this as far as extremely possible:
Let's say:
These boys entered onto this path sometime after 5.05pm
The have a bike that clearly has problems.
It stops and starts at random.
So this is no easy quick ride up this path.
Let's push this further still.
Let's say they do stop off at this V point.
Let's presume they are going to collect drugs from the woodland or den.
Does this entail both of them doing so?
Do they take the risk of leaving their bike, on it's own?
It may be clapped up, but do they take the risk of it being nicked?
We are told there is a gang hut for dealing drugs,
are they likely to have left drugs in this gang hut to collect?
after all it is known to their many customers?
So, one or two of them go over this wall to collect these drugs.
They bump into Jodi - wham.
We are of course by this point somewhere around 5.30 at a push.
Back they go to their bike, miraculously it starts - back to Dickies.
Nothing to clean up.
double the risk of transfer/contamination also in this 'chance' meet.
Messy.
Let's miss Jodi out here.
They go into the woods, Luke has already heard them coming, some 10mins before.
We know that this girl is well hidden.
Why would they see or hear anything?
We know this bike has no witnesses to it being unmanned at all, for any length of time.
They are back in Dickies by say 5.45pm now??
There are of course other witnesses to this fact.
We also have the travel along Lady Path which in itself is as long as Roansdyke path.
So for both being involved and of seeing/hearing - it really is answered.
-
Lets push this as far as extremely possible:
Let's say:
These boys entered onto this path sometime after 5.05pm
The have a bike that clearly has problems.
It stops and starts at random.
So this is no easy quick ride up this path.
Let's push this further still.
Let's say they do stop off at this V point.
Let's presume they are going to collect drugs from the woodland or den.
Does this entail both of them doing so?
Do they take the risk of leaving their bike, on it's own?
It may be clapped up, but do they take the risk of it being nicked?
We are told there is a gang hut for dealing drugs,
are they likely to have left drugs in this gang hut to collect?
after all it is known to their many customers?
So, one or two of them go over this wall to collect these drugs.
They bump into Jodi - wham.
We are of course by this point somewhere around 5.30 at a push.
Back they go to their bike, miraculously it starts - back to Dickies.
Nothing to clean up.
double the risk of transfer/contamination also in this 'chance' meet.
Messy.
Let's miss Jodi out here.
They go into the woods, Luke has already heard them coming, some 10mins before.
We know that this girl is well hidden.
Why would they see or hear anything?
We know this bike has no witnesses to it being unmanned at all, for any length of time.
They are back in Dickies by say 5.45pm now??
There are of course other witnesses to this fact.
We also have the travel along Lady Path which in itself is as long as Roansdyke path.
So for both being involved and of seeing/hearing - it really is answered.
whats not answered is why they lied abut the time they were on there.
-
Let's move onto the point of the actual, claimed TOD.
Of these boys not seeing or hearing anything.
We know clearly that they were on this path AFTER - LK.
LK most certainly heard noises - these noises were enough for them, to sit in his head.
He was unsure what these were - one thing for sure,was, they were not the normal type
noise, he had heard before, on this quiet path.
Along the lines of AB, she saw people, there was something odd in the behaviour of the male,
it got locked away in her memory duo to this.
This is, as it was with LK. Did not strike as anything significant - just odd.
Both these peoples mind - don't think murder, do they?
What is clear that there was no screaming, no cries for help, why would he stop to look.
It was however, something odd.
The duo on the bike:
A noisy motorbike, do you imagine for one second here that Luke did not hear this bike?
Coming from the bottom entrance of this path?
We know already LK had heard noises - and if these noises are to be determined as this girl being silenced,
why the hell would this duo on the bike have seen or heard anything - really??
if thats the case they have no reason to lie abut being on there.
Especially considering the noise this bike made.
So this rather odd remark of "even a blind man!" really answers itself - doesn't it?
-
Sighting at top, for me, nothing like jodi, description not even close.
Keep saying these people were not traced, but was there any call for them to come forward in newspapers or police actively looking for them. I don’t remember anything at the time looking for these 2 people? Maybe they did not either and also did not come forward as they had no need to, they had walked past the path seen nothing and never gave it a second thought or didn’t want involved. Were the 2 people at the top of the path shown on the police re-enactment?
Sighting at the bottom, I still dont understand the relevance of this, maybe someone can explain. Was Luke not on that road waiting on Jodi, so even if it was him they saw does that not kind of corroborate luke story that he was waiting for Jodi at the other end of his street and walking back and forth on that road? I know I must be missing something here if someone can correct me or fill in the blanks?
Lawyers have a way to work people on the stand, a lot like the claims with Shanes evidence, this raised questions as to what he actually remembers and what he was backed into saying on the stand. The boys on the moped, for me, is the same. As they could not remember it could have been ‘made out’ to look like they were at the V when they were not? I always took it that there was a witness who saw the bike sitting at the murder scene V at 1715 and reported this, and thats what DF was referring to in court. Can someone clarify on this too, did someone SEE the bike, or did DF ‘put it to them’ the bike was there and they agreed?
I don’t think the boys on the moped had anything to do with the murder, for me it just raises questions as to the time of death. I do also think it’s possible if they were there they could have had a smoke with Jodi.
-
i think this case really reuires a discusen group in itself a single thread very confising when its this long i thin i might set one up.
-
Sandra L.
]On a slightly different note, something I just found out recently.
Police knew what Jodi looked like, her height, weight, etc, and the clothes she was wearing the night of the murder - baggy dark trousers, baggy black hoodie with large deftones logo on the back, smaller logos on the left sleeve and right upper chest, blue DCs. Exactly a week after the murder, they staged a reconstruction with the Jodi lookalike wearing exactly the same clothes.
Before the reconstruction, they had two witness descriptions of a girl who could have been Jodi.
The first was: (approached from the back, and fleetingly from the side, passing in a car) Teenager, could have been male or female, probably female because of the "shape" of the person. Plain blue sweatshirt, lighter blue bootcut jeans. Hair "dark" - no description of style, etc, no facial description because the face was not seen.
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.
Which is closer to the information police already had? Which is closer to the clothing Jodi was actually wearing? Which do you think (if any) police should have relied upon as a credible sighting of "a girl who could have been Jodi"?
Which description is closer to the police reconstruction?
Amongst the many questions that have arose before about these sightings is that of the male.
Green jacket, bulging pocket with collar. "Now parkas don't have collars, do they, they have hoods" (CM's word in podcast)
also been highlighted many times.
Above "with some sort of collar lying down about the shoulders"
This brings two things I have mentioned previously to mind and reminded again by Bullseyes post above.
A hood when it is pulled back can give the appearance of a collar.
A parka jacket, typically is shorter at the front than back - around hip length in appearance - more so if cords are pulled.
A hood when lying back over the shoulders and down the back - can easily cover most of the top third of said back of top.
This is where the logo was on this girls top, most of it easily covered by her hood.
NB sighting by AB was of a dark blue top with lighter trousers. Jodi was wearing a dark top with lighter trousers.
Another coincidence.
The other sighting does not mention the difference in colours - AB did notice they were different though.
-
Because of the unusual length of this thread and the interest shown by a number of members in this case I have created a new board for it. This will enable new threads within the topic to be opened.
-
Because of the unusual length of this thread and the interest shown by a number of members in this case I have created a new board for it. This will enable new threads within the topic to be opened.
Do you think placing the nouns in apposition is fair to the defendant?
-
Do you think placing the nouns in apposition is fair to the defendant?
What do you suggest I do? I can change the board title if you want to suggest something better.
-
Sighting at top, for me, nothing like jodi, description not even close.
Keep saying these people were not traced, but was there any call for them to come forward in newspapers or police actively looking for them. I don’t remember anything at the time looking for these 2 people? Maybe they did not either and also did not come forward as they had no need to, they had walked past the path seen nothing and never gave it a second thought or didn’t want involved. Were the 2 people at the top of the path shown on the police re-enactment?
There was never any call for these two people to come forward. Even though the police had AB's statements from July 1st and 2nd, the police were still claiming, via the media, that there had been no confirmed sightings of Jodi right up until the first reports of Stocky Man on July 16th. Those sightings were reported as "the first confirmed sightings of Jodi" but there was no mention of the two people at the entrance to the path and these sightings were 15 minutes later than AB's.
Although the police appear to have known about the Stocky Man sightings by July 7th, when the police reconstruction was filmed, they chose not to release that information for another 9 days. The reconstruction was inaccurate in the following ways:
(1) It didn't show anyone at the entrance to the path
(2) It didn't show Stocky Man
(3) It was 15 minutes too late (according to the prosecution's final timings)
(40 It showed Jodi turning into and walking down Roan's Dyke path even though no witness ever claimed to see this.
Notice the time of the reconstruction - Jodi leaving her home "a few minutes after 5pm" - fitting with the 5.05pm sightings involving Stocky Man. On what was the timing of the reconstruction based? There are only two possibilities - Judith's early account that Jodi left "about 5 o'clock" or the witnesses to Stocky Man whose sightings were timed at 5.05pm. Either way, by the time of that reconstruction, police had had AB's statements for five and six days respectively and chose to report that there had been no confirmed sightings of Jodi and to place her leaving time at just after 5pm - as I said, 15 minutes too late for the AB sighting.
Sighting at the bottom, I still dont understand the relevance of this, maybe someone can explain. Was Luke not on that road waiting on Jodi, so even if it was him they saw does that not kind of corroborate luke story that he was waiting for Jodi at the other end of his street and walking back and forth on that road? I know I must be missing something here if someone can correct me or fill in the blanks?
The"significance" of these sightings are that they were claimed to be at the Newbattle end of Roan's Dyke path, much further up the Newbattle Road than Luke claimed, or was witnessed, to have been that evening. There are problems with the location and timing of this sighting:
(1) It was claimed to be at the same time as Luke was seen sitting on a wall at the end of his street, several hundred yards away.
(2) A colleague of one of the witnesses (who reported her claimed sighting to the police) insists she was saying she saw the youth at the the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College (the wall where Luke was witnessed sitting is directly opposite that entrance)
(3) According to their own statements, they could not have seen a jogger (who emerged from Newbattle Abbey Crescent,) from the point on the Newbattle Road where Roan's Dyke Path emerges, because of the bends in the road. Yet they described the jogger perfectly, suggesting they were very close to Newbattle Abbey Crescent/Newbattle Abbey College when they saw the youth and the jogger in the same sighting and not, as they claimed, at the entrance to Roan's Dyke Path.
(4) Their description did not fit Luke - in particular, they claimed the youth had thin, straggly, dark hair "stuck" to his head.
(5) The youth was not agitated, breathless or behaving strangely in any way. There were no signs of blood or dishevelment on his clothing. He was, quite simply, looking at the pavement.
Lawyers have a way to work people on the stand, a lot like the claims with Shanes evidence, this raised questions as to what he actually remembers and what he was backed into saying on the stand. The boys on the moped, for me, is the same. As they could not remember it could have been ‘made out’ to look like they were at the V when they were not? I always took it that there was a witness who saw the bike sitting at the murder scene V at 1715 and reported this, and thats what DF was referring to in court. Can someone clarify on this too, did someone SEE the bike, or did DF ‘put it to them’ the bike was there and they agreed?
After the boys on the moped passed through the tool hire place, an employee there told police that s/he spotted the bike parked against the V break (with no people in sight) on the witness's drive home. JF's original statement was the one lying about the time they were on the path - according to that statement, they simply drove straight up the path to Dickie's home at around 4.30. However, along with the statements from the tool hire place, a witness driving up the Newbattle Road saw them pushing the bike into the entrance of Roan's Dyke path just after 5pm. In his second statement, Ferris conceded that he'd given the wrong time to the police - his next statement was very detailed, talking about the bike "keeping cutting out" and he and Dickie having to take turns to push it to get it started again. He talked about them having to take rests because their arms were tired from pushing. He stated, in this statement, that they were on the path "maybe 20 minutes, half an hour" - there was only time, at the end of that, to ride the bike "a couple of times" up and down the path before getting back to Dickie's house about 5.30pm. So, no direct admission from Ferris in statements that the bike was against the wall at 5.15pm, but, taken with the evidence of the other two witnesses (the one who saw them pushing the bike just after 5pm and the one who saw the bike against the wall at the V at 5.15pm), it's clear the bike was not running for the first period on the path, after 5.05pm and they were "taking rests" between pushing it to try to get it started.
I don’t think the boys on the moped had anything to do with the murder, for me it just raises questions as to the time of death. I do also think it’s possible if they were there they could have had a smoke with Jodi.
Me neither - it's the time of death that bothers me - we know they were on the path just after 5pm, we know the bike wasn't running for a good portion of the time they were there, but they saw and heard nothing. It's strange that they didn't see LK or he them, though (although LK wasn't sure of his timings, since he regularly took two different routes when out on his bike and couldn't remember which route he'd taken that evening). But, even so, LK initially reported a "rustling sound, like leaves or an animal" - he stopped, listened, the sound had stopped and he moved on. When asked by DF how that had changed to a "struggling sound" (which was later again changed to "a strangling sound") he told the court, "I was nervous. I felt like I was being treated as a suspect."
LK's is not the only account where witnesses were pressured to agree to a much different version of their original statements - there is evidence throughout the case of witnesses' accounts ending up far removed from what they said they saw/heard and records of their discomfort with the changes in some cases.
-
Please feel free to start new threads within this newly created board. As has been pointed out this thread is extremely long.
-
Although the police appear to have known about the Stocky Man sightings by July 7th, when the police reconstruction was filmed, they chose not to release that information for another 9 days. The reconstruction was inaccurate in the following ways:
(1) It didn't show anyone at the entrance to the path
(2) It didn't show Stocky Man
(3) It was 15 minutes too late (according to the prosecution's final timings)
(40 It showed Jodi turning into and walking down Roan's Dyke path even though no witness ever claimed to see this.
[/color]
This is flawed in so many way:
Why on earth at this point would the police include stocky man and the male/female at the entrance?
The construction was done to show Jodi's assumed movements,
those of walking along this road and into entrance that leads to where she was murdered.
This is at a point in the investigation where they are looking for further witnesses.
They have at this point neither confirmed the timings by AB or the girl with a male walking in the
same direction.
Or of their identification.
They are being wise in looking for more information to come forward - it is of this girls movements,
and sightings of her.
This 15mins too late - really?
They are shown an approx. time going on the information they have gathered.
What does the request actually say in this reconstruction?
It does not ask that anyone who was in the vicinity at EXACTLY the time of
reconstruction, to the exact minute, does it?
It clearly asks, for people to jog their memories, if being in this location, AROUND said time, if they
may have seen this girl.
Did the reconstruction even get under way, at the exact time planned -
One would imagine here that this is no easy set up.
There would be road closures.
Setting up of equipment.
Film location in brief.
So many factors that could put the planned timing out.
Also, do you not state in your book about a man following Jodi into this path, this man, being one who was also on the path?
Or did the person who copied these extracts, get it wrong?
-
(1) It was claimed to be at the same time as Luke was seen sitting on a wall at the end of his street, several hundred yards away.
(2) A colleague of one of the witnesses (who reported her claimed sighting to the police) insists she was saying she saw the youth at the the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College (the wall where Luke was witnessed sitting is directly opposite that entrance)
(3) According to their own statements, they could not have seen a jogger (who emerged from Newbattle Abbey Crescent,) from the point on the Newbattle Road where Roan's Dyke Path emerges, because of the bends in the road. Yet they described the jogger perfectly, suggesting they were very close to Newbattle Abbey Crescent/Newbattle Abbey College when they saw the youth and the jogger in the same sighting and not, as they claimed, at the entrance to Roan's Dyke Path.
(4) Their description did not fit Luke - in particular, they claimed the youth had thin, straggly, dark hair "stuck" to his head.
(5) The youth was not agitated, breathless or behaving strangely in any way. There were no signs of blood or dishevelment on his clothing. He was, quite simply, looking at the pavement.
[/color]
So not F & W who stated that they had seen him at the entrance.
Flawed again in explanation:
Again easily misinterpreted;
Where was this sighting - oh, you know the entrance to Newbattle college - near there.
But let's skip this,
Onto the messy part.
So Luke Is sitting on the wall, opposite the entrance,
there is another male at the entrance who looks remarkably like him.
It can't be him though as,
he is described as having thin, straggly, dark hair "stuck" to his head.
This male is neither agitated, breathless or behaving strangely in any way.
Yet this male was described as looking dodgy.
Let's skip the pic of Luke again from the photo ID,
the one with thin, scraggly hair - scraggly where it is sticking out.
Let's imagine the sweat, through adrenaline , wetting the hair, making it appear darker,
more straggly - and lets add in the parka type jacket. Or the water on the path side,
or the rain. Or the usual greasy hair he had?
Which was brought to mind by the description given, by friends that night,
of him being more well kempt than usual?
-
After the boys on the moped passed through the tool hire place, an employee there told police that s/he spotted the bike parked against the V break (with no people in sight) on the witness's drive home. JF's original statement was the one lying about the time they were on the path - according to that statement, they simply drove straight up the path to Dickie's home at around 4.30. However, along with the statements from the tool hire place, a witness driving up the Newbattle Road saw them pushing the bike into the entrance of Roan's Dyke path just after 5pm. In his second statement, Ferris conceded that he'd given the wrong time to the police - his next statement was very detailed, talking about the bike "keeping cutting out" and he and Dickie having to take turns to push it to get it started again. He talked about them having to take rests because their arms were tired from pushing. He stated, in this statement, that they were on the path "maybe 20 minutes, half an hour" - there was only time, at the end of that, to ride the bike "a couple of times" up and down the path before getting back to Dickie's house about 5.30pm. So, no direct admission from Ferris in statements that the bike was against the wall at 5.15pm, but, taken with the evidence of the other two witnesses (the one who saw them pushing the bike just after 5pm and the one who saw the bike against the wall at the V at 5.15pm), it's clear the bike was not running for the first period on the path, after 5.05pm and they were "taking rests" between pushing it to try to get it started.
[/color]
Again back to the google image.
You can not see the V, which takes me onto previous point again.
This was an estimation of where it could be - the driver had perhaps walked this path before.
This person who may have walked this path before, several times perhaps, knowing approx.:
from the road they were driving where this V was.
Unlike Luke who had walked this path many times - yet claimed not to know of the V's existence,
until that night - in the dark.
They did not see JF and GD - again, virtually impossible to see people, perhaps they had planked their,
backsides down, in exhaustion?
Good to see the swerve here in this bike - unlikely to have made noise, as they could not get it started.
Let's go with that.
How noisy is a bike, when you are trying to start it over and over.
Never mind the f'n and blinding whilst trying to do so.
This was no silent ascent up this path - whichever way you look at it.
Good to get clarification, yet again of this duo not being in the woodland.
Also that SL believes they are not complicit in the murder, itself.
Corrine and her theories, she claims, herself and Sandra have one.
Of this pair having a third person - cutting and changing hair to look like each other.
disposal of said bike in a scrapyard with all the evidence.
Messy.
-
Me neither - it's the time of death that bothers me - we know they were on the path just after 5pm, we know the bike wasn't running for a good portion of the time they were there, but they saw and heard nothing. It's strange that they didn't see LK or he them, though (although LK wasn't sure of his timings, since he regularly took two different routes when out on his bike and couldn't remember which route he'd taken that evening). But, even so, LK initially reported a "rustling sound, like leaves or an animal" - he stopped, listened, the sound had stopped and he moved on. When asked by DF how that had changed to a "struggling sound" (which was later again changed to "a strangling sound") he told the court, "I was nervous. I felt like I was being treated as a suspect."
[/color]
Which clarifies that LK had most definately been on this path prior to these boys -
We know the boys could not possibly have been on this path anytime prior to after 5.05pm.
We know this as Basically Tool Hire closes at 5pm. They were in the yard at this time.
We know this due to the timescale of getting bike to the entrance on Newbattle R'd.
We know this is more likely to be nearer 5.10pm. At a push.
The distance, a heavy bike, pushing - stopping and starting.
So no it's not strange that they did not see each other.
These noises that changed, of him being nervous.
He wasn't getting put the ringer though, was he, by the police?
He was merely nervous as he had been in the vicinity.
Trying perhaps to clarify these noises.
Hearing these rustling noises that evolved into hearing the strangling.
He hears a sound of heavy rustling, a struggle followed by strangling - tying in together in its sequence.
-
The claims of a "gang hut" and "den for dealing drugs" is all fantasy/fiction from Corinne/Sandra, 2 people far too old/out of touch to understand how laughable this idea is. Also too old to realise Ferris and Dickie were teenagers at the time, too old to be playing "dens"
Ferris may well have met people on the path and many other locations around the area to sell them drugs, but by no means did they set up some "shop" in the woods to sell drugs as claimed by Lean/CM lol.
No cannabis dealer leaves his stash in a wet muddy woodland. He had absolutely no reason to.
They weren't over that wall that evening and they never ever claimed to be. They were arsing about the path/causing trouble on a wreck of a bike that kept cutting out.
Findlay was careful with his wording and taking liberties with someone with a very low IQ.
All Ferris agreed to was that his bike had stopped on the path. He clearly had no idea the time. The thing was cutting out.
I know,
It's good to get clarification, to them not being involved and for the TOD to be around 5.15pm.
There is no way - that Luke would not have heard this duo - on the path - therefore no chance of the two, hearing anything.
It was, by the point of them being there, sadly too late.
-
They weren't over that wall that evening and they never ever claimed to be. They were arsing about the path/causing trouble on a wreck of a bike that kept cutting out.
Exactly - clear as day, as to why the bike was at a standstill.
Not the sinister inference that they had, brought the bike to a stop - to do anything else.
-
I know,
It's good to get clarification, to them not being involved and for the TOD to be around 5.15pm.
There is no way - that Luke would not have heard this duo - on the path - therefore no chance of the two, hearing anything.
It was, by the point of them being there, sadly too late.
tod can not acurate to the minte the patholgist did not give a tod.
-
Exactly - clear as day, as to why the bike was at a standstill.
Not the sinister inference that they had, brought the bike to a stop - to do anything else.
Where did anyone claim "sinister inference" about the bike being stopped? The questions were, where were Ferris and Dickie when the bike was stopped and did they see or hear anything.
The answers to those two questions alone would have thrown the claimed time of death into question from day 5 of the investigation.
To my knowledge, no-one has ever suggested they stopped the bike "to do anything else" - yet another red herring introduced by those who continually flood the topic with misinformation and outright dishonesty.
-
Where did anyone claim "sinister inference" about the bike being stopped? The questions were, where were Ferris and Dickie when the bike was stopped and did they see or hear anything.
The answers to those two questions alone would have thrown the claimed time of death into question from day 5 of the investigation.
To my knowledge, no-one has ever suggested they stopped the bike "to do anything else" - yet another red herring introduced by those who continually flood the topic with misinformation and outright dishonesty.
maybe parki knows something we don't.
-
??? ???
No sinister inference -
DF - did you kill Jodi Jones.
No need to go into all the theories over time about what they may have been doing.
Pretty sure, they have been read many times.
Naturally it is DF's job to cause diversion in thought, amongst the Jury.
Clearly no answer given, that did so.
"I dunno what I was doing when my bike was stopped"
Is not a good enough answer.
Let's stretch that out.
What where you doing when your bike had stopped 10 times.
"I dunno"
Corrine's podcast and that of her and Ms Leans theory.
Nothing sinister, at all.
-
This is flawed in so many way:
Why on earth at this point would the police include stocky man and the male/female at the entrance?
The construction was done to show Jodi's assumed movements,
those of walking along this road and into entrance that leads to where she was murdered.
This is at a point in the investigation where they are looking for further witnesses.
They have at this point neither confirmed the timings by AB or the girl with a male walking in the
same direction.
Jodi's assumed movements - i.e. she left her house, walked down the Easthouses Road (being seen by two witnesses) and was seen at the entrance to the path speaking with a male - according to information in the police files.
Why on earth would they not include them? Media reports at the time (including an interview from a senior officer in the case) said the reconstruction was to try to "jog people's memories" about "anything they may have seen that could assist the investigation." How can people assist if they're given a false scenario to begin with?
To which "girl and a male walking in the same direction" do you refer?
This 15mins too late - really?
They are shown an approx. time going on the information they have gathered.
What does the request actually say in this reconstruction?
It does not ask that anyone who was in the vicinity at EXACTLY the time of
reconstruction, to the exact minute, does it?
It clearly asks, for people to jog their memories, if being in this location, AROUND said time, if they
may have seen this girl.
What? It is 15 minutes too late by the police and prosecution's own reasoning that Jodi left at 4.50pm. It doesn't ask for the "exact" time" - you make my point for me. People who passed before 5pm or after 5.15pm would automatically assume they had nothing of interest to tell the police - anything they saw (according to the reconstruction) at those times would not assist the enquiry because any person they saw could not have been Jodi, by the same reasoning.
Did the reconstruction even get under way, at the exact time planned -
One would imagine here that this is no easy set up.
There would be road closures.
Setting up of equipment.
Film location in brief.
So many factors that could put the planned timing out.
Why does that matter? If police were sure Jodi left at 4.50, they would have blocked the Easthouses Road and set up roadblocks in time to film the reconstruction at 4.50pm. How do I know that? Because they did exactly that to film the reconstruction at just after 5pm and encouraged media footage stating that Jodi left her home just after 5pm.
The fact remains, the reconstruction went out telling people Jodi left her home just after 5pm and was on the Easthouses Road by 5.05pm, whatever the "planned" timing may or may not have been.
The point you make here is, to me, ludicrous. Think about it. "We know thebank was robbed at exactly 3.45pm and two men brandishing guns ran into the street where a brown getaway car was waiting. Unfortunately, we couldn't set up the filming on time, so we'll just tell people the robbery happened at 4pm - won't make any difference, will it?"
Also, do you not state in your book about a man following Jodi into this path, this man, being one who was also on the path?
Or did the person who copied these extracts, get it wrong?
No, I did not. I have never claimed Stocky Man "followed Jodi into the path" - I've always taken the stance that no-one, ever, saw Jodi walk into the entrance to the path, so how could possibly have said what you claim here? However, Stocky Man should also have been included in the reconstruction as his presence at 5.05pm, on the Easthouses Road, behind Jodi, was confirmed by 2 witnesses.
-
the stocky might be totally innocent even if he did follow heer onto the path.
-
The title is fine. What "defendant" is he talking about? He's convicted. There is no presumption of evidence to be maintained.
I'm not sure the case requires more than one thread though, there's really nothing to it. Open n shut case.
The conjunction may suggest a causal link in some people's minds and is prejudicial. I suggest simply: The murder of Jodie Jones, Luke Mitchell's conviction for the murder of Jodie Jones or something akin.
-
Wait... but you claim everywhere that he was seen "following" Jodi, who we know ended up on the path. So you must believe he was heading for the path, or he wouldn't be "following" her would he? He'd simply happen to be walking down a street quite a distance behind her. Your use of the word "following" is the sensationalism I'm talking about. Do you believe this guy was following Jodi or not? In which case, yes you are claiming he went onto the path.
The police appeal for witnesses to Stocky Man described him as "following behind her" or, in some articles, "following closely behind her," so if anyone is guilty of sensationalism, it's police press agents. I have argued for years that there is no evidence that Jodi turned into the entrance to Roan's Dyke path from the Easthouses Road at a little after 5pm that evening - she could have walked straight past, because nobody saw her turn onto the entrance or on the path itself. How many times do I have to say this?
If Jodi went elsewhere (and there is nothing to say she didn't - we have no idea what time she died and therefore no idea what time she was on the path), Stocky Man could just as easily have followed her wherever she went. So, no, I am not saying he followed her onto the path because I've never been convinced she turned directly into the path just after 5pm, because nobody saw her do so.
It's not just me who thinks Jodi could have gone elsewhere. The police were asking certain witnesses about a "hang out" spot, out of sight of the road, past the entrance to the path on the other side of the road. People in that spot could see people on the road/pavement, but not vice versa. Why were the police asking about that particular place? To ascertain whether Jodi might have been headed there first. It's not far past the entrance to the path, but it is past it and across the road.
Why might Jodi have been headed there? I've no idea - it could be speculated that it was a good place to smoke without being seen (something alluded to by one witness - smoking there, not any particular suggestion of Jodi heading there that night). Or maybe to pick up some cannabis without being seen? Or maybe to have a smoke and kill some time before heading down to see Luke, since she was early for meeting him?
Let me ask you a question, Lithium. If evidence were to emerge that the time of death as 5.15pm was definitely, categorically wrong, would that change your opinion of who killed Jodi?
-
So, even if evidence emerged showing that Jodi was killed at a time where there is definitive, categorical proof that Luke was nowhere near Roan's Dyke Path or the woodland strip, you'd still believe Luke was the killer? Really?
-
I'm not talking about Corinne's alibi. I said, if new evidence proving Jodi wasn't killed at 5.15pm emerged - evidence that showed she was killed at a different time, when Luke could be proven to be elsewhere, would you change your opinion.
I didn't say there was evidence - I asked what you would do IF there was?
-
You've not categorically, definitively proved anything you've claimed in 15 years.
“Never admit defeat. It's better to just stay on the Titanic and pretend. Pretend like everything is fine. Just refuse to acknowledge the ice cold water flowing in. It doesn't even matter if it goes over your head, you can still hold your breath.”
;D
-
Who are "they," Davie?
-
Let me ask you a question, Lithium. If evidence were to emerge that the time of death as 5.15pm was definitely, categorically wrong, would that change your opinion of who killed Jodi?
"what if , and bare with me on this , what if things were in fact diferent from reality. would you feel diferent about reality? HMMM?"
