Jeremy Bamber Forum

OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: John on March 20, 2011, 01:53:PM

Title: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 20, 2011, 01:53:PM
On 30 June 2003, fourteen-year-old Jodi Jones was brutally murdered near her home at Easthouses near Edinburgh, Scotland. Her naked body was found some 6 hours later hidden behind a high wall in a wooded area bordering Roan's Dyke footpath, a well known local short-cut running between Easthouses and Newbattle. Jodi had been subjected to what prosecutors would later describe in court as a "savage knife attack."

Early in the investigation the police suggested that the killer would be a man local to the area because of the location of where the murder took place. It was established that Jodi had set out earlier that afternoon to meet her then boyfriend, Luke Mitchell (14). Her mutilated body was later found by Mitchell, who had joined a search party that included Jodi's 67 year-old grandmother, Alice Walker, her 17 year-old sister Janine, and Janine's boyfriend, Stephen Kelly (19). The fact that Mitchell and his dog discovered the body so quickly despite a search at night, in poor weather, would later play a major part in the criminal investigation.

(http://i.imgur.com/F7SEr.gif)

Luke Mitchell on the day of Jodi's funeral.

Mitchell was initially questioned as a witness but was eventually arrested and charged with the crime some 10 months later following months of media speculation, including the repeated claim that the then 15-year-old was the "only" or "prime" suspect. At Mitchell's trial at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh he pleaded not guilty and lodged a special defence of alibi, claiming that he was at home cooking dinner at the time of the murder. During the 42-day trial which followed, the jury heard evidence from both Mitchell's mother and his brother Shane, as well as visiting the crime scene. The evidence of Shane Mitchell was crucial to the conviction; he stated that at the time of the murder, he had been at the family home, viewing internet porn. He agreed that this was not an activity he would have engaged in if he thought anyone else was in the house and so he failed to corroborate Mitchell's alibi. The trial was the longest of a single accused, and the costliest at £452,687, in Scottish legal history.

On 21 January 2005, the jury found Mitchell guilty after 5 hours of deliberation. Mitchell, aged sixteen at the time of his conviction, was condemned as being "truly wicked" by Judge Lord Nimmo Smith. He was also found guilty of a separate charge of supplying cannabis.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 22, 2011, 04:22:PM
In March 2006, Mitchell was granted leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence at the High Court of Justiciary sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, on the grounds of the trial judge's refusal to hear the original case outside of the city.

In November 2006, Luke Mitchell won the right to appeal against his conviction for murder. Mitchell's legal team had wanted a number of grounds for appeal to be heard but the judges said only one would be allowed. Scotland's senior judge, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton said they would allow a ground of appeal claiming that the trial judge erred in refusing to move Mitchell's case out of Edinburgh following publicity ahead of the proceedings. Lord Hamilton, who was sitting with Lord Kingarth and Lord MacLean, said: "We have come, with some hesitation, to the view that this ground is arguable." "There is an argument that the trial judge failed adequately to take into account the circumstances that the publicity might have had an impact of particular strength not only in the immediate locality of the crime but in a somewhat wider area embracing the city of Edinburgh and other towns in the Lothians," he said. There was a huge media fanfare surrounding the trial and this may have affected the final outcome. The fact that the jury were not put into a hotel for the night of the decision has also been cited as a factor.

The Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh heard Mitchell's appeal in February 2008, but on 16 May 2008 the judges' verdict was given. Sitting over the appeal were Lord Osborne, Lord Kingarth and Lord Hamilton, who delivered the decision. They ruled that there was sufficient evidence in law that Luke Mitchell could be convicted on and rejected his other grounds of appeal, yet stated that police questioning of Mitchell on 14 August 2003 had been "outrageous" and was "to be deplored."

On 2 February 2011, Mitchell's appeal against his sentence was refused by a two to one majority. Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, sitting with Lord Hardie and Lady Cosgrove stated that he had the utmost sympathy for the family of the victim and that he understood entirely why this murder should have caused such public revulsion. Nevertheless, he was of the opinion that the sentencing judge should not have imposed a punishment part of such severity on such a young offender. He stated that justice would be done in this case if the punishment part of the sentence were fixed at 15 years. He did not consider that they were precluded from that disposal by anything said in the guidance given in HM Adv v Boyle and Ors (supra). He regretted, therefore, that he had to differ from his two colleagues.

(http://i.imgur.com/Rawtu.jpg)

Luke Mitchell leaves court following his failed sentence appeal in January 2011.

Appeal against Conviction decision (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html)

Appeal against sentence decision (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011HCJAC10.html)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 23, 2011, 01:47:PM
Mitchell was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence since the investigators had failed to provide any forensic evidence which connected him to the scene of the murder. Several DNA profiles were lifted from the site of the murder but remain unidentified to this day.

Mitchell never gave evidence in court in his defence. His mother states that this was on the advice of his Counsel, Donald Findlay QC and was a mistake as he should have been allowed to speak to his defence.

There are several factors which undermine Mitchell's contention that he was home with his mother and brother at the time Jodi Jones was alleged to have been murdered at 5.15pm on Monday 30 June 2003. Mitchell's mother and those who advocate for him have never been able to explain these anomalies.....

1. Mitchell's alibi on the day of the murder was that he was at home with his brother Shane after 4pm and that they were both there when his mother arrived home at 5.15pm. He stated that all three had dinner in the house. In his evidence however before the court, Shane failed to corroborate this and stated that he had not seen his brother in the house. He went on to say that he could have been there but he just didn't see him.  Luke Mitchell claims to have prepared the meal and its is his mothers claims that he burned the chicken pie. This is all very strange since such activity would generate noise and fumes and none were detected by Shane who was apparently sitting in his bedroom upstairs surfing porn sites on his computer. Shane admitted in court that he would not have done so had he known anyone else was in the house.

2. Mitchell's return from school on the day of the murder is unwitnessed.  The first confirmed sighting of him by three school boys was at 5.55pm when he was observed sitting on a low wall at the end of his street.  This is unusual in that there was normally lots of school kids wandering about the Crescent after school. To have walked home from school unseen is highly improbable unless off course he didn't want to be seen on that particular day.

3. When Luke Mitchell was alerted that his girlfriend was missing he arranged to meet a search party at the end of the path which Jodi would have taken. At 10.51pm Luke set of in the darkness with the family Alsatian bitch leading him. Their route would have taken them past the spot where Jodi's body lay yet it is Mitchell's claim that the dog did not react to her scent, a scent the dog knew extremely well.  It was only on the return journey with the search party in tow that Mitchell claims the dog reacted to the scent which resulted in them discovering the body. It was the Prosecution's contention that Mitchell had special knowledge as to where the body lay and so was able to take the search party directly to it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on March 28, 2011, 03:34:PM
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 28, 2011, 04:44:PM
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.

You may find this site interesting RDP. Has quite a lot of information.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/ (http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/)

Edit; forgot link.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 28, 2011, 06:40:PM
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.

Hi RDP,

My stance?...well that is an interesting question since it has changed somewhat the further I investigated this case. 

At the outset I could not believe that what was being alleged could ever possibly have occurred but like most things the passage of time and the uncovering of certain inconsistencies has led me to believe that there is doubt.  My stance therefore can be defined as going from believing Mitchell was innocent to now sitting on the fence with several unanswered questions.

It is not as if the questions haven't been asked of those who are closest to Mitchell, it is a matter that they choose to either ignore them or cannot answer them.

In relation to the website which the previous poster has chosen to highlight, I must warn that this is a pro Mitchell site and will not allow anti Mitchell arguments to be raised. It should not therefore be taken seriously in any way since it is not a true forum but a front for a most heinous slander campaign being conducted against the victims family.

I would also add that the poster Suzie is none other than the Wrongly Accused Person site owner who is reputed for his scamming and spamming, the above post being such an example.






Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 28, 2011, 07:09:PM
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.

Hi RDP,

My stance?...well that is an interesting question since it has changed somewhat the further I investigated this case. 

At the outset I could not believe that what was being alleged could ever possibly have occurred but like most things the passage of time and the uncovering of certain inconsistencies has led me to believe that there is doubt.  My stance therefore can be defined as going from believing Mitchell was innocent to now sitting on the fence with several unanswered questions.

It is not as if the questions haven't been asked of those who are closest to Mitchell, it is a matter that they choose to either ignore them or cannot answer them.

In relation to the website which the previous poster has chosen to highlight, I must warn that this is a pro Mitchell site and will not allow anti Mitchell arguments to be raised. It should not therefore be taken seriously in any way since it is not a true forum but a front for a most heinous slander campaign being conducted against the victims family.

I would also add that the poster Suzie is none other than the Wrongly Accused Person site owner who is reputed for his scamming and spamming, the above post being such an example.

I posted the above link as some readers may find it interesting, I don't think this counts as "scamming and spamming". I am not the owner of that site, I only have an interest in how the justice system in this country can go badly wrong and innocent people and their family's can be victims of this.

You are correct John, this is a pro Mitchell site but I have seen posters disagree and as long as posts are not disrespectful or abusive this is not objected to.

I have yet to find any posts that I would consider a " heinous slander campaign " towards the family, there was an instance some time ago that a poster sent an abusive message to the victims Mother but that was dealt with and the poster was banned.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 28, 2011, 07:36:PM
Accusing just about everyone within the Jones extended family of being either a murderer or complicit in murder in order to somehow exonerate Luke Mitchell is the most heinous misuse ever of a public forum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 28, 2011, 07:56:PM
Maybe you can explain why Mrs hall was also banned and blocked from accessing the forum?

There is a big difference between fact and fantasy with the WAP forum falling into the latter category.  Luke Mitchell had every opportunity to commit murder on his 14 year-old girlfriend. He had the motive, the means and the opportunity.

The sad excuse for an alibi that he was at home preparing dinner at 5.15pm on Monday 30 June 2003 while Jodi Jones had her throat cut and was thereafter mutilated just doesn't cut it as far as the evidence by his own brother has it. He was charged with perverting the course of justice as was his mother. They were also warned in court as to the consequences of perjury. Says it all really doesn't it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 28, 2011, 08:13:PM
Accusing just about everyone within the Jones extended family of being either a murderer or complicit in murder in order to somehow exonerate Luke Mitchell is the most heinous misuse ever of a public forum.

If that were the case then yes it would be, I have posted the link as I said to bring to the attention a site I found interesting. On a relevant thread for other forum members.  I will let those said members judge for themselves.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 28, 2011, 08:20:PM
Maybe you can explain why Mrs hall was also banned and blocked from accessing the forum?

There is a big difference between fact and fantasy with the WAP forum falling into the latter category.  Luke Mitchell had every opportunity to commit murder on his 14 year-old girlfriend. He had the motive, the means and the opportunity.

The sad excuse for an alibi that he was at home preparing dinner at 5.15pm on Monday 30 June 2003 while Jodi Jones had her throat cut and was thereafter mutilated just doesn't cut it as far as the evidence by his own brother has it. He was charged with perverting the course of justice as was his mother. They were also warned in court as to the consequences of perjury. Says it all really doesn't it?

I can honestly say I have no idea what the answer to that question is, I have nothing to do with it.


 
My stance therefore can be defined as going from believing Mitchell was innocent to now sitting on the fence with several unanswered questions.

You call that sitting on the fence ::)
I have no desire to continue this conversation, I only wished, as I said to post the link.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 28, 2011, 08:37:PM
Yes, it's called sitting on the fence when one cannot decide if a person is guilt or not guilty.

You obviously don't understand the concept since you advocate for Mitchell and have taken the trouble to register here solely in order to promote his poorly presented website.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 28, 2011, 09:16:PM
No, I registered here as I had read a few articles/posts elsewhere about the JB case and I am still reading this extensive site.   I posted the link as I have done the same on that site. ( am I not saying it right? )


 Just so we both know where I am at, I am laughing as I type this, I cant help it, I'll leave it at I recommend it, worth a read, but then someone said that to me about the twilight books and look how that turned out ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 28, 2011, 09:23:PM
... there was an instance some time ago that a poster sent an abusive message to the victims Mother but that was dealt with and the poster was banned.

There are only two people who know the truth about this and neither of them is called Suzie.

Try Mrs Sandra Lean or Billy Middleton.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 28, 2011, 10:02:PM
... there was an instance some time ago that a poster sent an abusive message to the victims Mother but that was dealt with and the poster was banned.

There are only two people who know the truth about this and neither of them is called Suzie.

Try Mrs Sandra Lean or Billy Middleton.

I already posted a reply but it seems to have vanished into cyber space, if it comes back, well this will explain that I'm not 2 sheets to the wind ;D

If they read any of the numerous forums out there that the message was discussed on then yes they will definitely know about it.
The chances of them being the only two are non existant.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on March 28, 2011, 10:54:PM
Bleedin Nora.. I've inadvertantly started a war on this thread... and for once, i'm not involved...
                                                                                                                              ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 28, 2011, 11:32:PM
Bleedin Nora.. I've inadvertantly started a war on this thread... and for once, i'm not involved...
                                                                                                                              ::)

Yes I blame you to Rochford Dolly Peel  ;)

Love the name
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on March 28, 2011, 11:59:PM
Bleedin Nora.. I've inadvertantly started a war on this thread... and for once, i'm not involved...
                                                                                                                              ::)

Yes I blame you to Rochford Dolly Peel  ;)

Love the name

Just birth place in essex plus reference to current hometown (local smuggler / fishwife in 1800's, that's also the name of a local pub). It's not my local though, so dont know why i picked it  :P
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 29, 2011, 12:10:AM
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D

This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!

(apologies, off topic )

Edited for clarity
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 29, 2011, 02:36:AM
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.

Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on March 29, 2011, 09:28:PM
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.

Hi RDP,

My stance?...well that is an interesting question since it has changed somewhat the further I investigated this case. 

At the outset I could not believe that what was being alleged could ever possibly have occurred but like most things the passage of time and the uncovering of certain inconsistencies has led me to believe that there is doubt.  My stance therefore can be defined as going from believing Mitchell was innocent to now sitting on the fence with several unanswered questions.

It is not as if the questions haven't been asked of those who are closest to Mitchell, it is a matter that they choose to either ignore them or cannot answer them.

In relation to the website which the previous poster has chosen to highlight, I must warn that this is a pro Mitchell site and will not allow anti Mitchell arguments to be raised. It should not therefore be taken seriously in any way since it is not a true forum but a front for a most heinous slander campaign being conducted against the victims family.

I would also add that the poster Suzie is none other than the Wrongly Accused Person site owner who is reputed for his scamming and spamming, the above post being such an example.

Thanks John... One thing that strikes me is how much he has aged in the pics you have put up.  No surprise there, given his experiences of course.  Did this lad have any history of violence or disorders? Unanswered questions... you've come to the right site for that! (main site). 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on March 29, 2011, 09:32:PM
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D

This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!

(apologies, off topic )

Edited for clarity

Suzie as in Quattro?  :D   You can look here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ .  But it is Bamber's official site.  There is a page on the prosection's case.  I'm unsure as to how watered down it is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 29, 2011, 10:12:PM
He has indeed aged in what is now nearly 8 years since the murder.  Below is another picture taken a short time after the murder with Luke depicted in a Parka jacket.  This picture has been the subject of much controversy since it was stated that he owned such a jacket prior to the murder when the evidence by his family was that he did not. I will come back to this later when I have decided how to fit in the various elements of the case in a single thread.

It should also be noted that a witness gave testimony that a youth fitting Mitchell's description was seen near to the murder scene some 30 minutes after the murder.  He was wearing a similar black t-shirt with white writing on it. The type of jacket worn by this youth is now also the subject of some debate, I will come back to this issue soon.

(http://i.imgur.com/EVfey.png)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on March 29, 2011, 10:12:PM
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D

This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!

(apologies, off topic )

Edited for clarity

Suzie as in Quattro?  :D   You can look here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ .  But it is Bamber's official site.  There is a page on the prosection's case.  I'm unsure as to how watered down it is.

I always liked Suzie & the banshees more ;D
Thanks for that link, dont know how I missed that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on March 29, 2011, 10:44:PM
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.

Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

That's awful.  Her mum's gonna be desolate about not enforcing the curfew.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on March 29, 2011, 11:07:PM
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D

This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!

(apologies, off topic )

Edited for clarity

Suzie as in Quattro?  :D   You can look here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ .  But it is Bamber's official site.  There is a page on the prosection's case.  I'm unsure as to how watered down it is.

I always liked Suzie & the banshees more ;D
Thanks for that link, dont know how I missed that.

Not a bad site imo.  Forum seems to be the place to be tho at the moment. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandy on March 30, 2011, 02:01:AM
He has indeed aged in what is now nearly 8 years since the murder.  Below is another picture taken a short time after the murder with Luke depicted in a Parka jacket.  This picture has been the subject of much controversy since it was stated that he owned such a jacket prior to the murder when the evidence by his family was that he did not. I will come back to this later when I have decided how to fit in the various elements of the case in a single thread.

It should also be noted that a witness gave testimony that a youth fitting Mitchell's description was seen near to the murder scene some 30 minutes after the murder.  He was wearing a similar black t-shirt with white writing on it. The type of jacket worn by this youth is now also the subject of some debate, I will come back to this issue soon.

(http://i.imgur.com/EVfey.png)

Am I right in saying that Luke Mitchell wore a bomber jacket to school that day and that was what he was seen wearing later that evening when seen by passing motorists??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandy on March 30, 2011, 02:07:AM
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.

Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

That's awful.  Her mum's gonna be desolate about not enforcing the curfew.

I believe that Jodi's mother and partner went to visit her late husbands grave later that afternoon after Jodi had left to meet Mitchell.  As far as I can see that left Joseph without any alibi. I also believe Joseph has some anger management issues, I wonder was this why Jodi was not allowed to be alone with him in the family home. Maybe you can clarify this for me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 30, 2011, 03:50:PM
He has indeed aged in what is now nearly 8 years since the murder.  Below is another picture taken a short time after the murder with Luke depicted in a Parka jacket.  This picture has been the subject of much controversy since it was stated that he owned such a jacket prior to the murder when the evidence by his family was that he did not. I will come back to this later when I have decided how to fit in the various elements of the case in a single thread.