-
"what if , and bare with me on this , what if things were in fact diferent from reality. would you feel diferent about reality? HMMM?"
Have they found the Luke doppelganger seen with Jodi near the scene of crime and the time of the crime wearing the same type of clothes Luke wore that day yet?
-
Have they found the Luke doppelganger seen with Jodi near the scene of crime and the time of the crime wearing the same type of clothes Luke wore that day yet?
and course there would be nobody else town with a green jacket on would there.
-
Have they found the Luke doppelganger seen with Jodi near the scene of crime and the time of the crime wearing the same type of clothes Luke wore that day yet?
Tim Hennis had a doppelgänger near the crime scene. Where and who is the Luke doppelgänger?
(https://i.ibb.co/Q8HxGTs/hennis.png)
-
Where's the forensic evidence? The pathologist Anthony Busuttil said Jodie put up a defence to her killer.
-
Where's the forensic evidence? The pathologist Anthony Busuttil said Jodie put up a defence to her killer.
99% of what Anthony Busuttil has allegedly said is nothing but distorted bullshit from Luke's supporters.
Sandra could always type out Busuttils actual evidence verbatim. Just like when she typed out the DNA reports and typed out Lukes police questioning. But she wont do that because the more that's revealed the more apparent Luke's guilt becomes.
-
99% of what Anthony Busuttil has allegedly said is nothing but distorted bullshit from Luke's supporters.
Sandra could always type out Busuttils actual evidence verbatim. Just like when she typed out the DNA reports and typed out Lukes police questioning. But she wont do that because the more that's revealed the more apparent Luke's guilt becomes.
whats been distorted that's the mans own words.
https://youtu.be/DTIdhoCwnLc
-
99% of what Anthony Busuttil has allegedly said is nothing but distorted bullshit from Luke's supporters.
Sandra could always type out Busuttils actual evidence verbatim. Just like when she typed out the DNA reports and typed out Lukes police questioning. But she wont do that because the more that's revealed the more apparent Luke's guilt becomes.
Eh!
-
Have they found the Luke doppelganger seen with Jodi near the scene of crime and the time of the crime wearing the same type of clothes Luke wore that day yet?
If you mean the 2 at the top of the path then why do people continue to believe this was Jodi? It CLEARLY wasn’t. The person seen at top of path wash wearing light blue, boot cut style jeans with a blue top, Jodi was wearing black baggy trousers and a black top. There is no way on earth you think this is Jodi surly?? Looking at the pics of the girl in the reconstruction the black clothing is VERY noticeable, can not be mistaken for blue jeans!! Even the person who gave this evidence refused to say it was Luke she seen when questioned on the stand, this was NOT them imo.
-
If you mean the 2 at the top of the path then why do people continue to believe this was Jodi? It CLEARLY wasn’t. The person seen at top of path wash wearing light blue, boot cut style jeans with a blue top, Jodi was wearing black baggy trousers and a black top. There is no way on earth you think this is Jodi surly?? Looking at the pics of the girl in the reconstruction the black clothing is VERY noticeable, can not be mistaken for blue jeans!! Even the person who gave this evidence refused to say it was Luke she seen when questioned on the stand, this was NOT them imo.
the reconstruction video also has Jodi leaving home later than the alleged sighting.
-
Lean is behind every single one of these accusations btw.
She needs to be stopped.
I enjoy her posts. She's an asset to this site.
-
Lithium, I get that you don't agree with me - I respect your right to think whatever you like - but why on earth do you feel the need to "support" your stance by telling lies about me or endorsing lies told by others about me?
I have never accused anyone of being Jodi's murderer. I have asked questions about why certain things were not checked out or why certain people were treated the way they were and I have always made it clear that by asking those questions I am not suggesting those people are guilty of anything. I couldn't have made it clearer over the years - to point the finger at anyone else would be to do to them what was done to Luke.
She needs to be stopped.
Come on, Lithium, behave yourself! Freedom of expression is one of the clearest indicators of a civilised, advanced society - I don't like much of what you say about this case, but I've never suggested you should be stopped from saying it. This isn't the first time you've suggested I "need to be stopped" - by whom and in what way? One could, if one was so inclined, read that as a threat. I'm not so inclined, so nothing to worry about there, is there?
-
Lithium, I get that you don't agree with me - I respect your right to think whatever you like - but why on earth do you feel the need to "support" your stance by telling lies about me or endorsing lies told by others about me?
I have never accused anyone of being Jodi's murderer. I have asked questions about why certain things were not checked out or why certain people were treated the way they were and I have always made it clear that by asking those questions I am not suggesting those people are guilty of anything. I couldn't have made it clearer over the years - to point the finger at anyone else would be to do to them what was done to Luke.
Come on, Lithium, behave yourself! Freedom of expression is one of the clearest indicators of a civilised, advanced society - I don't like much of what you say about this case, but I've never suggested you should be stopped from saying it. This isn't the first time you've suggested I "need to be stopped" - by whom and in what way? One could, if one was so inclined, read that as a threat. I'm not so inclined, so nothing to worry about there, is there?
its because they have nothing in the way of an argument soo have to resort to personal attacks.
-
Ah that old chestnut.
Is it the same type of personal attacks, that Lean has inflicted on every male associated with the Jones family?
On this thread? Point them out.
-
Much of what you say is libelous and dangerous. This is what I'm suggesting needs stopped before you ruin more lives.
The only "Innocents" betrayed in your book are Jodi's family.
Yes, I know that exposing the truth is dangerous - always have, but thanks for highlighting it.
List, for the members of this forum, actual examples of things I've said that are libelous. I'm happy to address them one by one, from the legal definition of libel.
This is what I'm suggesting needs stopped before you ruin more lives.
But that's not what you said, is it? You didn't say "this needs to be stopped," you said "She needs to be stopped. There's a big difference, isn't there?
The only "Innocents" betrayed in your book are Jodi's family.
Interesting choice of wording, punctuation and grammar! I'll spare you the finer points - I made it clear when I published the book that my aim was to encourage people to draw their own conclusions. And many of them are doing just that.
Did you read the book, Lithium?
-
Guess you was not around when the WAP forum was about.
Read the whole thing
-
Marty aka corrine, nug aka billy, sandra you have atleast 5.. loads of support on here eh..
-
Marty aka corrine, nug aka billy, sandra you have atleast 5.. loads of support on here eh..
Thats me then, found out
-
Im a male mate
-
This is how I see it, I’ve said a lot of it before but still nobody has said anything to show Luke’s guilt or innocence, and I for one would welcome a retrial
There is a lot of disturbing information about Luke some it seems confirmed and other things not, a lot of hearsay and opinions but it’s the facts that matter and for me there is just not enough facts showing Luke’s guilt.
dog finding body - dog was a trained tracker
Sighting at top - definitely not Jodi and Luke
Sighting at bottom - debatable if this is Luke, even if it is that is no proof of anything alone
Black dahlia- no connection
Urine bottles - strange but no proof of murder, also is there evidence these were there before the murder?
His bro not confirming Luke was home - he did, but then was distressed and tied in knots on the stand and his statement was pulled apart by a clever lawyer doing what lawyers do. So for me this is not proven either way
Means - yes he had access to knifes and imo the physical ability to commit the crime
Motive - no known motive
Opportunity - debatable, evidence he was at home, even if that is not accepted the timeframe for murder seems very tight, with the addition of the people on the path at the time making the timeframe even less likely.
Dna - nothing found linking Jodi and Luke, expert confirmed this lack of dna made it unlikely to be Luke
Other hard Evidence - none
Circumstantial evidence - plenty but most, if not all, have acceptable explanations, certainly imo is in no way proof of Luke being the murderer without reasonable doubt
I’ve said it before, for me this could all be cleared up if his bro was to confirm once and for all, was Luke at home making tea or was he alone in the house looking at stuff on the net. Then again it could be that he just cant remember, for sure, what took place on that evening. If that’s the case then back to square one it is..
-
dog finding body - dog was a trained tracker
We only have Corrine and Luke Mitchell’s word that it was a “trained tracker” .
-
No, the dog was tested by an expert and said to bepartially trained
-
Urine bottles - strange but no proof of murder, also is there evidence these were there before the murder?
No, there isn't. Also, contrary to distorted media coverage, there were no bottles of urine found in the first raid on July 4th - the retention of urine didn't begin until after that raid and was explained later by a psychologist as a reaction to the trauma of not only finding Jodi's body, but the raid in which they tore his home apart and the relentless media attention thereafter.
In fact, the first bottles of urine were obtained in August, just before the second raid, unlawfully and by dishonest means by the FLO who entered Luke's room without another officer present (in spite of Dobbie's assurance that she would always have had "corroboration") - basically, that is entrapment. She had no legal right to be in Luke's room, alone, gathering items covertly.
Findlay argued that the bottles of urine had no relevant connection to the murder and should not be allowed as evidence - the Crown argued (and the court agreed) that although that was true, the evidence went towards showing that Luke was "not a normal teenager." By August, I'd agree - how many 14 year olds have seen what he saw that night and then had to go through massive media attention pointing to them as a murderer after having their entire house pulled apart?
Did it show him as "not normal" before the murder? Nope - like the tattoo and the Marilyn Manson CD, this was after the murder. Put quite simply, if there had been bottles of urine in his room on July 4th, they'd have found them.
-
well pissing in bottle canbe caused like the trauma of having a loved one murdered.
-
We only have Corrine and Luke Mitchell’s word that it was a “trained tracker” .
a dog found sarah paines body theres no suggestion the dog walker was invloved.
-
No, the dog was tested by an expert and said to bepartially trained
Really?
Corrine Mitchell used to post on forum in 2010 (as Corrine Mitchell). She was pressed on the subject and it became apparent that NO BODY had trained the dog and the dog had never been professionally trained as a tracker.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html)
More hyperbole and distortions.
Sandra could always post the certificate to say it was a trained and competent search/rescue dog. But wont because there is none.
-
Any dog whether trained or not would take you to a body. We all know that their sense of smell is a million times that of a human, so trained or not any dog would/could have smelled that body.
What keeps bugging me is the fact that Corinne sat a polygraph test not knowing what would have been asked of her yet passed it. ? I'd have said it was much harder for a woman to pass such a test ?
-
Any dog whether trained or not would take you to a body. We all know that their sense of smell is a million times that of a human, so trained or not any dog would/could have smelled that body.
What keeps bugging me is the fact that Corinne sat a polygraph test not knowing what would have been asked of her yet passed it. ? I'd have said it was much harder for a woman to pass such a test ?
exactly.
-
Also with the bottles of urine, that's a sure sign of nerves because if he'd wanted to use the toilet he'd have been constantly in and out of the bathroom.
-
exactly.
Nugs, the same as any dog can smell/detect cancer ! The only time the training comes in is when they're told to stop/halt where the scent of what it is they're looking for, is detected.
-
Also with the bottles of urine, that's a sure sign of nerves because if he'd wanted to use the toilet he'd have been constantly in and out of the bathroom.
With most traumas a person can wet themselves or even vomit. It can be an uncontrollable sudden reflex so to try and use this as part of the proceedings in a proof of guilt is so very wrong, or to even think about using it.
-
Any dog whether trained or not would take you to a body.
Ricky Gervais facepalm gif.
What keeps bugging me is the fact that Corinne sat a polygraph test not knowing what would have been asked of her yet passed it. ? I'd have said it was much harder for a woman to pass such a test ?
You can pass a polygraph and be lying you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3fHkCFxgQQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3fHkCFxgQQ)
-
Ricky Gervais facepalm gif.
You can pass a polygraph and be lying you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3fHkCFxgQQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3fHkCFxgQQ)
a dog foound sarah paines body are you susgesting the dog walker was involved in the murder.
-
Really?
Corrine Mitchell used to post on forum in 2010 (as Corrine Mitchell). She was pressed on the subject and it became apparent that NO BODY had trained the dog and the dog had never been professionally trained as a tracker.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html)
More hyperbole and distortions.
Sandra could always post the certificate to say it was a trained and competent search/rescue dog. But wont because there is none.
I think luke was training the dog himself . As far as im aware there was a statement made to verify the dog was partially trained but the evidence wasnt used at court. The statement from an expert. Why would you have a certificate for a partially trained dog that you were training yourself?
-
It was also verified by the search partys origional statements that the dog reacted at the wall which ended in finding the body.
Standing on its back legs and its a big dog ect.
-
I think luke was training the dog himself . As far as im aware there was a statement made to verify the dog was partially trained but the evidence wasnt used at court. The statement from an expert. Why would you have a certificate for a partially trained dog that you were training yourself?
As sandra says on wap forum, lukes defence put some effort into to demonstrate the dog was properly trained but evidence was never brought to court. can only speculate why but maybe because the evidence wasnt compelling and would have convinced no one, resulting in endless back and forth between defence and prosecution?
-
Ricky Gervais facepalm gif.
You can pass a polygraph and be lying you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3fHkCFxgQQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3fHkCFxgQQ)
I know polygraphs are hit and miss and are never a good instrument to use in a court of law but because Corinne passed it throws a different light against your" usual" criminal who can avoid being caught out. This is why it's unfair because it also indicates the truth too.
As regards the urine bottles,would a murderer " pee past himself " ? I think not because they haven't got a nerve in their body as killing/murdering is second nature and no such emotion as nerves comes into it
-
Any dog whether trained or not would take you to a body. We all know that their sense of smell is a million times that of a human, so trained or not any dog would/could have smelled that body.
What keeps bugging me is the fact that Corinne sat a polygraph test not knowing what would have been asked of her yet passed it. ? I'd have said it was much harder for a woman to pass such a test ?
It's true that a dog would have smelled the blood but I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that a woman is less like to pass or fail a polygraph test.
-
Also with the bottles of urine, that's a sure sign of nerves because if he'd wanted to use the toilet he'd have been constantly in and out of the bathroom.
Don't really think it's nerves Lookout, sounds like obsessive compulsive disorder.
-
Don't really think it's nerves Lookout, sounds like obsessive compulsive disorder.
A nervous situation will make you pass more water than is the norm, not necessarily having OCD.
-
Nonsense. any dog?
Yes, any dog. It's not nonsense at all.
-
So Luke trained his dog to be a cadaver dog ?
He very likely trained the dog as others do to sit, and bark to go out. No big deal. The reason it'll have stood on its back legs against the wall would have been because he'd smelled the presence of the girl if both were familiar with each other being that their senses are stronger than ours, he'd have got the scent of her clothing.
-
Nonsense. any dog?
If you've ever had a dog and had the misfortune of injuring yourself, that dog would sniff out the injury, so what does that tell you about their sense of smell ?
-
I have, in my possession, a Kukri but it doesn't make me a murderer .
-
A nervous situation will make you pass more water than is the norm, not necessarily having OCD.
But it wouldn't make you save it in a bottle!
-
If you've ever had a dog and had the misfortune of injuring yourself, that dog would sniff out the injury, so what does that tell you about their sense of smell ?
Lookout, I have had dogs all my life and NEVER had one sniff out an injury!
-
how many times do hear on th news that a body was found by somomebody walking there dog is the dog walker ever acused no.
-
It was also verified by the search partys origional statements that the dog reacted at the wall which ended in finding the body.
Standing on its back legs and its a big dog ect.
What statements where? post them on here.
-
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.devonlive.com%2Fnews%2Fdevon-news%2Fdog-walker-finds-body-18-3145018%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook.com%26utm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_campaign%3Dsharebar%26fbclid%3DIwAR0LEFxXQwnpE27q8rgF2PzIxRESO1MdqE4bImt_T--YM3ae1Hon4YXlRWU&h=AT330kAwf681FZ40_hzfUdnQFhBAQBu4RtrtWBsrIGPhXyzKRfc1dXEArwBD-sziWDeRBDjdv9PvjmfGA3ritgX0lx4yQH0f7dZdcbVcINKv296mBUU1XbGy_0MbeFCOqDcKrX42Cw0gwEWz1TdYpXawvZSS3rO1lg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Payne
-
I'm not clicking on your dodgy facebook pages.
its a link to devon live.
-
Up to his eyes in knifes & he was not shy about waving them about. Normal lad they say.
My Granddad gave me my first knife when I was 10. By my early teens I had a small collection. There was always some kind of arms competition going on between us local kids. This one kid I had a problem with used to come out with a pen knife out so I soon got a proper combat knife like in the Rambo films. Not long after I showed him my Rambo knife, he went and got a samurai sword! I remember him trying to intimidate with pictures on his phone of him holding it because he realised he could not carry and conceal it while outside. ;D ;D ;D
-
What statements where? post them on here.
Been discussed on here a hundred times if you would care to do a bit of research
-
Yes, any dog. It's not nonsense at all.
Not consistently and not without training! https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/02/03/can-dogs-detect-the-smell-of-cancer/
-
how many times do hear on th news that a body was found by somomebody walking there dog is the dog walker ever acused no.
The walker (and his dog) aren't usually involved with the victim.
-
The walker (and his dog) aren't usually involved with the victim.
no bt it means the police know theres nothing unusaul about a dog finding a body if there was the walkers would be treated with more suspicion.
-
So Luke trained his dog to be a cadaver dog ?
He very likely trained the dog as others do to sit, and bark to go out. No big deal. The reason it'll have stood on its back legs against the wall would have been because he'd smelled the presence of the girl if both were familiar with each other being that their senses are stronger than ours, he'd have got the scent of her clothing.
I would agree with that. I read on here a good while ago tht luke asked the family to bring something of jodis with them. They did not so he instructed the dog to seek jodi. Cant remember who said it, i presume sandra. Cant remember though, it may have just been a part of a general conversation though, a what if.
-
no bt it means the police know theres nothing unusaul about a dog finding a body if there was would be treated with more suspicion.
I don't think they were suspicious about the dog Nugs.
-
So Luke trained his dog to be a cadaver dog ?
He very likely trained the dog as others do to sit, and bark to go out. No big deal. The reason it'll have stood on its back legs against the wall would have been because he'd smelled the presence of the girl if both were familiar with each other being that their senses are stronger than ours, he'd have got the scent of her clothing.
So how does the man in the street train their dog to be a 'cadaver dog'? I can train my dog to sit, spin lay down and even jump, however, to train him to be a cadaver dog, I would need a body - which is a bit of a stumbling block!
-
Was you a normal lad?
Did you have a dope habit?
Did you deal dope?
Did your mother know & allow you to own & carry blades?
Did you take the blades to school?
Did you write disturbing satanic essays?
Did you tell your friends, that you'd think it would be funny to kill someone?
Did you piss in bottles & store them in your bedroom?
Just for the record, i also had knifes in my teens.
Would say so
No, most of my friends did though
Yeah, speed, e, ching also
Yeah, when going fishing, camping with a friend straight after
No, was gangster rap with me
Probalbly, after listening to above
No, never been subjected to severe trauma as finding a mutelated body at 14
-
Been discussed on here a hundred times if you would care to do a bit of research
Please show me where these statements have been posted on here.
-
Im not doing your dirty work for you. Is anyone on here arguing they dont excist?
Im sure its in the court transcripts also when they are being questioned about the changes in their statements. Again, all on the thread.
-
Also talked about on the james english podcasts.
-
Im not doing your dirty work for you. Is anyone on here arguing they dont excist?
Im sure its in the court transcripts also when they are being questioned about the changes in their statements. Again, all on the thread.
In other words, they have not been posted on this forum. Just more rumours in the echo chamber.
Sandra, as far as I am aware has only typed out two segments of evidence verbatim. One was Luke's answers in his police interview and the other was the DNA/Sperm evidence.
From this we established that Luke's admission of what he wore that day, corroborated a key prosecution witness. And that the DNA/Sperm from the "real killer" could only have come from contamination.
Needless to say, the more that Sandra reveals the more apparent his guilt. Hence she seldom posts anything.
-
Mate, it was read out in court that they changed their statments. What you not understanding? Youve been told time and time again why full statements cant be put online. Lithium has tried to apply for material, what happened there?
Truth is you get swatted like a fly by sandra when she addresses anything you direct at her.
At least the other guys from the area have an arguement about things because of what tbey have been told over the years, whether i believe it to be true or not. You argue the same nonsense about statements being posted and nug nug lying about knuckles being bruised. Which as you were told before were supposedly( BEFORE YOU JUMP DOWN MY NECK) in the pathologists report. Get a grip min.
-
In other words, they have not been posted on this forum. Just more rumours in the echo chamber.
Sandra, as far as I am aware has only typed out two segments of evidence verbatim. One was Luke's answers in his police interview and the other was the DNA/Sperm evidence.
From this we established that Luke's admission of what he wore that day, corroborated a key prosecution witness. And that the DNA/Sperm from the "real killer" could only have come from contamination.
Needless to say, the more that Sandra reveals the more apparent his guilt. Hence she seldom posts anything.
no its becouse unlike you she has a life
-
In 2010 on TapaTalk. After being asked numerous times to elaborate on what was being claimed about this alleged tracking dog. Corrine Mitchell eventually wrote this about the dog.
"How would you define "fully trained" ?
She was set a "target" say, Luke, for example. or a toy. She found her target EVERY time. One one occasion Luke set out to "fool" her. It did't work.....she found him anyway!
Dog expert who was called up from London to test her even put "target" ( which was a toy in this instance) up a tree.!!!!!
I said ...she was a dog....not a cat.....dogs don't climb trees! He told me he would expect a reaction of the dog would be to indicate to him that the dog knew the target was indeed in the tree........She did and passed with flying colours.
So. if the dog is set a target, and she finds that target EVERY single time.........how much more do you want?.....how much further can she go than to find her target every time?"
Despite her son racking up the most expensive legal aid bill in Scottish criminal history. She then goes on to say that the person who trained the dog never testified at his trial because it cost too much money.
She then goes onto imply that the police have framed Luke by taking and concealing his green jacked.
"one last point about the "Parka"
The police are well aware we never burned the thing..............THEY HAVE IT!!!!!!!!"
She seems to have forgotten that her own son admitted that she was burning something that night.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s440.html (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s440.html)
If I believed in Luke's claims of innocence. I would be very very concerned by these comments.
-
AGAIN. Lets get this answered.
Also, do you not state in your book about a man following Jodi into this path, this man, being one who was also on the path?
Or did the person who copied these extracts, get it wrong?
No, I did not. I have never claimed Stocky Man "followed Jodi into the path" - I've always taken the stance that no-one, ever, saw Jodi walk into the entrance to the path, so how could possibly have said what you claim here? However, Stocky Man should also have been included in the reconstruction as his presence at 5.05pm, on the Easthouses Road, behind Jodi, was confirmed by 2 witnesses.
Sandra denies having written or implied that
Which in turn means that the person 'Amma' did not copy the following -Verbatim.
That none of the following is Ms Leans work:
Mr Scrimger, the forensics officer who was first to examine the scene of the crime, stated that the killer would "not necessarily" be heavily bloodstained. To back this up, he agreed with the prosecution suggestion that Jodi may have been sitting or kneeling when her throat was cut from behind, explaining a blood spray stain on the wall being the result of the blood spraying forwards – i.e., away from the killer. However, there are a few problems with this explanation – firstly, the case against Luke was that he had compressed her neck until she fell, unconscious, to the ground. Since we know that unconscious people tend not to sit or kneel, Mr Scrimger?s explanation requires us to now believe that the killer was holding Jodi in a sitting or kneeling position. In this case, he is far more likely to have become bloodstained. Further, the case against Luke claims that he stripped her, tied her hands behind her back with her trousers and mutilated the body, all after he cut her throat. Mr Scrimger had to concede that, whilst the killer would "not necessarily" have been heavily bloodstained, it was "highly likely" that he would have been.
Once again, we are faced with serious anomalies in the prosecution case. Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or
Jodi, or indeed, any of the others, on the path. At this point, the murderer is highly likely to have been heavily bloodstained, probably scratched or having other injuries consistent with having been in a fight, almost certainly behaving in an agitated manner, and attempting to flee the scene. It is possible, once these factors are taken into consideration, that Jodi Jones was not murdered at the time all of these other people were known to be on the path, and we are required, once more, to consider the original time of Jodi leaving home as reported at 5.30pm.
So all good - this as Ms Lean, claims - is not a copy of any of her written work.
-
Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path.
The above is, indeed, a quote from No Smoke, from 2007. I didn't, until yesterday, have a copy of No Smoke to be able to check.
The reference to Stephen Kelly is clearly a typo, since the sentence goes on to describe him as "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall."
Eight pages before this paragraph, it says, "others...described a mystery man following Jodi towards the Easthouses entrance to the path."
I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.
I would like to stress that it was not, and never has been, my intention to mislead. The two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage.
I accept that it is more accurate to say, "Since gaining access to the case papers, my stance has always been that no-one, ever, saw Jodi walk into the entrance to the path," - until I had access to the papers, I could not have known that to be factually correct.
No Smoke doesn't address the reconstruction because I didn't know the full facts surrounding it until I saw the case papers - at pages 98 and 108, I stated that there had been "no confirmed sightings of Jodi" that evening - we now know that there were confirmed sightings of her at 5.05pm, on the Easthouses Road, fully 15 minutes after it was claimed, at trial, that she left her home.
-
The above is, indeed, a quote from No Smoke, from 2007. I didn't, until yesterday, have a copy of No Smoke to be able to check.
The reference to Stephen Kelly is clearly a typo, since the sentence goes on to describe him as "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall."
Eight pages before this paragraph, it says, "others...described a mystery man following Jodi towards the Easthouses entrance to the path."
I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.
I would like to stress that it was not, and never has been, my intention to mislead. The two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage.
I accept that it is more accurate to say, "Since gaining access to the case papers, my stance has always been that no-one, ever, saw Jodi walk into the entrance to the path," - until I had access to the papers, I could not have known that to be factually correct.
No Smoke doesn't address the reconstruction because I didn't know the full facts surrounding it until I saw the case papers - at pages 98 and 108, I stated that there had been "no confirmed sightings of Jodi" that evening - we now know that there were confirmed sightings of her at 5.05pm, on the Easthouses Road, fully 15 minutes after it was claimed, at trial, that she left her home.
are you ment lenord kelly.
-
So he must be guilty because steven has been published instead of leonard if i am picking this up right.
From 12 years ago
I feel such a fool ;D ;D ;D
Hang er for treason
-
Innocents Betrayed can now be safely disregarded by anyone with a shred of common sense now that No Smoke has been utterly discredited and admittedly full of misinformation. What other lies does that book contain? We only know about this one because an unwitting forum member happened to quote it.
Unbelievable.
anyone with brain cell would of worked out it was a typo.
-
I have never seen that mentioned or suggested never mind put across as fact on this or any other forum i have read about sk. Its pretty clear whats happened.
-
Liar. That's not what you were saying. You were including the unnamed "witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall" in the list along side Stephen Kelly and the rest, evident by the comma... you didn't follow any of the other names with a description. (to the contrary - explanation of who Dickie's dad was precedes his name) I've read your latest book, you'd write something along the lines of, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly (a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall), and the mystery man... Impossible to typo that witnesses name as "STEPHEN KELLY", no one is that sloppy and incompetent... if so (didn't you proof read the bullshit you were putting out?), it's no wonder Luke's still rotting in Shotts.
Credibility gone and anyone can see you're lying now.
Also didn't you say a few pages ago that you have never claimed anyone followed Jodi onto the path???
You're finished Lean.
Finished, Lithium? Because you can't count?
I said 5 people and then listed 5 people - Ferris, Dickie, Dickie's dad (that's three - stay with me) - the mystery man seen following Jodi - (that's four) - and the witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind a wall - that's five. Agreed? His name was wrong - I accepted that - but it's still only 5 people!
I fully expected exactly this kind of reaction from you and some other posters (they'll be here soon enough, no doubt). I made a mistake 12 years ago - I've put my hands up to that, I've withdrawn the book and I've publicly apologised.
As for writing style, you can't compare my writing style today with my writing style 12 years ago, when I was just beginning to write.
Neither you, nor anyone else, will "finish me" on the basis of a simple mistake- I promise you that.
-
Liar. That's not what you were saying. You were including the unnamed "witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall" in the list along side Stephen Kelly and the rest, evident by the comma... you didn't follow any of the other names with a description. (to the contrary - explanation of who Dickie's dad was precedes his name) I've read your latest book, you'd write something along the lines of, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly (a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall), and the mystery man... Impossible to typo that witnesses name as "STEPHEN KELLY", no one is that sloppy and incompetent... if so (didn't you proof read the bullshit you were putting out?), it's no wonder Luke's still rotting in Shotts.
Credibility gone and anyone can see you're lying now.
Also didn't you say a few pages ago that you have never claimed anyone followed Jodi onto the path???
You're finished Lean.
Please moderate your tone and attack the argument, not the person you disagree with. It is important to be respectful in addressing other members.
-
There's really nothing to finish you xxx xxx xxxxx.
xxxxxxxxxxx, unreliable author. See yourself out.
Lost it
-
Mate, it was read out in court that they changed their statments. What you not understanding? Youve been told time and time again why full statements cant be put online. Lithium has tried to apply for material, what happened there?
Truth is you get swatted like a fly by sandra when she addresses anything you direct at her.
At least the other guys from the area have an arguement about things because of what tbey have been told over the years, whether i believe it to be true or not. You argue the same nonsense about statements being posted and nug nug lying about knuckles being bruised. Which as you were told before were supposedly( BEFORE YOU JUMP DOWN MY NECK) in the pathologists report. Get a grip min.
From reading Sandra and Corrine's posts on TapaTalk. It becomes apparent that the dog was not a trained tracking dog and no experts testified for the defence that the dog knew how to track a body as claimed.
Corrine claims it was too expensive for them to testify. Sandra imply's the defence didn't think it was important.
Take you pick. ::)
-
Will you apologise to Stephen Kelly?
Of course you won't. You'll continue to indirectly accuse him of a sexual attack on Jodi for the foreseeable.
I apologise unreservedly to Stephen Kelly for mistakenly printing his name instead of Leonard Kelly. When this error was made, the point the book was making was that none of the people on the path that afternoon saw Jodi or Luke and that could suggest that the time of death was incorrect. It was not, in any way, directly or indirectly, making any claim of wrongdoing by anyone who was known to be on the path.
As for indirect accusations of a sexual attack on Jodi, it was the prosecution, not me, who claimed that other deposits, identified both as sperm heads and semen on Jodi's t-shirt and bra, got there by rainwater diffusion. Since there was only one full male DNA profile found on the t-shirt, the prosecution's inference can only be that it was from that deposit that rainwater "diffused" the DNA elsewhere.
I will keep asking questions about the nature of the DNA on the t-shirt and the means by which it was explained away until there are satisfactory answers, backed by scientific reasoning. That's not accusing anyone of anything - it's saying that the explanations offered at the time are not scientifically credible and that is not strong enough "evidence" for discounting those deposits in order to allow the pursuit of Luke Mitchell to continue.
Is that clear enough?
-
There's really nothing to finish you xxx xxx xxxxx.
xxxxxxxxxxx, unreliable author. See yourself out.
Admin note: edited to remove offensive personal attacks.
I've no idea what this said originally and I'm not remotely interested. Lithium is entitled to his/her opinion that "there's really nothing to finish" - I strongly disagree. There's a mountain of information pointing away from Luke as Jodi's killer and offering far stronger lines of enquiry. I want to know the truth about how all of that was ignored, discounted or manipulated in order to conduct a modern day witch hunt against a 14 year old kid. It will be "finished" when that truth is exposed and Jodi's killer is properly identified by robust, reliable evidence. Nothing less will do.
-
As for indirect accusations of a sexual attack on Jodi, it was the prosecution, not me, who claimed that other deposits, identified both as sperm heads and semen on Jodi's t-shirt and bra, got there by rainwater diffusion. Since there was only one full male DNA profile found on the t-shirt, the prosecution's inference can only be that it was from that deposit that rainwater "diffused" the DNA elsewhere.
I will keep asking questions about the nature of the DNA on the t-shirt and the means by which it was explained away until there are satisfactory answers, backed by scientific reasoning. That's not accusing anyone of anything - it's saying that the explanations offered at the time are not scientifically credible and that is not strong enough "evidence" for discounting those deposits in order to allow the pursuit of Luke Mitchell to continue.
I have already pointed out that the scarcity of sperm heads rules out direct ejaculation on the fabric.
The sperm got there from the washing machine
"A recent study by Canadian researchers demonstrated that sperm cells could be transferred from semen stained bedding to clean underwear during washing in a machine. Identifiable male DNA profiles were obtained. The same group also looked at the transfer of female vaginal material in the wash and the background levels of DNA and semen present on underwear from children. It appears to be relatively common to detect low levels of DNA from family members on a child’s underwear"
The study is called "DNA transfer during laundering may yield complete genetic profiles" it was published in the Forensic Science International May, 2016 edition.
-
From reading Sandra and Corrine's posts on TapaTalk. It becomes apparent that the dog was not a trained tracking dog and no experts testified for the defence that the dog knew how to track a body as claimed.
Corrine claims it was too expensive for them to testify. Sandra imply's the defence didn't think it was important.
Take you pick. ::)
Read sandras posts on this forum about the dog mate. Oh but wait , she makes everything up according to you so you dont believe anything she says anyway. Cant have it both ways.
I said the dog was partially trained and the evidence was never used in court that it was partially trained.
The post you highlighted was about the search trio changing there statements so what have you told me here?
Your agreeing that no expert testified in court which is exactly what i said it was never used in court so cheers for that😁🤣😁
-
I think luke was training the dog himself . As far as im aware there was a statement made to verify the dog was partially trained but the evidence wasnt used at court. The statement from an expert. Why would you have a certificate for a partially trained dog that you were training yourself?
Theres what i said about the dog
-
I have already pointed out that the scarcity of sperm heads rules out direct ejaculation on the fabric.
The sperm got there from the washing machine
"A recent study by Canadian researchers demonstrated that sperm cells could be transferred from semen stained bedding to clean underwear during washing in a machine. Identifiable male DNA profiles were obtained. The same group also looked at the transfer of female vaginal material in the wash and the background levels of DNA and semen present on underwear from children. It appears to be relatively common to detect low levels of DNA from family members on a child’s underwear"
The study is called "DNA transfer during laundering may yield complete genetic profiles" it was published in the Forensic Science International May, 2016 edition.
yes but your recrd on the subject of forensics is not exactly good.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9933.0.html
-
Come on then smarty pants. Partially trained by whom?
No idea 😂😂😂 thats why i put " as far as i am aware" was only told an expert.
-
Theres what i said about the dog
No.
No, the dog was tested by an expert and said to bepartially trained
That's what you said about the dog.
-
From reading Sandra and Corrine's posts on TapaTalk. It becomes apparent that the dog was not a trained tracking dog and no experts testified for the defence that the dog knew how to track a body as claimed.
Corrine claims it was too expensive for them to testify. Sandra imply's the defence didn't think it was important.
Take you pick. ::)
Your doing my job for me mate
Corrine claims it was to exspensive for them to testify.
Who to testify about what?
-
No.
That's what you said about the dog.
I did say that as well... well done
-
Ah so Luke done it. And where did he gather the skills to partially train a dog to track. Google it? back in the 2002/3?
Thats a pathetic arguement mate and you know it. Nd like i said " as far as im aware" indicating i wasnt absoloutely 100% sure. But i did think that was the case
-
Mia, Luke and Corinne were trained in tracking (not cadaver odour detection as was suggested in an earlier post) by an ex-army dog trainer with over 20 years' experience. His name has never been in the public domain, therefore I will not name him (just as I've never named the male family member said by John Ferris to have been in Alice Walker's house when, Ferris claimed, Alice and this other family member told Ferris not to go to the police).
The police knew who the trainer was and had already spoken extensively to him prior to Luke's Section 14 interrogation, since they made several references to him (the trainer) by name and to the techniques used in the tracker training process during that interrogation.
The written training records were taken by the police and made available to both the prosecution and the defence. The defence expert tested Mia against the information in the training records and wrote a report saying that the information was accurate - Mia had been trained to that standard. When the defence asked to bring the expert to court as a witness, a decision was taken that Legal Aid had already paid for the report, so the defence could cross examine the crown experts on the basis of the report, rather than incur the cost of having the expert attend personally to give evidence.
That's not unusual (and it certainly wasn't unusual in 2004/5) - defence teams are often refused funding to bring experts in at trial if they've already been funded to provide a report, on the basis that the defence has all the information it needs, from the report, to address any claims the prosecution might make. It's clearly a biased decision making process, since it requires lawyers to identify any failings in the prosecution experts' evidence (and often, these are couched in extremely technical language relevant only to that expert's discipline) and then figure out how to counter that with information from their own expert report.
An argument a few years ago, suggesting judges should become "gatekeepers" to ensure claims made by forensic experts were adequately supported by science, collapsed on the basis that judges are experts in law, not forensic science.
However, there's another question relating to the Yorkshire dogs (the ones brought in after the scene was bleached) that's never really been addressed. Why did the police bring in cadaver dogs, rather than tracker dogs, 12 days after the murder? Jodi's body was removed from the scene with 17 hours, at most, of her death. Had the dogs been following the "scent of death" (as it's been described in some articles), one would have expected all of them to have headed in the same direction - north, across the woodland strip to the barbed wire fence over which Jodi's body was passed to be placed in the ambulance on the morning of July 1st.
If they were searching out the scent of decomposing blood, deposited by "the killer," how would the dogs differentiate between blood transferred by officers who entered and left the scene in the early hours of the morning and blood deposited by the killer? What about anyone else in the woodland strip whose shoes may have (unknown to them) become contaminated with Jodi's blood - Alice Walker, who touched Jodi's body, James Falconer, David Dickie, the kids playing in the woodland strip, etc?
If Luke was the killer and left deposits of Jodi's blood in the direction of Newbattle earlier in the evening, he would also potentially have carried deposits of blood (or cadaver odour) in the opposite direction later that night, after the finding of Jodi's body, since he, like Alice and Steven Kelly, was over the wall. We know there were a number of places where traces of Jodi's blood were found - anyone walking in the area could have picked up those traces and transferred them elsewhere.
Any officer over the wall in the early hours who walked towards the Newbattle end of the path (to put up cordons etc) would also have carried cadaver odour in that direction - how would the dogs have known which was a deposit from a police officer and which was a deposit from a potential killer?
And, of course, all of this was based on the killer escaping towards Newbattle, for which there was, at the time, not a single credible piece of evidence. And the whole thing was rendered pointless by the bleaching of the scene before the dog got there.
But why cadaver dogs in the first place?
-
What is pathetic, is you claiming Luke trained the dog, no point in mentioning any type of percent sure. You simply have no idea what so ever, you are going on the say so, of what the mother said. And she is bat shit crazy, so we can discount anything she comes out with.
Marty is very familar with everything the mother has said!
-
The police knew who the trainer was and had already spoken extensively to him prior to Luke's Section 14 interrogation, since they made several references to him (the trainer) by name and to the techniques used in the tracker training process during that interrogation.
The written training records were taken by the police and made available to both the prosecution and the defence. The defence expert tested Mia against the information in the training records and wrote a report saying that the information was accurate - Mia had been trained to that standard. When the defence asked to bring the expert to court as a witness, a decision was taken that Legal Aid had already paid for the report, so the defence could cross examine the crown experts on the basis of the report, rather than incur the cost of having the expert attend personally to give evidence.
it would have cost thm naff all to get that particular 'expert' in to give evidence. as sandra knws well, he simply a man who lived on the same street, who hasnt done anything profesionally for decades. except drink.
-
I'm talking about the expert who was brought in (on Legal Aid) to test Mia's abilities in comparison to what the training logs stated, not the person who trained Mia, but I think you're fully aware of that.
-
I have already pointed out that the scarcity of sperm heads rules out direct ejaculation on the fabric.
The sperm got there from the washing machine
"A recent study by Canadian researchers demonstrated that sperm cells could be transferred from semen stained bedding to clean underwear during washing in a machine. Identifiable male DNA profiles were obtained. The same group also looked at the transfer of female vaginal material in the wash and the background levels of DNA and semen present on underwear from children. It appears to be relatively common to detect low levels of DNA from family members on a child’s underwear"
The study is called "DNA transfer during laundering may yield complete genetic profiles" it was published in the Forensic Science International May, 2016 edition.
OK, so you're saying the number of sperm heads indicates there was no direct ejaculation onto the fabric and the abstract of a study to support your theory that the DNA found on Jodi's clothing got there by washing machine transfer. Did you read the whole article? Here, let me help.
The inclusion of unstained socks in washes with semen-stained clothing provides preliminary data of secondary transfer of DNA from the stained items of clothing to unstained items. Complete DNA profiles matching that of the semen donor were found on the majority of the socks (Table 3). This finding supports the recent presentation by Noël et al. [15] who found that interpretable male DNA profiles could be obtained from pristine panties that had been washed with a bed-sheet stained with semen. However, further work is required to investigate whether the sperm cells themselves are being transferred or whether just the DNA from the sperm cells is transferred. The additional finding of alleles that could have come from the regular user of the washing machine on two of the socks washed at 60 °C suggests that DNA has also been transferred to the socks from the washing machine. This supports the concept of transfer of ‘wearer DNA’ between items of clothing in a washing machine, which had previously been proposed by Stouder et al. [16], but has yet to be demonstrated empirically. Further research is required to establish whether the nature of the semen staining (for example, whether the stain is visible or whether sperm cells are identified, and if so, the number of those cells) or the quantity of DNA obtained from the stain post-washing could be used to suggest whether the staining is as a result of primary deposition or secondary transfer within the washing machine. Depending on the case circumstances, such research, including this initial study, will assist forensic scientists in evaluating the findings of DNA from semen-stained clothing.
https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(15)30050-8/fulltext#sec0055
This article was first published in November 2015 – almost 12 ½ years after Jodi was murdered. Notice how much research still has to be done to ascertain how, or in what circumstances, DNA is transferred in a washing machine.
This article also states
In casework, there are essentially three ways to screen an item for the possible presence of semen prior to potentially preparing samples for microscopic analysis: a visual examination for appropriate-looking stains, an examination with an alternate light source, and presumptive testing, such as Acid Phosphatase (AP) testing. Under the specific conditions of this study, the semen staining was still visible even after multiple washes, suggesting that visible screening might assist scientists to identify possible semen staining on washed clothing. However, further research is required to see whether the staining would still be visible under different conditions. With respect to AP testing, previous research has consistently shown that semen-stained items of clothing laundered with detergent does not give a positive AP reaction [6, 7, 8, 9], so AP testing would not be appropriate when examining clothing washed after the deposition of semen. The use of an alternate light source to identify semen stains on washed clothing has yet to be considered and research into its use under such conditions would be useful to help inform the best way to screen such items for semen.
So, semen stained clothing laundered with detergent does not give a positive AP reaction. How did the police, in 2003, identify “semen staining” specifically, on Jodi’s clothing? As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, the only test available to them at the time that would allow them to identify and label a stain as “semen” was the AP test. But if semen is not detectable by AP testing after laundering……..??
-
What is pathetic, is you claiming Luke trained the dog, no point in mentioning any type of percent sure. You simply have no idea what so ever, you are going on the say so, of what the mother said. And she is bat shit crazy, so we can discount anything she comes out with.
The reason i say it was possible for luke to train the dog comes from personal exspierience . When i was 13 we got a dog which i trained to find golf balls of all things. I sold these to my golfing mates at school. On the same principal i trained a jack russell to find cash ( notes) later in life. That backfired however as my wife used the dog to find my stash that i had hidden for a mates stag doo. Thats why i agreed with lookout it was jodis clothes the dog may have smelled instead of blood as i think i could train a dog for the scent of clothes and im no expert. Thats why its more than possible imo for luke to do the same. However he never trained the dog so fuck it, it doesnt matter anyway.
Cheers
-
I have been reading this article and it describes exactly the same thing as Jodi's clothes. Similar numbers of sperm heads.
"Moreover, our studies with control families showed that DNA corresponding to other household members was found in most children’s underwear as well. Kafarowski counted up to eight sperm cells in each sample (1cm2) excised from pristine items of clothing that were washed with a single pair of semen stained female underwear. "
"DNA from sperm cells however, has been found to persist after a machine wash in water temperatures of 60ºC"
-
So, semen stained clothing laundered with detergent does not give a positive AP reaction. How did the police, in 2003, identify “semen staining” specifically, on Jodi’s clothing? As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, the only test available to them at the time that would allow them to identify and label a stain as “semen” was the AP test. But if semen is not detectable by AP testing after laundering……..??
Look in the case material you have access to.
-
So, semen stained clothing laundered with detergent does not give a positive AP reaction. How did the police, in 2003, identify “semen staining” specifically, on Jodi’s clothing? As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, the only test available to them at the time that would allow them to identify and label a stain as “semen” was the AP test. But if semen is not detectable by AP testing after laundering……..??
I'm talking specifically about the stains labelled "semen" - not the samples labelled "sperm heads" - there were both, remember?
-
Ah so Luke done it. And where did he gather the skills to partially train a dog to track. Google it? back in the 2002/3?
By the way, google was 21 years old this week😉
-
For example, from Pro 146:
P11 of 39: "A small area of semen staining was found on the inside back of the left sleeve."
Either it was visible semen staining or it was detected by AP - the only two options available at the time.
P13 of 39: "Semen was found on the outside of the left cup. Three sperm heads and many cells were found in this stain.
P13 of 39: "Reactions indicating the presence of semen were obtained from the edge of the right cup, however, no sperm heads were found."
P13 of 39: "an area on the right cup was also examined and 2 sperm heads found".
So it's absolutely clear, they were able to differentiate between semen and sperm heads. So how did they identify the semen if the AP test would not detect it after laundering?
One more:
P15 of 39: "Semen: A single sperm head and many cells were found in a white stain on the lower front of the right leg" (Jodi's trousers).
We have one full profile from Steven Kelly on the t-shirt and a number of partials which the prosecution claimed occurred as a result of rainwater transfer. Those partials labelled semen could not have been a result of washing machine transfer because laundering would have left only sperm heads - semen would not have been identifiable.
So what we'd have to be arguing here is that directly deposited sperm heads and semen on the night of the murder could not yield a full profile, but twice transferred DNA, initially transferred at an unknown time in a washing machine could. Really?
-
For example, from Pro 146:
P11 of 39: "A small area of semen staining was found on the inside back of the left sleeve."
Either it was visible semen staining or it was detected by AP - the only two options available at the time.
P13 of 39: "Semen was found on the outside of the left cup. Three sperm heads and many cells were found in this stain.
P13 of 39: "Reactions indicating the presence of semen were obtained from the edge of the right cup, however, no sperm heads were found."
P13 of 39: "an area on the right cup was also examined and 2 sperm heads found".
So it's absolutely clear, they were able to differentiate between semen and sperm heads. So how did they identify the semen if the AP test would not detect it after laundering?
One more:
P15 of 39: "Semen: A single sperm head and many cells were found in a white stain on the lower front of the right leg" (Jodi's trousers).
We have one full profile from Steven Kelly on the t-shirt and a number of partials which the prosecution claimed occurred as a result of rainwater transfer. Those partials labelled semen could not have been a result of washing machine transfer because laundering would have left only sperm heads - semen would not have been identifiable.
So what we'd have to be arguing here is that directly deposited sperm heads and semen on the night of the murder could not yield a full profile, but twice transferred DNA, initially transferred at an unknown time in a washing machine could. Really?
The scarcity of the sperm heads rule out any direct ejaculation period.
You have shown me just six sentences out of a 39 page report. How do you expect me to answer your questions when you don't show the whole story. Photocopy and upload all 39 pages. And don't say you cant because nothing stopped you revealing those six sentences of it ;)
-
But if semen is not detectable by AP testing after laundering……..??
AP is a presumptive test not a confirmatory test. It can produce false positives.
Considering the lack of sperm heads and results "found on the inside back of the left sleeve". Who would ejaculate inside someones sleeve? Leave semen but no sperm heads?
I can safely infer that any AP test showing semen is a false positive. AP is not only present in semen it is also present in food products. It is a natural enzyme present in raw meat.
-
The scarcity of the sperm heads rule out any direct ejaculation period.
You have shown me just six sentences out of a 39 page report. How do you expect me to answer your questions when you don't show the whole story. Photocopy and upload all 39 pages. And don't say you cant because nothing stopped you revealing those six sentences of it ;)
well considring had been left uncovered in rain that cantbe said for certan.
-
well considring had been left uncovered in rain that canbe said for ceran.
I cant see how one spell of rain can wash away hundreds of millions of sperm heads stuck to the fabric of a t-shirt and a bra.
If the killer ejaculated over her clothes it would be saturated with his DNA along with millions of sperm heads stuck to the fabric.
-
It was human, male DNA, not raw meat. It was AP testing which would not have given a result for semen after laundering but it was recorded as semen. Sperm heads were present.
They were able to differentiate between whites stains labelled semen and white stains labelled saliva. They were able to differentiate between semen stains containing sperm heads and semen stains not containing sperm heads. All returning positive, male human DNA results.
The number of sperm heads recovered/deposited are (a) not the same thing and (b) dependent on a number of factors, for example, low sperm count.
I didn't suggest the killer ejaculated directly onto clothing - in fact, in the early days, I said it was possible that the killer intended rape but his body "let him down" and it was that which triggered the murderous rage.
The bottom line is, they didn't have the knowledge or the technology in 2003 to decide, conclusively, that Kelly's DNA got onto the clothing by washing machine transfer and was then re-transferred by rainwater (something, according to forensic experts I've spoken with, that would not have been possible in the circumstances described).
That's my argument, always has been. In order to continue to pursue Luke, DNA from other males had to be explained away, but the science did not adequately support that "explaining away" and still, to this day, doesn't.
-
Ms Lean from the ISF.
Firstly, thanks to the posters who have clarified the possible (probable?) explanation about the DNA results reporting that sperm and semen samples appeared female in origin. That's very helpful to know - it's been something that's baffled me (as a non-expert) for a very long time.
Why has this baffled Ms Lean for such a long time?
The wonders of Google alone - more so at it 21st Birthday stage (Marty)
What does the above comment, really tell us?
When I first used good old google, to study some areas of sperm/semen DNA,
the "female in origin" clearly stuck out.
Yet Ms Lean claims to have spoken to experts around the DNA results from the evening of this murder, for many years.
So much so that she did not even realise the basics.
When speaking to 'her' forensic experts (perhaps Gordo30 sister?/friend)
something, according to forensic experts I've spoken with, that would not have been possible in the circumstances described).
The above being around the transferral through washing and rainwater.
These "circumstance described" would not simply be her own explanation, surely not of course.
They would have had access to full reports - much the same as both the prosecution and defence.
Before this Jury, and accepted for what it was.
That there were miniscule amounts of staining and sperm heads.
That there had been a relationship between Kelly and this girls sister.
That this girl was in the habit of wearing her sisters clothing.
Luke certainly knew this.
That it appears that not only was this girl wearing her sisters t-shirt,
she was also wearing her trousers.
That modern day technology only goes to strengthen,
what was already known in 2003 by whatever means were used then.
That the likelihood is, that most if not all of this transferral took place,
in a washing cycle.
The areas of transferral only show this more.
So rather than contradict itself it wipes away more so,
these silly little points of not knowing when the clothing was in contact-
on that evening at the points of when it rained.
So hell bent really - that DNA makes a murderer - simply because,
no full DNA profiles of Luke were obtained.
He can't possibly be the killer because of this, and this alone.
As all of the 'other' evidence clearly shows he is.
Like the evidence against Luke - which has never, been able to be disproven,
over this period of nearly two decades.
The evidence for Kelly and of this innocent presence, only grows stronger -
with modern day technology.
Of course Ms Lean, Ms Mitchel and these experts don't believe it was deposited that night -
they have bigger fish to fry.
They have a theory - of the duo, of the mystery man, of the confession and so forth.
None of which involve the DNA of Mr Kelly.
Or the DNA of the duo or said Mystery man either.
It's good to take these different times, with different areas, with different people with just about anything,
as long as it digresses away from Luke.
Of his evidence, of his account that led the police to pursue him for the murder of this school girl - his girlfriend.
His account being so far fetched - he fed the investigating team continuously.
It was not the police, the Judge and the Jury who caused this girls death or led to his conviction.
It was by his own means - from when he first opened his mouth.
That's my argument, always has been. In order to continue to pursue Luke, DNA from other males had to be explained away, but the science did not adequately support that "explaining away" and still, to this day, doesn't.
"in order to continue to pursue Luke" that ship has sailed. Pursued and convicted.
Of course the science for most - clearly shows in modern technology that science certainly does support 'away' the presence of Kelly's DNA.
It explains 'away' the non presence of the sisters DNA as sweat is easily washed out.
That modern technology or the technology of 2003 could not show that ejaculation was from that evening.
That even the most basics on ejaculation show the unlikelihood of this happening on that evening.
-
So what we'd have to be arguing here is that directly deposited sperm heads and semen on the night of the murder could not yield a full profile, but twice transferred DNA, initially transferred at an unknown time in a washing machine could. Really?
Modern day technology does indeed back up this washing machine transfer and or rainwater transferral.
Whatever testing may have been done, originally in 2003 backed up this also.
Does not matter the amount of slant that is put on it - or the ludicrous suggestion that DF did not oppose this due to finances to prove otherwise.
Whatever points that are put forth to try and disprove this transferral - are the same points against the technology used.
The technology used at the time could not disprove that this transferral did not happen as above.
They did not determine semen from saliva out of guesswork.
They determined this via the testing available at the time.
The testing worked - hey presto, we have semen, sperm and saliva.
It most certainly could not be proven in 2003 that this minute amount of sperm heads and staining of semen - was from the time of this murder.
Quite the opposite.
This rape attempt gone wrong - doesn't result in a partial ejaculation or full in a widespread area over this woodland.
It does not alter the fact of the amount of staining and sperm head present on this clothing in odd areas.
The oddity of these areas themselves screams out transferral from a washing cycle/ and/or subsequent rain transferral.
The points of clothing not being together for this have to have happened.
Rather silly really - how can you possibly argue a point of air?
This , but we don't know when they were in contact - clothes all over the place, did they contact here, there or here?
Easy really - chuck them in a washing machine - dilute them so much that they leave minisucle amounts.
What is clearly shown also is that modern day technology only goes to prove this more so.
It doesn't spin off in another direction.
The reality being of course - that this dude had absolutely nothing to do with this girls murder.
The reality being of course - that no technology can prove otherwise,
-
The above is, indeed, a quote from No Smoke, from 2007. I didn't, until yesterday, have a copy of No Smoke to be able to check.
The reference to Stephen Kelly is clearly a typo, since the sentence goes on to describe him as "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall."
Eight pages before this paragraph, it says, "others...described a mystery man following Jodi towards the Easthouses entrance to the path."
I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.
I would like to stress that it was not, and never has been, my intention to mislead. The two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage.
I accept that it is more accurate to say, "Since gaining access to the case papers, my stance has always been that no-one, ever, saw Jodi walk into the entrance to the path," - until I had access to the papers, I could not have known that to be factually correct.
No Smoke doesn't address the reconstruction because I didn't know the full facts surrounding it until I saw the case papers - at pages 98 and 108, I stated that there had been "no confirmed sightings of Jodi" that evening - we now know that there were confirmed sightings of her at 5.05pm, on the Easthouses Road, fully 15 minutes after it was claimed, at trial, that she left her home.
It's a strange old typo? from Ms Lean. A typo that appears to have spelled his name incorrectly too.
So not just the full change from Leonard to Steven but to Stephen.
A typo, none the less in whatever format - has no doubt sullied this guys name over time.
From a person - whom admits, they had not all at hand.
Clearly going on court transcripts. And the word of both Luke and Corrine Mitchell of course.
Court transcripts that would not have had any mystery man in them.
Silly really, she surely didn't go on media reports - those nasty journalists are us.
I wonder how many people who read no-smoke, then went on to have conversations,
with their family and friends and so forth - then theirs onto theirs.
With 'arms and legs and puppy dogs tails' added on.
That dude with the sperm all over this victim was on the path around the TOD.
2013
iiHEARTy0u wrote: »
The semen was found on her underwear. He was also one of a few people seen walking on the path.
D2BD wrote: »
Hi iiHEARTyOu, I havent read this before, are you sure SK was seen walking the path? GD and JoF were on the path, as were other people but I'm sure I haven't read or been told before that Kelly was. :confused:
iiHEARTy0u wrote: » This is an extract from Chapter Six by Sandra Lean
Not everyone who may have read this book - would go on to read another, or onto forums,
to bother too much about it being an 'error'
The damage is done:
Many people have, most certainly over time - believed that there was a male who followed this girl onto this path.
This being no typo - no excuse really:
Blatant misrepresentation of the facts:
These are Ms Leans facts - from when she first became involved - that got her deeper and deeper into this case.
So heavily set in opinion, therefore heavily biased with mis-information,
who sought to dig deeper for more.
Already blinded so heavily - impossible to regain sight.
Liken this to the DNA results which has been pushed out time after time:
Mis-leading people to believe that there were multiple sperm donors - around 10?
I, myself posted extracts from several studies a few weeks back around sperm transfer and so forth.
Amongst this it had shown - the female link to male DNA found in this -
that only by further testing can these be separated.
Ms Lean has known about these DNA results for many years.
Yet, when someone posted on the ISF forum about this female DNA :
Her response was in thanking them - that they had answered something,
that had been bugging her for many years.
It took me less than an hour of reading to know this - through links I searched.
This clearly shows how blinded this truth has been -
There has been no reason to look for innocence in Kelly,
to hell with proof, with how DNA reports works -
Simply putting out that they were all mixed up, that they didn't make sense.
They made sense to people, like myself within an hour of reading.
-
Ms Lean from the ISF.
Why has this baffled Ms Lean for such a long time?
The wonders of Google alone - more so at it 21st Birthday stage (Marty)
What does the above comment, really tell us?
When I first used good old google, to study some areas of sperm/semen DNA,
the "female in origin" clearly stuck out.
Yet Ms Lean claims to have spoken to experts around the DNA results from the evening of this murder, for many years.
So much so that she did not even realise the basics.
When speaking to 'her' forensic experts (perhaps Gordo30 sister?/friend)
The above being around the transferral through washing and rainwater.
These "circumstance described" would not simply be her own explanation, surely not of course.
They would have had access to full reports - much the same as both the prosecution and defence.
Before this Jury, and accepted for what it was.
That there were miniscule amounts of staining and sperm heads.
That there had been a relationship between Kelly and this girls sister.
That this girl was in the habit of wearing her sisters clothing.
Luke certainly knew this.
That it appears that not only was this girl wearing her sisters t-shirt,
she was also wearing her trousers.
That modern day technology only goes to strengthen,
what was already known in 2003 by whatever means were used then.
That the likelihood is, that most if not all of this transferral took place,
in a washing cycle.
The areas of transferral only show this more.
So rather than contradict itself it wipes away more so,
these silly little points of not knowing when the clothing was in contact-
on that evening at the points of when it rained.