It should also be noted that a witness gave testimony that a youth fitting Mitchell's description was seen near to the murder scene some 30 minutes after the murder.  He was wearing a similar black t-shirt with white writing on it. The type of jacket worn by this youth is now also the subject of some debate, I will come back to this issue soon.


Am I right in saying that Luke Mitchell wore a bomber jacket to school that day and that was what he was seen wearing later that evening when seen by passing motorists??

That is quite true Sandy, he was in the habit of wearing a Bomber jacket similar to the one depicted below. 

Evidence was however given in court by one of Mitchell's former teachers to the effect that he had previously worn a Parka jacket to school. This is refuted by Mitchell's family who claim that the parka jacket in which he is depicted above was purchased after the murder when police investigators took most of his clothing for forensic analysis.

(http://www.military-kit.co.uk/images/green_bomber_jacket_ma1.jpg)

Several motorists came forward and gave evidence about seeing a youth fitting Mitchell's description loitering about on Newbattle Road after 5.50pm on the day of the murder. Mitchell for his part does not dispute this and states in statements that he was waiting for Jodi to arrive. He was certainly seen and positively identified by three school boys at 5.55pm and later at 6.25pm as they returned home on their bicycles.

The colour of the jacket was confirmed as being green with one witness confirming that it had orange lining. The evidence in relation to the length of the jacket however varied from waist length to knee length. A witness also spoke of the youth wearing a black t-shirt with white lettering on it.  Depicted below is a t-shirt identical to that worn by Mitchell on the day of the murder.

(http://i.imgur.com/IUNoC.jpg)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on March 31, 2011, 04:05:PM
Still work out if you are for or against the accused.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 31, 2011, 05:18:PM
Still work out if you are for or against the accused.

If that is a question and it is directed at me, my answer would have to be neither.

My interest ends with justice being done in this case. This could relate to Jodi solely or indeed to both Jodi and Luke Mitchell if in fact he is shown to be innocent. I have my doubts about the latter since there are issues which remain unanswered.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 31, 2011, 05:32:PM
Another interesting point in this case is that there was never any reward offered for information which could see the perpetrator(s) properly convicted.  It has been suggested to Mitchell's family on several occasions that they offer such a reward but they are not interested. This in itself sends out the wrong message since if they truly believed in Luke's innocence they would stop at nothing to bring the real culprits to justice.   

They would rather try and sell their story to the local rag as Luke's grandmother, Ruby Guetta, attempted to do some time ago.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandy on April 02, 2011, 01:38:AM
Another interesting point in this case is that there was never any reward offered for information which could see the perpetrator(s) properly convicted.  It has been suggested to Mitchell's family on several occasions that they offer such a reward but they are not interested. This in itself sends out the wrong message since if they truly believed in Luke's innocence they would stop at nothing to bring the real culprits to justice.   

They would rather try and sell their story to the local rag as Luke's grandmother, Ruby Guetta, attempted to do some time ago.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/

It is the very same with the confidential hotline that you helped to set up John, they did nothing but ridicule it instead of supporting it.  They want to keep any information in the case within their own grasp and don't want to share anything of value.  They keep talking about progress but from what I have seen of their efforts they will be lucky to ever get a referral from the SCCRC.

At the end of the day there is no evidence which can clear Mitchell but plenty that can condemn him.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 05, 2011, 04:06:PM
Indeed Sandy, that has always concerned me in that people who promote themselves as advocates for the wrongly accused could act in such a way which could only do harm to any investigation.

Unless of course they didn't want me to get to the truth in the first place which is always a possibility?

There are too many unanswered questions in that case for me.  Why did those very same people go out of their way to have the Jodi Jones forum closed down if they themselves had nothing to hide?   Their actions speaks volumes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 11, 2011, 01:30:PM
The latest piece of misinformation being posted by those who support Mitchell is that he went over to Easthouses to meet Jodie when all along they have denied that he ever left Newbattle.

Isn't it really funny how the truth begins to seep out in the end??   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 11, 2011, 01:35:PM
I also find their constant insinuations that Jodie's immediate family were in some way involved in this heinous crime a bit rich and especially so coming from the web-master who was responsible for the death of his own daughter.

http://simplybillymiddleton.myfreeforum.org/forum1.php

They need to take a long hard look at themselves and the damage they continue to do to this family who have suffered quite enough over the last 7 years.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 11, 2011, 01:47:PM
you made a lot of those acusations yourself john anyone who reads thread will know that.

not everybody on theres acusing the jones.

other familes are frequntly accused of being involved in the childrens deaths why they can be accused but this one cant.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 11, 2011, 01:58:PM
And just on cue up she pops.

Lets just say that I was misled into believing that the Jones family were involved in her murder. I most certainly don't believe this to be true any longer having looked at all the facts in the case.

The continued refusal by the Mitchell's to address their memory lapses is the clincher for me. Innocent people don't suddenly develop amnesia deary.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 11, 2011, 03:37:PM
everybody involved in the case seems to have had memory lapses of some sort.

john Ferris and Gordon Dickie.

a fair few of the victims relatives an in laws did.
 

not to mention the man with the condom.

i cant remember seems to be the most popular phrase in the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 11, 2011, 03:44:PM
everybody involved in the case seems to have had memory lapses of some sort.

john ferris and gordon dickie.

a fair few of the victems relatives an inlaws did.
 

not to mention the man with the condom.


That isn't memory loss, rather being economical with the truth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 14, 2011, 02:29:PM
Today marks the 7th anniversary in prison for Luke Mitchell for the brutal slaying of his then 14 year-old girlfriend.  The savage knife attack was one of the worst they had seen according to police.

The case is currently before the SCCRC in Glasgow and is due for determination quite soon.  There is every possibility that Mitchell could be freed on a technicality following the recent Cadder ruling by the UK Supreme Court.

(http://i.imgur.com/PI2f6.jpg)
Victim Jodi Jones
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on April 14, 2011, 03:23:PM
John. How many other cases are you involved with besides this one?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 14, 2011, 03:32:PM
The Simon Hall case, the Kate Prout disappearance and a couple of others.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on April 14, 2011, 03:51:PM
The Simon Hall case, the Kate Prout disappearance and a couple of others.
Ire these some private investigations you have going, or what?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 14, 2011, 04:05:PM
The Simon Hall case, the Kate Prout disappearance and a couple of others.
Ire these some private investigations you have going, or what?

Not as such, more like a bunch of forums similar to what Mike has created here. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on April 14, 2011, 07:45:PM
John, why do you have to be so spiteful, ie. up she pops,and deary.
This is a forum where folks can express there views. We may not agree with each other, but we should respect there views.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 15, 2011, 12:12:AM
I am afraid it is a long story Cliff but believe me it is justified in the case of the individual concerned.  I think the word Troll defines it quite nicely.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 15, 2011, 12:56:AM
Today marks the 7th anniversary in prison for Luke Mitchell for the brutal slaying of his then 14 year-old girlfriend.  The savage knife attack was one of the worst they had seen according to police.

The case is currently before the SCCRC in Glasgow and is due for determination quite soon.  There is every possibility that Mitchell could be freed on a technicality following the recent Cadder ruling by the UK Supreme Court.

(http://i.imgur.com/PI2f6.jpg)
Victim Jodi Jones


theres also the anderson rulling of defective defence.
and of course the dna evedence linking others to the crime.

i think he will get off on more than just a technicality.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 15, 2011, 01:07:AM
It is nigh impossible to argue defective defence in Scottish courts so that one is a non starter.

At the end of the day, technicality or no technicality the panel of judges will look at the real possibility of Mitchell being innocent or not. If they believe him to be guilty he will not get of...simples.

From what I have seen the evidence against him is overwhelming so I cannot see how he will ever succeed in having his conviction overturned.

The inconsistencies in his families evidence says it all really.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 15, 2011, 01:22:AM
well the presence of other peoples sperm and blood on the body.

and other bits of DNA.

but none of his DNA.

 no credible eye witnesses identifying him

plus impossibly short time frame he had to commit the crime would tend to suggest innocence.

his got more going in his defence than most people have.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 15, 2011, 01:30:AM
well the presence of other peoples sperm and blood on the body.

and other bits of DNA.

but none of his DNA.

 no credible eye witnesses identifying him

plus impossibly short time frame he had to commit the crime would tend to suggest innocence.

his got more going in his defence than most people have.

The presence of other DNA profiles on the body doesn't mean that he is not the killer.  The strange thing though is that he was with her earlier that day and still there was none of his DNA on her or her clothing and vice-versa.  It's as if he changed his clothes and washed which again would fit with the prosecution case against him.

He disappeared after school yet there are normally dozens of kids milling around the roads and parks.

His brother testified that he didn't see him at home yet Luke Mitchell claims to have been there and made dinner.  So which one is lying or which one is covering up for the other?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 15, 2011, 01:40:AM
well people can be in the same house and not know of each other presnce.

how can the absence of dna make somebody guilty.

to have comited the crime he would of had to have cleaned all his dna from jodis body

and all her dna from himself nothing was found his house or his mums car.

how could he clean his dna off the body but leave other peoples on there.

it dosent mater if nobody saw going home from becouse jodi was still alive then.

she dident  leave her house untill 450 or 500pm.

nobody saw jodi return home from scholl ethere body nobodys disputing she got there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 03:42:PM
Oh dear!!!  I won't say, "I told you so!"

Luke Mitchell loses 5th appeal against his conviction yesterday.


In his fifth appeal attempt, Mitchell tried to use the UK Supreme Court's "Cadder Ruling", which took away Scots cops' right to quiz suspects without a lawyer.

Mitchell said he should be allowed to appeal under Cadder because he was not allowed a lawyer during a six-hour "interrogation".

But Scotland's senior judge, Lord Hamilton, said the Cadder Ruling applied to "live" appeals, and Mitchell had lost his in 2008.

Mitchell, his hair in long, straggly braids, showed no emotion in the dock.

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52196000/jpg/_52196357_mitchell.jpg)

His mum Corinne sat on one side of the public gallery, with Jodi's mother Judith and other relatives on the other.



BBC News report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13095299)
Daily Record article (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/04/16/evil-killer-luke-mitchell-loses-fifth-appeal-against-jodi-jones-murder-conviction-86908-23065232/)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 03:51:PM
oh well its not over many people lose appeals and get off later.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 03:52:PM
He may even get parole someday, miracles do happen!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 04:01:PM
oh this is a minor setback.

he will be cleared eventaully its just a matter of time.

the birghmham 6 lost a fair few appeals and many other people i could mention.

all the qustions in this case arnt going to go away.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 04:18:PM
oh this is a minor setback.

he will be cleared eventaully its just a matter of time.

the birghmham 6 lost a fair few appeals and many other people i could mention.

all the qustions in this case arnt going to go away.


Don't you dare compare Mitchell with the Birmingham 6, they were innocent.

The evidence against Mitchell for me is overwhelming and until such times as new evidence can be provided I don't see that changing.

The reluctance by his family to explore all and every avenue is very telling. What are they hiding still??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 04:24:PM
thev have have explianed themselves time agian its not there fault if people have chosen to ignore what they have said.

im not sure what overwhelming evedence your talking about.

and i think the comprasion with the brigmingham 6 is perfectly reasonable.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 04:32:PM
thev have have explianed themselves time agian its not there fault if people have chosen to ignore what they have said.

im not sure what overwhelming evedence your talking about.

and i think the comprasion with the brigmingham 6 is perfectly reasonable.

The Mitchell family have failed to explain the inconsistencies in their own evidence.

Shane Mitchell stated to the court that he did not see his brother in the house that afternoon from 4pm until 5.15pm yet his brother Luke claims that he made the dinner for them all.  Not hard to see who is lying is it?

Why don't you face it Sandra, you all thought that he would get out on the 'Cadder' ruling but you were sorely mistaken.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 04:36:PM
as i said people can be in the same house and not know of each others prsence

id hardly call that overwhelming evednce of guilt

the evedence of the victems family was pretty inconsistant but that dosent mean they were lying

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 04:43:PM
as i said people can be in the same house and not know of each others prsence

id hardly call that overwhelming evednce of guilt

the evedence of the victems family was pretty inconsistant but that dosent mean they were lying

The evidence relating to the Jones family has absolutely nothing to do with Mitchell's guilt Sandra.

There are many strands of circumstantial evidence which implicates Mitchell in Jodi's murder.

He had the means, the motive and the opportunity.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 04:51:PM
he had no motive at all to want to kill  Jodi.

his opportunity would have been very limited he had at the most 45 minutes to meet her kill he mutilate the body then clean himself up without leaving a trace of himself there.

the family's evidence is very  relevant.

there many other people who certainly had the opportunity to kill her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 04:54:PM
he had no motive at all to want to kill  Jodi.

his opportunity would have been very limited he had at the most 45 minutes to meet her kill he mutilate the body then clean himself up without leaving a trace of himself there.

the family's evidence is very  relevant.

there many other people who certainly had the opportunity to kill her.

He had the motive alright as he wanted her out of the way.  Could she have confronted him that afternoon about his planned liaison with the other girlfriend??  Could it have all gone wrong in a cannabis fuelled frenzy??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 04:58:PM
14 year old lads do not kill there girlfriend becouse they want to go off with another girl they just pick up the phone and say your dumped.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 05:01:PM
14 year old lads do not kill there girlfriend becouse they want to go off with another girl they just pick up the phone and say your dumped.

Given his history I am not surprised that he used his knife on her.  The same knife which has mysteriously disappeared.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 05:10:PM
he had no history of violence unlike most of the other people mentioned in the case.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 05:11:PM
he had no history of violence unlike most of the other people mentioned in the case.

So what do you call threatening another girl with rape whilst holding a knife at her throat??

Same old...same old!!   ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 05:16:PM
there is absultly no evedence he did that.

that girls did come forward till after he had been convicted.

when she didcome forward she went to a newspaper not the police.

if she wa tellig the truth why did she not go the police after the murder.

how much was she paid by the newspaper for her story.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 05:21:PM
there is absultly no evedence he did that.

that girls did come forward till after he had been convicted.

when she didcome forward she went to a newspaper not the police.

if she wa tellig the truth why did she not go the police after the murder.

how much was she paid by the newspaper for her story.

How much was it that Corinne demanded for mamma Ruby Guetta's story??

£10,000 wasn't it with a picture.  Talk about making money off your own son's misfortune.

(http://i.imgur.com/WVBBz.jpg)

Mitchell's mother Corinne leaves court after the last failed appeal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 05:29:PM
she has always dinied  she demanded any money for a story she has explained that several times.

we only have the word of a tabloid newspaper that any of that is true.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 05:32:PM
she has always dined demanded any money for a story she has explained that several times.

we only have the word of a tabloid newspaper that any of that is true.

That makes her an even bigger liar then.

Killer's Granny tries To Sell Her Story For £10K (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 05:37:PM
why he dident tell the press that it dosent make him a liar.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 05:43:PM
What about all those other Press stories about his exploits in HMP Shotts?

You know Sandra, the ones that Corinne keeps denying when we all know that they are true.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 05:49:PM
no evedence that any of them were true the press never named there sources for any of these storys.

i dont see how what somebody does in prison is all that relvant to weather they comited they crime they were sent there for.

and will you please stop calling me sandra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 06:17:PM
Comments like that below by Mitchell's mother yesterday are unlikely to endear her to the justiciary.

Quote from: Corinne Mitchell
Just another guy with a silly wig not wanting to stand on the toes of  another guy in a silly wig and not have the guts to say they were wrong!

Take away the silly wigs and the Santa suits and what have you got?......3 craws, sat upon a wa'........with no concept of real life!!!

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/6270/

...but then Corinne Mitchell is in denial about everthing that doesn't go her way.

When is the civil case by the way re the death by CO poisoning?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 06:24:PM
i have know idea and i dont see what its got to do with the murder anyway.

its completly unrelated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 06:33:PM
i have know idea and i dont see what its got to do with the murder anyway.

its completly unrelated.

It's to do with Corinne's credibility isn't it as a witness.  She has already been proven a liar in court so it will be interesting to see what she says in the civil case against her.

(http://i.imgur.com/jkx5o.jpg)

Luke Mitchell and mother at Jodi Jones' graveside following the funeral earlier that day.

Jodi's mother had earlier asked the Mitchell's to stay away from the funeral. The floral tribute left by the Mitchell's was later that day lifted by Jodi's mother and returned to the Mitchell doorstep as a sign of her utter contempt for the family.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 06:40:PM
as far as i know there is no libel case agianst her and i havent heard that theres likely to be one.

if she was lying why all charges of lying agianst droped.

was it becouse the polce knew she was telling the truth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 06:44:PM
as far as i know there is no libel case agianst her and i havent heard that theres likely to be one.

if she was lying why all charges of lying agianst droped.

was it becouse the polce knew she was telling the truth.

Lets refresh your memory then.

Murderer Mitchell's mother sued for £¼m over deadly caravan (http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Murderer-Mitchell39s-mother-sued-for.6704652.jp)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 16, 2011, 06:48:PM
thats isnt libel is it.

its got nothing to do with weather her son is incocent or guilty.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 16, 2011, 06:50:PM
thats isnt libel is it.

its got nothing to do with weather her son is incocent or guilty.

No its a civil case for damages.

Wonderful how your spelling always improves Missy???   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 20, 2011, 07:24:PM
I notice the sanctimonious back slapping continues unabated on WAP as the Mitchell camp attempt to rally from yet another defeat.

Keep up the good work chappies and especially the fake persona's parachuted in by scammer Middleton to swell the ranks of the believers.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad!!   ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 23, 2011, 01:06:AM
Ive put a Little bit about the case on my own forum.

http://mycrimesforum.myfastforum.org/forum4.php
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 23, 2011, 11:41:AM
Now the cross forum promotion begins.  You never change Middleton do you??   ;D ;D

Personally I believe that anyone who promotes their own forum on here should be banned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 23, 2011, 12:28:PM
well i sugest you stop doing it yourself then.

now in your above posts you were calling me missy.

now calling me billy.

for christ make up your mind what sex i am
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 23, 2011, 12:30:PM
You noticed that then missy...... ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 23, 2011, 01:35:PM
you seem to discuss anything but the facts  of this case witch makes me wonder why you started the thread.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 24, 2011, 12:16:PM
It seems the Mitchell case is going from bad to worse to a no hoper.  I believe the SCCRC have intimated that they will not be taking any points forward.

So much for Sandra Lean's input.   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2011, 12:44:PM
and how would you know what the sccrc are doing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 24, 2011, 12:50:PM
and how would you know what the sccrc are doing.

It's right though isn't it missy?   ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2011, 03:00:PM
i wouldn't have a clue what the sccrc are doing.

and nor would you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 24, 2011, 03:03:PM
i wouldn't have a clue what the sccrc are doing.

and nor would you.

Speak for yourself nuggy but I have contacts in the right places.  I was right about the latest appeal and I will be right about the CCRC referral.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2011, 03:10:PM
well if thats true then somebodys breaking the law by telling you and this will have to be investgated further.

that couldeven be grounds for a full investigation itself.

it could even be used as new grounds for appeall.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 24, 2011, 03:14:PM
Stephanie sends her regards missy!   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2011, 03:37:PM
if you have obtianed any information about a confidetial ccrc review.

then you have a comited a very serious crime one of course i will  feel compelled to report.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on April 24, 2011, 03:41:PM
Aye nuggy and the moon is made of cheese.   :-*
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 25, 2011, 04:25:PM
no i meant it john if i was somebody who believed a word you said i would report it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 30, 2011, 04:20:PM
updates.

http://mycrimesforum.myfastforum.org/forum4.php
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on May 03, 2011, 06:26:PM
oh his guilty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 08, 2011, 02:45:PM
It does appear so in as much as his own brother and mother couldn't get their stories straight in relation to what was at the end of the day a very simple issue.  Liars are always caught out in the end!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 08, 2011, 03:23:PM
yes that's why were caught out john.

unlike yourself Shane and Corine arnt convicted liars
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 08, 2011, 08:12:PM
That sounds good coming from a coward who hides behind a false identity.

Shane had to tell the truth when faced with a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.  In doing so he dropped little bro and big momma right in it.

The guilty verdict against killer Luke renders Corinne a liar by implication, she was very lucky to have the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice taken no further during the trial. One must bear in mind however that there is no reason why such a charge cannot still be reinstated when the application to the SCCRC fails so she had better watch out. 

That applies to you too nugget since the defamations made publicly by you and others against certain members of the justiciary and former senior police officers have a habit of coming back to haunt.   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 08, 2011, 08:47:PM
sory a man convicted of  robing old ladys old ladys is in know position somone else a liar

fact they were not convicted of lying unlike yourself.

and your in no postion to call anyone a coward seeing as your hideing away in spain.

you havent even got the bollocks to be in the same country as the people your slaging off.





Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 08, 2011, 08:55:PM
ive challenged these people to sue sevral none of them have aint that funny

i welcome all law suits that come my way.

everything ive said about this senoir policeman can back up by fact so if hes reading this i say bring it on.

frontline and rough justice have allready said this he hasnt dared to sue them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 08, 2011, 10:43:PM
sory a man convicted of  robing old ladys old ladys is in know position somone else a liar

fact they were not convicted of lying unlike yourself.

and your in no postion to call anyone a coward seeing as your hideing away in spain.

you havent even got the bollocks to be in the same country as the people your slaging off.

Maybe you should get your facts straight yet again imbecile penguin.  I have never been convicted of robbing anyone let alone any old ladies.  As for being convicted of lying, I have never faced a charge of perjury not like the Mitchell's who were both charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and were warned in relation to a charge of perjury.

You don't know where I live idiot so quit while you are ahead as you are beginning to look stupid now!   ;D

As for suing you, I believe it is only a matter of time before you receive a writ.  The archives relating to you and your defamations are quite interesting and should make for excellent reading on my new forum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 08, 2011, 11:15:PM
your convicted of robing your dying aunt who was old lady i believe and lying to the taxman.

a fact witch i can easly back up and will.

so your really in know postion to talk about other peoples honesty.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 09, 2011, 01:32:AM
Oh I have no problem with my honesty and this is backed up by every single member of my family and every person who knows me personally. I cannot help it if a certain Procurator Fiscal Depute was a lying bitch who was only out to make a name for herself.

You on the other hand are a non entity nugget, a fictional character, a charade who professes to know all about me and others when you haven't the first clue.

I pity you nugget, for all the time I have known you and your fake lingo I have come to see you as a lonely and embittered soul.  When you set out upon this crusade nugget you had some good to say to most people but I have watched as your demeanour has changed. I have watched you attack posters on several forums when you thought that us regulars weren't around. I have watched you slander many people including the Jodi Jones family...shame on you nugget.

Where do you go from here nugget or should I use your real name?  All those slanderous accusations in the public domain....  remember Scott Forbes isn't the only one who can sue!!   ;) ;)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 09, 2011, 02:08:AM
Quote from: Flora on WAP
Hi Sandra - t'would be fab if you'd take a look at the alibi thing, since that issue underpins the whole convinction.  It is such a pity that no-one saw Luke coming home or leaving to meet Jodi.

Link (http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg12973/?PHPSESSID=2a2d092170a070d93d52896ca2a8b8e8#new)

Isn't it just a pity indeed but then again it could never have happened because he wasn't there to be seen!!   ;D ;D

PS.. Bit of warning here Flora.  hint  hint   ....them lot down at WAP don't like you to talk about those non existent witnesses!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 09, 2011, 02:19:AM
No crocodile tears on this occasion?

(http://i.imgur.com/DNbTo.jpg)

Luke Mitchell and mother Corinne with family pet Mia in tow, attend the grave of murder victim Jodi Jones just hours after her funeral.  Mitchell was told to stay away from the cemetery by Judy Jones, the victim's mother, but couldn't resist making an issue of it.

Hours earlier Mitchell had given an interview to James Matthews of Sky News.

Transcript follows.....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 09, 2011, 02:24:AM
JAMES MATTHEWS:  It’s 65 days since Jodi was killed, Luke, clearly it’s a tragedy for her family, do you see it as a tragedy for your family as well?

LUKE:  Yes.

JAMES MATTHEWS:  Tell me about your experience over the last two months.

LUKE:  It’s just been worse than a nightmare.  At least a nightmare you wake up from eventually but this, you can’t wake up from it.

JAMES MATTHEWS:  What’s been the worst part of the last two months?

LUKE:  The worst part would be still finding Jodi.  That was still the worst part.  All the rest of it, the police and accusations and everything I couldn’t care about, it’s just … I just want to find out what happened and who did it.

JAMES MATTHEWS:  Do you feel that the finger has been pointed at you as the person responsible?

LUKE:  I feel it has been left to the media and public to decide.  It is trial by media.  They haven’t actually come out and totally accused me, apart from in interviews, the police have accused me but I feel it has been left to trial by media to see what the public decide, who’s guilty and who’s not.  The way the police are handling it, they have searched other houses and they have other suspects but I seem to be really the only person they are mentioning by name in specific detail.

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.

JAMES MATTHEWS:  It is a question on everybody’s lips in this community, it is a question you clearly have an answer for.  Did you kill Jodi Jones?

LUKE:  No, I never, I wouldn’t think of it.  All the time we were going out we never had one argument at all, never.  We never fell out or anything.

JAMES MATTHEWS: How do you feel at being told to stay away from the funeral?

LUKE: That was a hard blow.  I was dreading going to the funeral but I did want to go and being told not to go due to the fact that it would turn the funeral into a circus, a media circus, was bad.  It would have been a media circus without me but that was, if it was the family’s wishes, that’s what I was going to do?

JAMES MATTHEWS: You have paid your own tribute, you have written a poem.  Tell me why you felt you needed to do that?

LUKE:  I just felt I had to say goodbye in my own way.

JAMES MATTHEWS:  So what would you say to those who would look at you and think he killed his girlfriend?

LUKE: I just say they are being naïve and not to believe everything you read in the papers.  As a lot of folk know from what they’ve said and what’s turned out in the papers, they do change what people have said, not the whole truth is published in papers.  It is basically what the people want to hear is what printed.

JAMES MATTHEWS: I suppose the difficulty is from 5 p.m. to whenever Jodie was found, that's a long time to fill and to account for, especially if you lose track of time.  The question I suppose for detectives, for people who look at that is could anybody account for every minute in that sort of period?  Can you, can you account for every minute?

LUKE:  No.  Well the police seem to expect people to, as you say, pin down every minute of their life, to expect us to know when we do small insignificant things like doing the dishes, expect us to have a time for that, it isn’t possible to keep a pin of every minute that you do something.

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.

JAMES MATTHEWS: Finally, do you miss Jodi?

LUKE:  A lot.  It’s just, everything I do seems to remind me, her views and everything come up everywhere.  Everywhere you look, going about the streets, there are posters.  It’s just, I can’t believe … it still feels like a nightmare.

ENDS



http://skynewstranscripts.co.uk/transcript.asp?id=54
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 09, 2011, 11:45:AM
No crocodile tears on this occasion?

(http://i.imgur.com/DNbTo.jpg)

Luke Mitchell and mother Corinne with family pet Mia in tow, attend the grave of murder victim Jodi Jones just hours after her funeral.  Mitchell was told to stay away from the cemetery by Judy Jones, the victim's mother, but couldn't resist making an issue of it.

Hours earlier Mitchell had given an interview to James Matthews of Sky News.

Transcript follows.....

well anyone would want to viset there girlfriends thats just called being human.

and lay a tribute.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 09, 2011, 12:18:PM
Given the subsequent murder conviction it was totally inappropriate missy!

It seems that Corinne Mitchell had little respect for the Jones family by blatantly going against their wishes.  Any normal person would have visited the grave when the Press had all disappeared but not Corinne Mitchell. There was no excuse for it.

To make matters worse she earlier entertains James Matthews from Sky News in order that her son give an interview at the very moment Jodi was being interred, an interview which has come to haunt them all to this day.

Would that be the tribute that the Jones family delivered back to the Mitchell doorstep in a act of utter contempt for them?

(http://i.imgur.com/RmTcR.jpg)

Killers tribute to his girlfriend!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 09, 2011, 12:58:PM
its normall behavior if love someone.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 09, 2011, 10:42:PM
What is normal behaviour is to honour the wishes of the deceased's family.  Apparently the Mitchell's with new girlfriend in tow couldn't even get that right.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 09, 2011, 10:48:PM
she was one of jodis friends who wanted to pay tribute as well.

theres was no evedence she was ever girlfriend.

but then agian i suppose i cant expect an ex cop to understand human feelings.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 09, 2011, 10:52:PM
So you have a problem against all cops now nugget?  Lets hope you never need to call on one to help you some day!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: shonapugs on May 09, 2011, 11:09:PM
Forgive me John, I'm aware of this case but not privy to all the facts. You post some serious stuff on JB's forum, but you're pissing on your chips here, jousting with nugnug. You'll never win, just send your blood pressure up, like with me and Jackie. Pissing on your chips, into the wind................
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 09, 2011, 11:16:PM
Don't worry about nugnug, I am very well aware who is behind that particular façade and why they do what they do!   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: shonapugs on May 09, 2011, 11:31:PM
Okey doke, John. I'll leave you to it. But you're worth more than that, by the looks of things.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 10, 2011, 12:06:AM
Oh I have no problem with my honesty and this is backed up by every single member of my family and every person who knows me personally. I cannot help it if a certain Procurator Fiscal Depute was a lying bitch who was only out to make a name for herself.

You on the other hand are a non entity nugget, a fictional character, a charade who professes to know all about me and others when you haven't the first clue.

I pity you nugget, for all the time I have known you and your fake lingo I have come to see you as a lonely and embittered soul.  When you set out upon this crusade nugget you had some good to say to most people but I have watched as your demeanour has changed. I have watched you attack posters on several forums when you thought that us regulars weren't around. I have watched you slander many people including the Jodi Jones family...shame on you nugget.

Where do you go from here nugget or should I use your real name?  All those slanderous accusations in the public domain....  remember Scott Forbes isn't the only one who can sue!!   ;) ;)

as i said i have be chalngling people to sue for a long while nobody has

i would dearly love them to sue.

if youre implying that your going to sue then please be my guest.
it would be great to meet you in court of law.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 10, 2011, 02:24:PM
All good things come to them who wait....

That said nugget I don't have an issue with you personally and have found you to be quite accommodating any time that we have cross posted.  However, you have made some serious accusations recently against people in Edinburgh which I hope you will never have to substantiate in a court of law.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on May 10, 2011, 08:00:PM
I see the auld Scottish blood feud is still simmering away   ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 12, 2011, 03:08:AM
I notice it is now being said that John Ferris fingered Luke for the murder after all.  Could it be that Ferris and his friend Gordon Dickie did actually see something when they made over the wall that afternoon?  Could it be that they saw Luke Mitchell murdering Jodi Jones but were too traumatised to tell anyone except possibly David Dickie.  Is that why David Dickie was so sure that Luke was the culprit?

Lots beginning to add up now!

See page 12 of the discussion - post by Cheekio at 8.26pm 11 May (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/04/04/four-appeals-by-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-cost-112-000-in-legal-aid-86908-23036950/#sitelife-commentsWidget-bottom)

(http://i.imgur.com/u6Ina.jpg)

John Ferris pictured arriving at court
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 12, 2011, 03:35:PM
It seems that the nutty penguin has done a runner....    ;)

Anyway, apparently WAP are trying to get out of this one now that pussy is out of the bag.  Now we know why John Ferris did a bunk to Ayr with his maw and all....extremely interesting!  ;D


(http://i.imgur.com/iJaq7.jpg)

Murderer Luke Mitchell and new girlfriend attend Jodi's grave in the full glare of the Press and the police after having been told to stay away by the murdered girls family.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 12, 2011, 03:51:PM
The log burner situated in the Mitchell's back garden where the prosecution contend that Luke's clothing was burned on the afternoon of the murder.  Several of Corinne Mitchell's neighbours spoke of an unusual wafting smell emanating from the Mitchell garden.

(http://i.imgur.com/2DKbU.jpg)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 12, 2011, 07:24:PM
Lord Nimmo Smith said Jodi’s injuries were the worst he had ever seen.

A blade was drawn backwards and forwards across her throat at least 20 times.  Her eyelids were slit by a hand steady enough not to touch her eyeballs. And her clothes were cut from her body before deep gashes were made to a cheek, breast and her abdomen.  The knife was also jabbed hard into her mouth.

Jodi’s arms were then bound with her trousers and her naked body dumped behind a tree near a woodland path.  Within minutes of murdering his girlfriend in June 2003, Mitchell phoned her home to ask where she was.

Article (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/101719/Boy-fiend-who-killed-Jodi.html#ixzz1MADTTLys)


(http://i.imgur.com/T54nl.jpg)

Victim... Jodi Jones' throat was cut 20 times
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 13, 2011, 10:38:AM
It seems that the nutty penguin has done a runner....    ;)

Anyway, apparently WAP are trying to get out of this one now that pussy is out of the bag.  Now we know why John Ferris did a bunk to Ayr with his maw and all....extremely interesting!  ;D


(http://i.imgur.com/iJaq7.jpg)

Murderer Luke Mitchell and new girlfriend attend Jodi's grave in the full glare of the Press and the police after having been told to stay away by the murdered girls family.

i havent done runner john.

just sometime i other things to do than post on forums.


agian there is no proof she was girlfriend.

she was girl who happened

she happened to be a friend of jodi and wanted to pay respects

as did luke mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 13, 2011, 10:41:AM
The log burner situated in the Mitchell's back garden where the prosecution contend that Luke's clothing was burned on the afternoon of the murder.  Several of Corinne Mitchell's neighbours spoke of an unusual wafting smell emanating from the Mitchell garden.

(http://i.imgur.com/2DKbU.jpg)

the plce took that log burner to bits and found nothing had been burnt in it that shouldent have been they found no evedence that be used agianst luke mitchell at all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 13, 2011, 12:20:PM
The Infamous Mitchell Log burner...

Apparently the Appeal Court and the jury took a different view...

[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.

[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] In these circumstances, it is necessary to consider the position in relation to those particular parts of the appellant's replies to questioning that the Crown founded upon during the course of the trial, with a view to seeing whether those individual replies were given to questions which ought to be regarded individually as unfair. The first of these replies is that at page 17 of the transcript concerning the fire at the log burner in the back garden on 30 June 2003. 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.

Appeal Judgement 16 May 2008 (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 15, 2011, 06:40:PM
This statement intrigues me.

Quote
The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.

Yet Shane has a different take on things.

Luke's brother admits mum aided evidence
Source: Evening News - Scotland
Date: 1/13/2005

THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family's house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.

In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane's statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother's car being in the driveway and the front door being open.

His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.

Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell's statement given on the previous day to Shane's. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."

Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."

Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.

"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

Mitchell replied: "My mother."

Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: 'You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.'"

Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.

Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan's Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues







Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 16, 2011, 01:44:AM
An excellent post Janet which clearly shows that the Mitchell family lied through their teeth prior to and during the trial.  It is a sheer impossibility that two boys could be in a small house together for over half an hour with one of them making dinner and not hear each other.  Corinne Mitchell bleats on about Luke being in the garden when Shane came in and that is why they did not see each other.  That is quite possible but it is impossible for Luke to have prepared dinner including burning the chicken pie and Shane not noticing it especially when he was involved in an activity upstairs which he admitted he would only have done had the house been empty.

Add to this the fact that not one child ever came forward to say that they had seen Luke go home from school that afternoon, saw him go to his house around 4.40pm or saw him leave home at 5.30pm.  What is ever worse is that I offered to provide a reward for any witness who would come forward and give Luke Mitchell that crucial alibi and I was shot down in flames. 

It would appear that the Mitchell family would rather their son spend the next 13 years in prison than go searching for witnesses...to me that speaks volumes!

Telephone Hotline   still available for any witnesses  07092 984231

Did you see Luke Mitchell between 4.00pm and 5.40pm on the day of Jodi's murder?



http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-12877258.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 16, 2011, 04:59:PM
its irrelevant weather anyone saw him go home because Jodi was still alive then.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 16, 2011, 05:04:PM
Really?  Was she?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 16, 2011, 05:07:PM
the family story confirm she was still alive now unless the Jones and the Mitchell's were in it together she must of still been alive.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 16, 2011, 07:21:PM
heres whats being said on the daily record.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/community/profile/?plckPersonaPage=PersonaHome&plckUserId=286609-ncms&UID=286609-ncms&sid=community.dailyrecord.co.uk
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 16, 2011, 11:38:PM
No crocodile tears on this occasion?