So hell bent really - that DNA makes a murderer - simply because,
no full DNA profiles of Luke were obtained.
He can't possibly be the killer because of this, and this alone.
As all of the 'other' evidence clearly shows he is.
Like the evidence against Luke - which has never, been able to be disproven,
over this period of nearly two decades.
The evidence for Kelly and of this innocent presence, only grows stronger -
with modern day technology.
Of course Ms Lean, Ms Mitchel and these experts don't believe it was deposited that night -
they have bigger fish to fry.
They have a theory - of the duo, of the mystery man, of the confession and so forth.
None of which involve the DNA of Mr Kelly.
Or the DNA of the duo or said Mystery man either.
It's good to take these different times, with different areas, with different people with just about anything,
as long as it digresses away from Luke.
Of his evidence, of his account that led the police to pursue him for the murder of this school girl - his girlfriend.
His account being so far fetched - he fed the investigating team continuously.
It was not the police, the Judge and the Jury who caused this girls death or led to his conviction.
It was by his own means - from when he first opened his mouth.
"in order to continue to pursue Luke" that ship has sailed. Pursued and convicted.
Of course the science for most - clearly shows in modern technology that science certainly does support 'away' the presence of Kelly's DNA.
It explains 'away' the non presence of the sisters DNA as sweat is easily washed out.
That modern technology or the technology of 2003 could not show that ejaculation was from that evening.
That even the most basics on ejaculation show the unlikelihood of this happening on that evening.
and your source for your cliams is what.
-
lookout is comletly correct dogs can smell cancer.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/dogs-can-smell-cancer-blood-14253189?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR0oJip_Cl6nI69zDBjgRkLCNZiQEnxCK95G3RpsDFe4MFtEue7aIS-wvm8
-
It's a strange old typo? from Ms Lean. A typo that appears to have spelled his name incorrectly too.
So not just the full change from Leonard to Steven but to Stephen.
A typo, none the less in whatever format - has no doubt sullied this guys name over time.
From a person - whom admits, they had not all at hand.
Clearly going on court transcripts. And the word of both Luke and Corrine Mitchell of course.
Court transcripts that would not have had any mystery man in them.
Silly really, she surely didn't go on media reports - those nasty journalists are us.
I wonder how many people who read no-smoke, then went on to have conversations,
with their family and friends and so forth - then theirs onto theirs.
With 'arms and legs and puppy dogs tails' added on.
That dude with the sperm all over this victim was on the path around the TOD.
Not everyone who may have read this book - would go on to read another, or onto forums,
to bother too much about it being an 'error'
The damage is done:
Many people have, most certainly over time - believed that there was a male who followed this girl onto this path.
This being no typo - no excuse really:
Blatant misrepresentation of the facts:
These are Ms Leans facts - from when she first became involved - that got her deeper and deeper into this case.
So heavily set in opinion, therefore heavily biased with mis-information,
who sought to dig deeper for more.
Already blinded so heavily - impossible to regain sight.
Liken this to the DNA results which has been pushed out time after time:
Mis-leading people to believe that there were multiple sperm donors - around 10?
I, myself posted extracts from several studies a few weeks back around sperm transfer and so forth.
Amongst this it had shown - the female link to male DNA found in this -
that only by further testing can these be separated.
Ms Lean has known about these DNA results for many years.
Yet, when someone posted on the ISF forum about this female DNA :
Her response was in thanking them - that they had answered something,
that had been bugging her for many years.
It took me less than an hour of reading to know this - through links I searched.
This clearly shows how blinded this truth has been -
There has been no reason to look for innocence in Kelly,
to hell with proof, with how DNA reports works -
Simply putting out that they were all mixed up, that they didn't make sense.
They made sense to people, like myself within an hour of reading.
I agree.
-
lookout is comletly correct dogs can smell cancer.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/dogs-can-smell-cancer-blood-14253189?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR0oJip_Cl6nI69zDBjgRkLCNZiQEnxCK95G3RpsDFe4MFtEue7aIS-wvm8
That's one study, using 4 dogs (including one that didn't take part), all of the same breed trained with a clicker. But that means we can generalise those findings to the worlds dog population - does it?
-
I am concerned that this thread - and in fact the entire board related to this case - is degenerating into personal attacks on one person. That is not acceptable.
-
I am concerned that this thread - and in fact the entire board related to this case - is degenerating into personal attacks on one person. That is not acceptable.
Its seems to me like justified and constructive criticism. (With the exception of Lithium)
-
Its seems to me like justified and constructive criticism. (With the exception of Lithium)
I have no problem with strong criticism based upon rational argument. I do have a problem with personal attack and denigration. The abuse hurled at Sandra Lean (who has the courage to post using her real name, unlike her attackers) is totally unacceptable. I will intervene as necessary.
-
I have no problem with strong criticism based upon rational argument. I do have a problem with personal attack and denigration. The abuse hurled at Sandra Lean (who has the courage to post using her real name, unlike her attackers) is totally unacceptable. I will intervene as necessary.
From recollection there was only one comment I would classify as personal invective, and let's face it if you do stick your head above the parapet you should be prepared for scrutiny.
-
From recollection there was only one comment I would classify as personal invective, and let's face it if you do stick your head above the parapet you should be prepared for scrutiny.
I agree with NGB Steve, it's one thing to be challenged on an opinion, it's another when it gets personal - there is no need for it.
-
We know what side of the fence your loyalties lie, that's fine. I mean whatever, what do we call you anyway? Your patronizing tone & your refusal to cross out abuse flung at my-self, and even though i pointed this out in the past it has went unchecked. That is called double standards. You can call me Davie btw.
Why according to you, does Lean have to get special treatment? This so-called personal abuse is non-existent, what? you have crossed out a few words, and you're calling it personal abuse, deary me.
You completely seem to be forgetting, even though she has now admitted to spreading misinformation, these things have real life affects, and if i'm perfectly honest, i think the folk on here are very timid and holding back to what really should be said. But yea you don't have a sense of humour, so whatever.
hey show some respect for the mods they dont have to let you post here.
-
Respect works both ways, not once but twice i have felt this particular mod has disrespected and patronized me on this public forum. This particular Mod IMO is not being impartial.
But i know your motive behind your comment, you have no argument, you have been sussed, your leader has been sussed, so you want to silence the opposition, you's have no idea how to deal with me, lithium or parky, can add a few others as well. You especially want us gone. At least Sandra puts up a bit of a fight, you on the other hand. Your like a lingering bad fart, that pops up to instigate trouble, then runs away & hides behind your leader when the going gets tough & when it really gets tough, you go crying to the Mods, you've been at this for over a decade, it truly is pathetic.
any other forum you would already have been banned especialy if you went around atacking the mods ngb is being incredbly pateint
-
We know what side of the fence your loyalties lie, that's fine. I mean whatever, what do we call you anyway? Your patronizing tone & your refusal to cross out abuse flung at my-self, and even though i pointed this out in the past it has went unchecked. That is called double standards. You can call me Davie btw.
Why according to you, does Lean have to get special treatment? This so-called personal abuse is non-existent, what? you have crossed out a few words, and you're calling it personal abuse, deary me.
You completely seem to be forgetting, even though she has now admitted to spreading misinformation, these things have real life affects, and if i'm perfectly honest, i think the folk on here are very timid and holding back to what really should be said. But yea you don't have a sense of humour, so whatever.
I will try to answer your points as highlighted in blue. As far as this case is concerned I have no loyalties. I have not studied the case and have no view on the guilt or innocence of Luke Mitchell. You can call me ngb1066. However, my real identity is well known here, unlike those who are currently attacking. Sandra Lean does not get special treatment. In editing recent posts I have acted on my own judgement. Sandra Lean has not lodged complaints about posts, I have edited where I considered a post has crossed the line into personal abuse. As most members here will accept moderation on this forum is generally very light.
-
From recollection there was only one comment I would classify as personal invective, and let's face it if you do stick your head above the parapet you should be prepared for scrutiny.
There were several comments which in my view were personal invective. I agree that if you stick your head above the parapet you should be prepared for scrutiny and I am sure Sandra Lean accepts that. However, whilst strong challenge is acceptable personal abuse is not. Some posts have been menacing in tone and given that Sandra Lean has faced threats and intimidation in the past this is something we have to be very careful about.
I emphasise I have no axe to grind here.
-
When?
I don't know the details but she has referred to it. Ask her and I am sure she will tell you.
-
The problem with bullies and cowards is that they usually try to ensure there are no witnesses.
There is a police record of Joseph Jones being given a warning after he turned up on my doorstep threatening me. I have a copy of an email from someone calling himself "John Jones" telling me to "do everyone a favour, next time you're out, throw yourself under a bus" and making references to the same thing "happening to your daughters".
The incidents of being spat on, pushed off the pavement onto the road, threatened in Tescos car park were not witnessed by anyone I know, although all took place in public places.
The incident of being threatened in a local pub was witnessed by 5 other people I do know.
The incident where sunflowers were hung at the end of my street to highlight where I live was admitted to, online, by Judith Jones herself.
I've had private messages on forums threatening to publish my home address, phone number, pictures of my home and my daughters online. I have archives of these and no, I'm not going to spend hours digging them out to satisfy those who choose to believe I've never been threatened.
Even as recently as the James English interviews, there were comments warning me that I'd "better be careful."
It's easy (not to mention utterly cowardly) to threaten someone who lives alone - Joseph Jones' mistake in coming to my door that day was in thinking there would be no witnesses. He was wrong on three counts.
For those who think I've made these claims in order to appear as a victim - not a chance. I've carried on doing what I do in spite of the threats for over 16 years. And, as I've said so many times before, I will not back down to bullies. OK?
-
It just shows the lengths some people will go to if the view of others doesn't match their own ! Shocking.
-
Got to love the good old keyboard warrior.
-
Got to love the good old keyboard warrior.
Sandra's experiences sound a bit more serious than that! If Luke is guilty, Sandra's opinion and her campaign to have the case looked at, won't set him free and she has every right to stand up for what she believes in. You don't have to agree - personally, I don't - but making threats? I don't understand how anyone could go that far!
-
Posting pictures of her home and daughters online.
Low life cowards ( or threatening to)
-
It just shows the lengths some people will go to if the view of others doesn't match their own ! Shocking.
From my own experience, Sandra has attempted to mislead me into doubting Luke’s guilt. Other people have had the same experience.
So You can’t blame some people who were close to Lukes victim.
-
Mate, in this case, you dont know whether its new year or new york.
-
From my own experience, Sandra has attempted to mislead me into doubting Luke’s guilt. Other people have had the same experience.
So You can’t blame some people who were close to Lukes victim.
i could eaully acuse you of the same thing.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9933.0.html
-
Mate, in this case, you dont know whether its new year or new york.
Don't project yourself onto me.
-
This works both ways. In the past i have seen some serious allegations being directed towards the Jones & others regarding this case.
Not by me, you haven't.
Done by private mail & on open forums.
Not by me.
The experience that MK went though, must of been hell for him & totally unjustified.
I didn't bring him into the discussion. There are serious anomalies, both about the police handling of information regarding him and his own accounts, when compared to other witness statements. I stand by my right to question those.
JF is another, that has had the shiffers put though him.
He brought himself into the discussion. There are serious anomalies, both about the police handling of information regarding him and his own accounts, when compared to other witness statements. I stand by my right to question those.
These are real life people, put yourself in their shoes & lets see how you would react, you just have to look at some of the comments on you tube, to see the damage & how easily influenced people can be & it can be extremely dangerous for these individuals mentioned, infact i'm sure i seen a comment from MK somewhere on the net, its shocking what that lad went though.
I have never approached either of these people in person or electronically (or in any other way for that matter). Nor have I ever asked anyone else to do so on my behalf. I have never threatened or tried to intimidate them. I have never accused them of anything other than that which is contained in their own statements.
I'm not even going to mention the crap the Jones have had flung at them. It is pathetic & completely unjustified. It is point scoring at the lowest level.
Points scoring? Do you really believe this is about points scoring? I have flagged up anomalies in Jodi's family's statements because they may have resulted in a different verdict, had the jury known about them. Why did the search trio change their statements? If cannabis was such a big factor in Jodi's death, where did Joseph get the nine bar he had that day? Did Alice tell Ferris not to go to the police and if so, why? These are not accusations, they're questions and questions that, in my opinion, have to be answered if the conviction of Luke Mitchell is to be considered safe.
Has it worked? A big fat no is the answer. Luke is going no-where. You just have to see a so called typo in a book and the damage it can do. It's amateurish at best & pathetic at worst.
What "damage" did the typo do? The relevant passage suggests nothing more than that the presence of people on the path in the early evening who saw and heard nothing could suggests the time of death was wrong. In no way does it make any suggestion or implication of wrongdoing by any of the people named. I accepted and apologised for the mixing up of Leonard Kelly's name with Steven Kelly's. But, still, there was no harm to anyone (except the police investigating team) in suggesting that, because no-one saw or heard anything, the time of death may be rong.
-
This works both ways. In the past i have seen some serious allegations being directed towards the Jones & others regarding this case. Done by private mail & on open forums. The experience that MK went though, must of been hell for him & totally unjustified. JF is another, that has had the shiffers put though him. These are real life people, put yourself in their shoes & lets see how you would react, you just have to look at some of the comments on you tube, to see the damage & how easily influenced people can be & it can be extremely dangerous for these individuals mentioned, infact i'm sure i seen a comment from MK somewhere on the net, its shocking what that lad went though. I'm not even going to mention the crap the Jones have had flung at them. It is pathetic & completely unjustified. It is point scoring at the lowest level. Has it worked? A big fat no is the answer. Luke is going no-where. You just have to see a so called typo in a book and the damage it can do. It's amateurish at best & pathetic at worst.
I agree, it's wrong both ways. I don't know a great deal about this case - but it was an horrendous crime. From what I have read, I believe that Luke is guilty. However, I wouldn't condone threats to anyone, like someone said previously, they are cowards. I do understand how the facts can be manipulated, I see much the same thing in respect to the Bamber case. Threats and intimidation are wrong - that's my only point.
-
i could eaully acuse you of the same thing.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9933.0.html
Like I said nugs, when something isn't going the way a person wants----------
-
From my own experience, Sandra has attempted to mislead me into doubting Luke’s guilt. Other people have had the same experience.
So You can’t blame some people who were close to Lukes victim.
Nobody but nobody can mislead anyone into doubting anyone's guilt unless they themselves were unsure in the first place.
Regardless of what people have said on the JB forum, I've stood fast in my belief of his innocence ( JB ) and I flatly refused to be misled in any way and remain the same.
I certainly do blame those whose mindset is such that they seek revenge through threats etc. and their actions speak volumes to me.
-
Like I said nugs, when something isn't going the way a person wants----------
Hence the nugget got salty (again) ;D
-
Lose the martyr complex Sandra this post is just pathetic.
Joseph didn't threaten you at all, but we all know how you like to twist and misrepresent.
oh is that why he was countioned for it.
becouse he dident do it.
-
He went to her door. There was no threat of violence.
and how would you know what he did or dident do.
-
So Luke's guilty then?
Why else was he arrested for it lol.
;D ;D ;D
Corrine didn’t commit perjury because she wasn’t convicted.
But Luke didn’t commit murder even tho he was convicted.
Nugget logic
-
Because I do.
He went to the door and confronted her about her misinformation.
She tried to get him to come inside and he told her where to go.
were you there then.
how could you have been.
-
WTF?
I said, "I have the DNA results here - I can show you" - tried to get him to come inside? Are you crazy?
Why in the name of all things sane would I do that? This man was effing and blinding - he was raging.
"confronted her about her misinformation"? "No threat of violence?"
That f*cking website goes or you do. Witnessed, remember?
"I f*cking know where you are now."
"Aye look at you, no wonder you're scared, so you f*cking should be."
All witnessed, Lithium. Statements given to the police.
Confirmed liar?
Did Judith go online and deny Joseph had been anywhere near me or my house? Yes, she did.
Did she then backtrack and say Joseph had visited me because he was upset? Yes she did.
Did Judith tell the media that it was "a load of rubbish" that she'd been escorted from Corinne's workplace by the police and that it "never happened"? Yes she did.
Did the police then confirm she had, actually, been escorted from Corinne's workplace by them? Yes they did.
The only way you could know what happened when Joseph came to my door is if you are Joseph. In which case I will say right here, you are a liar and you know that to be the case. If you are not Joseph, you are also a liar, because you could not possibly know what happened that day.
Either way, you are, most certainly, a coward. You come on here with your lies, misinformation and accusations and you haven't even the guts to do it in your own name.
-
Lithium, you're hilarious, you really are!
In response to
Quote from: ngb1066 on Today at 11:29 AM
and given that Sandra Lean has faced threats and intimidation in the past
you posted
When?
So, I provided a list of examples of when I'd been threatened or intimidated, some witnessed, some not, and you come back with
Lose the martyr complex Sandra this post is just pathetic.
Joseph didn't threaten you at all, but we all know how you like to twist and misrepresent.
Tell me, how is answering your question a "martyr complex"? We all know that Joseph did threaten me (even Lothian and Borders had to accept that one), so who is twisting and misrepresenting now?
This is what I mean by damned if I do, damned if I don't. It's not accidental, I know that. It's quite deliberate - it's also utterly transparent.
-
Mind your language.
I did. It wasn't me I was quoting.
Again, was anybody charged for these crimes towards you?
The only incident reported directly to the police was that involving Mr Jones, for which he received a police warning letter. Police in Scotland at the time would not accept a complaint of online harassment/intimidation because there was no such crime in Scotland at the time.
Does it matter whether anybody was charged? People are harassed and intimidated every day without charges being brought, especially when it's a one-person's-word-against-another's. I didn't know who these people were, I couldn't have identified them, they were complete strangers to me and, quite often, came up behind me- how could charges have been brought in those circumstances?
-
OK, I'm off now - this "unemployed (whatever I was called) who hasn't worked for years" has to be up early for work tomorrow.
-
Take nugs with you. Give him one of your tramadols, knock him clean out.
your not foing yourelf any favours you know.
-
Post under your own name. Coward.
i know desprate to shout down all debate about this case but its not going to happen.
-
This is most shocking abuse ! I'm appalled, though not surprised at this cowardly act. Shame on you.
-
I have removed two posts. It is totally unacceptable to post a photograph of another member, particularly where it is clearly done in order to intimidate. We are getting very close to bans being imposed. I do not want to do that but I will have no choice if this type of behaviour continues.
-
He went to her door. There was no threat of violence.
Aye, right then. Blatant lie
-
They weren't told to stay away from the grave, they were told not to attend the funeral earlier that day. Different thing
Agree - this however interests me on different levels.
We have noted before the reasons behind why Luke, friend and mother chose to visit this girls grave,
on the day of her funeral.
It's in black and white - not to attend the funeral.
To show respect? He did not attend, not really of choice though,
would he have gotten anywhere near?
On one hand we have from Nug that this was but a teenage boy,
so what, his girlfriend didn't bother to show up that evening.
That they were just kids "for Christ sake". Not like they were married or owt.
They had barely known each other personally for three months.
He would see her at school the next day.
This girl is brutally murdered.
Some 9 weeks later her funeral takes place.
And everything has changed.
It appears clear at this stage - that this girls family, believed Luke to be responsible,
for this girls death.
He is asked to not attend the funeral.
They first of all do what some may do in these circumstances: (If innocent)
They choose to hold their own little vigil - a lovely little service at home.
This in itself may appear just a little OTT for some.
After all, this boy had barely known this girl.
He was just a wee laddie after all.
They take this a step further, they invite the media ( the hated media)
into their home - to film this private ceremony.
They do this at the same time of the funeral.
They know the media are going to be present there.
This is a high profile story -
Do we already see here, that Luke wants to be a part of this attention.
That he is perhaps, sticking the middle finger up to the Jones',
and to all and everyone else.
He does not like being told what to do - he is backing down to no-one.
He is most definitely not going to stay back.
It is not enough that they have this little service,
that they invite the hated media into film it.
So heavily medicated of course - that no emotion was shown, in this service.
More needs to be done - he is not staying back from all of this attention,
he is going to this grave also - within hours of this burial.
He knows the media will be present, watching from his house,
to see what he may do next.
He is not to be thwarted by this.
After all, it is his right - to do as he pleases.
It is his right, to show these OTT reactions towards someone,
and their family whom he barely knew.
This of course all done, with the personal sense and guidance of
a mother, who did not try to stop her son.
From showing this disrespect, not just to this girls family,
but to this girl herself.
Of course, none of us know what we may choose to do - we haven't walked in those shoes.
Would we however, as parents allow this clear show of disrespect to this girl.
It matters not at this point of innocence or not.
What matters are the wishes of this girls family for their daughter/loved one.
That the person, they clearly believed responsible should stay clear.
Not just from the funeral - but in general.
He had absolutely no rights, to be there at any time.
He was told NO - that was not allowed.
It clearly had nothing to do with respectful wishes.
He clearly showed no respect, for any type of authority.
Clearly shown in his interviews with the police,
with his mother.
This wee smite - that he clearly was not.
Nothing however was going to stop this laddie - he set the rules with his mother.
Something that was clearly shown - time and time again.
He was allowed to smoke.
He was allowed to get a tattoo.
He was allowed to carry knives.
He was allowed to drink.
He was allowed drive.
He was allowed to go around manky.
Strangely clean that evening though, when met with his friends.
He was allowed large sums of money.
He was allowed to have underage sex at home.
He was allowed to use cannabis at a young age.
He was by all account - allowed to do as he pleased.
He did not do anything wrong - It was clearly everyone else?
He had no rules set for him, bar, strangely enough,
having to make dinner of a Monday night, for all the family.
Which from the off was clearly wrong;
His mother cooked her own - vegetarian food of prawns.
Yet again, when challenged we are met with a singular hint of authority from his
mother.
That of this girl begging her mother not to tell Corrine something,
as Luke would get into trouble.
Would he though?
And of course, this will be met with;
He had every right to pay his definition of respect, publicly for this girl.
After all, he was so deeply in love with her, at 14,
that he had another girl, ready to meet in Kenmore the following week.
that there was no care of thought shown, in his ludicrous claims of,
waiting around Newbattle Road for nearly 90mins - without checking/
walking - going anywhere near this path.
That there is no oddity in not trying to locate her all evening.
No oddity in that she did not contact him all evening.
No oddity in his lack of concern in any shape or form -
yet, it was just and correct for him to go completely OTT again,
with all of his actions on the day of this girls funeral.
Messy:
-
The problem with bullies and cowards is that they usually try to ensure there are no witnesses.
There is a police record of Joseph Jones being given a warning after he turned up on my doorstep threatening me. I have a copy of an email from someone calling himself "John Jones" telling me to "do everyone a favour, next time you're out, throw yourself under a bus" and making references to the same thing "happening to your daughters".
The incidents of being spat on, pushed off the pavement onto the road, threatened in Tescos car park were not witnessed by anyone I know, although all took place in public places.
The incident of being threatened in a local pub was witnessed by 5 other people I do know.
The incident where sunflowers were hung at the end of my street to highlight where I live was admitted to, online, by Judith Jones herself.
I've had private messages on forums threatening to publish my home address, phone number, pictures of my home and my daughters online. I have archives of these and no, I'm not going to spend hours digging them out to satisfy those who choose to believe I've never been threatened.
Even as recently as the James English interviews, there were comments warning me that I'd "better be careful."
It's easy (not to mention utterly cowardly) to threaten someone who lives alone - Joseph Jones' mistake in coming to my door that day was in thinking there would be no witnesses. He was wrong on three counts.
For those who think I've made these claims in order to appear as a victim - not a chance. I've carried on doing what I do in spite of the threats for over 16 years. And, as I've said so many times before, I will not back down to bullies. OK?
This is all rather alarming - yes in the actions of people who threaten, but more so in this post at present.
It makes no sense at all.
It starts off with the bullies and cowards whom usually try to ensure there are no witnesses,
yet, of all of the examples given, none are of hidden acts, out of the public eye.
All public in some way - whether in person or online.
Some, obviously not hidden at all. in that they are known or indeed give their name.
Not that I am of course suggesting that, actions (some) of this sort are not, somewhat cowardly.
I could go down some silly little lines of reasoning -
Someone who is spearheading a campaign to get a convicted killer back on the streets.
is in turn getting retaliation.
What does alarm me is the choice of wording. It's oddity.
Why would Judith Jones putting sunflowers at the end of Ms Leans street, be done for the purpose,
to highlight where Ms Lean stayed?
Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?
Surely, if knowing where Ms Lean stayed, that Judith's intention was to highlight this to others
she would simply put it out in the public domain?
Did these sunflowers have arrows on them, a note attached with Ms Leans address?
How therefore is this deemed as some threatening, hidden, cowardly act?
Messy.
Then of course we have this John Jones. There has of course got to be a connection.
Does not matter the coincidence of the name being the same, being one of the most common
names around.
This had been done by email - this is proof, something would have been able to be done.
Traced to source and so forth.
Not therefore taking seriously by Ms Lean.
Perhaps one of those occasions/empty threats that gave Ms Lean a warm glow. (twitter)
Perhaps the biggest oddity in all of this, is the account of Joseph's visit to Ms Leans door.
It's easy (not to mention utterly cowardly) to threaten someone who lives alone - Joseph Jones' mistake in coming to my door that day was in thinking there would be no witnesses. He was wrong on three counts.
This is a prime example of taken a fraction of truth - and adding a whole lot of assumption.
Something that becomes clearer, as a trademark across the board.
An area of truth that is exaggerated to the extreme if pushing a point against.
An area of truth that is downplayed in exaggeration, to the extreme when making a point for.
Like that of the half Mars bar, of missing the V, of the noise from the duos bike.
In this scenario we have a visit to Ms Leans door.
What is clear, is that this guy is drunk, upset and angry.
The most rationale thing to do here, is of course to try and talk to this guy.
To invite, to show him the DNA results from the evidence.
No, of course it's not.
The rationale thing to do here, is to close the door and call the police if need be.
Ms Lean does not though - she does not need to.
Behind her door is a man, not really there for protection, or if he is,
there is nothing from this male, that causes enough concern to step out.
What happens instead, is Ms Lean tries to keep things up with Joseph.
She knows all is being witnessed, she is certainly not intimidated.
Entrapment?
That aside - what also strikes me above is the additives.
Again, taking this incident of truth to the extreme.
The visit to her door.
Then the arms and legs are added on for good measure.
A coward, coming to the door of someone who lives ALONE.
Of the mistake this guy made in thinking there would be NO witnesses.
I have known for many years that Ms Lean has two daughters.
I don't know what year this incident happened, yet the assumption
is put forward, that not only would Joseph know Ms Leans daughters
were not there, that Joseph would know there was no Mr Lean, or boyfriend.
Does Ms Lean live in the middle of nowhere or in a built up area?
Presuming here, because he was drunk, this is not too far from where he stayed.
So a built up area, would be a fair guess?
Why therefore, would she assume, that Joseph would assume there would be
witnesses? or that she would be home alone?
Or in this drunken state, care or have any conscious thought of witnesses
Certainly makes it sound better though.
When all that can be really clear, is that this guy was drunk, he was upset,
he was angry. He arrives at Ms Leans door and lets loose with the verbals.
Shocking behaviour, not to be condoned.
Why the need for the additives.
Compulsive it would seem as certainly not singular, in taken small areas of fact,
and building them up with assumptions.
Rather like the Mars bar - it wasn't a missile as such, doesn't matter the attack,
it was only a wee half Mars bar.
The duo one month have gotten quickly to this V point by 5.15pm, from
basically tool hire at 5pm as the bike was working on the first half of this path.
Recently when faced with the noise from this bike - of Luke hearing it approach.
This changed to them pushing for the first half of this path, with no noise.
Messy
-
Common sense prevailing again with Davie and Parky's posts.
Joseph Jones turned up at your door so out of control and threatening, that he simply walked away after blowing off steam. This the same individual Sandra thinks might have murdered his own teenage sister for stealing a lump of hash off him.
Ok then.
Spot on from Parky again, textbook Sandra sensationalism. What proof do you have Joey thought you were alone or he wouldn't have come? None at all. Nothing to suggest it, but it just sounds better, doesn't it? It paints a certain picture of him you want to create, but the true story doesn't quite have the same effect.
well there is the little problem that he admited to doing it.
the threat i mean.
-
When all that can be really clear, is that this guy was drunk, he was upset,he was angry. He arrives at Ms Leans door and lets loose with the verbals. Shocking behaviour, not to be condoned.
Drunk? When have I ever said, or even suggested, that the guy was drunk? To my knowledge, he wasn't.
So, you guys all think it's acceptable for an angry male (drunk or otherwise) to appear at the door of a female single parent and "let loose with the verbals" (which included direct threats)?
The re-writing of that incident here is incredible (and I mean that literally - as in , not credible) - there were witnesses, CCTV footage, police statements and the warning letter. He didn't get it for nothing, did he?
It actually makes me quite sad that, in order to push their own agenda, posters on this forum are happy to pass all of that off as (a) totally acceptable and (b) somehow my fault. Not for me - I don't care what they think - but for any other female who should find herself on the receiving end of such behaviour.
So, I'll ask Parky, Lithium, and Davie, in particular, if someone had behaved like that towards your mother, sister, partner or daughter, would you be using the same arguments to excuse that behaviour? I think not.
-
Thankfully I'm away offshore for 2 weeks tomorrow & the wifi is junk on that rig, so my in-coming ban might be delayed, didums for Nugs.