(http://i.imgur.com/DNbTo.jpg)

Luke Mitchell and mother Corinne with family pet Mia in tow, attend the grave of murder victim Jodi Jones just hours after her funeral.  Mitchell was told to stay away from the cemetery by Judy Jones, the victim's mother, but couldn't resist making an issue of it.

Hours earlier Mitchell had given an interview to James Matthews of Sky News.

Transcript follows.....

well anyone would want to viset there girlfriends thats just called being human.

and lay a tribute.

Wish you would make your mind up. It was suggested in court that Luke Mitchell was seeing another girl Kimberly Thompson at the same time he was seeing poor Jodi.

The response to that from the Mitchell camp was that he was just a young boy and it was not a serious adult relationship and he was not two timing. (or words to that effect)

Ms Thompson said in court up until she heard about the murder she believed she was his girlfriend. Now why would she think this? Is this not two timing? Most teenage girls would see it as exactly that.

So if it was not a serious relationship like adults have and he could have as many girlfriends as he liked, what gave him or his mother the right to go to the grave when they had been told to stay away?

Not only did he go to the graveside with his mother and a girl pal plus a dog, they ended up with media there too. Plus giving the Sky interview on the very day Jodi was being buried was sickening.

Why did these people need to continually put themselves in the spotlight?

They would not like it if they told someone not to go somewhere and they did. The Mitchells have no respect for anyone.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 16, 2011, 11:48:PM
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.

even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.

i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.

visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:02:AM
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.

even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.

i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.

visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.

Well she testified in court that she was his girlfriend.  Luke Mitchell never stood up in court and said she wasn't his girlfriend did he?

Having two girlfriends could be a motive for murder.

Visiting the grave of a child, whose mother had insisted he was not to go there was a total lack of respect.
They should have abided by the Jones family decision but no they knew better.

There is no excuse whatsoever for them being at the grave against the mothers wishes. They had no rights to be there plain and simples.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:04:AM
if love someone you visit there grave weather you are told to stay away or or not.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: shonapugs on May 17, 2011, 12:11:AM
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:12:AM
An excellent post Janet which clearly shows that the Mitchell family lied through their teeth prior to and during the trial.  It is a sheer impossibility that two boys could be in a small house together for over half an hour with one of them making dinner and not hear each other.  Corinne Mitchell bleats on about Luke being in the garden when Shane came in and that is why they did not see each other.  That is quite possible but it is impossible for Luke to have prepared dinner including burning the chicken pie and Shane not noticing it especially when he was involved in an activity upstairs which he admitted he would only have done had the house been empty.

Add to this the fact that not one child ever came forward to say that they had seen Luke go home from school that afternoon, saw him go to his house around 4.40pm or saw him leave home at 5.30pm.  What is ever worse is that I offered to provide a reward for any witness who would come forward and give Luke Mitchell that crucial alibi and I was shot down in flames. 

It would appear that the Mitchell family would rather their son spend the next 13 years in prison than go searching for witnesses...to me that speaks volumes!

Telephone Hotline   still available for any witnesses  07092 984231

Did you see Luke Mitchell between 4.00pm and 5.40pm on the day of Jodi's murder?



http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-12877258.html

are you going to tell peple how much that call will cost them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:14:AM
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............

Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:15:AM
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............

when your young you dont think like that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: shonapugs on May 17, 2011, 12:21:AM
Blimey, nugnug, this is a particularly horrible and sad case. But, sadly, it doesn't take much working out. That poor young girl, and a scared boyfriend, and a "if I can't have you, then nobody can" scenario. It's all a bit Jeremy Kyle, isn't it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:23:AM
The log burner situated in the Mitchell's back garden where the prosecution contend that Luke's clothing was burned on the afternoon of the murder.  Several of Corinne Mitchell's neighbours spoke of an unusual wafting smell emanating from the Mitchell garden.

(http://i.imgur.com/2DKbU.jpg)



exept the police found no trace of any clothes being burned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:25:AM
Blimey, nugnug, this is a particularly horrible and sad case. But, sadly, it doesn't take much working out. That poor young girl, and a scared boyfriend, and a "if I can't have you, then nobody can" scenario. It's all a bit Jeremy Kyle, isn't it?

exept there none of his dna on the body.

but theres another guys sperm and blood on there.

how does he clean his own dna off and leave someone elses on there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:29:AM
nugnug

what intrigues me about you is you came from nowhere on another forum, claiming only to be someone who had read a particular book, with no more knowledge of the case than was online or in the one chapter of a book.
You also stated you did not know anyone from the Mitchell camp yet here you are yet again being the spokesperson with all the answers to any questions. Or rather trying to deflect from any negative posts made about the case.

As for the DNA. Where is the proof of this? No one ever gets to see the proof of anything. It is selectively typed out and that is not proof.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:32:AM
i dont have to explian myself for having a different opinion to you.

steven kelly is not denying his dna is on there nor are the police there jus disputing how it got there.

by innocent transfer or by other means.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:36:AM
i dont have myself for having a different opinion to you.

steven kelly is not denying his dna is on there nor are the police there jus disputing how it got there.

by innocent transfer or by other means.

Are you accusing someone of murder here?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:39:AM
no all i am saying is you cant clean off your own dna and leave the dna of other peoples on there.

how did luke clear all his dna and from her all hers from him leaving no trace of himself being there.

but leave steven kellys on there plus unknown profiles of other people.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:42:AM
the pocle doctor who examed luke mitchell said his hair was unwashed and his nails wear grubby.

meaning he dident clean himself up.

no forensic clean up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:51:AM
no all i am saying is you cant clean off your own dna and leave the dna of other people on there.

how did luke clear all his dna and all hers from him leaving no trace of himself being there.

but leave steven kellys on there plus unknown profiles of other people.

ever thought he may have changed his clothing?  Isn't there are 40 minutes or so that Luke Mitchell is unaccounted for?  If so, then that is plenty time to get changed and rid of stuff. The bins were all emptied before the police could look in them too.

It was raining the night the body lay out for all those hours also.

as for grubby fingernails well they could happen in a matter of hours if boys are playing around on swings and in woods. So that does not prove he did not clean himself up.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:55:AM
so how would the rain  wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.

40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.

the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratch

i think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.

do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 01:06:AM
so how would the rain his dna off and leave other peoples on there.

40 minutes to comit a brutel murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty agian hardly likey.

Anything is possible.  No one is suggesting he put clean clothes on. After all we are talking about someone who stored 20 bottles of urine under his bed. His room was not one of the tidiest rooms we have ever heard about and I am sure there was some dirty washing lying around that he could have changed into.

From what I have read the opinion of the police is that she went there with someone she knew. She was kneeling down

Quote
Forensic scientist Derek Scrimger,40,said he was called at home and arrived at the path at 8am the following day.When he got there, her body had been moved from the original position and her clothing gathered together.

Mr Scrimger said there were two areas of bloodstaining on the wall near where her body was found.


Mr Scrimger said if her throat had been cut from behind, the blood would have travelled forward and there wouldn't necessarily have been any on the attacker.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI%27S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 01:12:AM
so hardly a bedroom that's been cleaned you couldn't com it all those mutilations and not get blood on you.

jodi fought back that would take minutes then theres all the mutilation then theres having to get back with nobody seeing him.

and clean himself up.

a lot to do in 40 minutes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 01:25:AM
so hardly a bedroom that's been cleaned you couldn't com it all those mutilations and not get blood on you.

jodi fought back that would take minutes then theres all the mutilation then theres having to get back with nobody seeing him.

and clean himself up.

a lot to do in 40 minutes.

That is assuming he had much cleaning up to do isn't it? You are inferring that he would be blood stained. It is possible he was not.

Mitchell could have worn gloves.

The court was also told that Shane said in a statement on July 3, 2003, that he had returned home from work to Newbattle Abbey Crescent on June 30, 2003, at about 3.40pm.

However, four days later, he said that he had arrived back that day between 4.55pm and 5pm.

In evidence, Shane told the court: "I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in the first one."

The court heard that, while being interviewed under police caution on the day his brother was arrested, Shane Mitchell was told that officers suspected him of deliberately giving false information.

So this 40 mins could have given a longer time Luke Mitchell was unaccounted for if Shane Mitchells first statement is the correct one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1481697/Lies-to-protect-a-son.html




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 11:20:AM
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.

even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.

i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.

visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.

Oh yes there is and well you know it missy....

Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.

One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.

Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.

Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.

Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurdertrial/Natural-born-killer.2597278.jp
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 11:27:AM
so hardly a bedroom that's been cleaned you couldn't com it all those mutilations and not get blood on you.

Jodi fought back that would take minutes then theres all the mutilation then theres having to get back with nobody seeing him.

and clean himself up.

a lot to do in 40 minutes.

That is assuming he had much cleaning up to do isn't it? You are inferring that he would be blood stained. It is possible he was not.

Mitchell could have worn gloves.

The court was also told that Shane said in a statement on July 3, 2003, that he had returned home from work to Newbattle Abbey Crescent on June 30, 2003, at about 3.40pm.

However, four days later, he said that he had arrived back that day between 4.55pm and 5pm.

In evidence, Shane told the court: "I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in the first one."

The court heard that, while being interviewed under police caution on the day his brother was arrested, Shane Mitchell was told that officers suspected him of deliberately giving false information.

So this 40 Min's could have given a longer time Luke Mitchell was unaccounted for if Shane Mitchells first statement is the correct one.

http://www.telegraph.co.UK/news/1481697/Lies-to-protect-a-son.html


the victims family have changed there story several including the time Jodi went out.


this was one of the most brutal murders in history.

it would be impossible for the person who committed it not to have blood on them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 11:32:AM
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.

even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.

i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.

visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.

Oh yes there is and well you know it missy....

Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.

One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.

Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.

Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.

Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurdertrial/Natural-born-killer.2597278.jp

why did this girl never go to the police at the time of the murder if she had really been attacked.

why did she only come after he was convicted to talk to tabliod is possibly becouse she made the whole thing up for money.

jodi never mentioned knowing anything about kimberly thomsan kimberly thomsan lived miles away there was very little danger of jodi finding out.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 11:42:AM
You are missing the point here nugnug when you say

Quote
The victims family have changed there story several including the time Jodi went out.


this was one of the most brutal murders in history.

it would be impossible for the person who committed it not to have blood on them.

Luke Mitchell is the one who needed an alibi. He said he was at home with his mother.
Shane Mitchell's original statement said he came home at 3.40 pm that day. That is a pretty specific time.
So if he did come home then, Luke Mitchell was not at home then. Shane only changed his story after a conversation with his mother.

How do you know it would be impossible for the person who committed the murder not to have blood on them?
Was blood stained clothing ever found? I have not seen anywhere that there was. So there is no proof whatsoever that the murderer was blood stained.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 11:44:AM
the whole area was bloodsatained it dont take much to work out the killler must have been.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 11:47:AM
no all i am saying is you cant clean off your own dna and leave the dna of other peoples on there.

how did luke clear all his dna and from her all hers from him leaving no trace of himself being there.

but leave steven kellys on there plus unknown profiles of other people.

So tell us missy, how did Luke Mitchell remove all traces of Jodi from himself and his clothing remembering that he had been with her several times the day of the murder?

Could it be that he changed his clothes and washed?   ;D

The only reason his hands were grubby was that he spent three hours mucking about in the woods with his pals after the murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 11:49:AM
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.

and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 11:50:AM
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.

even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.

i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.

visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.

Oh yes there is and well you know it missy....

Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.

One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.

Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.

Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.

Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurdertrial/Natural-born-killer.2597278.jp

why did this girl never go to the police at the time of the murder if she had really been attacked.

why did she only come after he was convicted to talk to tabliod is possibly becouse she made the whole thing up for money.

jodi never mentioned knowing anything about kimberly thomsan kimberly thomsan lived miles away there was very little danger of jodi finding out.

Do you have proof of the statement you have made here about the girl only making this up for money?
It is possible the girl did not say anything because perhaps she was not meant to have a boyfriend and got a fright when she read what had happened. That is a possibility. There is a possibility that she is telling the truth and not lying. You cannot make statements about things you have not been party to yourself.

Why would there have been little danger of Jodi finding anything out about Kimberley? She could have read texts on Luke Mitchell's phone for all you know. You do not know this for a fact either.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 11:52:AM
so how would the rain  wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.

40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.

the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratch

i think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.

do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.

Jodi never touched her attacker no matter how hard she allegedly fought.

Scrapings from her finger nails provided only her own DNA.

He probably had a second set of clothes all along thus why no forensics relating to Jodi were ever found on him.  Its wonderful what you can get in a backpack!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 11:53:AM
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.

and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.

There is no real proof of that either.

The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 11:53:AM
a lot of probeblys here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 11:54:AM
so how would the rain  wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.

40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.

the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratch

i think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.

do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.

Jodi never touched her attacker no matter how hard she allegedly fought.

Scrapings from her finger nails provided only her own DNA.

He probably had a second set of clothes all along thus why no forensics relating to Jodi were ever found on him.  Its wonderful what you can get in a backpack!

excellent point John.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 11:55:AM
a lot of probeblys here.

Yes there are a lot of probably's in this case. Most coming from you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 11:56:AM
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.

and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.

There is no real proof of that either.

The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.

theres concerete he hadent washed the police examined him.

logically conclusion that the killer had bllood on him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 11:57:AM
I find it interesting that one of Mitchell's potential witnesses is now a solicitor in Glasgow and works alongside his new lawyers.

Do they not call that a conflict of interest?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 11:58:AM
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.

and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.

There is no real proof of that either.

The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.

theres concerete he hadent washed the police examined him.

logically conclusion that the killer had bllood on him.

Not logical conclusion that the killer had blood on him at all.  As I stated previously, If he did wash his hands, he was then messing about on a swing or in woods with pals. Hands would have got grubby again. So proves nothing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 11:58:AM
I find it interesting that one of Mitchell's potential witnesses is now a solicitor in Glasgow and works alongside his new lawyers.

Do they not call that a conflict of interest?

What witness is this John?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:06:PM
Scott Forbes.

 He is the one who tried to sell a story isn't he? What kind of lawyer will he make?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:08:PM
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:12:PM
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.

It was said in court nugnug. I am repeating what was said in court. So why would I be sued?

Quote
Mr Findlay said Mr Forbes had given a sworn statement last month and his claims were still being investigated.

But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.

Quote
Mr Beckett also said Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7243068.stm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 12:15:PM
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.

Well you can read all about it here...

Luke Mitchell Witness Wanted £50K For His Story, Court Hears (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/02/14/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-for-his-story-court-hears-86908-20318873/)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:16:PM
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:18:PM
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.

The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:37:PM
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.

The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.



what jurys and judges believe is often not what is the truth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 12:38:PM
Shane's knows the truth though doesn't he missy??   ;D

Even though mummy tried to persuade him ......
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 12:41:PM
Jodi Jones in happier times....

(http://i.imgur.com/OFVdM.jpg)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:43:PM
a lot of people know the truth and there starting to come forward now.

Shane has never been convicted of lying to the police now that's probably because he didn't

nor  as Corine.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:47:PM
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.

The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.



what jurys and judges believe is often not what is the truth.

That is true. But everything the Mitchells say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Don't ask us to doubt the the jury and the judge, and question everything  they have done, then tell us that the Mitchells have not lied. You cannot possibly know they did not lie as fact. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382

Quote
POLICE suspected Luke Mitchell's brother of deliberately giving them false information.

Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.

But he later made a second statement and changed the time he returned home to nearly 5pm.

Shane tells the court he gave a number of statements to police in the weeks following Jodi's death.

Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC reads from the statement given on July 3 where Shane tells police he returned home from work at 3.40pm.

Shane says that he cannot remember what he said. He agrees he made a second statement on July 7 but he could not remember exactly how it came about.

He says: 'It is a long time ago and a lot has passed. I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one.'

In his new statement he gave the time he returned home as 'between 4.55pm and 5pm.'

Shane also agrees with the Advocate Depute that he was questioned by police on April 14 last year, the same day his brother was arrested.

Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'

Shane replies: 'Yes.'
He also tells the court that he thought he was alone in the family home the day Jodi was killed.

The trial has already heard that Luke told police he was at home when Shane got back from work.

Shane says his mother returned home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.

Alan Turnbull QC reads out a police statement from Luke in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.

His mother and Luke both agreed Shane was not in when Luke left the house.


Quote
THE court hears that Mitchell's mother Corinne had been interviewed in connection with attempting to pervert the course of justice during the police investigation but will not face criminal charges.

Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?'

'Yes, I do' replies Mrs Mitchell, 45. The witness, who says she does not approve of youngsters carrying knives, admits ordering Mitchell a knife from a catalogue for Christmas 2003. She says he needed it for a camping trip.

Referring to a police interview she gave on April 14 last year - the day Luke was arrested - Mr Turnbull says: 'By the following April you had forgotten about buying it.'

Mrs Mitchell denies lighting a log burner in her back garden the day Jodi died. The jury heard neighbour George Ramage, 37, claim the burner appeared to have been used between 6.30pm and 7.30pm and around 10pm that day.

But Mrs Mitchell says: 'I have no reason to put the burner on.'

She also admits buying her son a parka-style jacket just over a week after Jodi's death.

'Why did Luke need a parka?' Mr Turnbull asks. 'They were in fashion,' she replies.

But the lawyer tells her that several friends, neighbours and teachers had given evidence that her son owned a parka jacket before Jodi's death. Mrs Mitchell says: 'I wasn't aware he had one.'

MITCHELL'S mother Corinne tells the court: 'My son did not kill Jodi Jones.'

But Alan Turnbull QC accuses her of lying in court to protect her son. He says she had 'abandoned all effort at exercising parental control over Luke'.

And he adds that their relationship had 'changed from that of parent and child to that of accomplice'. Mrs Mitchell denies the lawyer's suggestions.

He continues: 'You lied to police by saying Luke was in the house when you got home from work.'

Mrs Mitchell answers: 'Luke was in the house.' The QC adds that she 'knew perfectly well' that items had been burned in their wood burner the day Jodi was killed and that Luke had lied to the police.

She replies: 'He was telling the truth.'

The advocate depute continues: 'You have to tell the truth whether you think it matters or whether you think it relevant.

'Isn't it nearer the truth that you'd be prepared to lie to cover up to protect him?'

Corinne replies: 'No, it's not true. I've not been lying.'

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:49:PM
a lot of people know the truth and there starting to come forward now.

Shane has never been convicted of lying to the police now that's probably because he didn't

nor  as Corine.

How can you possibly know that what you have said is true? Only Corinne and Shane will know for sure.

EDITED to add:  No Shane was not convicted but he was charged with giving false statements.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:50:PM
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.

The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.



what jurys and judges believe is often not what is the truth.

That is true. But everything the Mitchells say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Don't ask us to doubt the the jury and the judge, and question everything  they have done, then tell us that the Mitchells have not lied. You cannot possibly know they did not lie as fact. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382

Quote
POLICE suspected Luke Mitchell's brother of deliberately giving them false information.

Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.

But he later made a second statement and changed the time he returned home to nearly 5pm.

Shane tells the court he gave a number of statements to police in the weeks following Jodi's death.

Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC reads from the statement given on July 3 where Shane tells police he returned home from work at 3.40pm.

Shane says that he cannot remember what he said. He agrees he made a second statement on July 7 but he could not remember exactly how it came about.

He says: 'It is a long time ago and a lot has passed. I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one.'

In his new statement he gave the time he returned home as 'between 4.55pm and 5pm.'

Shane also agrees with the Advocate Depute that he was questioned by police on April 14 last year, the same day his brother was arrested.

Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'

Shane replies: 'Yes.'
He also tells the court that he thought he was alone in the family home the day Jodi was killed.

The trial has already heard that Luke told police he was at home when Shane got back from work.

Shane says his mother returned home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.

Alan Turnbull QC reads out a police statement from Luke in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.

His mother and Luke both agreed Shane was not in when Luke left the house.


Quote
THE court hears that Mitchell's mother Corinne had been interviewed in connection with attempting to pervert the course of justice during the police investigation but will not face criminal charges.

Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?'

'Yes, I do' replies Mrs Mitchell, 45. The witness, who says she does not approve of youngsters carrying knives, admits ordering Mitchell a knife from a catalogue for Christmas 2003. She says he needed it for a camping trip.

Referring to a police interview she gave on April 14 last year - the day Luke was arrested - Mr Turnbull says: 'By the following April you had forgotten about buying it.'

Mrs Mitchell denies lighting a log burner in her back garden the day Jodi died. The jury heard neighbour George Ramage, 37, claim the burner appeared to have been used between 6.30pm and 7.30pm and around 10pm that day.

But Mrs Mitchell says: 'I have no reason to put the burner on.'

She also admits buying her son a parka-style jacket just over a week after Jodi's death.

'Why did Luke need a parka?' Mr Turnbull asks. 'They were in fashion,' she replies.

But the lawyer tells her that several friends, neighbours and teachers had given evidence that her son owned a parka jacket before Jodi's death. Mrs Mitchell says: 'I wasn't aware he had one.'

MITCHELL'S mother Corinne tells the court: 'My son did not kill Jodi Jones.'

But Alan Turnbull QC accuses her of lying in court to protect her son. He says she had 'abandoned all effort at exercising parental control over Luke'.

And he adds that their relationship had 'changed from that of parent and child to that of accomplice'. Mrs Mitchell denies the lawyer's suggestions.

He continues: 'You lied to police by saying Luke was in the house when you got home from work.'

Mrs Mitchell answers: 'Luke was in the house.' The QC adds that she 'knew perfectly well' that items had been burned in their wood burner the day Jodi was killed and that Luke had lied to the police.

She replies: 'He was telling the truth.'

The advocate depute continues: 'You have to tell the truth whether you think it matters or whether you think it relevant.

'Isn't it nearer the truth that you'd be prepared to lie to cover up to protect him?'

Corinne replies: 'No, it's not true. I've not been lying.'

i know people who lie to protect a defendedent are charged.

and i know shane and corine were not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:51:PM
a lot of people know the truth and there starting to come forward now.

Shane has never been convicted of lying to the police now that's probably because he didn't

nor  as Corine.

How can you possibly know that what you have said is true? Only Corinne and Shane will know for sure.

EDITED to add:  No Shane was not convicted but he was charged with giving false statements.

yes and all charges were droped funny that isnt it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 12:54:PM
April 14

Luke Mitchell is arrested and charged in connection with Jodi's murder.

His mother Corinne Mitchell, 45, and brother Shane, 22, are also arrested and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. Both will later be told at the trial that the charges against them are dropped.


So nugnug they were indeed charged. Regardless of the charges being dropped they did get charged and they were lucky to have them dropped if you ask me.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20050123/ai_n9628503/

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:57:PM
people have charges dropped becouse there is no case against them.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 01:02:PM
people have charges dropped becouse there is no case against them.

Sometimes!

The 45-year-old caravan dealer was charged in April last year with attempting to pervert the course of justice, but while the prosecution at the trial focused on convicting Luke, the case against her was dropped. Whether or not new charges will come has not yet been decided.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 01:06:PM
yes dropped and in 7 years the police have never thought of bringing new ones is that because they know they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 01:15:PM
Lets be clear about the dropping of the charges relating to perverting the course of justice.  These charges would have only complicated the trial and subsequent appeals process.  As you say Janet, they were lucky not to have been proceeded against.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 01:19:PM
yeah right they could of made the conviction stronger if they had managed to convict corine and shane.

the fact is the thought they would not convict them.

and why would they think they would not convict them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 01:22:PM
Quote
Giving evidence at the High Court in Edinburgh today, Ms Mitchell was asked questions relating to statements given to police by both herself and Luke.

After answering "I can’t remember" to a number of questions relating to her son, advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC prosecuting, said to her: "Is it not the truth that you could see no wrong in anything Luke did?"

Ms Mitchell replied: "No, that’s not true."

Quote
Ms Mitchell told the trial that she first learned of Jodi’s death when she got into a police car on June 30, 2003, and that she asked the officer if Luke had been arrested.

Mr Turnbull then asked: "What reason would you have to ask that question?"

Ms Mitchell said: "I don’t remember asking that question."

Mr Turnbull replied: "You don’t want to commit yourself. You want to take refuge in the notion that he can’t remember. But I can tell you that the policeman concerned is in the waiting room ready to give evidence.

"If he tells the court that you asked this question is there any reason to disbelieve him?"

Ms Mitchell replied: "No".

Ms Mitchell told the court that she still maintained that she knew her son well.

Mr Turnbull then reminded her how she had previously told the court she was shocked to learn her son smoked cannabis, carried a knife on a daily basis and took cannabis to school.

He asked her: "Are you beginning to have second thoughts then about knowing your son well?"

"No," she replied.

In a statement given to a police doctor after being checked for injuries following Jodi’s death, Mitchell said his mother had "a quick temper". He said that he also had a quick temper and that he got this from his mother.

"Would this be accurate?" Mr Turnbull asked Ms Mitchell.

"Did Luke have a temper?"

She replied: "No more than most people." She then also agreed that Luke had described himself as having a quick temper with a short fuse.
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/No-Jodi-coverup-says-Mitchell.2594892.jp
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 01:33:PM
John

been looking up this Scott Forbes. Is he the same Scott Forbes that works with mojo now?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 02:14:PM
From what I am reading it took him 18 months after the conviction to come forward with his statement. Does anyone know the answer to why it took him so long to give one? Was he ever interviewed by police prior to giving this statement?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 03:58:PM
I don't know how much of this you are aware of Janet but I have had several conversations with Scott Forbes a few months back when I was able to furnish him and Mitchell's new legal team with some information relating to other suspects in the case.

Scott went into a lot of detail about his involvement with the case and Mark Kane in particular. Kane was a recovering drug addict on a methadone programme and studying at Newbattle Abbey College in Dalkeith.  According to Forbes, Kane had written a college essay about killing a girl in the woods - but a lecturer had dismissed that as untrue, the appeal court heard.

I think it is only fair to point out that Scott categorically denies that there was any plan to sell the story to the newspapers for £50k.  I personally have no reason to disbelieve him.

Scott told me that he took Kane personally to the police station the morning after the murder when he showed up dishevelled and with scratches on his face. Kane has never been able to account for the marks.  Scott also told me that he telephoned the police on several occasions thereafter regarding the case and Kane's possible involvement.

It seems that the police were slow to react to this information and initially failed to trace Kane. They did however manage to secure CCTV footage from a shop some distance away from the crime-scene which showed Kane making a purchase. It seems that this evidence was enough to satisfy the police that Kane was nowhere near the crime-scene when the murder occurred.

Crown Advocate, John Beckett, later told the appeal judges scrapings from Jodi's fingernails had been examined by forensic scientists and the only DNA match was Jodi's herself.

Evening News article (http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Mitchell39s-lawyers-given-four-weeks.3807631.jp)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 04:09:PM
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.

It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.

I edited to add more
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 17, 2011, 04:11:PM
Absolutely no problem, if you want to find out any other information on any of the players involved just ask as I have a comprehensive database at my disposal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 04:13:PM
Thanks John
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 04:19:PM
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.

It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.

I edited to add more

thae pathologists said she put up a fight.


fought for her life thats what they said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 17, 2011, 04:28:PM
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.

It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.

I edited to add more

thae pathologists said she put up a fight.


fought for her life thats what they said.

no one is disputing that fact nugnug. She just could not have scratched anyone since the only DNA under her nails was her own.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 04:31:PM
true were ever mark kane got those scratches it wasn't from her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 03:03:PM
I have read on the main Luke Mitchell forum Wrongly Accused Person, that there is an accusation going around that someone in the Jones family assaulted his mother and stabbed her accidently. And that he had been charged?

Where does this accusation come from?
Where is the proof of this?
If there is no proof then why is this being said?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 03:12:PM
I have read on the main Luke Mitchell forum Wrongly Accused Person, that there is an accusation going around that someone in the Jones family assaulted his mother and stabbed her accidently. And that he had been charged?

Where does this accusation come from?
Where is the proof of this?
If there is no proof then why is this being said?

This relates to a comment made by an anonymous poster on the Daily Record site that Judy's son Joseph apparently stabbed her.  As usual there is no proof of any of this...so much for WAP being a credible forum then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 03:24:PM
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 04:01:PM
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.

Do you have any evidence it is actually true?
And if not why is it allowed to be on your forum, being discussed as if it is?

As John says there is meant to be a no proof no print policy on wrongly accused person site but that does not seem to be true.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 04:03:PM
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.


That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.

This poor family have suffered enough
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 04:05:PM
This Sandra Lean you mention nugnug, is that the same Sandra Lean who advocates for Luke Mitchell after originally admitting that she thought he was guilty? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 04:20:PM
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.


That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.

This poor family have suffered enough

no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 04:25:PM
This Sandra Lean you mention nugnug, is that the same Sandra Lean who advocates for Luke Mitchell after originally admitting that she thought he was guilty?


i think you know well who sandra is you said know about everyone involved in the case now you ether do or you don't.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 04:27:PM
This Sandra Lean you mention nugnug, is that the same Sandra Lean who advocates for Luke Mitchell after originally admitting that she thought he was guilty?


i think you know well who sandra you said know about everyone involved in the case now you ether do or you don't.

Yes I'm afraid I know all about her distasteful history with Mr WAP and the disgraceful way they treated Simon Hall's wife. Quite an eye opener really but then you know all this too Nuggy as I have told you previously.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 04:36:PM
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.


That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.

This poor family have suffered enough

no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.

How is it a statement of fact? It is not fact. It is a guess and there is no proof.

Oh so outrageous things can be said by people on Wrongly Accused Person and elsewhere in the hope that the Jones family will sue? How sick is that?

Why would they need to sue anyway? As far as they are concerned the guilty person is in prison and all that is being said is sheer speculation anyway.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 04:40:PM
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.


That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.

This poor family have suffered enough

no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.

How is it a statement of fact? It is not fact. It is a guess and there is no proof.

Oh so outrageous things can be said by people on Wrongly Accused Person and elsewhere in the hope that the Jones family will sue? How sick is that?

Why would they need to sue anyway? As far as they are concerned the guilty person is in prison and all that is being said is sheer speculation anyway.

are you one of theses people who goes around looking at forums just to be disgusted by them.

you dont have to look

your only boosting there ratings by looking you know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 04:40:PM
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.


That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.

This poor family have suffered enough

no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.

How is it a statement of fact? It is not fact. It is a guess and there is no proof.

Oh so outrageous things can be said by people on Wrongly Accused Person and elsewhere in the hope that the Jones family will sue? How sick is that?

Why would they need to sue anyway? As far as they are concerned the guilty person is in prison and all that is being said is sheer speculation anyway.

There wouldn't be any point in suing Billy liar anyway since he lives with mom and dad in their Lerwick council house.  Sandra Lean isn't much better.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 04:43:PM
so first its adopted people you dont like now its people who live in councel houses

who do you like john.

sueing isnt about money its about protecting your good name.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 04:45:PM

 
[/quote]
are you one of theses people who goes around looking at forums just to be disgusted by them.

you dont have to look
your only boosting there ratings by looking you know.
[/quote]

I am boosting whose ratings?

I can look and post were I want to thank you very much.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 04:46:PM
You never could get anything right missy could you??   ;)

I have no problem with either so stop trying to make waves again....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 04:47:PM
so first its adopted people you dont like now its people who live in councel houses

who do you like john.

sueing isnt about money its about protecting your good name.


whose good name are we talking about here?


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 04:48:PM
There is absolutely nothing happening on WAP now except Billy Middleton speaking to himself so Nuggy has to come here for entertainment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 04:49:PM
You never could get anything right missy could you??   ;)

I have no problem with either so stop trying to make waves again....

so if you have no problem with it why keep mentioning it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 05:19:PM
nugnug

you never answered my question. Why would the Jones family need to sue people on a forum?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 05:27:PM
nugnug

you never answered my question. Why would the Jones family need to sue people on a forum?

well that's obvious to quash once and for all scurles allegations.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 05:36:PM
nugnug

you never answered my question. Why would the Jones family need to sue people on a forum?

well that's obvious to quash once and for all scurles allegations.

but then you have to think about who it is who is making these scurrilous accusations and who is repeating them. And about their intentions. Does not look good for those making these accusations or allowing them to be made.

Don't you think this family has had enough to deal with, with their daughter being so brutally murdered without The Mitchell support making such scurrilous accusations in the first place?

It is not the only scurrilous accusation I have read about which has been directed at the Jones family on the Mitchell support site either.

Is this really the way to fight an alleged injustice by blaming the victims family or anyone else for being involved in this murder or involved in covering up for someone?

I think not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 05:39:PM
well we shall she shan't we.

it wasn't his supporter who said the thing about the stabbing it was a guy on the daily record.

i don't run his campaign i just post what i think on forums

i dident even start this i just posted on it..

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 05:44:PM
well we shall she shan't we.

it wasnt his supporter who said the thing about the stabbing it was a guy on the daily record.

His support site and supporters including yourself I may add, have mentioned it on there and allowed it to be spoken of and discussed it extensively including accusing family members of being involved in this murder one way or another.

We shall see shan't we you say? Odd thing to say isn't it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 05:49:PM
well ether you discuss theor you dont case that means discussing everything.

like members of the extended family being at the crime scene at the crime is supposed to have happened
but hearing nothing and seeing nothing and not being able to say what they were doing there. and lying about the time they were there.

or the sisters boyfriends sperm being on the victims bra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 05:53:PM
well we shall she shan't we.

it wasn't his supporter who said the thing about the stabbing it was a guy on the daily record.

i don't run his campaign i just post what i think on forums

i dident even start this i just posted on it..

 I wonder who an anon poster on the Daily Record could be?
I have noticed you post what you think on the Mitchell forum.
You may not have started it but you are one of the people who keep talking about it just as if you think you know the facts and its clear you don't.

You are speculating and there is no room for speculation. Only facts and the fact is Luke Mitchell was convicted of this murder. Not any one in the Jones family.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 05:56:PM
only by luck i would say.

yes he was convicted as was steven kisko as was the birgmham 6 and the guilford for and simon hall
and a lot of other people need i go on.

oh as was john lamberton.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 05:57:PM
well ether you discuss theor you dont case that means discussing everything.

like members of the extended family being at the crime scene at the crime is supposed to have happened
but hearing nothing and seeing nothing and not being able to say what they were doing there. and lying about the time they were there.

or the sisters boyfriends sperm being on the victims bra.

There is discussing theories and then there is slandering people.

Borrowed tee shirt on victim, donor of semen found on tee shirt and bra lived with the owner of the tee shirt. Cops thought transference although amateur sleuths were quite dubious about innocent transfer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:00:PM
only by luck i would say.

yes he was convicted as was steven kisko as was the birgmham 6 and the guilford for and simon hall
and a lot of other people need i go on.

oh as was john lamberton.

All of the people freed from prison all had hard evidence that they were innocent.
All I see in the Mitchell case is the same ole same arguements being regurgitated over and over again.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 06:03:PM
not all of the Simon hall hasn't been.

 and john certainly hasn't been cleared.

thats what luke mitchells supporters its up to you chose to believe or not the sight wasn't put up there just to convince you.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:04:PM
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.

 and john certainly hasn't been cleared.

We are not discussing either of those cases. I know nothing of them.

So tell us who you think it is who murdered Jodi Jones if it is not Luke Mitchell as you claim?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 06:07:PM
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.

 and john certainly hasn't been cleared.

We are not discussing either of those cases. I know nothing of them.

So tell us who you think it is who murdered Jodi Jones if it is not Luke Mitchell as you claim?

ive got fair idea but i cant just declare someone guilty murder when they haven't had a trial.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:08:PM
not all of the Simon hall hasn't been.

 and john certainly hasn't been cleared.

thats what luke mitchells supporters its up to you chose to believe or not the sight wasn't put up there just to convince you.

Most of that makes no sense.

Why was the site put up then? It is pointless if it is to talk to the converted.
Surely a site for someone allegedly wrongly convicted is to get the doubters to look at the case?
Its failing big time because once I started reading it all I felt as if I was in the twilight zone.
I know I am not the only person to think like this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:10:PM
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.

 and john certainly hasn't been cleared.

We are not discussing either of those cases. I know nothing of them.