I'm also going to call BS that those incidents ever happened. No-body was charged for what seems to be serious intimidation & threatening behaviour, that had witness, so we are lead to believe. Personally i would have done a lot more, then turn up to someone house drunk to say a few words, when you consider some things that were getting thrown out there. The Jones have showed massive restrained over the years, and they deserve a lot of credit for that. And they deserve the right to get on with their lives, without this constant BS that keeps getting brought up. Lean must have thought all her Christmas's had come at once, When she got that phone call from James English, the forums had gone cold, the support was dwindling, the appeals turned down, the money had gone, their forum was gone, the smart ones among them were seeing right though the BS John/Steph etc. But in 2019 they got a new lease of life, a new audience, so it starts again, the sensationalism, the misinformation, the promise of new websites, the promise of new uploads, the chance to make some more money. I'm curious to know if any of those who watched the podcasts on You Tube are here? Those who never knew anything about the case before the podcasts? Or is it just the same old? reappearing?
So what is the end game? Luke is going no-where, they have nothing that proves he is not the killer, i would not even put them in the bracket of being amateurs. No-body with any credibly want to touch this case with a bargepole, you have to ask why? that lot in Glasgow that deals with MOJ, they took one look at the case papers & chucked it in the bin, only for CM to very publicly rifle though the bin to retrieve the muddled up papers, to deliver them back to Lean or are they really just shoved back in CM's cupboard?
so if a court report of him being charged and pleading guilty turned up what would you say
-
Personally i would have done a lot more, then turn up to someone house drunk to say a few words, when you consider some things that were getting thrown out there.
I'm just going to leave that right there - it's a quote from "Davie." That is the level some of those who disagree with me are prepared to stoop to.
-
Didn't Luke Mitchell once say he'd rather die in prison than admit to doing something he hadn't done ?
Back in 1986 a Michael Shirley had said the same thing after having been accused of murdering Linda Cook.
Shirley, after serving a minimum sentence of 15 years he would have been released had he admitted guilt, but he refused, saying that he'd have been prepared to have stayed put to prove his innocence. His sentence was quashed in 2003 by the CoA as a result of exculpatory DNA evidence.
Is there any information regarding DNA evidence from Luke Mitchell ?
Strange that if you admit to a murder your release is fast-tracked yet if there's no admission you're kept locked up ad infinitum like Jeremy Bamber where the " excuse " of being in denial is used ::)As if !!
-
Common sense prevailing again with Davie and Parky's posts.
Joseph Jones turned up at your door so out of control and threatening, that he simply walked away after blowing off steam. This the same individual Sandra thinks might have murdered his own teenage sister for stealing a lump of hash off him.
Ok then.
Spot on from Parky again, textbook Sandra sensationalism. What proof do you have Joey thought you were alone or he wouldn't have come? None at all. Nothing to suggest it, but it just sounds better, doesn't it? It paints a certain picture of him you want to create, but the true story doesn't quite have the same effect.
Sensationalism.... the guys a fruit loop
-
Drunk? When have I ever said, or even suggested, that the guy was drunk? To my knowledge, he wasn't.
So, you guys all think it's acceptable for an angry male (drunk or otherwise) to appear at the door of a female single parent and "let loose with the verbals" (which included direct threats)?
The re-writing of that incident here is incredible (and I mean that literally - as in , not credible) - there were witnesses, CCTV footage, police statements and the warning letter. He didn't get it for nothing, did he?
It actually makes me quite sad that, in order to push their own agenda, posters on this forum are happy to pass all of that off as (a) totally acceptable and (b) somehow my fault. Not for me - I don't care what they think - but for any other female who should find herself on the receiving end of such behaviour.
So, I'll ask Parky, Lithium, and Davie, in particular, if someone had behaved like that towards your mother, sister, partner or daughter, would you be using the same arguments to excuse that behaviour? I think not.
Not that I am of course suggesting that, actions (some) of this sort are not, somewhat cowardly.
I could go down some silly little lines of reasoning -
Someone who is spearheading a campaign to get a convicted killer back on the streets.
is in turn getting retaliation.
This is all rather alarming - yes in the actions of people who threaten
But I didn't and I wouldn't.
My post was clear in two parts - that I would not condone this type of behaviour.
There was no part in my post excusing this type of behaviour.
My post was clear - it was of the assumptions that you had added.
If you are clearly stating that I have made an assumption on this guy being drunk.
To distract from the meaning of my post, fair enough.
It has been mentioned many times - that this guy was drunk.
-
Not by me it hasn't. Not ever.
-
Didn't Luke Mitchell once say he'd rather die in prison than admit to doing something he hadn't done ?
Back in 1986 a Michael Shirley had said the same thing after having been accused of murdering Linda Cook.
Shirley, after serving a minimum sentence of 15 years he would have been released had he admitted guilt, but he refused, saying that he'd have been prepared to have stayed put to prove his innocence. His sentence was quashed in 2003 by the CoA as a result of exculpatory DNA evidence.
Is there any information regarding DNA evidence from Luke Mitchell ?
Strange that if you admit to a murder your release is fast-tracked yet if there's no admission you're kept locked up ad infinitum like Jeremy Bamber where the " excuse " of being in denial is used ::)As if !!
Being released as a guilty murderer would be no life. There is no incentive in this respect for a murderer who has claimed innocence to admit guilt. Bamber will never admit he's guilty, that doesn't mean he isn't.
-
Being released as a guilty murderer would be no life. There is no incentive in this respect for a murderer who has claimed innocence to admit guilt. Bamber will never admit he's guilty, that doesn't mean he isn't.
So he must be thrilled that each waking day he finds himself surrounded by 4 walls.
Even a " false confession " would have got him parole ?
-
Even the law and prison officials haven't a clue how to handle those who are supposedly in denial as it's classed as ineligible for parole which is how Stephen Downing was treated when he was locked up for 27 years, a lifetime for being innocent.
-
So he must be thrilled that each waking day he finds himself surrounded by 4 walls.
Even a " false confession " would have got him parole ?
Like a lot of other prisoners.
-
Even the law and prison officials haven't a clue how to handle those who are supposedly in denial as it's classed as ineligible for parole which is how Stephen Downing was treated when he was locked up for 27 years, a lifetime for being innocent.
The reason it is ineligible for parole, is because they can't do rehabilitation courses that are part of the parole process unless they admit guilt. This wouldn't apply to Bamber as he was given a whole life tariff so admitting to guilt, wouldn't really change anything. Unless he can PROVE he really is innocent, he won't get out.
-
Like a lot of other prisoners.
" Like a lot of other prisoners " what and who ? There are no others to my knowledge.
-
It's unusual for a prisoner to confess to a crime beyond 10 years of incarceration. Even if it's to his cell-mate initially.
Stephen Downing waited 27 for his freedom when his conviction was overturned which proves to me that the innocents are in no hurry other than to see justice done. It's the real criminals who are released before them !
-
The law is an ass !!
-
The reason it is ineligible for parole, is because they can't do rehabilitation courses that are part of the parole process unless they admit guilt. This wouldn't apply to Bamber as he was given a whole life tariff so admitting to guilt, wouldn't really change anything. Unless he can PROVE he really is innocent, he won't get out.
He'd already proved his innocence via the phone-calls but it wasn't his fault that EP made a pig's ear out of it preferring to ignore JB in order to cover their own backsides.
-
The reason it is ineligible for parole, is because they can't do rehabilitation courses that are part of the parole process unless they admit guilt. This wouldn't apply to Bamber as he was given a whole life tariff so admitting to guilt, wouldn't really change anything. Unless he can PROVE he really is innocent, he won't get out.
It's those prisoners who are released and have been open about their crimes have the highest risk of re-offending
Being in " denial " is not a valid measure of risk as it has no bearing on the likelihood of re-offending.
-
It's those prisoners who are released and have been open about their crimes have the highest risk of re-offending
Being in " denial " is not a valid measure of risk as it has no bearing on the likelihood of re-offending.
yes i would agrea lookout.
-
" Like a lot of other prisoners " what and who ? There are no others to my knowledge.
No other prisoners who maintain their innocence? There are loads of them Lookout, most just don't get the attention that some cases do!
-
It's unusual for a prisoner to confess to a crime beyond 10 years of incarceration. Even if it's to his cell-mate initially.
Stephen Downing waited 27 for his freedom when his conviction was overturned which proves to me that the innocents are in no hurry other than to see justice done. It's the real criminals who are released before them !
So in order to be innocent, you just never have to admit to being guilty? ::)
-
It's those prisoners who are released and have been open about their crimes have the highest risk of re-offending
Being in " denial " is not a valid measure of risk as it has no bearing on the likelihood of re-offending.
That's because it's harder for the guilty ones who never admit their crimes - to get out! Jeremy won't re-offend because he won't get out. However, this is pretty much off-topic!
-
So in order to be innocent, you just never have to admit to being guilty? ::)
well if someone could get out by just saying they were guilty why wouldn't they
-
well if someone could get out by just saying they were guilty why wouldn't they
Depends how worried they are about retribution, doesn't it?
-
well if someone could get out by just saying they were guilty why wouldn't they
Would you like to live your life knowing that your neighbours etc, knew you were a murderer?
-
well if someone could get out by just saying they were guilty why wouldn't they
Nugs, I'm certain that you know there's no such thing as a free lunch? It's also true that for every act there's a consequence. You have to see the bigger picture.
-
Would you like to live your life knowing that your neighbours etc, knew you were a murderer?
well I could live with it.
-
So in order to be innocent, you just never have to admit to being guilty? ::)
Not if you're innocent- no ! You're being silly or pedantic.
-
Depends how worried they are about retribution, doesn't it?
Retribution is for those who set out to settle a score and it solves nothing. Troublemakers in other words.
-
well I could live with it.
But that's the whole point, Nugs. The chances are, you wouldn't be allowed to. Personally I don't give much for the long term chances of a convicted murderer being released after admitting guilt.
-
Retribution is for those who set out to settle a score and it solves nothing. Troublemakers in other words.
And whilst that may be true, it won't stop retribution. I'm anti violence but I wouldn't shed tears for a released murderer on whom a score had been settled. Think, if you will about the family of their victim. THEIR sentence will never end.
-
But that's the whole point, Nugs. The chances are, you wouldn't be allowed to. Personally I don't give much for the long term chances of a convicted murderer being released after admitting guilt.
not to mention the kind of life youd hav inside if suddenly after convincing a few other lifers you were stitched up, you reveald youd lied to them all along and were actualy guilty of violently killing a teenage girl who trusted you for esentially no reason
-
Not if you're innocent- no ! You're being silly or pedantic.
So someone claiming innocence might be guilty? Or is there a time frame?
-
not to mention the kind of life youd hav inside if suddenly after convincing a few other lifers you were stitched up, you reveald youd lied to them all along and were actualy guilty of violently killing a teenage girl who trusted you for esentially no reason
Exactly!
-
not to mention the kind of life youd hav inside if suddenly after convincing a few other lifers you were stitched up, you reveald youd lied to them all along and were actualy guilty of violently killing a teenage girl who trusted you for esentially no reason
Most guilty prisoners who protest innocence are probably open about their guilt to inmates post verdict anyway. They have no Jail house snitches to worry about.
-
not to mention the kind of life youd hav inside if suddenly after convincing a few other lifers you were stitched up, you reveald youd lied to them all along and were actualy guilty of violently killing a teenage girl who trusted you for esentially no reason
Exactly!! I'd call it being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
-
Most guilty prisoners who protest innocence are probably open about their guilt to inmates post verdict anyway. They have no Jail house snitches to worry about.
That would depend on the crime.
-
That would depend on the crime.
Ian Huntley and Levi Bellfield make no secret about what they done. According to Stones legal team, Bellfield has now confessed to the Chillingden murders also.
According to what inmates have told the WDOJ. Steven Avery was open about his guilt before Making A Murderer aired. Steven Avery didn't know he would become a Netflix sensation and when that happens prison secrets no longer become a thing.
-
Ian Huntley and Levi Bellfield make no secret about what they done. According to Stones legal team, Bellfield has now confessed to the Chillingden murders also.
According to what inmates have told the WDOJ. Steven Avery was open about his guilt before Making A Murderer aired. Steven Avery didn't know he would become a Netflix sensation and when that happens prison secrets no longer become a thing.
Well, that may or may not be so because inmates are not the most reliable sources.
-
That would depend on the crime.
yes. i hear those who murder children, sex criminals, or those who kill partners in jealous rage are not look upon too kindly
-
Well, that may or may not be so because inmates are not the most reliable sources.
In Jail were inmates are waiting trial and they know they can get a plea bargain if they grass each other up is one thing. But if both are in prison and are already sentenced there is no incentive in that setting.
I could easily imagine Luke Mitchell and Nat Fraser having a laugh together about what they done. While helping each-other out in their SCCRC submissions.
I could easily imagine Ian Huntley and the psycho's among him all sharing the grim details about what they done to amuse themselves.
These people are not confined among a righteous and upstanding population.
-
In Jail were inmates are waiting trial and they know they can get a plea bargain if they grass each other up is one thing. But if both are in prison and are already sentenced there is no incentive in that setting.
I could easily imagine Luke Mitchell and Nat Fraser having a laugh together about what they done. While helping each-other out in their SCCRC submissions.
I could easily imagine Ian Huntley and the psycho's among him all sharing the grim details about what they done to amuse themselves.
These people are not confined among a righteous and upstanding population.
This sounds familiar!
-
yes. i hear those who murder children, sex criminals, or those who kill partners in jealous rage are not look upon too kindly
Exactly, so if you're in prison for a long while, you don't want to be associated with these criminals and there is no incentive to admit these crimes.
-
Also, not to forget this doesn't just concern Luke.
There is his mother to consider.
This mother who has stuck by him, fought the cause.
Is there really any choice - for him to admit guilt.
Certainly not whilst his mother is still alive.
The admission of his guilt, in turn could very well,
lead to her incarceration also.
IMO of course.
There is nothing that shows innocence, due to the non admittance of guilt.
There are so many other factors - some of which have been
highlighted.
Remembering here also that every admission of guilt does not
lead to freedom.
Luke is not even eligible to be considered for parole until he has
served a minimum of 20yrs.
And even then, if there were to be any admission, it does not mean
he will be released.
All in all, at this point in time - an admission, would be somewhat
futile and certainly damaging to his mother.
-
Also, not to forget this doesn't just concern Luke.
There is his mother to consider.
This mother who has stuck by him, fought the cause.
Is there really any choice - for him to admit guilt.
Certainly not whilst his mother is still alive.
The admission of his guilt, in turn could very well,
lead to her incarceration also.
IMO of course.
The same, of course, would be true of any other mother (or partner) who had "stuck by" a son (or partner) who may have been responsible for murder - perhaps by being dishonest or misleading about that son/partner's movements, whereabouts, actions etc in order to avoid suspicion falling on that son/partner.
I'm not, of course, talking about family members who knew nothing about what their loved one had done and therefore told no lies or misled anyone - I'm thinking people like Sonia Sutcliff who, it seems, had no idea what her husband did when he was away. I'm talking specifically about those who knowingly concealed the truth (or their suspicions) in order to protect a loved one.
Before the inevitable howls of protest, I'm not talking about any particular person or family - I'm just making the point that the argument Parky makes here could just as easily apply to others. For nearly every innocent, incarcerated person later released, there was someone else who committed the crime (the exceptions being where there was no crime), so there is at least the possibility that someone else (or elses) either knew, or had some inkling, and kept schtum.
Sometimes, there are understandable reasons - for example, the children of Fred and Rose West who were too terrified to voice their suspicions. Only when the actions of their parents became known to the authorities were those grown up children safe enough to speak out.
So my point is a relatively simple one - the argument made here by Parky to suggest a reason why Luke may not confess (other than that he has nothing to confess to) could just as easily apply in a number of other circumstances, to other people.
-
Tim Hennis had a doppelgänger near the crime scene. Where and who is the Luke doppelgänger?
(https://i.ibb.co/Q8HxGTs/hennis.png)
It's discussed from 40:00 here: https://youtu.be/uK7OVE_5L7Y
-
It's discussed from 40:00 here: https://youtu.be/uK7OVE_5L7Y
Anyone can allege he exists. He needs to be presented in the flesh.
-
Luke swaggered about Polmont YO smirking at anyone who looked at him and told his fellow beasts and new inmates that he ran the hall. Lapping up the notoriety of a crime that he apparently isn't capable of. Also wrote violent poetry about killing people and getting revenge on Jodi's family, and requested Sanatic books a few years ago.
He requested a copy of the Satanic Bible to read in prison. A book that encourages human sacrifice. Here is a quote from it.
"Who, then, would be considered a fit and proper human sacrifice, and how is one qualified to pass judgment on such a person?" The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustiy wronged you."
In the highly unlikely event he gets a re-trial that will be used against him. What an own goal!
-
weeks before the murder, such as attacking and injuring people with knives, experiencing psychotic episodes and smoking large quantities of cannabis, it is evident that the person who was seen following Jodi and has confessed is indeed
An interesting quote from another forum. Wonder who they are talking about?
-
He requested a copy of the Satanic Bible to read in prison. A book that encourages human sacrifice. Here is a quote from it.
"Who, then, would be considered a fit and proper human sacrifice, and how is one qualified to pass judgment on such a person?" The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustiy wronged you."
In the highly unlikely event he gets a re-trial that will be used against him. What an own goal!
have ever actully read that book.
-
weeks before the murder, such as attacking and injuring people with knives, experiencing psychotic episodes and smoking large quantities of cannabis, it is evident that the person who was seen following Jodi and has confessed is indeed
An interesting quote from another forum. Wonder who they are talking about?
I'd stick my neck out here and say that the owner of the used condom was suspicious.
-
I'd stick my neck out here and say that the owner of the used condom was suspicious.
[/quote
well he failed to come forward when asked to.
-
I'd stick my neck out here and say that the owner of the used condom was suspicious.
No,not him. Its the person lithium would have us believe went to sandras door to"blow off steam"
-
I'd stick my neck out here and say that the owner of the used condom was suspicious.
[/quote
well he failed to come forward when asked to.
Nugs, another known thing that a murderer will do, besides returning to the crime scene, will masturbate over the body, which made me wonder straight away.
-
im sure about the confession for a start is the person they are supposed to have confessed. a reliable witness.
and also people confess to things they havent done anyway somtimes.
-
No,not him. Its the person lithium would have us believe went to sandras door to"blow off steam"
I very much doubt it Marty.
-
I very much doubt it Marty.
Well thats who has allegedley con fessed to being stocky man and the murder. This is years after the crime remember and not at the time. Phsycotic episodes and threatening people with blades weeks before the murder.
Thats if there was a confession , if its a lie then i wouldnt be following this anymore as credability of who said it on the jams english podcasts would be lost for me
-
Well thats who has allegedley con fessed to being stocky man and the murder. This is years after the crime remember and not at the time. Phsycotic episodes and threatening people with blades weeks before the murder.
Thats if there was a confession , if its a lie then i wouldnt be following this anymore as credability of who said it on the jams english podcasts would be lost for me
well until we know who he confessed to I wouldn't set much store by it.
and im not sure what value a confession from someone with mental issues. is
and does the confession tie in with all know facts.
-
Nugs, another known thing that a murderer will do, besides returning to the crime scene, will masturbate over the body, which made me wonder straight away.
Speechless!
-
Well thats who has allegedley con fessed to being stocky man and the murder. This is years after the crime remember and not at the time. Phsycotic episodes and threatening people with blades weeks before the murder.
Thats if there was a confession , if its a lie then i wouldnt be following this anymore as credability of who said it on the jams english podcasts would be lost for me
Given that this person was named and no one actually has any evidence to prove these claims, it's not really a good idea to go repeating it on other forums. Too much finger pointing here!
-
Nugs, another known thing that a murderer will do, besides returning to the crime scene, will masturbate over the body, which made me wonder straight away.
though a sexaul assult may have taken place there no real evdence that anybody masterbated over the body.
-
What fictional confession are we talking about now?
-
What fictional confession are we talking about now?
your in no postion mr forensic breakthrogh.
-
your in no postion mr forensic breakthrogh.
If he knew anything about this case he would know what we are talking about
-
your in no postion mr forensic breakthrogh.
And Mr bruised knuckles is?
-
In one of Luke's police interviews that Sandra posted. (The type of stuff Sandra is allegedly prohibited from revealing). Luke reveals that Jodi would borrow clothes from her sister.
Yet another reason why she would have her sisters boyfriends sperm on the clothing she had on.
Oh dear.
-
In one of Luke's police interviews that Sandra posted. (The type of stuff Sandra is allegedly prohibited from revealing). Luke reveals that Jodi would borrow clothes from her sister.
Yet another reason why she would have her sisters boyfriends sperm on the clothing she had on.
Oh dear.
wear has she posted that
i havent seen it
as far as i know the source for borrowing her sisters clothes are jodis aunts.
-
For the majority. there was clear and precise evidence that merited the conviction of Luke.
Most of this evidence came directly from himself - of the account he gave.
Only confirmed by others who gave witness to numerous things.
Marty:
Completely pointless arguement as hes never looked at the paintings or the police would have found some sort of evidence.
What is disturbing is the finding of this is his possessions after this horrific murder.
What is disturbing is the need to purchase more knives after this horrific murder.
What is disturbing is the (cough) coincidence of this new jacket being a parka with a German badge on it.
What is disturbing is the inscriptions of the writings on the knife pouch.
What is disturbing is the complete lack of empathy at any point.
All of which rather dispute, highly, any claims of some stress disorder.
If something had caused such a traumatic impact -
One would be avoiding knives.
One would be avoiding graphic material.
One would not be partying it up.- topping that heavy medication up with booze.
One would be avoiding clothing - clearly being sought in relation to this murder. 50 army shirts or 50 parkas with German badges
makes no difference - it was clearly green khaki clothing with a German army badge that was being looked for.
So these are highly relevant items to this crime - replacements?
As:
From almost immediately after this murder more knives needed to purchased.
One such knife identical to the missing one, bar the colour of handle.
A new jacket was required, not any old type of jacket - but a parka with a German badge.
And of course there is the Manson DVD with the Black Dahlia.
These to the majority, have clear reason behind the purchase.
Of perhaps owning previously, and disposed off on the day of this murder.
You may say, show me the proof of him viewing/seeing it beforehand, which is almost akin to saying - show me him murdering this girl.
It can not be shown to be false, neither can that of him being the killer, be shown to be false.
You can't change Shane's statements - again to show him at home. This does not exist in his head, as it did not happen.
We can be shown clearly that he was not at home, from the evidence Luke himself gave.
That of listening to some fav tunes whilst watching the pies burn.
The fine details of what happened in that household between 5.15pm and 5.30pm which totally contradict each other.
How was It even possible, for Shane to proceed downstairs to collect a dinner, that by Luke and Corinne's account,
still was not ready. The beans, the prawns, the dishing up.
That he collected this dinner at 5.15pm - Corinne was just arriving home.
We lately have the introduction of PTSD for Shane also, that wiped his memory within 36-48hrs.
That caused 3 different accounts to be given in 5 days - and still they were not correct.
Of Corinne wanting to enjoy the sunshine - it was wet and dull.
So, from that you have to build on why? where was Luke, as the account they gave, clearly shows he was not at home.
These items, to many, were simply replacements.
Far too many coincidences in this case - for them all, to be purely flukes, or bad fortune.
Far too much distraction away from the reality.
Of how disturbed this 14yr olds mind was, even if by some miracle he was to be innocent.
To want/need to purchase, not just any knife but a certain type - whilst supposedly traumatised.
To want/need to purchase a jacket. not just any jacket but a certain type.
Of the mock surprise of her son, buying not only a jacket but that of type. (he owned plenty of jackets)
To want/need to purchase a DVD - not just any DVD, but one with graphic images akin to those inflicted on this girl.
Its alright, they weren't an exact match - it matters not how horrific both were, of this girl in a wood - brutally murdered.
Like the Bryson sighting - of those baggy dark clothes, simply can't have been Jodi - she may have been wearing a dark navy/ black baggy hoodie, with, slightly lighter, dark blue cord type jeans,
she missed the logo - tsk tsk Mrs Bryson.
Really, its one of those things, that by simply brushing aside it becomes, somewhat ludicrous.
Again, one may question the level of, not just parental control but advise.
To not only allow your child to have knives after this, but to purchase them for him.
-
What is disturbing is the (cough) coincidence of this new jacket being a parka with a German badge on
This is the "replacement" that the police never took in the first place. Am I correct?
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/undated-image-of-luke-mitchell-outside-his-home-in-dalkeith-after-a-picture-id829482020?s=612x612)
-
This is the "replacement" that the police never took in the first place. Am I correct?
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/undated-image-of-luke-mitchell-outside-his-home-in-dalkeith-after-a-picture-id829482020?s=612x612)
This is the one purchased in the August.
Of the same type that was shown to be worn prior to 30th June 2003. That was never recovered.
One is which a school teacher gave evidence, that he saw Luke wearing it prior to the Murder.
This school teacher was most definitely not influenced by media reports such as above.
The teacher had left his role at the school at the time of the Murder. He remembered the Parka distinctively as Luke reminded
him of a Monk - when he had the hood pulled up over his head. There was evidence heard from others also of the parka. One
that was also used to show clearly of use, prior to this murder was from a guy in a shop. The time/date of this shop was prior to June 30th.
He remembered the jacket clearly as his mother wore the exact same, this is why it stood out for him.
-
Parky, when was the theory of the parka first introduced?
-
Is this the same guy who admitted, on the stand, that he remembered the parka "because of the murder and everything" - i.e. it was after the murder he saw Luke in the shop wearing the Parka?
Marty, the Parka theory didn't come into existence until after August 14th 2003. On that date, the police were adamantly telling Luke that they had dozens of witnesses claiming to have seen Luke in a German army shirt - no jacket. I wonder what happened to them?
-
After being in the media wearing it?
-
wear has she posted that
i havent seen it
as far as i know the source for borrowing her sisters clothes are jodis aunts.
From police interview heard at trial, luke said
Quote
She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister.
[/b]
-
Parky, when was the theory of the parka first introduced?
I'm not going to take some silly reasoning behind there being no jacket in the first place, for it to go missing.
That an army shirt transformed itself into a parka - of the police realising they had a shirt therefore changed their search to a jacket.
Nor that it was only by the pictures of him appearing in the paper - that memories were distorted to the extreme.
That the teacher was simply mistaken, that the male from the shop imagined it or of any other witnesses.
This was a long trial, the prosecution certainly chose the two above - for the very reason of the sightings being prior to the 30th of June.
Of an age, prior to camera phones - of not knowing how long he had this jacket for, to appear in any family holiday snaps with it on.
That of the emphasis put on this jacket by CM in the podcast - of Luke hating jackets, of how difficult it was to get him to wear one,
of her surprise in not only wanting to purchase a jacket, but a parka jacket at that.
This laddie clearly had many jackets, the parka, the blouson and the two or three on the back of his bedroom door.
So this, attempt by the defence to cause doubt on, when the sighting in the shop was - i.e. it was before the murder, he saw Luke in the shop wearing the Parka.
Was of course no doubt, swiftly clarified by the prosecution. You can of course add anything to "because of the murder and everything". When the rest of
the information is missing.
Is this the same guy who admitted, on the stand, that he remembered the parka "because of the murder and everything" - i.e. it was after the murder he saw Luke in the shop wearing the Parka?
We have of course witnessed time and time again - these particles of full statements, being used to, to often add weight to air. The remaining % of those statements are what
clearly show - why Luke was suspected and convicted of this crime.
-
The police of course, were sure of one thing - that an item of clothing, khaki in colour with a German army badge was missing.
They in turn of course would be receiving information from many sources, about a shirt and of a jacket.
I pointed out in my previous post about there being no camera phones, of not knowing how long Luke may have had this jacket.
And of course, it was summer - heavier outer wear clearly being used that day though, it was cooler, wet and dreek.
It was by some miracle of good fortune that Ms Mitchell, enjoyed summer sunshine, whilst eating her prawns outside.
Luke was clearly wearing a heavier jacket, Jodi a heavier, hooded sweat top.
It being summer of course, he could perhaps have just gotten the jacket at the tail end of winter, worn it on only few occasions.
Enough occasions though, for some people to remember seeing him, wearing it. That is what counts.
Enough occasions though, for the police to know that it had disappeared. Also what counts.
And of course the sightings that day by witnesses, F&W's obviously clear enough in it being a parka, so much so Ms Lean introduces
MK into the equation - of it possibly being him, wearing his parka that F&W saw.
-
The police, of course, were sure of nothing - that's why they had to build a circumstantial case!
They were "sure" a green ski mask was a black balaclava. They were "sure" a knife used for opening boxes had "disappeared" until it was pointed out to them that they had photos of it ... so they must have it.
By August 14th they had reports of jackets - a shiny green bomber jacket with orange lining, a "fishing style jacket" with matching trousers and a dark coloured jacket, maybe green, could have been a Parka "but I only say that because of the length."
The day wasn't "cooler, wet and dreich" - it was a day of changeable weather, warm and sunny in the early evening with a couple of sudden downpours - I was sitting outside on the deck reading a book after dinner when, all of a sudden, it started to rain. No miracles required, just typical Scottish weather.
Speculation about when he "might have got the jacket" is just that - speculation, with no evidence to support it. Of those who "remembered" Luke in a Parka, how many had not seen the media coverage of him in a Parka? The influence of such high profile coverage, for such a prolonged time, on recall cannot be ignored.
If the police "knew it had disappeared," why did it take them 9 months to start looking for it? They'd already raided Luke's house twice by then and had a liaison officer in place for six weeks over July and August. What took them so long?