So tell us who you think it is who murdered Jodi Jones if it is not Luke Mitchell as you claim?

ive got fair idea but i cant just declare someone guilty murder when they haven't had a trial.

no but you will hint about it very strongly I have read.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 06:12:PM
not all of the Simon hall hasn't been.

 and john certainly hasn't been cleared.

thats what luke mitchells supporters its up to you chose to believe or not the sight wasn't put up there just to convince you.

Most of that makes no sense.

first you said you followed the forum fo a long time then you said you had only just looked at the sight make your mind up.

if your not convinced nothing anyone can do about that.


Why was the site put up then? It is pointless if it is to talk to the converted.
Surely a site for someone allegedly wrongly convicted is to get the doubters to look at the case?
Its failing big time because once I started reading it all I felt as if I was in the twilight zone.
I know I am not the only person to think like this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 06:15:PM
well as said if your not convinced it wasn't put up just for you

 i cant expect everyone to be convinced.

i dont think any websites ever done that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:28:PM
well as said if your not convinced it wasn't put up just for you

 i cant expect everyone to be convinced.

i dont think any websites ever done that.

Nice attitude to have towards people who have taken time to look at the case and site.!!! Not everyone will agree with your conclusions.

Who was the site put up for then? And why?

You could not convince many of anything and neither does the site. I have followed it for a while and people come and go so quickly. Probably because of the line the so called debate goes down.

I see nothing that would change my mind on the verdict. I do know there was some problems with the investigation but so far I believe the verdict to be the correct one.





Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 06:30:PM
i thought you said youve only looked just at it.

i dident put the sight up
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:31:PM
i thought you said youve only just at it.

what are you on about now?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 06:34:PM
well first you said you had only just looke at it now you say you have followed it for a long time now make your mind up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:35:PM
well first you said you had only just at it now you say you have followed it for a long time now make your mind up.

First at what? What are you trying to say here?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 06:42:PM
i suggest you start reading and remembering what you have posted before.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:52:PM
I remember what I posted. I just dont understand your comment.  ???

what was I first at?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 06:54:PM
Are you doing this on purpose to get comments moved out of the way?
Looks like it to me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 07:22:PM
At age 14:

Luke Mitchell was having sex with different partners.

He was smoking cannabis and selling it.

His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.

"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.

His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.

"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.

Several other jotters were shown which contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way", "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f*** off and stay out my mind" and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from late Nirvana singer Cobain.

The handwritten essay, questioning the existence of God, had been submitted in January 2003 in place of a short story, which had been requested.

The essay contained passages such as: "If you ask me, god is just a futile excuse at most for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with him. "Are these people insane?"

It also read "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance" and "Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-334963/Killer-Mitchell-ordinary-teenager.html#ixzz1MjIStCSu

There are many articles on this link

http://explore.dailymail.co.uk/people/mitchell_luke
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 07:32:PM
well half the country has smoked canabis at some time other it dosent make them killers.

a young lad writting and english esay to shock his teacher make him loads of kids write esays like that

not unknown for teenagers to have more than one sexual partner.
 dosent make them killers.

how many important people cheat on there wives dosent make them killers,

every killer leaves a trace luke mitchell left none,

but others did.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 07:37:PM
well half the country has smoked canabis at some time other it dosent make them killers.

a young lad writting and english esay to shock his teacher make him loads of kids write esays like that

not unknown for teenagers to have more than one sexual partner.

 dosent make them killers.

how many important people cheat on there wives dosent make them killers,

every killer leaves a trace luke mitchell left none,



but others did.


It might not be unknown for teenagers to have more than one partner but this boy was a child. He was 14 years old. Most teenagers would think they were lucky to have one partner.

Not all killers leave a trace. That's why there are unsolved cases.

Why even mention someone cheating on their wife?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 07:40:PM
we do think theres so many teenage pregnancy becouse some boys  and girls get up to things before there legally old enough.

its not right but it happens it dont make them murders.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 07:44:PM
we do think theres so many teenage pregnancy becouse some boys  and girls get up to things before there legally old enough.

its not right but it happens it dont make them murders.

most boys and girls get up to things with one partner. Especially at a young age.

If the several sexual partners was the only thing then it would only be his morals under question but its not only that.

What I cannot get my head around is how the Mitchell camp states constantly that he was only a child when arrested and questioned. Trying to portray this image of a child. When in reality he was allowed to act like an adult and did indeed live mostly like an adult.
Its all very contradictory.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 07:46:PM
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 07:57:PM
Absolutely not, Mitchell was clearly out of control. Mind you it isn't surprising given his mothers history and the breakdown in her marriage.  What was it she said on WAP, Luke was like the man in the house.  It would appear that Corinne gave him far too much rope and he lapped it up.

What other 14 year old child would be allowed by their parents to buy and sell large quantities of cannabis which was weighed and packaged in their bedroom?

What other 14 year old child would have sexual intercourse regularly with one girl while carrying on a relationship with at least two others?

What other 14 year old child would threaten a girl with a knife to her throat?

Do you know any other 14 year olds who store large bottles of urine in their bedroom?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 07:59:PM
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,

That's right excuse away everything Luke Mitchell ever did that was questionable to say the least.

He was not by any stretch of the imagination a normal teenage boy.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 08:02:PM
well your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.

storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like seeing. there girlfriends dead body.

ive met fair few people who who have had that illness

a fair few ex soldiers have it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 08:04:PM
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,

That's right excuse away everything Luke Mitchell ever did that was questionable to say the least.

He was not by any stretch of the imagination a normal teenage boy.

you seem to be takeing a rather unhealthy interest in young people having sex
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 08:07:PM
well your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.

storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.

ive met fair few people who who have had that illness

a fair few ex soldiers have it.

tut tut nugnug resorting to insults again.
Quote
It was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.

This actually suggests that two sets of urine. One set in an earlier search of the house and 9 months later another 20 bottles.
If this is the case why did his mother not seek help for him when the first 20 bottles were found?
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Jodi-trial-hears-of-knife.2588863.jp

EDIT: I have re read and re read the wording of the article and it may be that there was only one set of 20 bottles of urine bottles. I am sure if that is the case someone will correct it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 08:10:PM
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,

That's right excuse away everything Luke Mitchell ever did that was questionable to say the least.

He was not by any stretch of the imagination a normal teenage boy.


you seem to be takeing a rather unhealthy interest in young people having sex


is that the best retort you can manage? You just do not like anyone pointing out that Mitchell did various things.

I think the unhealthy part in this is how you seem to be very emotionally involved with this when you said you don't even know Mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on May 18, 2011, 08:13:PM
well your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.

storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.

ive met fair few people who who have had that illness

a fair few ex soldiers have it.

tut tut nugnug resorting to insults again.
Quote
It was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.

This actually suggests that two sets of urine. One set in an earlier search of the house and 9 months later another 20 bottles.
If this is the case why did his mother not seek help for him when the first 20 bottles were found?
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Jodi-trial-hears-of-knife.2588863.jp
Sounds like a really good mother. Did she not clean her house. I think I would have found ") bottles of piss in my kids room. Perhaps she was flogging it to the winos
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 08:18:PM
Cliff

It must have been totally minging.

http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/Urine-under-bed-paints-picture.4092879.jp

Quote
IT was the strong smell of ammonia which first struck detectives when they walked into Luke Mitchell's bedroom.

If that initially puzzled them, then their next discovery would startle even the most hardened investigators.

There lying under the teenager's bed were bottle after bottle of a cloudy liquid, looking suspiciously like urine.

More bottles were hidden away in drawers, some wrapped up in socks. Soon there were 20 bottles lying in front of the bewildered detectives. Lab tests would later show they were the 15-year-old's own urine.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 08:18:PM
well your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.

storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.

ive met fair few people who who have had that illness

a fair few ex soldiers have it.

tut tut nugnug resorting to insults again.
Quote
It was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.

This actually suggests that two sets of urine. One set in an earlier search of the house and 9 months later another 20 bottles.
If this is the case why did his mother not seek help for him when the first 20 bottles were found?
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Jodi-trial-hears-of-knife.2588863.jp

EDIT: I have re read and re read the wording of the article and it may be that there was only one set of 20 bottles of urine bottles. I am sure if that is the case someone will correct it.

resorting to insults ironic or what if people cant take it they shouldent dish it out.

as far as johns concerned im just stateing a fact.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 08:22:PM
No nugnug you are not stating a fact about John or anyone else not involved in the case. You are being vindictive just to divert attention away from what is being said about Mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 08:26:PM
SO if you dint know anyone in the case how come your getting so emotional about it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 08:31:PM
SO if you dint know anyone in the case how come your getting so emotional about it.

I am not being emotional about anything. I am discussing the case, but it seems that you are the only one getting her knickers in a knot over anything bad said about Mr Mitchell.

You are the one coming out with outrageous and incoherent statements on here. And you are also attacking people because they are not agreeing with you. Thats what I call getting emotional.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 08:37:PM
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff

I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.

and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 08:47:PM
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff

I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.

and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous

the "facts" as you call the claims about members of the Jones family and others for that matter are not facts at all. That is what I find outrageous. All there is, is total speculation about who else could have, might have or maybe have murdered Jodi Jones.

The fact is that these people have not been charged and convicted. Luke Mitchell has and it is totally outrageous to blame the victims family of murder or covering a murder up, or the multitude of other things that have been said about this family. They have suffered enough.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 08:50:PM
the McCanns have been accused of exactly the same thing on this forum i don't see you jumping up in outrage about it.

what makes this family so different.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 09:05:PM
the McCanns have been accused of exactly the same thing on this forum i don't see you jumping up in outrage about it.

why makes this family so different.

The McCanns case is nothing like this one.

The McCann's are pretty adept at defending themselves in a coherent and sensible manner.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 09:12:PM
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff

I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.

and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous

the "facts" as you call the claims about members of the Jones family and others for that matter are not facts at all. That is what I find outrageous. All there is, is total speculation about who else could have, might have or maybe have murdered Jodi Jones.

The fact is that these people have not been charged and convicted. Luke Mitchell has and it is totally outrageous to blame the victims family of murder or covering a murder up, or the multitude of other things that have been said about this family. They have suffered enough.

half the stuff being said about the family was already mentioned in the trial so sorry it is fact.

yes there is a lot of speculation thats what happens on public forums.

just like its happening with the bamber case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 09:16:PM
The sad fact is that Mitchell will never be cleared of this horrendous crime and the only way he has any hope is to blame someone else.  Problem is that everyone else has an alibi while poor old Lukey doesn't.

I will also hazard a guess and say that the SCCRC will not make a referral in this case following the refusal in his Cadder Appeal so looks like another 13 years for boyo!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 09:20:PM
no they dont john ferris and gordon dickie dont  david dickie dont james falconer dont joseph jones dont.

no albis whatsoever.

steven kelly has one but its starting to look shaky.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 09:23:PM
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff

I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.

and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous

the "facts" as you call the claims about members of the Jones family and others for that matter are not facts at all. That is what I find outrageous. All there is, is total speculation about who else could have, might have or maybe have murdered Jodi Jones.

The fact is that these people have not been charged and convicted. Luke Mitchell has and it is totally outrageous to blame the victims family of murder or covering a murder up, or the multitude of other things that have been said about this family. They have suffered enough.

half the stuff being said about the family was already mentioned in the trial so sorry it is fact.

yes there is a lot of speculation thats what happens on public forums.

just like its happening with the bamber case.

I have never seen any of the "facts" about the Jones family in the newspaper. Even if half of it was mentioned in court where did the other half come from? And obviously whatever was heard in court was dismissed out of hand.

I am not interested in speculation in any of these cases and neither are the courts.

There is speculation and then there is trying to re write history the way you would prefer it. 

Speculation will get no one anywhere fast. In fact I would say it was a hinderance.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 09:27:PM
you must be a bit interested or you wouldn't bother to read it

im afraid is not going to stop anytime soon.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 09:29:PM
no they dont john ferris and gordon dickie dont  david dickie dont james falconer dont joseph jones dont.

no albis whatsoever.

steven kelly has one but its starting to look shaky.


Mr Findlay told the appeal court that "as a result of investigations" he was no longer pursuing an interest in Mr Falconer.
http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/Mitchell-legal-team-drops-interest.3776020.jp

Mark Kane as you stated yourself yesterday could not have been scratched by Jodi so he is ruled out.
Steven Kelly's alibi shaky? He was with Janine and his father,that has been accepted.
Joseph Jones was at home. Also accepted.
And whatever the others said was also accepted too.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 09:31:PM
you must be a bit interested or you wouldn't bother to read it

im afraid is not going to stop anytime soon.

I am sure it is not going to stop anytime soon. Speculation will never be fact and causes more damage so go ahead speculate all you like. It does nothing for Luke Mitchell's chances but what the hell
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 09:37:PM
well we shall see shant we.

as you think hes guilty why would you care about his chances.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 09:41:PM
well we shall see shant we.

as you think hes guilty why would you care about his chances.

yes we shall see.

I don't particularly care about his chances. I do care about what is being said publicly about a grieving family due to speculation on people who have never been charged with anything to do with this murder.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 09:42:PM
joseph jones was never interviewed.

james falconer john ferris gordon dickie and david dickie were at the murder scene by there own admission

falconer dident come forward for 3 years dispite appeals by the police for the owners of the condom to come forward.

ferris and dickie did not come for a week dispite appeals for them to do so none have any albi

mark kane im convinced has nothing to do with this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 09:48:PM
joseph jones was never interviewed.

james falconer john ferris gordon dickie and david dickie were at the murder scene by there own admission

falconer dident come forward for 3 years dispite appeals by the police for the owners of the condom to come forward.

ferris and dickie did not come for a week dispite appeals for them to do so none have any albi

mark kane im convinced has nothing to do with this.

Mr Findlay told the appeal court that "as a result of investigations" he was no longer pursuing an interest in Mr Falconer.
http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/Mitchell-legal-team-drops-interest.3776020.jp

Don't you mean these people where near the murder scene around the time of the murder, not at it? There is a difference. None of them have admitted to seeing anything to do with a murder have they?

How do you know who was not spoken to by the police?
where do you get your information from?


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 09:53:PM
Joesph was not spoken to by the police that's why nothing he said has ever been mentioned because he wasn't interviewed.

so he dident say anything becouse he wasnt asked.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 09:56:PM
Joesph was not spoken to by the police that's why nothing he said has ever been mentioned because he wasn't interviewed.

so he dident say anything becouse he wasnt asked.

How do you know for 100% certainty that he was not spoken to by the police? You cannot have seen all the police statements made to know this.

 Did you go to the trial?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:01:PM
if he was no doubt what he said would have been mentioned.

we do you think everyone who says something you don't like has to explain themselves

what everyone else said has been mentioned.

no i never went anywhere near the trial


did you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 10:06:PM
if he was no doubt what he said would have been mentioned.

we do you think everyone who says something you don't like has to explain themselves

what everyone else said has been mentioned.

It would not have been mentioned if he had been ruled out. Considering what had just happened to this family the police would not want to upset them any more than they had to.

You are the only Luke Mitchell supporter here, why is that? Are you the Luke Mitchell Spokesperson?
It is nothing to do with not liking what you are saying. Do you expect me just to take your word on the evidence? You have not seen all the police statements. You are making a claim that you cannot be one hundred per cent certain of, yet I have to believe what you tell me?

If there was proof I could see for myself then I would believe it but there is not proof.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 10:09:PM
No I did not go to the trial. Just like you I have followed this case since it happened.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:11:PM
i really dont care what you believe

believe what ever you like i believe someting else

and im going to say what believe end of

im just a poster on a forumfor christ sake im  not spokes person for anybody.

im just saying what i think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:16:PM
and im not the only supporter on here im just one who has nothing better to do than argue with you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 10:21:PM
i really dont care what you believe

believe what ever you like i believe someting else

and im going to say what believe end of

im just a poster on a forumfor christ sake im  not spokes person for anybody.

im just saying what i think.

I am being left with no option but to believe what I like because if all you are saying to me is what you believe then that is not evidence.

I have asked you if you have seen the police statements and you cannot answer, so you get ratty and start using blasphemy which I find offensive.

Why are you getting yourself in such a state? Perhaps you should go and chill out, have a bath and get to bed with a good book.

So you believe he is innocent and I believe he is guilty. Is there any need to carry on our conversation?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:25:PM
lets face it you would face it you would believe it what ever i said

i cant make people belive what i believe.


ive spent most of my life saying things other people found offensive

and im sorry im to old to change now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 10:28:PM
lets face it you would face it you would believe it what ever i said

i cant make people belive what i believe.

No you cannot but you should not promote your opinon and speculation as fact. You have not seen all the police statements so cannot know for sure who was spoken to or who said what in them.

You believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:40:PM

heres some more speculation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6640000/newsid_6640100?redirect=6640115.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1

from frontline scotland
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:43:PM
http://roughjusticetv.co.uk/rjlukefilm.htm

heres some more from peter hill and ray brook.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:46:PM
and some more.

http://roughjusticetv.co.uk/scotsjusticefilm.htm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 10:46:PM
I have watched it before.

BBC axes 'biased' Mitchell documentary

Published Date: 01 April 2007
By RICHARD ELIAS
THE BBC was forced to scrap a documentary about murderer Luke Mitchell at the last minute after bosses ruled it was "biased", it was claimed yesterday.
According to BBC insiders, TV chiefs were angry when they watched the programme, claiming it was "anti-police" and "blatant propaganda" for the teenage killer.

The decision to pull the half-hour show, titled Luke Mitchell; The Devil's Own?, came last Tuesday, the day before it was due to be broadcast.

Mitchell was convicted of killing his girlfriend Jodi Jones on a quiet lane in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in 2003.

He has always protested his innocence, a view vehemently supported by his mother, Corinne, who provided him with an alibi during his 2004 trial at the High Court in Edinburgh. Mitchell has appealed his conviction and the programme was said to have set out to examine whether or not he could have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

But when TV bosses viewed the documentary, made by the flagship Frontline Scotland team, they were appalled and claimed interviews with his mother made Mitchell out to be "a saint". They said it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and added that the programme lacked impartiality and was unbroadcastable in its current state.

One source said: "They hit the roof. It was not impartial enough and did not given enough right of reply to those it was criticising. It made the mistake of assuming that because he has lodged an appeal that he must be innocent. The truth is that almost every convicted murderer tries to chance their arm by lodging an appeal."