F & W's sighting wasn't clear at all (see above) - that is the only reference, in the early statements from both of them, to a Parka - and all it says is, "it could have been."
I didn't introduce MK into the equation - he introduced himself, telling a friend he'd been spoken to by the police because he was "running on the Newbattle Road that night," when he hadn't spoken to the police at all. (This was before anyone had even heard of SF). However, his ownership of a Parka prior to the murder isn't in question so, yes, if it "could have been" a Parka that F & W saw and MK was on the Newbattle Road that evening, it equally "could have been" MK that they saw. Hardly solid evidence of anything and that's my point. None of the "evidence" in this case stands up to even the slightest scrutiny.
Could have been MK, could have been Luke, the girl "could have been Jodi", could have been 5 o'clock or 5.30 or 4.50, could have been 4.39 - 4.54 or an hour later, could have taken this route or that route back from the supermarket, could have been a blue hoodie with lighter blue bootcut jeans, could have left at 6 o'clock or 5.40 to go to Costco ... proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Nowhere near it.
-
Well, if Ms Lean, now, was sitting outside enjoying this sunny warm day. Case closed, for some. Proves beyond reasonable doubt that this
selective rain, happened only, on the other sides of 5.25pm.
Can't have been though, as we know it must have been dry in Newbattle for most of the evening?
Ms Mitchell was not just out eating dinner, she was still out just prior to 7pm.
We know this as Luke told her she was - "has Jodi been to the house" -"no Luke" - "how do you know mum, you're in the garden" -
"don't be silly Luke, Mia would let me know" ---------- "well if she does turn up, we're in the Abbey, she'll know where"
Yes, again here, that little insert of Jodi managing to sneak passed him to do so - and of the confusion of meeting in the Abbey with the boys.
Perhaps Ms Mitchell was keeping warm by the fire or stoking it?
Certainly a lack of flames - yet plenty of smoke it would appear, which of course happens, when trying to burn stuff in the rain.
No that would be rather silly - Ms Mitchell was still enjoying the sunshine, there was no rain in Newbattle?
I wonder why Luke was wearing a jacket, after all he hated wearing them.
I wonder why Jodi was wearing a heavy, hooded sweat top.
I wonder why MK, was not only out running yet with a parka jacket on to boot.
I wonder why her indoors was wasting electric - drying the holiday clothes when they could have been out to dry.
I wonder why the 'stocky' man was also wearing heavier outer clothing.
Most of all, I wonder why investigations take place at all.
Wouldn't life be simpler - if the police took a leaf out of Ms Leans book (pardon the pun)
And simply went on the very first account given by all - in relation to crime.
Perhaps that's what saw to Luke's downfall in the first place.
We hear of this 14yr old laddie - the disbelief in carrying out this heinous murder.
Of the police believing they could out smarten Luke - "they did not bank on Luke being Luke though, did they"
Perhaps Luke simply believed, that he could out smarten the police.
What Luke did not perhaps bank on was - the police being the police though.
That this rather neat set of affairs - would be deciphered and pulled apart.
That the most simplest things amongst this - would show the most flaws.
That an alibi and a partially trained dog - were so far removed, they led to his demise.
It matters not, those cries of 'beyond reasonable doubt' he was convicted by the evidence he himself gave.
So heavily weighted in flaws - he gave the police no choice, but to pursue him.
They simply went on the evidence before them, evidence they could not ignore.
His alibi fell apart for many reasons - those reasons given directly from the three involved.
It was from himself that suspicion fell upon him - backed up by evidence from others.
Not the other way around. IMO of course and that of the majority.
-
The podcast with CM is the same mismatch of nonsensical information - all over the place.
Can't remember key elements of information and adds arms and legs to most other areas.
The clear emphasis that is pushed out - is blatantly false.
Examples - I'm not going to use " in all of this.
Has Jodi been to the house, no Luke - how would you know, you're in the back garden
Don't be silly Luke Mia would alert me.
See our house you have the lounge, goes through into the kitchen then out back.
I could be burgled and I wouldn't have a clue, I mean literally not a clue.
If anyone came to the door then Mia would alert me - but not if being burgled?!
How long was Luke seeing Jodi - erm em about 5months I think.
What time was Jodi discovered - erm em was late about 11 I think.
Luke hated Jackets you could not get him to wear one.
You could buy him jackets but he would not wear them.
Mum I like that parka jacket, why Luke its July you don't wear jackets.
Aye mum but it will be winter, aye Luke but you don't wear jackets.
Mum its in a sale.
Ping -see that word sale to a mum you just have to buy then.
But that FLO was a nasty piece of work, every time she opened her mouth
she just lied.
She took the receipt and they knew we bought this jacket after the murder.
Luke clearly wore Jackets - why the need to say otherwise.
Luke left the house he was behind a German shepherd, if you know anything about them
then you will know how fast they go. Luke was a fit young laddie, combine the two, a fit young laddie
behind a fast, very fast German Shepherd.
You see from out house to the top of the path Is a fair distance, from Mayfield it is further.
The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield, lots of emphasis here, they had to
travel much further than Luke - how the hell where they at the top of this path when he got there.
Now the actual truth here is - that this search trio came from the bottom of Mayfield, Ms Lean I believe stays at the top
end of Mayfield, a good ten minutes walk perhaps between Waverley Street to where she stays.
Ms Mitchells business is in the bottom end of Mayfield, next to the housing scheme where this gran stays.
Again this need to try and add weight to air - As was this, having to DIRECTLY walk passed YW's house.
What is clear is this arrangement to meet in Easthouse's to organise a search.
What is becoming clearer - is that Luke should simply have been at Judith's prior to the search trio
reaching Easthouse's - he remained on this path, therefore bringing the search trio to him.
It was Luke who first thought to search this path, it was Luke who instantly offered to use his dog.
It was Luke who made it clear that he had only looked on the path itself.
It was Luke only who took the notion to look over this wall.
It was Luke who stated he had not been in the woodland before.
It was Luke who stated he knew not of this V.
It therefore was not the search trio who initiated this search around this path - It was simply Luke.
We can see clearly now why the gran wanted to search properly -
As with seeing her granddaughter - she needed to check this 'something'
To look properly - aided of course with Luke's added offer of using his dog, of asking for something of Jodi's -
-
The podcast with CM is the same mismatch of nonsensical information - all over the place.
Can't remember key elements of information and adds arms and legs to most other areas.
The clear emphasis that is pushed out - is blatantly false.
Examples - I'm not going to use " in all of this.
Has Jodi been to the house, no Luke - how would you know, you're in the back garden
Don't be silly Luke Mia would alert me.
See our house you have the lounge, goes through into the kitchen then out back.
I could be burgled and I wouldn't have a clue, I mean literally not a clue.
If anyone came to the door then Mia would alert me - but not if being burgled?!
How long was Luke seeing Jodi - erm em about 5months I think.
What time was Jodi discovered - erm em was late about 11 I think.
Luke hated Jackets you could not get him to wear one.
You could buy him jackets but he would not wear them.
Mum I like that parka jacket, why Luke its July you don't wear jackets.
Aye mum but it will be winter, aye Luke but you don't wear jackets.
Mum its in a sale.
Ping -see that word sale to a mum you just have to buy then.
But that FLO was a nasty piece of work, every time she opened her mouth
she just lied.
She took the receipt and they knew we bought this jacket after the murder.
Luke clearly wore Jackets - why the need to say otherwise.
Luke left the house he was behind a German shepherd, if you know anything about them
then you will know how fast they go. Luke was a fit young laddie, combine the two, a fit young laddie
behind a fast, very fast German Shepherd.
You see from out house to the top of the path Is a fair distance, from Mayfield it is further.
The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield, lots of emphasis here, they had to
travel much further than Luke - how the hell where they at the top of this path when he got there.
Now the actual truth here is - that this search trio came from the bottom of Mayfield, Ms Lean I believe stays at the top
end of Mayfield, a good ten minutes walk perhaps between Waverley Street to where she stays.
Ms Mitchells business is in the bottom end of Mayfield, next to the housing scheme where this gran stays.
Again this need to try and add weight to air - As was this, having to DIRECTLY walk passed YW's house.
What is clear is this arrangement to meet in Easthouse's to organise a search.
What is becoming clearer - is that Luke should simply have been at Judith's prior to the search trio
reaching Easthouse's - he remained on this path, therefore bringing the search trio to him.
It was Luke who first thought to search this path, it was Luke who instantly offered to use his dog.
It was Luke who made it clear that he had only looked on the path itself.
It was Luke only who took the notion to look over this wall.
It was Luke who stated he had not been in the woodland before.
It was Luke who stated he knew not of this V.
It therefore was not the search trio who initiated this search around this path - It was simply Luke.
We can see clearly now why the gran wanted to search properly -
As with seeing her granddaughter - she needed to check this 'something'
To look properly - aided of course with Luke's added offer of using his dog, of asking for something of Jodi's -
I am not listening to the podcasts BTW. Am I missing anything?
-
The podcast with CM is the same mismatch of nonsensical information - all over the place.
Can't remember key elements of information and adds arms and legs to most other areas.
The clear emphasis that is pushed out - is blatantly false.
Examples - I'm not going to use " in all of this.
Has Jodi been to the house, no Luke - how would you know, you're in the back garden
Don't be silly Luke Mia would alert me.
See our house you have the lounge, goes through into the kitchen then out back.
I could be burgled and I wouldn't have a clue, I mean literally not a clue.
If anyone came to the door then Mia would alert me - but not if being burgled?!
How long was Luke seeing Jodi - erm em about 5months I think.
What time was Jodi discovered - erm em was late about 11 I think.
Luke hated Jackets you could not get him to wear one.
You could buy him jackets but he would not wear them.
Mum I like that parka jacket, why Luke its July you don't wear jackets.
Aye mum but it will be winter, aye Luke but you don't wear jackets.
Mum its in a sale.
Ping -see that word sale to a mum you just have to buy then.
But that FLO was a nasty piece of work, every time she opened her mouth
she just lied.
She took the receipt and they knew we bought this jacket after the murder.
Luke clearly wore Jackets - why the need to say otherwise.
Luke left the house he was behind a German shepherd, if you know anything about them
then you will know how fast they go. Luke was a fit young laddie, combine the two, a fit young laddie
behind a fast, very fast German Shepherd.
You see from out house to the top of the path Is a fair distance, from Mayfield it is further.
The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield, lots of emphasis here, they had to
travel much further than Luke - how the hell where they at the top of this path when he got there.
Now the actual truth here is - that this search trio came from the bottom of Mayfield, Ms Lean I believe stays at the top
end of Mayfield, a good ten minutes walk perhaps between Waverley Street to where she stays.
Ms Mitchells business is in the bottom end of Mayfield, next to the housing scheme where this gran stays.
Again this need to try and add weight to air - As was this, having to DIRECTLY walk passed YW's house.
What is clear is this arrangement to meet in Easthouse's to organise a search.
What is becoming clearer - is that Luke should simply have been at Judith's prior to the search trio
reaching Easthouse's - he remained on this path, therefore bringing the search trio to him.
It was Luke who first thought to search this path, it was Luke who instantly offered to use his dog.
It was Luke who made it clear that he had only looked on the path itself.
It was Luke only who took the notion to look over this wall.
It was Luke who stated he had not been in the woodland before.
It was Luke who stated he knew not of this V.
It therefore was not the search trio who initiated this search around this path - It was simply Luke.
We can see clearly now why the gran wanted to search properly -
As with seeing her granddaughter - she needed to check this 'something'
To look properly - aided of course with Luke's added offer of using his dog, of asking for something of Jodi's -
from the podcast i font rember cm saying anythin of the sort.
-
Yeah but he went for a jog in the river and pulled every cord in his parka to make it look like it was clumped at the back and a fishing style/pilot/german army shirt.
Thats when i stopped reading his posts.
-
I am not listening to the podcasts BTW. Am I missing anything?
In short no. I found them helpful for study purpose.
Full of contradiction and dare I say - suspects and theories.
CM herself appears to have around 5, all equally responsible.
-
So this, attempt by the defence to cause doubt on, when the sighting in the shop was - i.e. it was before the murder, he saw Luke in the shop wearing the Parka.
Was of course no doubt, swiftly clarified by the prosecution. You can of course add anything to "because of the murder and everything". When the rest of
the information is missing.
Ok, Parky, from this, it appears you assume that the prosecution "swiftly clarified" when the sighting was. So, tell everyone, what was said, and how was it clarified? What is the "rest of the information" that is "missing" (and which, presumably, the prosecution clarified)?
I'll help out with the start - the witness had already stated that he had seen Luke in a local shop wearing a Parka jacket. Donald Findlay asked him what, in particular, caused him to notice what Luke was wearing and that it was, categorically, a Parka jacket. The witness responded, "because of the murder and everything."
Over to you.
(Clue, he couldn't have noticed anything "because of the murder and everything" prior to the murder.)
-
S.Lean:
"He was the only searcher. the others didn't leave for another 15-20mins, after Luke left"
Luke got a call at 10.49pm he is on this path at 10.59pm.
The search trio left at or about 11.04pm.
All correct.
10.49pm until 11.04pm or thereafter. 15-20mins.
Luke said to Judith he "was coming up this path with his dog" at 10.59pm.
Ms Lean now changes this to "he stopped to chat with Judith, prior to entering the path"
Judith conversed with everyone, (Luke, police and AW) which is clear by those phone logs.
Aw being in the same household as JaJ and SK - the search trio.
Telling each of this meet to search with the other.
The police also in attendance at Judiths house?
We know the somewhat ludicrous reasoning that comes forth from Ms Lean.
Luke was going to Judith's to help search, to go through friends phone numbers.
What friends? they were on a school trip. He would have been asked.
Who did Luke say or assume he would be searching with? He would have been asked.
Yet Ms Lean implies, that neither Luke or the search trio - knew each were going to search.
Ludicrous and messy.
But then Ms Lean believes the reconstruction went out - as the weather was the same?! Messy.
Leave that aside though - Luke sped up this path, he wanted to get to Judith's as quickly as possible.
Luke Mitchel should have been in Judith's well before this search trio reached Easthouses.
He was not, he simply led this search trio there.
This is why Ms Lean tries, very badly to imply the search trio left prior to Luke, she clearly states publicly (podcast) the truth.
Luke Mitchel was prepped and ready for that call coming through from this girls mother.
He instantly offers to search.
He instantly goes to search this path.
He stays on this path - until the search trio arrive.
He instantly offers to use his dog to track.
They set off down together.
Less than 10mins later he is calling 999.
Luke Mitchel and only Luke could have did this in this time - only by knowing exactly where to go.
Simply not possible otherwise.
The best dogs and handlers In this world, could not have achieved this, in this time - with items to scent.
In these conditions, of being on a path and not in the woodland - cut off by a high thick wall.
No trained searcher, could have simply entered this woodland, and made this discovery in seconds.
His eagerness, his plan, his warped mind - snared in his own trap.
-
Why neither the police, the prosecution or the SCCRC looked at the possibility of Ms Leans,
Mistaken Identity?
We are of course, referring here to MK.
This claimed doppelganger for Luke.
The same MK who was not on Newbattle Road around t-time.
The same MK who was caught on CTV footage, elsewhere.
The same MK Ms Lean put forward to the SCCRC for mistaken identity.
The same MK Ms Lean believes, could have been the person F&W witnessed.
This is of course, after repeatedly trying to imply - they only saw Luke, at the Abbey entrance.
Leave that aside however;
F&W only saw one Luke, not two.
The one Luke they saw, was at this wooden gate.
They did not see a further Luke, sitting on the wall at the end of his estate.
The did not see a further Luke standing in the Abbey entrance - looking over at this other Luke,
sitting on the wall.
Messy and Ludicrous.
Simply put - One youth (Luke) at the wooden gate, did not have a twin sitting or standing at the entrance to
Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
That really would have stood out.
-
Luke said to Judith he "was coming up this path with his dog" at 10.59pm.
Ms Lean now changes this to "he stopped to chat with Judith, prior to entering the path"
No. I’ve always said Luke spoke to Judith at the Newbattle entrance to the path at 10.59 and told her he was at the entrance, about to go up the path. It was Judith who said Luke told her her was “coming up the path on his bike,” later changed to “with his dog”. The two are not mutually exclusive (speaking at the entrance to the path then coming up the path, I mean, not "the dog" and "the bike" - there never was a bike).
Judith conversed with everyone, (Luke, police and AW) which is clear by those phone logs.
Aw being in the same household as JaJ and SK - the search trio.
Telling each of this meet to search with the other.
The police also in attendance at Judiths house?
Evidence? There is zero evidence that the trio knew Luke was heading for the path when they left. Both Alice and Janine tried to claim they’d spoken with or texted Luke – the phone records proved they did not. Judith said she didn’t know why “everyone” had headed for the path – no-one had explained that to her.
We know the somewhat ludicrous reasoning that comes forth from Ms Lean.
No, you don’t. You choose to interpret information illogically to be able to make this claim
Luke was going to Judith's to help search, to go through friends phone numbers.
What friends? they were on a school trip. He would have been asked.
He would have been asked? So he says he’ll go up the path looking for Jodi on the way and Judith says no, wait, go through your phone and give me all the names and numbers of other friends she might be with before you leave? I don’t think so!
Who did Luke say or assume he would be searching with? He would have been asked.
Yet Ms Lean implies, that neither Luke or the search trio - knew each were going to search.
Ludicrous and messy.
No-one, is the simple answer. He was leaving alone and making arrangements to go to Judith’s alone, hence his mother’s insistence that he take the dog. There is no evidence whatsoever that he knew the trio were heading for the path or that they would be there when he got to the junction. They could not have got to the junction of the paths at the time they were there if they left at 11.04 – they needed 20 minutes, minimum – taking the time to 11.24 minimum and, therefore, not enough time to get down the path to the V point, three of them over the wall and the first call to the police.
But then Ms Lean believes the reconstruction went out - as the weather was the same?! Messy.
Misquote. I have never said that was the “reason” for the reconstruction. I made the point in relation to your continued claims that it was a cold, rainy, overcast day when it was not.
Leave that aside though - Luke sped up this path, he wanted to get to Judith's as quickly as possible.
Luke Mitchel should have been in Judith's well before this search trio reached Easthouses.
He was not, he simply led this search trio there.
This is why Ms Lean tries, very badly to imply the search trio left prior to Luke, she clearly states publicly (podcast) the truth.
Oh, dear, you make my point for me! He should, indeed, have been at Judith’s well before the search trio reached Easthouses. Which leaves only two options. Luke waited around on the path for 20 minutes in order to lead the trio back down the path (not possible because of the fixed time of the call to the police) or the search trio left earlier than 11.04 in order to be at the junction waiting for Luke.
Luke Mitchel was prepped and ready for that call coming through from this girls mother.
He instantly offers to search.
He instantly goes to search this path.
He stays on this path - until the search trio arrive.
He instantly offers to use his dog to track.
They set off down together.
Less than 10mins later he is calling 999.
Luke Mitchel and only Luke could have did this in this time - only by knowing exactly where to go.
Simply not possible otherwise.
The best dogs and handlers In this world, could not have achieved this, in this time - with items to scent.
In these conditions, of being on a path and not in the woodland - cut off by a high thick wall.
No trained searcher, could have simply entered this woodland, and made this discovery in seconds.
His eagerness, his plan, his warped mind - snared in his own trap.
Evidence for any of this? You have none, it just suits your “theory” to make these claims and ignore the actual evidence that refutes it.
-
Luke Mitchel was prepped and ready for that call coming through from this girls mother.
He instantly offers to search.
He instantly goes to search this path.
He stays on this path - until the search trio arrive.
He instantly offers to use his dog to track.
They set off down together.
Less than 10mins later he is calling 999.
Luke Mitchel and only Luke could have did this in this time - only by knowing exactly where to go.
Simply not possible otherwise.
The best dogs and handlers In this world, could not have achieved this, in this time - with items to scent.
In these conditions, of being on a path and not in the woodland - cut off by a high thick wall.
No trained searcher, could have simply entered this woodland, and made this discovery in seconds.
His eagerness, his plan, his warped mind - snared in his own trap.
SL:
Evidence for any of this? You have none, it just suits your “theory” to make these claims and ignore the actual evidence that refutes it
Evidence:
10.49pm - call from Judith, she is going to phone the police. He offers to search.
10.50pm - call to the police.
10.52pm Luke claims to have left, after the 10.49pm call.
In this 2mins he has a conversation with his mother (debate)
He goes upstairs to speak with Shane, to ask for a torch.
Shane goes downstairs to get a torch for Luke.
Like Luke - all are very fast and very precise.
Prepped and ready indeed.
He does not look anywhere along Newbattle Road ( you picked fault with the search trio for this)
He is very instant in going to this path - he is the first person to be on this path, he is the first person
to claim to be looking on this path.
He is on/at this path by 10.59pm.
No theory there.
He is very fit and he is very fast, behind a very fit and very fast dog.(CM)
He goes up this path at haste. (SL)
The search trio meet - within 10mins of this meet a call is made to 999.
No theory there - or is there?
The evidence supports all of this - it is only Luke's account that disputes it.
Because Luke - claims to have sped up this path, seeing the search trio as he was approaching the
top, does not make it correct.
It simply means - as the evidence shows, that Luke was on this path first, that at this speed he should have
been off it and at Judiths.
He was not, he clearly did not speed up this path behind his very fit and fast dog at haste.
He simply held back.
Yes, IMO what evolved then is impossible, not just my opinion of course, that of the investigation.
We have witnessed over and over these rather futile claims - of dog walker finding bodies.
My point clearly is, a trained tracker and dog, could not have managed this, in this timescale,
in these conditions.
If you can prove otherwise - fine.
Which still does not show - that it is remotely possible for a claimed, partially trained pet to do so.
Ludicrous and messy.
-
Word play - This futile bleat over time of "having all of the evidence" to show as proof that Ms Lean does not lie.
Having all of these case files, only shows one thing - that Ms Lean has all of the case files.
Plain and simple.
To back up what exactly?
To back up that six words, extracted from a statement of more than a 1000 words is true.
Of course they are true.
Any claims put out alongside of these, hold no more weight than any other persons.
They are not proof of anything.
Only proof that they hold, is that they are selective words from multiple statements.
The arms and legs added, In an attempt to stitch them together, are just that - arms and legs.
They grow arms and legs - because these solo, one liners - make no sense in themselves.
The rest of those 1000 words plus are required.
Reading between the lines - is the order of the day, it would seem.
The investigating team, the prosecution and the defence.
All had fair play - in reading between those lines.
The SCCRC certainly reading the lines Ms Lean and Co omitted.
-
The fact of the matter.
Sandra will never explain away the inconsistency in the Mitchell's statements.
Sandra will never explain away why Luke was never seen on his walk home from school.
Sandra will never explain away why Shane never took the lie detector.
Sandra will never explain away the smoke in the back garden.
Sandra will never explain away why Shane & Phil have said nothing since.
Sandra will never explain away the Flemming & Walsh sighting.
Sandra will never explain away the Bryson sighting.
Sandra will never explain away the threats, physically & verbally that Luke inflicted on others.
Sandra will never explain away the jacket.
Sandra will never explain away the knife pouch.
she has given explantions for all those things weather the reader beives them or not is up to the reader.
-
You're not "simply asking questions," Parky - saying it doesn't make it true. You are also making false claims and repeating outright lies. I've made it perfectly clear, many times, very publicly, why I "started this fight." I became actively involved long before there was any "study purpose" or "book material" on the horizon (five years and four years respectively). I understand that you cannot accept that someone would fight so actively for no other reason that a burning need to challenge terrible injustice - just because you can't accept it doesn't mean it's not a fact.
"I became actively involved long before there was any "study purpose" or "book material" on the horizon (five years and four years respectively)"
"Gained substantially"? In what ways?
From around 2002/3 until gaining your doctorate - you were studying the very subject that held your interest and gathering book material.
Stating that you simply had this burning need to challenge terrible injustice - does not make it true, either.
More so Ms Lean - This very claim of terrible injustice, is how you perceive things. You are hardly Just and true in what you do.
Do you agree?
When you put out your first book, there was reference to it being recommended by the CCRC and sitting Judiciary.
Based solely it would seem - on a rather feeble email you produced, with someone stating "Thank you, the CCRC recommended your book"
The CCRC themselves, and not a third party were contacted - they denied recommending your book..
These recommendations by the CCRC were subsequently removed. The sitting Judiciary still stands, as does the book itself.
In 2008 - when all you had to go on where media reports and the word of both CM and LM.
The question was still not answered - whom, on the sitting Judiciary recommended your book?
Self praise perhaps?
You state, you started your PHD in 2008, the book was released in 2008, with reference to studying your PHD at Edinburgh University, rather than Stirling. Many years of study beforehand to obtain a degree and of gathering book material.
7 years by 2010 of actively being involved with injustice. Non disclosure of study material/subjects due to data protection.
It is a very fine line to claim - these two did not go hand in hand - they obviously did.
So yes, IMO and my belief, this was indeed a two way street - You did not solely fight for injustice with Luke's case or
anyone else's, you used material from these - for fighting?, for study and book material, mutually inclusive of each other.
It is no easy fete to complete all of this, many years of hard graft. You have done extremely well to gain your qualifications.
Something to be admired.
However, when pushing forward for injustice continuously - you are hardly Just in doing so.
The lies, the misleading, the misinformation - backed with ludicrous theories, is itself - a double act from both yourself and
CM. As much as you may now attempt - to distance yourself from her claims, putting them down to simple mistakes.
Both most definitely tarred with the same feather?
In simple terms - this justice you seek, you seek by backing lies?
These 9 years of active study in obtaining both your degree and PHD are long over. Doing well in you full time employment.
There is no back up of financial support, there are at present, one would assume no further qualification in the pipeline.
Whatever time you have now to give, is solely from your own time without personal gain. And now is the time your man
hours require payment, thus the plea for funds - to pay for your time.
Rightly so, you are fully qualified now, any work done on this case or others - needs to be met with living costs.
Have you actively stopped working or fighting on other cases now? That this payment asked for, solely to give your time to Luke's case? Or perhaps a bit of every ones? Again, killing two birds with one stone?
-
Harper:
Parky, can you answer the same question? What motivates you, when you already know that Luke Mitchell will not be getting out?
Luke Mitchel may very well get out - Quantum Leap there, going from the 10yrs I mentioned to "you already
know that Luke Mitchell will not be getting out"
How could I, or anyone possibly know this?
Can I answer the same question? Perhaps you should ask it again Harper.
This time by omitting the end, of what I don't already know.
That may help you to understand.
You mentioned that you had been kind enough to include Davie's, Lithium and my posts in your reading time.
The answer to your question lies there. It is relatively simple.
Once you find the answer, you may notice the time I have taken, to research one Q I had.
Why did suspicion fall upon Luke?
-
Luke was going to Judith's to help search, to go through friends phone numbers.
What friends? they were on a school trip. He would have been asked.
He would have been asked? So he says he’ll go up the path looking for Jodi on the way and Judith says no, wait, go through your phone and give me all the names and numbers of other friends she might be with before you leave? I don’t think so!
[/color]
Yes, he would have been asked - by the police?
This is evidence from his statement is it not? - That he claims to have told Judith, he would help search,
that he would go through friends phone numbers?
You have stated already that a lot of their year was on a school trip.
What friends therefore, did Luke have to go through, that were not on this school trip?
Simply Ms Lean - who were these friends?
-
I always believed the justice system existed to find out the truth. I know, now, I was wrong, but I still believe the truth matters
"but I still believe the truth matters"
Why therefore is this campaign wrought with misleading information and lies.
Perhaps some study of the words truth and Just - may help, prior to entering into anther review.
Ms Lean excuses CM's as simple mistakes - What does CM say in return of Ms Leans?
-
Examples please parky
-
"but I still believe the truth matters"
Why therefore is this campaign wrought with misleading information and lies.
Perhaps some study of the words truth and Just - may help, prior to entering into anther review.
Ms Lean excuses CM's as simple mistakes - What does CM say in return of Ms Leans?
No-one, yet, has been able to come up with a single, credible reason why I would lie or mislead. I had no connection to either family before Jodi was murdered, I live in the local community as did my children for many years - why would I risk getting a murderer of the hook by lying and misleading, knowing that he would be coming back into the community where I and my children lived our lives?
-
Not going to address the question then, Davie?
-
No-one, yet, has been able to come up with a single, credible reason why I would lie or mislead. I had no connection to either family before Jodi was murdered, I live in the local community as did my children for many years - why would I risk getting a murderer of the hook by lying and misleading, knowing that he would be coming back into the community where I and my children lived our lives?
You have answered your own question in part.
The lies, the misleading and misrepresentation of facts - pose no risk in getting a murderer off the hook
They stand for nothing, they are not evidence - They do not and never will, gain Luke Mitchell freedom.
So the relevant question is not why would I - but why do you?
-
No examples then.
-
Marty;
You have made it abundantly clear that my posts are "totties", still to fathom what this means.
I'll take a guess here and assume it is not complimentary.
Amongst numerous posts I have put forward - there lies some of these examples.
Now perhaps would be a good time to read them, if you can be bothered of course.
I will however take the time to give you a handful of examples, from the list of 47 I have, to date.
Here, is a post that someone made, in response to Ms Leans podcast.
Tell me if you believe this to be a lie, misleading or blatant misrepresentation of the facts, that Ms Lean put out?
That warranted the following response;
I am shocked that the police took a polaroid photo of Luke Mitchell and showed only that photo to a witness.
This is not allowed and police should have shown a selection of photographs.
What they did was suggestive and leading.
.