A BBC spokesman said it was not unusual to reschedule programmes and despite the setback, they expected the documentary to be broadcast soon.

http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/BBC-axes-biased-Mitchell-documentary.3359191.jp
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:50:PM
yes but they didn't axe it went out.

i suggest people watch it and see weather its biased or not.

that article is slightly in accurate to say the least.

it was rescheduled not axed
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 18, 2011, 10:54:PM
yes it went out a few weeks after it was axed. I meant to add that.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 10:56:PM
This is what Corinne Mitchell says about the afternoon of the murder. Remember that Corinne arrived home at 5.15pm, the exact time when Jodi was allegedly murdered.



Quote from: Corinne Mitchell
When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.

Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.

After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!

Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.

Link (http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg2352/?topicseen#msg2352)


Remember, Shane told the trial that he never saw Luke that afternoon!   ::)

Makes you wonder eh??


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 10:59:PM
no it dont make me wonder at all lol.

i do suspect you have taken that post and edited it john.

like you seem to do with all the posts you take from other forums.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 11:03:PM
if your going to posts from other forums post a link to those forums otherwise you will keep being acused of that.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 11:04:PM
I did and as you can see it wasn't edited so I will await your apology!  ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 11:08:PM
oh sory i dident see it have i got poor eyesight or is because it wasn't there before lol.

oh ill give you the benefit of the doubt
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 11:17:PM
This is what Corinne Mitchell says about the afternoon of the murder. Remember that Corinne arrived home at 5.15pm, the exact time when Jodi was allegedly murdered.



Quote from: Corinne Mitchell
When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.


so you must wonder why charges of perjury and lying to the police were not pursued then and why corine and shane mitchell have never been convicted of crime.

could it becouse if they were lukes conviction would of been undone there and then.

Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.

After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!

Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.

Link (http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg2352/?topicseen#msg2352)


Remember, Shane told the trial that he never saw Luke that afternoon!   ::)

Makes you wonder eh??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 11:21:PM
makes you wonder why charges of perjury witch would have strengthened lukes conviction were not persued.

is it becouse the police knew if they were charged it would of undone luke mitchells conviction straight away.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 11:35:PM
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 11:37:PM
makes you wonder why charges of perjury witch would have strengthened lukes conviction were not persued.

is it becouse the police knew if they were charged it would of undone luke mitchells conviction straight away.

Not in the least, I can see them being reinstated just after the SCCRC refuse to make any referral.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 11:44:PM
well we will have to see about that.

corine dosent sonud scared.

of course this would efectivly mean giving luke mitchell 2 retrials.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 18, 2011, 11:49:PM
Not at all, no SCCRC review missy...no retrial.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2011, 11:50:PM
and how would you know what the sccrc are doing.

if you do know you shouldent
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 09:14:AM
makes you wonder why charges of perjury witch would have strengthened lukes conviction were not persued.

is it becouse the police knew if they were charged it would of undone luke mitchells conviction straight away.

Not in the least, I can see them being reinstated just after the SCCRC refuse to make any referral.

so if shane was on the internet and Corine dident get home till 515 who was cooking dinner if it wasn't luke.

the dog maybe.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 09:25:AM
Joesph was not spoken to by the police that's why nothing he said has ever been mentioned because he wasn't interviewed.

so he dident say anything becouse he wasnt asked.

How do you know for 100% certainty that he was not spoken to by the police? You cannot have seen all the police statements made to know this.



by there own admission judy jones and allen oven were out at the time of the murder visting a cemetry.

so joseph jones has no albi whatsoever fact not speculation.

















judy jones and alan oven were out at the time of murder so joseph jones has no albi what so ever thats not speculation its a fact.

i thought you said you had followed this case.

 Did you go to the trial?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 10:00:AM
sorry i made a mess of that post.

what i was going to say is Judy Jones Allen oven were vi sting a cemetery by the own admission at the time of the murder so Joseph has no Albie whatsoever fact not speclation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 03:01:PM
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028

What relevence has this got to do with the murder conviction?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 03:05:PM
sorry i made a mess of that post.

what i was going to say is Judy Jones Allen oven were vi sting a cemetery by the own admission at the time of the murder so Joseph has no Albie whatsoever fact not speclation.

You do not know what Joseph Jones said in statements to police. Whatever was said was clearly accepted.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 03:09:PM
he never made any statement and wasn't asked to that's why everyone else statements are being quoted
and not his.

and since when has the police accepting something made it true anyway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 03:12:PM
he never made any statement and wasn't asked to that's why everyone else statements are being quoted
and not his.

How do you assert with 100% accuracy that Joseph Jones did not give a statement?
Where did you get this information from? Please provide a source or forever hold your tongue. Again it is idle speculation.

And why does it matter so much to you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 03:13:PM
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028

What relevence has this got to do with the murder conviction?

its as relevant as stuff you have posted.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 03:14:PM
he never made any statement and wasn't asked to that's why everyone else statements are being quoted
and not his.

How do you assert with 100% accuracy that Joseph Jones did not give a statement?
Where did you get this information from? Please provide a source or forever hold your tongue. Again it is idle speculation.

ive stated my reason for saying it so bollocks.

your going to be offended by that arnt you.
And why does it matter so much to you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 03:14:PM
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028

What relevence has this got to do with the murder conviction?

its as relevant as stuff you have posted.

Don't talk nonsense. Anything I have posted relates to the case. The link you posted is nothing to do with case at all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 03:17:PM
it relates to gordon dickie and seem to have hit a nerve there.

its in the public domain so why shouldent i post it.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 03:18:PM
Your reasons for saying Joseph Jones did not have an alibi is because his mother and her partner went to the grave yard and the police did not speak to him as you claim.

Have you any proof to show what you are saying is true?

Do you know for 100% that he had no alibi or was not spoken to by police?

What legal status would your speculation have in any court?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 03:19:PM
it relates to gordon dickie and seem to have hit a nerve there.

its in the public domain so why shouldent i post it.

I asked what relevence does it have to this murder conviction?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 03:56:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/no-smoke/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 04:17:PM
Can you not answer the questions I asked nugnug?

Here they are again
Quote
Your reasons for saying Joseph Jones did not have an alibi is because his mother and her partner went to the grave yard and the police did not speak to him as you claim.

Have you any proof to show what you are saying is true?

Do you know for 100% that he had no alibi or was not spoken to by police?

What legal status would your speculation have in any court?

Referring to the article link you posted I asked

Quote
I asked what relevence does it have to this murder conviction?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 05:26:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/post-mortem/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 06:03:PM
So you cannot answer the questions after all. I thought not.

It is clear you do not know the answer to these questions and the link you keep posting does not have the answers either.

All you have is supposition and speculation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 06:14:PM
well thats up to the reader to decide it dident post just for you the links for you.

why do you think the entire world has to justify itself to you.

now your posting the tabloid version of events witch you quoting as the gospel truth and im posting a different version of events.

from a diffrent.







Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 06:17:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/what-is-wrong-with-this-case/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 06:24:PM
Why are you posting links to a discredited site nuggy...oops forgot your mate runs it!    ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 06:30:PM
why is it descredited its up to reader to decide weather its descredited or not.

something is not discredited becouse keeps saying.

deascredited discredited disredited over and over agian how ever much you might wish that was true.

you never did get over being banned from there did you.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-tattoo-evidence/the-manson-connection/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 06:38:PM
well thats up to the reader to decide it dident post just for you the links for you.

why do you think the entire world has to justify itself to you.

now your posting the tabloid version of events witch you quoting as the gospel truth and im posting a different version of events.

from a diffrent.

The questions I asked are valid ones and nothing to do with tabloid news. You cannot answer the questions. That is crystal clear.
Are you the entire world? I asked you, who is one person, a few questions. Instead of answering you would rather waffle on about anything other than answer a simple question. I can see a pattern here with that. If you do not like the question or what is said you change the subject and ignore the question then waffle on about something else.

You allege that Joseph Jones was not spoken to by police. You also allege that he had no alibi.

You do not know the answers to these questions, yet expect me or anyone else to take your word as the truth.

Have you any proof to show what you are saying is true?

Do you know for 100% that he had no alibi or was not spoken to by police?

What legal status would your speculation have in any court?

What relevence was the news article link you posted about someone being done for drunk driving a few months ago to this murder case?

I also asked several pages back if you had seen all or even any of the police statements. You cannot answer any of these simple questions.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 06:42:PM
it proven fact he has no albi.

but there own admission his mum and stepfather visited a cemetery at the time of the murder leaving him home alone.

so no alibi

or are saing judy and allen dident go to the cemetery are you saying there lying.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 06:42:PM
why is it descredited its up to reader to decide weather its descredited or not.

something is not discredited becouse keeps saying.

deascredited discredited disredited over and over agian how ever much you might wish that was true.

you never did get over being banned from there did you.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-tattoo-evidence/the-manson-connection/

It contains nothing but supposition and allegation as well you know missy...not a fact to be seen!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 06:44:PM
Most certainly Joseph was spoken to by the police, anyone who tells is differently is being disingenuous.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 06:46:PM
and how would you no that.

if he was spocken to by what did he say then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 06:48:PM
and how would you no that.

if he was spocken to by what did he say then.

Sounds like a fishing expidition you are on here. You don't know if he was spoken to and are dying to know if he was and what was said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 06:50:PM
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 06:51:PM
it proven fact he has no albi.

but there own admission his mum and stepfather visited a cemetery at the time of the murder leaving him home alone.

so no alibi

or are saing judy and allen dident go to the cemetery are you saying there lying.

It is not a proven fact at all. It is a proven fact only that Judy and Allen went to the graveyard.
How do you know that someone did not visit while they were out?

You do not know if he was spoken to by the police.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 06:52:PM
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.

I am sure there are people who do know. Its just you do not know.

If he was ruled out as he obviously was then why would you need to know what he said anyway?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 06:53:PM
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi

if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 06:56:PM
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.

I am sure there are people who do know. Its just you do not know.

If he was ruled out as he obviously was then why would you need to know what he said anyway?

im sure there are people who know.

now whos speculating.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:01:PM
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi

if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.

Why would he need an alibi anyway?
Why would anyone feel the need to come forward publicly anyway?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:01:PM
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.

I am sure there are people who do know. Its just you do not know.

If he was ruled out as he obviously was then why would you need to know what he said anyway?

im sure there are people who know.

now whos speculating.

I am sure there are people who do know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:04:PM
so where are they then.

if joey had given a statement and somone else was visting it would of all been mentioned.

that person would be in joeys statement.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:07:PM
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi

if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.

Why would he need an alibi anyway?
Why would anyone feel the need to come forward publicly anyway?

everyone needs an albi when the investigation starts you don't know the police are going to accuse someone else and not you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:08:PM
so where are they then.

if joey had given a statement and somone else was visting it would of all been mentioned.

Why is it so important to know if Joseph Jones spoke to the police and what his alibi was? He was not a suspect.

Do you honestly believe that the police did not speak to every single member of that family?

Why don't you ask your friends on the Mitchell forum if they have seen every single police statement in the case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:11:PM
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi

if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.

Why would he need an alibi anyway?
Why would anyone feel the need to come forward publicly anyway?

everyone needs an albi when the investigation starts you don't know the police are going to accuse someone else and not you.

Innocent people would not have any problem speaking to the police.  The police did not have any reason to accuse Joseph Jones if the did not make him a suspect.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:11:PM
yes i honestly believe they dident

because no doubt if they had spoken to joey the family would have got up and said so.

and 2 people say they have seen all the statements.

.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:15:PM
This family have been through hell with this brutal murder. They rarely speak to the media, so why would they tell anyone other than their own family and friends what happened with the police? They have no need to do so.

They need to be left in peace to grieve their terrible loss but they are not being allowed to because people like you keep bringing all the gory details of this murder onto the internet.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:17:PM
yes i honestly believe they dident

because no doubt if they had spoken to joey the family would have got up and said so.

and 2 people say they have seen all the statements.


.

All of the police statements? I doubt that very much.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:17:PM
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:27:PM
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO



Why shouldn't they have? Corrine and Luke Mitchell spoke to the media plenty prior to arrest never mind conviction.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:30:PM
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO

quite a short article which I wouldnt say was speaking to media a lot. They had every right to speak to whomever they wanted to anyway.

Do you want to attack them for every single thing they say or do? Have some compassion for goodness sake. They have suffered something most will never have to suffer thankfully.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:32:PM
This family have been through hell with this brutal murder. They rarely speak to the media, so why would they tell anyone other than their own family and friends what happened with the police? They have no need to do so.

They need to be left in peace to grieve their terrible loss but they are not being allowed to because people like you keep bringing all the gory details of this murder onto the internet.




i dident start this thread blame john.

i know this trick don't dare question the official version of events because it might upset someone.

this is trotted out in all claims of wrongful conviction.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:34:PM
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO

quite a short article which I wouldnt say was speaking to media a lot. They had every right to speak to whomever they wanted to anyway.

that wasnt an attack.

i was just pointing out that your previous post wasn't true.

Do you want to attack them for every single thing they say or do? Have some compassion for goodness sake. They have suffered something most will never have to suffer thankfully.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:36:PM
This family have been through hell with this brutal murder. They rarely speak to the media, so why would they tell anyone other than their own family and friends what happened with the police? They have no need to do so.

They need to be left in peace to grieve their terrible loss but they are not being allowed to because people like you keep bringing all the gory details of this murder onto the internet.




i dident start this thread blame john.

i know this trick don't dare question the official version of events because it might upset someone.

this is trotted out in all claims of wrongful conviction.

I am not blaming anyone for starting the thread. I am not blaming anyone for asking questions.
I am questioning why you think it is okay to attack a grieving murder victims family and accuse them of murder and covering up a murder because you did not like the result in the conviction of Luke Mitchell or any of his subsequent appeals.

If you don't like the questions then don't post here. Its as simple as that but for as long as you post allegations, suppositon and sheer fantasy, then I will respond and keep asking questions. If you cannot or will not answer them its not me who will look bad now is it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:39:PM
Quote
that wasnt an attack.

i was just pointing out that your previous post wasn't true.

How is me saying that the Jones family do not often speak to the media shown to be untrue by you posting one article dated 26 November 2004?

Where are any recent ones? I do not think there have been any for several years.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:41:PM
i havent accused anyone of murder ive just talked about the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:43:PM
i havent accused anyone of murder ive just talked about the case.

OMG what a fibber you are. Anyone who can read either this thread or any other thread will see that is a big fat lie.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:46:PM
well ill let them read the threads then and decide for themselves.

please stop trying to put words in to other peoples mouths.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:51:PM
do you think a registered charity would publish all this stuff knowing it wasn't true knowing they could be sued out of existence at any time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 07:54:PM
well ill let them read the threads then and decide for themselves.

please stop trying to put words in to other peoples mouths.

To quote you, I am just saying what I think.

I am also just saying what I and many others see. I see a poor family who have lost a child in such a brutal manner being victimised and accused by people hiding behind computer screens. God forgive you all.

Registered charities do all kinds of dodgy things. Do you think because something is registered then it is beyond reproach?

Time will tell if this "charity" will last
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 07:57:PM
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.

hardly hideing
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 07:59:PM
do you think a registered charity would publish all this stuff knowing it wasn't true knowing they could be sued out of existence at any time.

Sue who exactly?  neither of them even own a house.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 08:01:PM
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.

hardly hideing

She lives in Mayfield actually, I could Google her house if you like?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 08:02:PM
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.

whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.

and how do you know what thier finances are.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 08:04:PM
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.

whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.

and how do you know what thier finances are.

Well Middleton is on disability benefit and Lean is a sponsored student.

(http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/images/logo.gif)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 08:04:PM
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.

hardly hideing

She lives in Mayfield actually, I could Google her house if you like?

that would be cyber stalking john i like doing that but you could arrested.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 08:06:PM
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.

whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.

and how do you know what thier finances are.

Well Middleton is on disability benefit and Lean is a sponsored student.

benifet records are confidential how would you know who was on benefit or not.

if you do know that for a fact youve comited a very serious crime.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 08:08:PM
or is it just more bullshit hey.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 08:09:PM
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.

whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.

and how do you know what thier finances are.

Well Middleton is on disability benefit and Lean is a sponsored student.

benifet records are confidential how would you know who was on benefit or not.

if you do know that for a fact youve comited a very serious crime.

I do speak to his ex wife you know!   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 08:09:PM
or is it just more bullshit hey.

hey Billy boy....better watch they don't catch you out and about on that walk eh??   ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 08:11:PM
or is it just more bullshit hey.

hey Billy boy....better watch they don't catch you out and about on that walk eh??   ;D

so it is more bullshit then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 08:20:PM
Sorry kid...did you fall off your treadmill?   :P
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 08:28:PM
Came across this garbage by Sandra Lean on WAP a short while ago...

Quote from: Sandra Lean on WAP
The way the cops tried to get evidence from Shane was outrageous. They lied to him, tried every way they could to get him to say Luke did it, twisted everything he said, and then used that in evidence to say he was lying. Judges decision - we agree, if Shane had been a suspect, this would have been totally unacceptable, and the "evidence" garnered from it would never have been allowed. But he wasn't a suspect, was he? He was a witness, so the police treatment doesn't count.

The point is off course that Shane had to tell the truth in the end as he was threaten with being charged with perverting the course of justice.

Shane confirmed he never saw Luke at any time that afternoon and liar Corinne put her big size 9's in it when she said they had spoken in her presence.  Nice one Corinne!   ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 08:36:PM
so if shane was on the internet and corinne was dident get home till 515.

who was cooking dinner then if it wasn't luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 08:38:PM
What dinner?  She made that up too!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 08:41:PM
so they all went hungry while luke popped out to kill someone.

were they expecting him to cook it when he got back.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 08:43:PM
Luke never popped out as Luke was never home...no witnesses you see!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 08:48:PM
i dont hink anyone saw jodi walk home but no one is disputing she got there.

i doubt if anybody saw me walk home.

now you may stare out your window to see whos going home and who isnt but most people don't.

so who cooked dinner then did corine and shane just go hungry.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 09:03:PM
Corinne made it after she got home in between disposing of Luke's parka jacket.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 09:04:PM
but none of the witness described a parka jacket and no trace of one was found.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 09:08:PM
so corine   got in 515 cleaned luke of all forensic traces and dispposed of a jacket so nobody could find any trace of it all in time for  luke to siting on the wall at 545.

all in half an hour.

christ shes fast.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 09:12:PM
She had all night to clean up after him, that's why Luke never phoned the Jones' again as this would arise suspicion.