We know of course that AB was shown 12 pictures not just one - it was a photo identification process.
Now for this, it is irrelevant how a person may feel about these 12 pictures.
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, she was shown 12 pictures.
Used to imply that AB was shown one picture only - it worked with the above poster.
Both CM and Ms Lean state that the search trio "had to walk passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The relevant point, is not - what these two feel this search trio should have done, the relevant point is the blatant misrepresentation of facts.
That fact is, the truth is - they did not have to walk passed here, they would have had to walk backwards to do so.
Used, to imply this search trio, should have popped in to this lady's house whilst walking passed it.
"The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth is, the fact is - this search trio came from a bottom end of Mayfield.
Used to imply this search trio had much further to walk.
"SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ."
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, SK was in the company of both his girlfriend and father.
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
Ms Lean explained this away - claiming that all she had to go on, were, media reports and court transcripts.
And the word of both Luke and Corinne Mitchell.
Was that a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts, as;
In this very same book, we have;
"Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true."
Therefore Marty - around my various pieces of written work, It interests me, as to what motivates a person - repeatedly;
To lie, to mislead and blatantly misinform people.
Amidst these studies - I have gained further insight into this case, and realise, fundamentally, why suspicion upon Luke, fell.
I have come to a conclusion, in part - as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out - in this case.
That there is little, in the way of actual evidence - to prove that Luke is innocent.
Therefore the above - may be used for multiple purpose, but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning.
Only they know the answer.
Unfortunately - is this claimed search for the truth, for Justice - the truth itself is not being put forward. Is this Just, to do so?.
-
Information about the leading nature of the photographs shown to Andrina Bryson has been in the public domain since 2008. Top experts have commented on how misleading the photo spread was -John Scott, for example, said they didn’t have an arrow pointing to his head, but they may as well have done. Was John Scott lying, misleading or blatantly misrepresenting the facts?
Did they check Yvonne’s flat to see if Jodi was there? No, they didn’t. Had Jodi been found in Yvonne’s flat previously when she was not where she was supposed to be? Yes, she had. Was Janine sent to walk the couple of minutes to Yvonne’s to see if Jodi was there on previous occasions? Yes, she was. So why not that night? Why not, since they were out anyway, take the couple of minutes to check the flat?
I have repeatedly put out the police timings for the walk from Alice’s house to the junction of the paths and the V point – the length of time that walk took is a fact that matters. If Luke was at the Newbattle end of the path at 10.59 and this family didn’t leave Alice’s house until 11.05 at the earliest, they could not have been at the junction of the paths prior to 11.25pm FACT.
"SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ."
The truth, the fact is, SK was in the company of both his girlfriend and father.
Until 2014, that claim was not made known to the defence. Why not?
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
That was a typo for which I apologised and took immediate steps to correct. No lie, no blatant misrepresentation, a simple error.
I have come to a conclusion, in part - as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out - in this case…. but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning.
Only they know the answer.
So what is your conclusion, Parky? Just because you choose to interpret information as lies, misleading or “blatant misrepresentation” doesn’t make it so.
-
Sandra L
Information about the leading nature of the photographs shown to Andrina Bryson has been in the public domain since 2008. Top experts have commented on how misleading the photo spread was -John Scott, for example, said they didn’t have an arrow pointing to his head, but they may as well have done. Was John Scott lying, misleading or blatantly misrepresenting the facts?
Ms Lean, yet again, shimmies away from the point - the point being, that this campaign is wrought with lies and misleading information.
Ignores what I have said completely - highlights John Scott, who is not being misleading, as he is discussing the 12 pictures.
And it is ok for Ms Lean to lie and mislead - as the information is available to the public?
So it is OK to lie - people can see the truth elsewhere, if they can be bothered.
Therefore the lies matter not - no harm done?
Messy.
Sandra L
Did they check Yvonne’s flat to see if Jodi was there? No, they didn’t. Had Jodi been found in Yvonne’s flat previously when she was not where she was supposed to be? Yes, she had. Was Janine sent to walk the couple of minutes to Yvonne’s to see if Jodi was there on previous occasions? Yes, she was. So why not that night? Why not, since they were out anyway, take the couple of minutes to check the flat?
And again - completely ignores the point.
Of the blatant lies being told by both Ms Lean and CM.
And gives her opinion instead, of what she FEELS should have happened.
Thus believing her lies are justified?
The lie being "That the search trio HAD to walk passed YW's whilst heading DIRECTLY to the path"
Sandra L
I have repeatedly put out the police timings for the walk from Alice’s house to the junction of the paths and the V point – the length of time that walk took is a fact that matters. If Luke was at the Newbattle end of the path at 10.59 and this family didn’t leave Alice’s house until 11.05 at the earliest, they could not have been at the junction of the paths prior to 11.25pm FACT.
And again - excuses the lies, justifies them on behalf of CM.
The lie is "That the search trio had to walk from the top of Mayfield"
The relevant point - is the lies.
That the people campaigning for innocence.
Are lying.
Messy.
Parky41:
"SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ."
The truth, the fact is, SK was in the company of both his girlfriend and father.
Until 2014, that claim was not made known to the defence. Why not?
Rubbish: Let us digest and dissect that a little.
First of all, POA, does not excuse Ms Lean from being - overtly defensive of Luke, to the point of lying repeatedly.
Putting herself in the shoes, of being his defence does not equate to - "that claim was not made known to the defence"
Let us step back to 2004-5.
SK, his statements.
JaJ, her statements.
Mr K - his statement.
The defence - Findlay and Co.
Access to these statements.
Precognitions.
The SCCRC.
So whilst Ms Lean claims - not to have actually read this fathers statement.
It does not equate to the defence not being aware of this alibi.
Is Ms Lean, yet again, simply excusing herself here - from those very lies.
Caught in her own web of deceit.
More so - even IF Ms Lean did not read this statement until 2014 it is 2019.
CM also - still lying for 5yrs at least?
Messy.
Sandra L - No Smoke:
Quote
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
Sandra L:
That was a typo for which I apologised and took immediate steps to correct. No lie, no blatant misrepresentation, a simple error.
[/color]
And yet again, excusing herself as this being a simple error, typo.
The typo may be - SK rather than LK.--a typo of several letters not one of course. Very odd typo.
David Dickie was not on this path at the crucial time - the crucial time, being between 5 and 5.30pm.
The mystery man was not seen following Jodi onto this path.
And completely ignores the reason (lie perhaps) she gave before for this.
Of this being prior to having the case papers, of becoming POA.
In this very same chapter of the book - she refers to reading the case papers.
The statements.
Messy.
Parky41:
I have come to a conclusion, in part - as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out - in this case…. but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning
.
Sandra L:
So what is your conclusion, Parky? Just because you choose to interpret information as lies, misleading or “blatant misrepresentation” doesn’t make it so.
And again - only Ms Lean and Ms Mitchel will know the reasons behind these lies, behind those blatant misrepresentations of the facts.
For that is what they are - no interpretation needed.
-
So after sifting through 16years of someones work trying to catch them out, this utter pish is all you can come up with in your writings😂😂😂. Idont know what or who your supposed to be but how long have you wasted on that muck.
You cant win the arguement mate so turning you venom to hate. Just for the record nearly everyposter on here has admitted to not reading your posts at some point wonder why? I have just wasted my time on points that have been answered time and time again. But not from professor parky of course.
-
Marty:
Perhaps a simple thank you would have been more appropriate.
I do however agree, that these lies, blatant misrepresentation of facts, are indeed - "utter pish"
Whilst is may be admiral, to jump, to only Ms Leans defence in your attack upon myself personally, not just my post.
Reading through these forums, online evidence and so forth - has been a far cry from sifting through 16rs of Ms Leans work.
The lies and so forth, in abundance from these alone - plain for all to see, if they take the time.
One therefore dreads to imagine, how much more there is - amongst those 16yrs of actual work.
Such strong, personal words to use of "venom to hate" towards someone, who has highlighted some of these.
One's time would be better served, checking what they post - prior to joining forces, of promoting lies and misinformation.
Just a suggestion, of course.
No arguments to be won Marty, how petty and somewhat futile to enter into some form of game play, of scoring points.
It matters not who may read what I post Marty - it does however matter from the campaigners side, who may read or listen to them.
Perhaps the reason why this campaign has gotten no-where, when it is founded upon lies, blanket misinformation.
Those very people who seek truth and Justice are neither truthful or Just in their actions, do you not feel that is wrong? That something is amiss?
Silly question really - when you, yourself have treated people unjustly, an innocent man from a funeral directors, being but one.
If you, were truly just the messenger of this "slipped, cat out of the bag info" Do you feel you were being used Marty?
Someone to pedal their wares, so to speak.- wares in the form of misinformation, lies?
Coughing up this coffin information - mistakenly, coughing up "utter pish" to boot?
Flying with the craws Marty?
Yet to see any explanation for the lies Marty - just some steadfast shimmying around them.
-
Happy Christmas, Lithium (and everyone else). I hope you have a day surrounded with friends, family, love and laughter and find a space in your heart to appreciate just how precious that is.
Thinking of all of those with an empty space at the table and those with no table at all. Those of us able to post here are so incredibly lucky and blessed - today is a good day to remember with gratitude.
Hope everyone has a lovely time!
-
Happy Christmas, Lithium (and everyone else). I hope you have a day surrounded with friends, family, love and laughter and find a space in your heart to appreciate just how precious that is.
Thinking of all of those with an empty space at the table and those with no table at all. Those of us able to post here are so incredibly lucky and blessed - today is a good day to remember with gratitude.
Hope everyone has a lovely time!
Thank you Sandra and likewise to you and yours.
-
Marty:
Perhaps a simple thank you would have been more appropriate.
I do however agree, that these lies, blatant misrepresentation of facts, are indeed - "utter pish"
Whilst is may be admiral, to jump, to only Ms Leans defence in your attack upon myself personally, not just my post.
Reading through these forums, online evidence and so forth - has been a far cry from sifting through 16rs of Ms Leans work.
The lies and so forth, in abundance from these alone - plain for all to see, if they take the time.
One therefore dreads to imagine, how much more there is - amongst those 16yrs of actual work.
Such strong, personal words to use of "venom to hate" towards someone, who has highlighted some of these.
One's time would be better served, checking what they post - prior to joining forces, of promoting lies and misinformation.
Just a suggestion, of course.
No arguments to be won Marty, how petty and somewhat futile to enter into some form of game play, of scoring points.
It matters not who may read what I post Marty - it does however matter from the campaigners side, who may read or listen to them.
Perhaps the reason why this campaign has gotten no-where, when it is founded upon lies, blanket misinformation.
Those very people who seek truth and Justice are neither truthful or Just in their actions, do you not feel that is wrong? That something is amiss?
Silly question really - when you, yourself have treated people unjustly, an innocent man from a funeral directors, being but one.
If you, were truly just the messenger of this "slipped, cat out of the bag info" Do you feel you were being used Marty?
Someone to pedal their wares, so to speak.- wares in the form of misinformation, lies?
Coughing up this coffin information - mistakenly, coughing up "utter pish" to boot?
Flying with the craws Marty?
Yet to see any explanation for the lies Marty - just some steadfast shimmying around them.
Professor parky🤗🤗🤗
-
Has Sandra attempted to link Christian Brueckner to the murder yet?
LOL
-
Has Sandra attempted to link Christian Brueckner to the murder yet?
hello lithum good to see you agian.
-
coming up to that time o year again.
what wil it be this time? Patreon exclusive interview subscriber only £5 a month? determined to make a career of this she is
-
coming up to that time o year again.
what wil it be this time? Patreon exclusive interview subscriber only £5 a month? determined to make a career of this she is
When will we get the other half of that documentary?
-
When will we get the other half of that documentary?
i dontknowithinkitmay ofgone the same way as your forensic breakthrough.
-
i dontknowithinkitmay ofgone the same way as your forensic breakthrough.
Have you found anymore clues on Facebook?
-
“Dr Truthseeker loses her moral compass“
https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/ (https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/)
-
Channel 5, next Wednesday/Thursday (24th/25th). A new, 2-part documentary asks, is the Luke Mitchell case a Miscarriage of Justice?
https://www.channel5.com/show/murder-in-a-small-town/
-
Wow, they seem to have got that completed quickly. Great to see this case get some more attention.
https://www.channel5.com/show/murder-in-a-small-town/
-
It took over a year, Harper!!!
-
Channel 5, next Wednesday/Thursday (24th/25th). A new, 2-part documentary asks, is the Luke Mitchell case a Miscarriage of Justice?
https://www.channel5.com/show/murder-in-a-small-town/
Not followed this case, thanks will have a look. Are there any Podcasts on the case?
-
There are a few on youtube - James English did a series of 3 and there's one from a company called Sgiath films.
-
I was pleased to also see Colin Norris's case going to the CoA too. Another MOJ ! IMHO.
-
There are a few on youtube - James English did a series of 3 and there's one from a company called Sgiath films.
Thanks, I will try and listen to these.
-
It took over a year, Harper!!!
Still actually quite quick considering it's been done during covid, and documentaries can often take years and years to be made.
Sandra, have you been allowed to see the finished product? Do you think they've done a thorough breakdown of the case?
-
For such a big case, I don't think two 45 minute episodes would be enough for a thorough breakdown of everything, but they've done a great job of what they did manage to cover.
-
John Sallens & Micheal Neill who are the private investigators in tv show both "retired" frm police in 2013.
why? haha
-
For such a big case, I don't think two 45 minute episodes would be enough for a thorough breakdown of everything, but they've done a great job of what they did manage to cover.
Just good to see some interest in the case at last, it’s taken years for this. Be interesting to hear what he has to say.
-
Nobody's asking you to watch it Davie2.
Better be careful about accusing people of "telling fibs again," especially when you have zero facts at your disposal.
-
Nobody's asking you to watch it Davie2.
Better be careful about accusing people of "telling fibs again," especially when you have zero facts at your disposal.
Ive not listened to the Podcasts yet, reading up on it a bit, it seems bit like the Damien Echols one and the WM 3. Obviously I don’t know the full facts but he was basically hounded along with his other two mates because he was weird. He was more Gothic in appearance than the others and he carried the brunt of it, he had to survive on Death Row for 18 years and wouldn’t admit his guilt. The three of them eventually got out on an Alford plea..
-
Does anyone know if Luke’s family have taken part, would like to hear what his brother has to say. There has been some debate as to whether he supports Luke or not. For me he holds the key to where luke was that day. I think it’s been said that he didn’t get a fair chance at court to say what happened that day, if that is the case now is his chance to put his side across exactly as he wants, in order to help Luke.
His brother is the key witness and if the investigators have not interviewed him then IMO it’s a huge mistake. Fingers crossed they have.
-
It looks as if the documentary will be a sympathetic portrayal of the accused: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6704329/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-killer-channel-5-documentary/
-
It looks as if the documentary will be a sympathetic portrayal of the accused:
yes, lacking the obvios hard hitting questions and key witnesses as most attempts to look into this case.
weshall see but id be surprised to see any balance
-
Framed---lack of evidence, etc. etc. along with the usual weird character syndrome which doesn't mean a thing. Another MOJ in the making.
-
Nobody's asking you to watch it Davie2.
Better be careful about accusing people of "telling fibs again," especially when you have zero facts at your disposal.
There’s no way someone who spends so much time contributing to this forum isn’t going to watch it!
-
I certainly won't be watching it as it airs. But will probably catch up on it at some point. But going by some rags reporting on it, It is looking like the same old. Just another 2, in a long line of people that have scratched & clawed their way though the case papers to tell us all that Luke was a harmless wee lad, that was the victim of a fit-up, that the witnesses are all lier's & Luke was really in the house burning pie, while his brother was playing with himself. My curiosity of this documentary, is who these 2 are going to blame. Is it just going to be the same people or are they going to come up with something new? My bets are on Robert Greens getting a medal.
Fair enough Davie. I'll be very surprised if they try to claim Robert Greens is the culprit! I think it would be very interesting to hear from the key people after all this time. Shane Mitchell, Stephen Kelly, Andrina Bryson and even Luke's pals that saw him that evening. Have any of them changed their opinion over the years?
-
Do you have any evidence at all of a police framing? :o
I don't believe any of Luke's DNA was found ? Others, yes apart from one which had been verified but it didn't belong to Luke. Would you not have thought that Luke's DNA would have been found if he'd murdered her ?
-
I don't believe any of Luke's DNA was found ? Others, yes apart from one which had been verified but it didn't belong to Luke. Would you not have thought that Luke's DNA would have been found if he'd murdered her ?
"Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer".
"Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
"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.
prosecution and defence both agreed to not utilize dna relating to mitchell on jodi as what would it prove? theyd spent time together earlier that day, they were bf and gf, you'd expect his dna to be there regardless, itd be endless back and forth for nothing
-
He also told these friends that Jodi wouldn't be coming out as she was grounded, despite AO telling him on the phone she had already left and was on her way to meet him.
Not sure why he told his friends Jodi was grounded while also telling his mum to direct her to their whereabouts when she turns up at his door. She could have turned up at any minute. Why was he telling people she was grounded? He knew she wasn't home, he was told she already left, and apparently thought she might turn up at his door.
He apparently waited an hour for her before suddenly deciding he didn't care.
None of it makes sense.
Then he had a fire in his back garden later that night with no explanation to date of what they were burning. The same day he wore that green jacket that was never recovered but replaced later on.
-
It would be great to hear from those publicly, balance is always good when it comes to documentaries. But like the James English podcasts, there was absolutely no balance whatsoever & that is where I have an issue. As far as the people you mention are concerned, it is done it was over years ago for them, publicly you will not hear from them. Why on earth would they? Why do they need that crap & stress in their lives years later? Justice was done. To satisfy the needs of a few conspiracy theorists & online trolls. These documentaries are just money spinners.
I've never thought of myself as a conspiracy theorist or an online troll!
I agree that the individuals involved would likely want nothing to do with it, unless they had changed their opinions, or felt that they have been misinterpreted by the media.
Considering that this case was one of the longest and most expensive trials in Scottish criminal history, they did a terrible job gathering any evidence that was more than just circumstantial, which is why the same arguments have been had dozens of times on this forum (and will do again after this week). Surely the answers can be found through DNA from the crime scene?
-
It would be great to hear from those publicly, balance is always good when it comes to documentaries. But like the James English podcasts, there was absolutely no balance whatsoever & that is where I have an issue. As far as the people you mention are concerned, it is done it was over years ago for them, publicly you will not hear from them. Why on earth would they? Why do they need that crap & stress in their lives years later? Justice was done. To satisfy the needs of a few conspiracy theorists & online trolls. These documentaries are just money spinners.
screming troll aand conspriacy theorist doesnt make people go away you know it wont make them shut up it has abslutly no effect whatsoever.
its not magic word.
-
It looks as if the documentary will be a sympathetic portrayal of the accused: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6704329/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-killer-channel-5-documentary/
Its getting some publicity it’s just been advertised on Channel 5 Murder in a small Town
-
Its getting some publicity it’s just been advertised on Channel 5 Murder in a small Town
I think they are showing the lie detector tests luke and his mum took and passed. I read you can fool a lie detector but it’s harder to fool the person in charge of the test so looked up to see what the person said about it, interestingly he said - “I will say without a doubt that Luke Mitchell did not stab Jodi. End of”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881798.luke-mitchell-interview-terry-mullins-polygraph-expert/
-
I think they are showing the lie detector tests luke and his mum took and passed. I read you can fool a lie detector but it’s harder to fool the person in charge of the test so looked up to see what the person said about it, interestingly he said - “I will say without a doubt that Luke Mitchell did not stab Jodi. End of”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881798.luke-mitchell-interview-terry-mullins-polygraph-expert/
I watched the Chris Watts lie detector test, the woman who did it was amazing, he scored -18 which is very high, they say -4 is the usual indicator your lying. My opinion, I think on balance it depends how quick after the event you take the test that determine’s the result?
-
I watched the Chris Watts lie detector test, the woman who did it was amazing, he scored -18 which is very high, they say -4 is the usual indicator your lying. My opinion, I think on balance it depends how quick after the event you take the test that determine’s the result?
I’ve wondered the same, if after years you keep telling the same story over and over then would it not be easier to pass a test, in a way you believe the lie? Just thought it was interesting the tester was sure Luke didn’t do it.
-
i think it was the fact that luke and corrine past one that impressed him.
-
i think it was the fact that luke and corrine past one that impressed him.
There is no objective pass / fail criteria, that's the thing. The tester decides, and it's always just his opinion.
-
I’ve wondered the same, if after years you keep telling the same story over and over then would it not be easier to pass a test, in a way you believe the lie? Just thought it was interesting the tester was sure Luke didn’t do it.
Who organised the test Bullseye, was it organised by the police or was it a voluntary one? Do you know what sort of Questions were asked, when Bamber took his all he had to answer was Yes or No, to me this makes a difference because questions being poorly formulated may result in an inaccurate test result.
-
As far as I'm concerned, these testers when they go in front of cameras are salesmen. He is not going to admit that his pseudoscience does not work. That would be bad for business.
Im off this opinion as well, the questions also make a difference, if your asked simple straight forward questions by a self paid for examiner, I’m sure they make it more easy, take Bamber DID you shoot your family on August 7, 1985? DID you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? WERE you in the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? Bamber gave a categoric "No" to each one.
Good piece in Sun about case
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14138744/murder-in-a-small-town-jodi-jones-luke-mitchell/
One reader commented this, how true is this?
remember this case. There were diary entries found where he had written dark things about wanting to kill his gf from what I can recall as well. Sad if he was innocent but still not 100% evidence that he wasn’t. Also still coincidental that he was the first one to find her
-
Who organised the test Bullseye, was it organised by the police or was it a voluntary one? Do you know what sort of Questions were asked, when Bamber took his all he had to answer was Yes or No, to me this makes a difference because questions being poorly formulated may result in an inaccurate test result.
Not sure, think it was his legal team.
Mullins quizzes Mitchell three times, changing the order of questions each time.
Mitchell says “No” when asked: “Were you present when Jodi was stabbed?”
In reply to: “Did you stab Jodi on June 30, 2003?” Mitchell responds “No” in a strong voice.
He speaks more quietly as he repeats “No” to the third: “Did you know for certain where Jodi’s body would be found?” The last question was asked in the light of court evidence that Mitchell led searchers to Jodi’s body as he knew where it was.
-
Not sure, think it was his legal team.
Mullins quizzes Mitchell three times, changing the order of questions each time.
Mitchell says “No” when asked: “Were you present when Jodi was stabbed?”
In reply to: “Did you stab Jodi on June 30, 2003?” Mitchell responds “No” in a strong voice.
He speaks more quietly as he repeats “No” to the third: “Did you know for certain where Jodi’s body would be found?” The last question was asked in the light of court evidence that Mitchell led searchers to Jodi’s body as he knew where it was.
Cheers Bullseye, I’ve edited my post before you replied
-
Just got in to watch this on 5 plus one. I know how long Sandra has worked on this case
-
Smirking Sandra is featured heavily
Really wish she'd wipe that smirk off her face and glee in her eyes when discussing the case and remember there's a 14 year old victim.
something for another topic perhaps but i've noticed this a lot. the sheer delight on her face when scoring a perceived "own" - the dopamine hits of someone living out a point-scoring fantasy, rather than delivering dry factual information. plenty of examples in the james english interview and i've no doubt we'll see more when i catch up with teh recent show.
-
Just realise the show featured Prof Allan Jamieson of The Forensic Institute
he was talked about in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10217.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10217.0.html)
Suspended without pay from Lothian and Borders Police Forensic Science Laboratory in 2002 while investigation of conflict of interest took place (he was simultaneously director of forensic allience). and he left the force imediately after.
So thas 2 disgraced former detectives with vested interest, one disgraced forensics expert with a vested interest ... any more?
-
Part 1 of the documentary: https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-1-3166c182-1c2c-44da-a61b-b436056018a3
-
Thought they got a lot into the documentary for the time they had. Some say it’s going over the same old stuff but that’s because we know all about the case and been discussing it for years. Now people who knew nothing or little about it can see what Sandra has been saying for years. Well done Sandra for not giving up. I see there is a petition for an independent review, it’s doing really well, fingers crossed for that!
One thing I was disappointed in was the fact Shane did not make an appearance or at the very least a statement from him to read out.
It would be good to see a more in-depth documentary looking more from both sides and debunking some of the ‘fact’s’ out there. Also after almost 20 years dna techniques have came on massively, surely there is more to be found by retesting. Maybe Netflix might pick it up lol
-
I agree Bullseye, it looks like the documentary is getting a lot of interest. It was a brief overview of what we already knew but great for people who only knew the story told in the tabloids at the time.
As you said, pretty disappointing that Shane didn't even get a mention as this seemed to be such a crucial part of the trial.
I wonder if more people involved will be willing to tell their story now that Luke is receiving public support after the documentary? I think many folk wouldn't come forward before for fear that they would be accused as supporting a murderer by the media.
-
I'd like to know who the main suspect they kept coming back to was that they couldn't name for legal reasons. I could hazard a guess. Clearly they have been restricted in things they have uncovered that they were allowed to say. I think they did quite a thorough job but have been restricted legally.
-
I watched this. Or at least I saw one episode. I understand the case is very divisive on here seemingly among members with Scottish backgrounds. I sometimes look in at the posts from Lithium and others. The program certainly didn’t do LM's case him any harm and it was nice to Sandra Lean presenting the arguments. I was particularly interested in the part where the two ex police officers discused other persons of interest.
I noticed that it was Terry Mullins who carried out the polygraphs. That's three cases I know of where TM has been involved: JB, LM and Paddy Conroy. His seeming prominence in this area is interesting.
-
I noticed that it was Terry Mullins who carried out the polygraphs. That's three cases I know of where TM has been involved: JB, LM and Paddy Conroy. His seeming prominence in this area is interesting.
He runs a private company that advocates for the use of polygraphs lol
-
He runs a private company that advocates for the use of polygraphs lol
Yes, has he cornered the market so to speak or was he simply prominent in that era? Where there other testers around during the same era? I did do some searches on him a while back.
-
I see Mullins also tested Ricky Percival (Essex Boys).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwORkeCzxks
I really don't understand the point of the reenactment of Bryson's sighting. If anything they support it, as AB's sighting was slightly off in parts, much like this girl's. It just strengthens the fact it could have been Luke and Jodi despite the small inconsistencies.
Maybe trying to show there is reasonable doubt. Not sure why they did not show the 2 women that saw him at the other end of the path too. I think there was a confirmed sighting of him later at the other end of the path around 6pm, by a boy that knew him? But can’t remember if that was used this in court, if a statement was made to police or was that just hearsay?
-
Randomly mention another suspect who can't be named who they haven't introduced or mentioned any evidence against at all. Why even keep that in? Doubt he exists. Either that or they mean Condom Man.
Did they not mention condom man as that? Think it must be the same person who confessed and confessed to being stocky man also. They never mentioned any of the jonses by name except jodi either. Just said he kept coming back to them. Hands deffo tied in a lot of aspects.
-
Is the begging bowl out yet?
of course
change.org petition has this tagged on:
In the spirit of true justice and transparency, we, the undersigned, demand that all evidence and information be released to an independent panel (not the SCCRC) for scrutiny, comment and recommendations. The people are willing to raise funds to contribute to the cost of such an inquiry.
and there is a seperate gofundme currently at £6,000+ with the vague aim of "getting corinne back on her feet"
Corinne Mitchell's life was ruined by a justice system gone wrong. Although she has now been housed, this fundraiser is aimed at helping get Corinne back on her feet.
it really is shameless. i wonder how many people putting a fiver in know why it is she had to sell the family house (for those unaware, it had nothin to do with this case)
-
Wish I'd paid more attention of the list of names.
-
Episode 2 seems to have been pulled from Channel 5's website. Would be nice if one of the accused have finally taken legal action.
It's here: https://youtu.be/WwORkeCzxks
Does anyone know about the girl eyewitnesses Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming? What were the circumstances in which Jodie left her house that night? Did her sister's boyfriend, Steven Kelly, have an alibi? What was the timeline of Luke Mitchell's movements that night and if he was the perpetrator would he have had time to clean up without anyone's knowledge? What about the lack of incriminating forensic evidence at the crime scene, which the jury must have disregarded at the January 2005 trial?
-
Amateur hour. Showed Joey's name. Hopefully he sues all involved. :)) :)) :))
Also, these "Private Investigators" uncovered nothing. They didn't uncover any of these suspects. This list was given to them by Sandra Lean.
And I'd like to know what "legal reason" they can't name Joseph, but can name Ferris, Dickie and Kane.
Falconer being referred to only as Condom Man is also puzzling.
Ive only watched the first episode, I was going to ask has it showed anything new or what you didn’t know about? Must admit I hope the remaining episodes are better than the first. When I found out who did the Polygraph tests this answered for me why and how they passed it.
-
Ive only watched the first episode, I was going to ask has it showed anything new or what you didn’t know about? Must admit I hope the remaining episodes are better than the first. When I found out who did the Polygraph tests this answered for me why and how they passed it.
A couple of things I’ve picked up, he was supplying Cannabis to Jodi and friends at School? He was also seeing another girl at the time? He didn’t testify at trial and his mother gave an Alibi for him, that he was cooking, I read that his brother said he wasn’t cooking but watching porn (or have I got that wrong?) was it the brother watching porn? I’m trying to read and get a better balance, because obviously the episode is Pro Mitchel. It’s says Jodi was sexually assaulted, was she raped does anyone know?
-
A couple of things I’ve picked up, he was supplying Cannabis to Jodi and friends at School? He was also seeing another girl at the time? He didn’t testify at trial and his mother gave an Alibi for him, that he was cooking, I read that his brother said he wasn’t cooking but watching porn (or have I got that wrong?) was it the brother watching porn? I’m trying to read and get a better balance, because obviously the episode is Pro Mitchel. It’s says Jodi was sexually assaulted, was she raped does anyone know?
Right I’ve got that better sorry.
Mitchell's brother testified he had been viewing internet pornography in the house at the time Mitchell said he had been there; under cross examination Mitchell's brother said he would only have done this if he thought the house to be otherwise empty. Mitchell's brother said he had not seen Mitchell in the house that afternoon, thereby failing to corroborate his defence of being in the family home at the time of the murder.[8]
Right how does Corrie get past this one if she says they were cooking and the brother says they wasn’t?
-
Right how does Corrie get past this one if she says they were cooking and the brother says they wasn’t?
nailed it .
she doesnt.
same for sandra. this is never address and its crucial
-
Ive only watched the first episode, I was going to ask has it showed anything new or what you didn’t know about? Must admit I hope the remaining episodes are better than the first. When I found out who did the Polygraph tests this answered for me why and how they passed it.
I was thinking about his upbringing and how he came to dabble in Satan, if that's the insinuation. No father figure, no routine, no boundaries, no role model of any kind really, a knife carried in self-defence in what seems on the surface to be a quiet middle-class area within commuting distance of Edinburgh. I could see him working as a barista in Costa Coffee, hitching up with a pretty girl and settling down to fatherhood within a stable community.
Instead he has spent 17 years behind bars, the grinding monotony of prison routine having a deleterious effect on physical if not mental health. The feral youth may have been tamed or the attributes merely deferred as the public facade masks private despair. In a circumstantial case one bonds the links in the chain: the finding of the body, the relationship with the deceased, the eyewitness evidence, the dubious alibi, leaving the final decision to a jury of his peers. Yet as the years go by and the doubts refuse to subside it may well suit the Scottish Establishment to find some way of release, if only to buttress their instinct of self-preservation and not through genuine belief in a miscarriage of justice.
-
Shane admitted in court he only agreed that Luke was burning dinner after Corinne "reminded him" (told him so.) He said he didn't remember seeing Luke and wouldn't have been watching porn if he thought anyone was in.
He also told police he believes Luke could be responsible.
Shane doesn't support his brothers claims of innocence.
Thanks, I’m not trying to be biased, but I’ve only watched the first episode and it didn’t sit right with the Mother, I didn’t know anything about this case before, but the more I’ve delved into the Mother it gets worse than I thought.
How true is this does anyone know?
The Jacket and missing knife, why did the Mother replace them with the exact same ones 'He Lost' AFTER the Murder
I’d just like to add, my uttermost thoughts are with Jodi’s family, how they cope with something like this is horrendous, the fact these family’s have to live through appeal after appeal and then get documentaries made about it from so called experts, either proclaiming new evidence or revisiting the case and offering nothing new, other than fuel to stir up public emotions and hoping for support from people who don’t know the case.
-
Steven Kelly had 2 alibis, his dad and also Janine Jones.
Do you mean these two gave him two separate alibis? There's a report here of his court testimony: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085983.stm
-
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/shane-mitchell-what-evidence-did-luke-mitchells-brother-give-and-why-was-it-crucial-to-jodi-jones-murder-trial-3148506
Internet history confirmed porn sites were accessed from a computer in his bedroom between 4.53pm and 5.16pm on the evening Jodi was murdered, contradicting the alibi Corinne pressured Shane into giving.
Could somebody cut and paste this article as I can't access.
-
There's more evidence against Luke Mitchell here. Does anyone know whether any of these witnesses alluded to testified? https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/
-
Thanks, I’m not trying to be biased, but I’ve only watched the first episode and it didn’t sit right with the Mother, I didn’t know anything about this case before, but the more I’ve delved into the Mother it gets worse than I thought.
How true is this does anyone know?
The Jacket and missing knife, why did the Mother replace them with the exact same ones 'He Lost' AFTER the Murder
I’d just like to add, my uttermost thoughts are with Jodi’s family, how they cope with something like this is horrendous, the fact these family’s have to live through appeal after appeal and then get documentaries made about it from so called experts, either proclaiming new evidence or revisiting the case and offering nothing new, other than fuel to stir up public emotions and hoping for support from people who don’t know the case.
I know all this doesn’t mean your a Murderer
But even from the first episode and what I’ve read this is the impression I was getting?
It is abundantly clear that things were dreadfully amiss in the Mitchell household: there appears, from the evidence in court, beneath the wellmaintained, affluent surface, to have been a spiritual and psychological squalor which manifested itself in violence, pornography, underage sex, drug-taking, lack of cleanliness ect
Is this true as well? All taken from THE HERALD?
She bought him knives. She lied for him. At home, he was allowed to sleep with underage girls; he smoked cannabis; he kept bottles of urine in his bedroom, which was described as a hovel. He stored computers on his bed and appeared to doss on a mattress on the f loor.
-
He was seeing 2 other girls at the time. He had texts on his phone from Kimberley Thomson in which they were saying they loved each other 3 days before the murder. Luke was also looking forward to spending time with her over the summer holidays. Not sure how he was going to explain that one to Jodi. Sandra tries to downplay this relationship but they spent valentines day together and she also stayed with Luke and Corinne at New Year. Kimberley Thomson posted on the James English podcast adamant that Mitchell owned a Parka before the murder and would brag about concealing knives in it.
Did the Prosecution ever speculate as to the motive for the murder? Was Jodi expendable now that Luke had other fish to fry or was it guilt by association with a summer solstice devil ritual?
-
nailed it .
she doesnt.
same for sandra. this is never address and its crucial
Thanks, you know the two officers who do the programme or so called detectives have they had a corruption probe before, or have I got the wrong two? If so what happened?
-
There's mo :)re evidence against Luke Mitchell here. Does anyone know whether any of these witnesses alluded to testified? https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/
Thanks Steve, google the two officers and see if it’s the same two, or has this been put up before I’ve not gone too far back.
-
Right I’ve got that better sorry.
Mitchell's brother testified he had been viewing internet pornography in the house at the time Mitchell said he had been there; under cross examination Mitchell's brother said he would only have done this if he thought the house to be otherwise empty. Mitchell's brother said he had not seen Mitchell in the house that afternoon, thereby failing to corroborate his defence of being in the family home at the time of the murder.[8]
Right how does Corrie get past this one if she says they were cooking and the brother says they wasn’t?
According to the book it basically says the police interview and questioning in court tied him up in knots, he was not able to say his side of the story properly.
I’ve heard from people here Shane openly tells people Luke is guilty but It’s also been said Shane supports Luke but from behind the scenes, basically wants to be able to get on with his life.
So for me it all comes down to Shane, if he genuinely was not able to give his side in court, then now is the time to clarify his point and do what he can to help his brother. If, on the other hand, he knows his brother was not home I can understand his absence from the doc and everything else. If he really can’t remember then that’s also understandable, other people can’t remember important moments like the 2 on the moped at the v at the time of the murder. I’d love to hear what he has to say.
-
Is this true as well? All taken from THE HERALD?
She bought him knives. She lied for him. At home, he was allowed to sleep with underage girls; he smoked cannabis; he kept bottles of urine in his bedroom, which was described as a hovel. He stored computers on his bed and appeared to doss on a mattress on the f loor.
knives is true - order form from hunting catalogue was produced as evidence:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042943?adppopup=true
simultaneous girlfriend kimberley has been allowed to stay at their home for some time, that doesnt necessarily mean sleeping together
he most definitely smoked cannabis and was known to deal
urine in room was found by liaison officer in between murder and trial i believe (many bottles)
plenty pictures of his room out there to find:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042868?adppopup=true
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/09/09/020A93C10000044D-0-image-m-12_1507537695955.jpg
-
I know all this doesn’t mean your a Murderer
But even from the first episode and what I’ve read this is the impression I was getting?
It is abundantly clear that things were dreadfully amiss in the Mitchell household: there appears, from the evidence in court, beneath the wellmaintained, affluent surface, to have been a spiritual and psychological squalor which manifested itself in violence, pornography, underage sex, drug-taking, lack of cleanliness ect
Is this true as well? All taken from THE HERALD?
She bought him knives. She lied for him. At home, he was allowed to sleep with underage girls; he smoked cannabis; he kept bottles of urine in his bedroom, which was described as a hovel. He stored computers on his bed and appeared to doss on a mattress on the f loor.
It's heartbreaking really, when what was required was the tough love approach from an early age, the carrot and the stick, when to all intents and purposes the stick has been removed as modern-day sanction. I don't mean physical violence but the threat of being grounded, of withdrawing pocket money, removing television or mobile telephone. Instead he seems to have been indulged and his waywardness disregarded until it became a hedonism which nobody could control. Where were the parents, the teachers, the ministers and elders, why didn't this young man have some normal leisure pastimes instead of the deadening central nervous system stimulants, which only exacerbated his anguish and led to a downward spiral of despair, culminating in this shocking crime if law enforcement is to be believed?
-
According to the book it basically says the police interview and questioning in court tied him up in knots, he was not able to say his side of the story properly.
I’ve heard from people here Shane openly tells people Luke is guilty but It’s also been said Shane supports Luke but from behind the scenes, basically wants to be able to get on with his life.
So for me it all comes down to Shane, if he genuinely was not able to give his side in court, then now is the time to clarify his point and do what he can to help his brother. If, on the other hand, he knows his brother was not home I can understand his absence from the doc and everything else. If he really can’t remember then that’s also understandable, other people can’t remember important moments like the 2 on the moped at the v at the time of the murder. I’d love to hear what he has to say.
Yes I’m finding it all strange, revisiting his statement where he says he would only watch porn when he was alone, by all accounts I don’t think that would be the case, I don’t think he would give a toss who was in the house even his mother.
-
knives is true - order form from hunting catalogue was produced as evidence:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042943?adppopup=true
simultaneous girlfriend kimberley has been allowed to stay at their home for some time, that doesnt necessarily mean sleeping together
he most definitely smoked cannabis and was known to deal
urine in room was found by liaison officer in between murder and trial i believe (many bottles)
plenty pictures of his room out there to find:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042868?adppopup=true
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/09/09/020A93C10000044D-0-image-m-12_1507537695955.jpg
Thanks, I’ve only ever heard of one other storing urine and that was a Howard Hughes. But I’ve since read, drug users store it, they usually store urine clear of drugs, samples if that makes sense?
-
knives is true - order form from hunting catalogue was produced as evidence:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042943?adppopup=true
simultaneous girlfriend kimberley has been allowed to stay at their home for some time, that doesnt necessarily mean sleeping together
he most definitely smoked cannabis and was known to deal
urine in room was found by liaison officer in between murder and trial i believe (many bottles)
plenty pictures of his room out there to find:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042868?adppopup=true
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/09/09/020A93C10000044D-0-image-m-12_1507537695955.jpg
thanks, I’ve just read this also.
At the time of the murder Mitchell owned a ‘skunting’ knife which has never been found despite an extensive search of his house.
His mother bought him another knife and during a subsequent search of the family home many months later, the pouch from the knife, but not the knife itself, was recovered. A number of inscriptions had been made on the pouch: the numbers “666”; an inscription which read “JJ 1989 – 2003”, these being the years of Jodi’s birth and death; and the words “The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came”, a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.
One of the most significant pieces of evidence was that Mitchell had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the previous months and that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the murder.
The jacket was not found during a search of the house and the prosecution sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of Mitchell’s home had been used around 1830 – 1930 and later, at around 2200 that night with an unusual smell emanating from it. The inference being that the coat had been burned to destroy evidence.
Mitchell’s mother then bought him an identical jacket to the one that was missing.
I know you’ve probably read or know about all this, but I’m just going over it and it saves anyone new having to go back over posts to find this.
-
Thanks Steve, google the two officers and see if it’s the same two, or has this been put up before I’ve not gone too far back.
So Michael Neill has this to say? Physically impossible’ Luke Mitchell murdered Jodi Jones, claim ex-cops
He said: “I’ve not seen anything to prove to me Mitchell definitely did not murder Jodi but I’ve also not seen anything to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did.
Oh right great detective work then! From your contradictingHeadline, So your making a tv programme and your still unsure, but your willing to put the family through hell again because your unsure.
-
A BBC investigation: https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0
-
I would like to know more details about the knife found near the scene in 2010 that had Lukes name carved on it. And whether it belongs or fits with Luke's empty knife pouch.
-
I would like to know more details about the knife found near the scene in 2010 that had Lukes name carved on it. And whether it belongs or fits with Luke's empty knife pouch.
Was there not 2 knives found, one in 2010 with Luke’s name, police did tests but nothing found. Then another is 2015, brown handled kitchen knife type found in the wall, but i don’t think tests were carried out.
Do the police still have these? Would an independent review take these into account or is it only evidence used in the trial? If tests were carried out on all the dna/forensics they have plus these knives we might start to get somewhere.
-
What I can't understand is why if Jodie was murdered so savagely there was no DNA of Luke Mitchell's found on the body or any incriminating forensic evidence on himself. Either Luke is guilty and his mother withheld evidence from Police or he's innocent and another person was responsible. https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/hundreds-pounds-raised-mother-jodi-19918926
-
I would like to know more details about the knife found near the scene in 2010 that had Lukes name carved on it. And whether it belongs or fits with Luke's empty knife pouch.
It has no links to Jodi or Luke Mitchel, it was found a mile and half from the murder scene,
POLICE forensic teams have been testing a knife found just over a mile from where tragic Jodi Jones was murdered.
Found on wasteland, it has the word "Luke" etched on it. It was found by a member of the public in March on wasteground off Causland Road, Dalkeith, Midlothian - a mile and a half from where Jodi's body was discovered.
So far, months of tests have been unable to link the knife to Jodi or Mitchell, 21. Last night, a police source said: "It could be that all traces of blood or DNA have been washed away.
"The knife could have been lying out exposed to the elements for seven years.
-
Was there not 2 knives found, one in 2010 with Luke’s name, police did tests but nothing found. Then another is 2015, brown handled kitchen knife type found in the wall, but i don’t think tests were carried out.
Do the police still have these? Would an independent review take these into account or is it only evidence used in the trial? If tests were carried out on all the dna/forensics they have plus these knives we might start to get somewhere.
I think there has been several found Bullseye? The one with Luke’s name on has no trace of either Jodi or Luke Mitchel?
-
So am I getting it right here, he was spotted out with his Parka Jacket on the night of the murders, One of the most significant pieces of evidence was that Mitchell had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the previous months and that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the murder. So he owned one and miraculously this Jacket went missing, this jacket was never found, so his mother bought him a new identical Jacket to replace the one that couldn’t be accounted for? The Skunting knife which we’ve seen an order for on the order form this also went missing and his mother Brought him a new knife, this knife was never found as well or was accounted for? I suppose both items could have innocently gone missing and been accounted for, but they wasn’t so to me it seems more convenient.
TWO DAYS AFTER JODI’s murder
Two days after the murder Mitchell purchased, and subsequently viewed, a Marilyn Manson DVD, “The Golden Age of the Grotesque”, which included images of apparently naked women tied together and subjected to a form of abduction. Manson had an exhibition of the same name publicised on his website, which included images depicting the death of the actress Elizabeth Short, also known as “The Black Dahlia”, who was mutilated and murdered in Los Angeles in 1947.
How does a 14 year old kid keep affording drugs, the court heard that when police arrested Mitchell and charged him with murdering Jodi, 14, they found a piece of cannabis resin in his trousers weighing more than 97 grammes, and two smaller pieces weighing almost seven grammes. Mitchell said he had paid around £150 for it.
-
Steve there was DNA that matched Luke's genetic profile. And that of Jodi's on Luke. But it was argued by the defence that this could have been an innocent transfer that happened throughout the day. And tbh that is a perfectly reasonable explanation, Luke and Jodi did spend time with each other at school that day. The prosecution agreed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
Agreed, any DNA of that sort could easily been explained away.
-
Steve there was DNA that matched Luke's genetic profile. And that of Jodi's on Luke. But it was argued by the defence that this could have been an innocent transfer that happened throughout the day. And tbh that is a perfectly reasonable explanation, Luke and Jodi did spend time with each other at school that day. The prosecution agreed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
I don’t think anything of Luke was found on Jodi? Only full profile found on her was SK I’m sure. I think it was Jodi’s dna was found on Luke’s trousers but these were not a pair worn that day but from his house. Like sk’s being on his gf T-shirt that Jodi had borrowed that night, the dna on Luke trousers were deemed as innocent
“Looking at that picture, in 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 perfectly innocent transfer”
-
Apparently Luke had dirty hair and fingernails, suggesting he hadn't cleaned himself up in the interim. What about the Parka jacket? What did Corinne know and when did she know it?
-
Apparently Luke had dirty hair and fingernails, suggesting he hadn't cleaned himself up in the interim. What about the Parka jacket? What did Corinne know and when did she know it?
In the book it says he did not own a parka before the murder, he was wearing a green bomber jacket when he was arrested which he says is the same one worn to school that afternoon.
There are a lot of reports I think of people who said he did have one before, but no photos or any evidence. Might be something out there in the back of someone’s drawer, an old photo, if he did own one, but in this case it’s ones sides word against the other.
-
lol. This made me laugh. £150 for 97 grams of hash, is the deal of the century. Although in the grand scheme of things what I'm about to explain is irrelevant. But its dose prove, he was a heavy smoker and dealer. A score(7grams) was well, where I stay was bought for £30. in 2003 Small-time dealers would normally buy, or get laid-on(loaned) what is known in the trade as a bar (100grams or there about) prices would vary, but £150 is way off the mark. The small time dealer (Luke) would then cut this into scores £30(7gram) and half scores £15(3.5grams) to sell off or laid-on to his kiddy friends. A nice little profit for a 14yo. If true he got for £150, but i'm guessing it closer to the £300 mark for his bar.
Oh right thanks Davie2. I read that he told a psychiatrist he’d smoked 40 joints a day in the lead up to the murder, but I think this was dismissed?
-
That is because he went to play on the swings and mucking about with his pals, later that evening, getting himself all dirty again. He also told the very same pals, who asked him where Jodi was. He told these pals, that Jodi was not allowed out. Strange, when he arranged to meet Jodi, proved by text messages and the testimony of a witness that told Luke that she has already left.. He was also waiting at the end of the road that leads into his estate, waiting for Jodi for over an hour, as has been claimed. He knew she was dead at this point.
Thats how I understood it as well Davie. I was going to ask the Question was her injuries consistent with the Skunting Knife, but I think this answers this at the appeal.
The deceased's cutting injuries are consistent with their having been caused by a knife of the kind which, at the relevant time, the appellant owned and which, without adequate explanation, then disappeared.
-
That is because he went to play on the swings and mucking about with his pals, later that evening, getting himself all dirty again. He also told the very same pals, who asked him where Jodi was. He told these pals, that Jodi was not allowed out. Strange, when he arranged to meet Jodi, proved by text messages and the testimony of a witness that told Luke that she has already left.. He was also waiting at the end of the road that leads into his estate, waiting for Jodi for over an hour, as has been claimed. He knew she was dead at this point.
At first After his discovery of the body, Mitchell was initially questioned as a witness; So when did they do a thorough examination of him or his clothing Davie? He wasn’t arrested till 10 months after the murder..so when everyone is saying there was no forensic evidence on him after the murders, was this just a visual examination or a thorough examination?
-
At first After his discovery of the body, Mitchell was initially questioned as a witness; So when did they do a thorough examination of him or his clothing Davie? He wasn’t arrested till 10 months after the murder..so when everyone is saying there was no forensic evidence on him after the murders, was this just a visual examination or a thorough examination?
From what I remember he found the body was taken right to the police station there and then, stripped and put in ones of those white forensic suit. He was wearing same clothes he had on to school that day. Looks like he was a suspect right from the start, not a witness as nobody else in the search party had to give over clothes, or were interviewed like was right after Jodi was found. I think it was days later, when they had been cleaned, they were asked for their clothes.
-
From what I remember he found the body was taken right to the police station there and then, stripped and put in ones of those white forensic suit. He was wearing same clothes he had on to school that day. Looks like he was a suspect right from the start, not a witness as nobody else in the search party had to give over clothes, or were interviewed like was right after Jodi was found. I think it was days later, when they had been cleaned, they were asked for their clothes.
Thanks Bullseye, we always help Newbie’s who join the Bamber forum to bring them up to speed, I only took interest because of the latest Documentary, Anyway it’s not a case I will be following anymore.
-
I'm pretty sure you have been on these threads before, asking similar type questions. Anyway, I'm done for the night, off to watch a movie, non-crime. I fancy a bit of a laugh, so comedy related. I may or may not be on tomorrow, so you can integrate me at your pleasure. Other than that, you can scroll back though these threads and find the answers you are looking for.
Nope I can’t remember joining in before, if I have I apologise, like I’ve said I only joined in because of the new interest, but thanks for your help anyway.
-
i think it's time for legal action and libel cases. ridiculous.
-
Sandra needs to clarify publicly that Joseph DID NOT confess and that Corinne was confused, she won't though. She's happy to let people believe it knowing it isn't true.
Could you elucidate Lithium? I'm not sure what point you're getting at.
-
Sandra needs to clarify publicly that Joseph DID NOT confess and that Corinne was confused, she won't though. She's happy to let people believe it knowing it isn't true.
What exactly is Sandra's motive for doing all this? :-\
-
Lithium has disappeared. :-\
-
Lithium has disappeared. :-\
Pity. I used to like reading their posts. Have always assumed Lithium was a He. Normally you have to request your account to be deleted and that is actioned ngb1066, who may enter in to some private dialogue with the member who is requesting deletion.
-
Pity. I used to like reading their posts. Have always assumed Lithium was a He. Normally you have to request your account to be deleted and that is actioned ngb1066, who may enter in to some private dialogue with the member who is requesting deletion.
Lithium seemed to be passionately interested in this case and lived local were it took place.
-
Lithium has disappeared. :-\
I do not know what has happened. This is very strange.
-
Sandra's podcast: https://youtu.be/pOTKX_t_OHI
-
I do not know what has happened. This is very strange.
You mean his account is gone but you never removed it?
-
You mean his account is gone but you never removed it?
To be honest I’m finding the topic strange, I was told to read past threads and accused of asking questions before, so I started at the beginning, I think it was John who starts the topic, I gave up after reading for about half hour, all you get is Squabbling and no info. Everyone accuses somebody of being somebody else, but the writing does gives clues.
-
You mean his account is gone but you never removed it?
Yes. I cannot work out what has happened. The account has gone and posts.
-
Yes. I cannot work out what has happened. The account has gone and posts.
Quite sharp Lithium. Maybe he was some kind of IT wizard?
-
Quite sharp Lithium. Maybe he was some kind of IT wizard?
Maybe.
-
To be honest I’m finding the topic strange, I was told to read past threads and accused of asking questions before, so I started at the beginning, I think it was John who starts the topic, I gave up after reading for about half hour, all you get is Squabbling and no info. Everyone accuses somebody of being somebody else, but the writing does gives clues.
I think some of the regular posters on this thread joined some time after the thread's commencement. It may be easier to go to the member's section http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=mlist
and pick out which members' posts you would like to read. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like you will be able to read Lithium's posts.
-
I think some of the regular posters on this thread joined some time after the thread's commencement. It may be easier to go to the member's section http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=mlist
and pick out which members' posts you would like to read. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like you will be able to read Lithium's posts.
Thanks Roch, I’ve given up now, it’s strange how Lithium’s post just disappeared, I noticed yesterday that posts were missing, it looks like he’s removed the lot which would have took time unless like you say he’s an IT expert? It’s as though he went in a hurry, but unfortunately he can’t remove the posts that posters have replied to his.
-
Thanks Roch, I’ve given up now, it’s strange how Lithium’s post just disappeared, I noticed yesterday that posts were missing, it looks like he’s removed the lot which would have took time unless like you say he’s an IT expert? It’s as though he went in a hurry, but unfortunately he can’t remove the posts that posters have replied to his.
Could it be that he himself feared some kind of backlash or legal action and so decided that prompt action was needed? I am surmising of course.
-
Could it be that he himself feared some kind of backlash or legal action and so decided that prompt action was needed? I am surmising of course.
Thats the impression I got Roch, but he can’t remove posts that’s been responded too?
-
Thats the impression I got Roch, but he can’t remove posts that’s been responded too?
I think that's correct RJ.
-
It isnt the first time lithium has done this. About three times i can remember
-
It isnt the first time lithium has done this. About three times i can remember
Oh right, what do you mean he/she removes themselves without a Moderator doing it?
-
Thanks Roch, I’ve given up now, it’s strange how Lithium’s post just disappeared, I noticed yesterday that posts were missing, it looks like he’s removed the lot which would have took time unless like you say he’s an IT expert? It’s as though he went in a hurry, but unfortunately he can’t remove the posts that posters have replied to his.
It happened a couple of time, I find it messes up the thread and makes it hard to read or understand at parts by having messages removed.
Totally agree about the squabbling etc, It’s was hard to find a forum on Luke Mitchell where you can have a proper discussion, the red forum can be worse. But Sandra answered questions on here which is why I used it more, to get answers direct from her. People should not need to scroll through pages like you were asked to do, we should all help out when questions are asked where we can, and if you want to read back when you have time you can.
-
Hello guys. Just like to point out, that this will be my last ever post on here.
I have received 2 very serious death threats which includes my family, the mention of a forum was also added, that leads me to believe somebody has linked my account on here to my twitter. This is the only forum I'm active on regarding this case. These threats have been reported to the police. The debate surrounding this case has been heated most of the time, but death threats, let alone any threat are not acceptable. It also seems like the current events have attracted all kinds of crazies, or maybe it has always been the same crazies, which now my family and I seem to be the target off. If this is how they want to shut down the debate, then good luck to them, if you are reading this, then police will come knocking soon, i hope you are proud of yourself.. Most of my posts are now gone, and I also give permission to the admin to delete my account completely. Regardless of difference of opinion, I wish everybody on here well.
-
Hello guys. Just like to point out, that this will be my last ever post on here.
I have received 2 very serious death threats which includes my family, the mention of a forum was also added, that leads me to believe somebody has linked my account on here to my twitter. This is the only forum I'm active on regarding this case. These threats have been reported to the police. The debate surrounding this case has been heated most of the time, but death threats, let alone any threat are not acceptable. It also seems like the current events have attracted all kinds of crazies, or maybe it has always been the same crazies, which now my family and I seem to be the target off. If this is how they want to shut down the debate, then good luck to them, if you are reading this, then police will come knocking soon, i hope you are proud of yourself.. Most of my posts are now gone, and I also give permission to the admin to delete my account completely. Regardless of difference of opinion, I wish everybody on here well.
Sorry to hear this. Personally, I hope both you and Lithium return. I hope the issue with these serious threats is properly resolved for you.
-
shocking. i wonder if that's why we lost lithium too.
real ugly, what's been unleashed this last week
-
Hello guys. Just like to point out, that this will be my last ever post on here.
I have received 2 very serious death threats which includes my family, the mention of a forum was also added, that leads me to believe somebody has linked my account on here to my twitter. This is the only forum I'm active on regarding this case. These threats have been reported to the police. The debate surrounding this case has been heated most of the time, but death threats, let alone any threat are not acceptable. It also seems like the current events have attracted all kinds of crazies, or maybe it has always been the same crazies, which now my family and I seem to be the target off. If this is how they want to shut down the debate, then good luck to them, if you are reading this, then police will come knocking soon, i hope you are proud of yourself.. Most of my posts are now gone, and I also give permission to the admin to delete my account completely. Regardless of difference of opinion, I wish everybody on here well.
That’s shocking, hope they find those responsible! All the best Davie2
-
shocking. i wonder if that's why we lost lithium too.
real ugly, what's been unleashed this last week
With what I’ve been reading it looks like it’s always existed on here, social media can be real cruel at times that’s why I stay clear of Facebook and Twitter ect.
-
Hello guys. Just like to point out, that this will be my last ever post on here.
I have received 2 very serious death threats which includes my family, the mention of a forum was also added, that leads me to believe somebody has linked my account on here to my twitter. This is the only forum I'm active on regarding this case. These threats have been reported to the police. The debate surrounding this case has been heated most of the time, but death threats, let alone any threat are not acceptable. It also seems like the current events have attracted all kinds of crazies, or maybe it has always been the same crazies, which now my family and I seem to be the target off. If this is how they want to shut down the debate, then good luck to them, if you are reading this, then police will come knocking soon, i hope you are proud of yourself.. Most of my posts are now gone, and I also give permission to the admin to delete my account completely. Regardless of difference of opinion, I wish everybody on here well.
That is quite shocking and I do hope they follow it up, if it’s any help I’ve had threats on the Bamber forum and trust me it’s not nice but you’ll find out it’s hot air. I asked NGB to delete my account which he did, but in the end I thought why should I let them silence me. If you don’t get any joy with the Police speak to NGB and give him some details.
-
It is shocking, cowardly too, hiding behind a screen.
Good luck and best wishes to you Davie2.
-
iam very sorry to hear that.
-
Who was “suspect who can’t be named” in the Channel 5 Doc last week.
I did not watch program but only today I found out a suspect was named by mistake.
Can anyone tell who it was?
-
Who was “suspect who can’t be named” in the Channel 5 Doc last week.
I did not watch program but only today I found out a suspect was named by mistake.
Can anyone tell who it was?
cant be named means cant be named
-
Except the name was revealed by mistake that's what I am asking.
-
By accident, yes.