The Luke Mitchell Case - Hotline tel no.    07092 984231

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 09:17:PM
yes but when the 3 cyclists saw luke at 545

he would of had to have been fully cleaned and changed.

not easy to do in half an hour.

and cleaned so that not 1 forensic trace was found in the house.

got to hand it to corine gets home after a hard days

then straight to cover up a murder all in half an hour.

christ shes supper woman.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 09:21:PM
is that the best you can do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 09:29:PM
now considering most forensic traces arnt visible to the naked eye its brilliant work cleaning them off bocouse you cant even see what your leaning so you dont know weather you have cleaned it of or not.
corine must be a genius to do that
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 19, 2011, 10:12:PM
There weren't any traces whatsoever on Luke when there should have been. That clearly indicates that he changed the clothing he had worn to school that day immediately after the murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 10:28:PM
how do you know there should of been.

there was no trace of him on her ether.

and she hadent changed clothes and the murder scene hadent been cleaned.

if they had only met in the lunch hour and hadent touched each other to much.

they wouldn't leave a trace on each other.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 10:41:PM
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.

hardly hideing

Show me where in my post I mentioned Sandra Lean. I said people not one person.

Quote
I see a poor family who have lost a child in such a brutal manner being victimised and accused by people hiding behind computer screens.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 10:46:PM
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth

do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 10:51:PM
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth

do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.

I do not recall talking about Billy Middleton either. I did mention Corrine Mitchell because she was part of the case. Your point is?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 11:05:PM
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth

do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.

So nugnug is your real name then? Or are you hiding?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2011, 11:22:PM
my names in my profile you care to look i cant prove its my name.
can you prove yours is janet.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 19, 2011, 11:25:PM
my names in my profile you care to look i cant prove its my name.
can you prove yours is janet.

I don't care to look. No I cannot prove my name is Janet but I know that is my name so thats all that matters to me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:18:AM
I'm simply not a normal teenager; EXCLUSIVE: Luke Mitchell's chilling boast to the Mail.
Source: Daily Mail (London)
Date: 1/22/2005

Byline: GRACE MCLEAN

THE words coming out of his mouth were enough to chill the heart.

His voice flat and emotionless, Luke Mitchell was describing to me the moment he discovered the body of his girlfriend, mutilated and abandoned on the muddy earth.

For the schoolgirl who died an unspeakable death, horrifically mutilated, there was no expression of love from Luke Mitchell - and no tears.

This was Luke's story in his own words - the account the jury never heard as the teenager never gave evidence during his trial.

'My torch lit up the path like daytime and I was about 12 yards from Jodi when I saw her lying there,' he began. 'She was so white. Her throat had been slit and her head was to the side.

'Her eyes were staring up at me and she was naked but for a pair of socks, I think... no, she wasn't wearing anything. Her body was so white and she was just staring and staring.

'I shouted to the others but I couldn't tell them I'd found Jodi because I didn't want to upset her gran, but she said she wanted to come over the wall.

'The others held her back but she scrambled over the wall and said if her granddaugher was there she wanted to be with her.

'She sat down beside Jodi and cradled her in her arms.

I guess the family are suspicious of me because my dog Mia was the one who found Jodi and I was the one who first saw her lying there.' I interviewed Mitchell months before he had been charged with the murder of Jodi, and days after he had been questioned by detectives hunting for her killer.

Aged 15 at the time, the Luke Mitchell in front of me was an adult in everything but name. Chain smoking and dressed in baggy jeans and a dark-coloured T-shirt, he exuded confidence bordering on arrogance.

Yet all the time his eyes flicked towards his mother Corinne, as if seeking reassurance from the woman with whom he obviously had an extra-special bond.

Mitchell and his mother were like a well-rehearsed double act. As Corinne Mitchell ranted about the unfair treatment of her son, Mitchell would pace the floor as he vented his anger at the way the police had dealt with him.

Then his mother would touch him lightly on the arm and he would, as if by magic, calm down.

And as he gave his version of his whereabouts the night Jodi was brutally murdered, he constantly looked to her for reassurance, particularly when recalling the time he left the house to meet his girlfriend and the time he went on to meet his friends.

In the first moments of meeting Mitchell I was struck by how confident he was.

After a day at school he knew he was about to meet a journalist, but he walked into the room with a nonchalant air.

As I shook his hand, he gave me a cursory glance before sitting in a chair diagonally across from his mother.

It was clear he was a very sexually aware young man. I immediately felt uncomfortable as his eyes slowly looked me up and down. Mitchell may be a child but his sexuality, arrogance and misplaced maturity make him appear far older than his tender years.

There were a few flashes of childlike behaviour. But they only came as he was distracted by Mia - the dog he claimed picked up Jodi's scent and led him to her body.

As his story unfolded, it was clear he was a master of manipulation. His story was just too word-perfect. It was also, as has now transpired, a tissue of lies.

This was a 15-year-old who never buckled once during interviews with some of Scotland's most experienced policemen. The more police pushed him, the more arrogant he became.

He boasted to me: 'After a few hours I told them, "charge me or let me go".'

Mitchell leaned forward in his chair and stared intently at me as he told me how police had made his life 'a misery' and how they tried to relate to him through stories of rap star Eminem, shock rocker Marilyn Manson and pop singer Holly Valance.

He said: 'The cops asked me about my relationship with Jodi's friend Laura.

They kept asking me about the Eminem song Kim, the song where he fantasises about killing his wife.

'They asked me about the follow- up song in which Eminem sings about the "two of us", meaning him and his daughter. They asked me about Laura and if I wanted it to be just the two of us and asked if that was why I killed Jodi.

'It was all rubbish. Jodi and I would still be together if she was here today.' Detectives were astonished by how arrogant Mitchell was during interviews. Even when confronted with evidence he remained defiant.

He seemed to realise police were trying to relate to him as a teenager and find some kind of common ground.

However, as Mitchell saw himself as an adult, he found the tactic amusing and gained a sense of confidence as the interrogation went on.

Mitchell took to pacing the floor again as he told me how he had 'got really mad' with police.

Clenching his fists he said: 'I started to get really mad after about four hours and asked them to charge me if they had anything to charge me with.' It was clear Mitchell enjoyed playing cat and mouse with detectives. He said: ' One copper stood, looked me straight in my face and said, "We've got you. We found your semen on her bra.

We've found sperm similar to yours." I laughed and said, "If it's similar, it's not the same then, is it?" ' He told how detectives showed him a video reconstruction of how it would have been impossible for him to see Jodi's body in the dark woods with only a torch - implying he must have known exactly where she was lying.

He said: 'Jodi's body was replaced with a tailor's dummy and I pointed out to police that I could see a limb. That' s when they switched the video off.'

But then, chillingly, he revealed that he, Jodi and their friend Laura had been talking about funeral arrangements a few nights before the murder.

He said: 'What happened to Jodi was so ironic because the Thursday before she died we were all talking about what records we would want played at our funeral.' I could picture him that night, talking in the bedroom with Jodi - taking a perverse pleasure in knowing the fate that awaited her.

He said police took a lock knife from him after being tipped off by friends.

But he added: 'The bloke who said this is a fantasist. Another of his friends told police Jodi and I were arguing all the time. But that's not true. We never had a cross word.' Mitchell also denied he was taunting police when he left a note with flowers for Jodi which quoted from Kurt Cobain's journals: 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came.' He said: 'The only reason I left it was because she loved that line. I wanted to be with Jodi and nobody else.' It was the first time in our interview that Mitchell spoke of any affection for Jodi. But then, to change the subject, he spent ten minutes talking about newly learned computer skills - just like any other teenage boy - before asking his mother for the keys to her 4x4 Land Rover.

Then, nonchalantly, he walked outside, started up the engine and drove at high speeds around nearby waste ground. It seemed, yet again, that Mitchell was playing at being an adult.

When he returned, he told his mother he was going to see his friend Laura and, since it was on my way, I offered to give Mitchell a lift.

In the car, he said very little about Jodi, continuing to talk about his computer course. When the car came to a standstill, he leaned over and gave me a hug before jumping out. Just four weeks later, he was arrested for Jodi's murder.

I truly believe Mitchell thought he could get away with it. As we parted, he couldn't resist having the final word. A last gesture, and his last chance to goad the police: 'I was never going to break down in public - I'm not that kind of bloke.

'They made a mistake and thought I was just a normal teenager.'

g.mclean@dailymail.co.uk
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:25:AM
Lets discuss this article



ON Friday - day 42 of what had become the longest ever single- accused murder trial in Scottish history - the jury foreman rose to his feet in Edinburgh's high court and pierced the silence with a word that Jodi Jones's mother had waited more than 18 months to hear: Guilty.

The audible gasps and sobs that followed the verdict in court number three, however, contrasted starkly with the stony silence from 16-year-old Luke Mitchell. Handcuffed and flanked by two officers in the dock, the teenager did not collapse, shout or wail that a miscarriage of justice had taken place.

There was no visible anger when the verdict came. Instead, he faced straight ahead, and showed no emotion, just as he had done throughout the murder trial.

It was a calmness and stoicism that had become the trademark of the teenage killer, who, aged just 14, had in the most gruesome and calculated way strangled, stabbed, stripped and mutilated his girlfriend in woods near her home.

The words of the judge, Lord Nimmo Smith, were telling. He had sat patiently and intently throughout two months of the most harrowing evidence, and yet did not have an answer to the seemingly simple question: Why?

"It lies beyond any skill of mine to look into the black depths of your mind. I can only look at what you have done, " he told Mitchell. "I have no idea what led you to do what you did. Maybe it was a desire for notoriety, to achieve something grotesque.

I leave it to others to fathom."


The rest of this long article is on this link http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20050123/ai_n9628509/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:47:AM
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them

the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.

i

as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 01:48:AM
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them

the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.

i

as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.

Most who are innocent actually do let the courts know how they feel somehow or another. They say something at the very least, especially when being sentenced.
Especially when they already know there is a big media interest in the case.
They do not usually stay totally silent. I know Luke Mitchell was young but he had no problem answering police questions and arguing with them.
Suddenly when he is found guilty he is struck dumb?
This is the same man that Lord Hamilton, said, "Mitchell was "perfectly capable of holding his own". He had made no confession and had "stuck to his guns" throughout the interview, the court heard."

I know too that a guilty verdict can be a shock to some people but they usually react in someway too. He knew the media would be listening to everything said. Yet said not one word?

There is not one word of truth in the Daily Mail articles or in any article that does not support Mitchell.
Wonder why they are still in business and not been sued out of it by now considering all they do is tell lies about innocent people like Luke Mitchell. They clearly made up every little thing about him. None of it is true of course.

So if he stuck to his guns throughout an interview, when it was quite clear he was the only suspect then why no outburst at court that they got it wrong?

As I said I do understand that perhaps someone would be shocked to be charged but once charged there is always a chance of conviction unless you know you did not do something. And if you did not you will let people know the verdict is wrong.

That did not happen in this case at all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 20, 2011, 03:28:AM
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth

do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.

Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.

Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.

Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums?  I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 20, 2011, 03:35:AM
But then smiffy/outsider just posted on WAP that he knows who the killer is...

Quote from: outsider
not too sure of your source...IS IT FROM DOBBIE THE DUMB COPPERS fantasy version?...Dobbie...the man that seems to think it normal for 14 year old girls to have sperm from several different males on her body and clothes and not find it highly suspicious...hmmm..well I do find it suspicious...oh and Dobbie..I know you got it wrong sunshine...cos I know who really killed Jodi....and so do a growing number of other people.

Maybe he will let the SCCRC know!  ...or is there more than the cops who are dumb-ass fantasists?

Link (http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg13531/?PHPSESSID=6e67a1b8f4e4652bb21e006ac0397117#new)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:06:PM
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth

do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.

Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.

Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.

Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums?  I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
[/quote

believe or not a lot of people have other things to do than post on forums.

i know we dont but some people have a life.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:11:PM
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth

do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.

Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.

Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.

Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums?  I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.


some people have better things to do than post on forums all.

can you prove any of what your saying is just speculation.

can you prove your posting under other ids

and your hideing in another country.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:20:PM
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them

the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.

i

as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.

Most who are innocent actually do let the courts know how they feel somehow or another. They say something at the very least, especially when being sentenced.
Especially when they already know there is a big media interest in the case.
They do not usually stay totally silent. I know Luke Mitchell was young but he had no problem answering police questions and arguing with them.
Suddenly when he is found guilty he is struck dumb?
This is the same man that Lord Hamilton, said, "Mitchell was "perfectly capable of holding his own". He had made no confession and had "stuck to his guns" throughout the interview, the court heard."

I know too that a guilty verdict can be a shock to some people but they usually react in someway too. He knew the media would be listening to everything said. Yet said not one word?

There is not one word of truth in the Daily Mail articles or in any article that does not support Mitchell.
Wonder why they are still in business and not been sued out of it by now considering all they do is tell lies about innocent people like Luke Mitchell. They clearly made up every little thing about him. None of it is true of course.

So if he stuck to his guns throughout an interview, when it was quite clear he was the only suspect then why no outburst at court that they got it wrong?

As I said I do understand that perhaps someone would be shocked to be charged but once charged there is always a chance of conviction unless you know you did not do something. And if you did not you will let people know the verdict is wrong.

That did not happen in this case at all.

make react in all diffrent ways to the verdict it means nothing your clutching at straws here.

a lot of guilty do react a lot of innocent people dont.

a lot of guilty start protesting there innocence after the verdict a lot of innocent people dont it means nothing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:27:PM
the mail articall contians nothing but a lot of innuendo

this was paper who spen years telling the world colin stag was guilty..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:32:PM
the mail articall contians nothing but a lot of innuendo

this was paper who spen years telling the world colin stag was guilty..

You are trying to tell me that every single thing ever printed about Luke Mitchell or his family is all lies? Not one shred of truth in anything ever said if it is bad for Mitchell? Is that what you are trying to say here? Its not just the Mail you say this about. Its every single news paper.

We all know the papers get things wrong but come on they do not get everything wrong now do they?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:35:PM
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them

the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.

i

as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.

Most who are innocent actually do let the courts know how they feel somehow or another. They say something at the very least, especially when being sentenced.
Especially when they already know there is a big media interest in the case.
They do not usually stay totally silent. I know Luke Mitchell was young but he had no problem answering police questions and arguing with them.
Suddenly when he is found guilty he is struck dumb?
This is the same man that Lord Hamilton, said, "Mitchell was "perfectly capable of holding his own". He had made no confession and had "stuck to his guns" throughout the interview, the court heard."

I know too that a guilty verdict can be a shock to some people but they usually react in someway too. He knew the media would be listening to everything said. Yet said not one word?

There is not one word of truth in the Daily Mail articles or in any article that does not support Mitchell.
Wonder why they are still in business and not been sued out of it by now considering all they do is tell lies about innocent people like Luke Mitchell. They clearly made up every little thing about him. None of it is true of course.

So if he stuck to his guns throughout an interview, when it was quite clear he was the only suspect then why no outburst at court that they got it wrong?

As I said I do understand that perhaps someone would be shocked to be charged but once charged there is always a chance of conviction unless you know you did not do something. And if you did not you will let people know the verdict is wrong.

That did not happen in this case at all.

make react in all diffrent ways to the verdict it means nothing your clutching at straws here.

a lot of guilty do react a lot of innocent people dont.

a lot of guilty start protesting there innocence after the verdict a lot of innocent people dont it means nothing.

I am clutching at straws? Don't make me laugh!!

So a young man who has been quite vocal about the case suddenly can show no reaction whatsoever when found guilty of such a terrible crime?
There was not one waver of emotion in him when he was pronounced guilty. Not one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:37:PM
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth

do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.

Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.

Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.

Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums?  I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.

Well if people are admitting to using certain names you can bet they are using others too.

If Shane or the dad post why don't the post under their own names if they believe he is innocent?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:37:PM
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:38:PM
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche

But it wasn't a cliche was it? People saw it for themselves in court.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:39:PM
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth

do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.

Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.

Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.

Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums?  I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.

Well if people are admitting to using certain names you can bet they are using others too.

If Shane or the dad post why don't the post under their own names if they believe he is innocent?

seeing as you no way of proveing who you are.

you are in postion to accuse others.

how do i know and john arnt the same person.

theres no way of proveing it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:42:PM
Considering I am female, I think the name gives the game away don't you? I cannot and am not John. But carry on thinking I am if it makes you feel better.

I was not judging, I asked why they did not post under their own names if they believe he is innocent. Why is asking that question judging?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:43:PM
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche

But it wasn't a cliche was it? People saw it for themselves in court.

how would you that if as you say you wernt in court.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:48:PM
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche

But it wasn't a cliche was it? People saw it for themselves in court.

how would you that if as you say you wernt in court.

Because people have reported exactly what they themselves witnessed the day of the verdict.
But of course they are all lying aren't they?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:49:PM
i thought said you said you had nothing to do with the case so how would you know that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 12:52:PM
i thought said you said you had nothing to do with the case so how would you know that.

re read what I wrote
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 12:56:PM
i did read what you wrote.

and if your nothing to do with the case as you say.

how would you know what other people who were in court said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 01:01:PM

(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2005/Jan/Week3/1270014.jpg)

Found this on the Sky website.

Interesting there is a mention of Manson.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 01:02:PM
and
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 01:04:PM
i did read what you wrote.

and if your nothing to do with the case as you say.

how would you know what other people who were in court said.

Do you know who said what in court? Because you said you were not there either.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 01:06:PM
and

It is interesting. I have not seen the jotter properly like this before. Please try to write in sentences
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 01:17:PM
kids write on there jotters

its perfectly normall.

there are thousnds of jotters that look just like that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 01:27:PM
kids write on there jotters

its perfectly normall.

there are thousnds of jotters that look just like that.

Really? Not on any jotter I have ever seen
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2011, 01:33:PM
how many jotters have you seen then.

what does writing things on jotter  have to do with murder

you will scribels like that on half the school jotters in the country.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 20, 2011, 01:49:PM


and your hideing in another country.

Hiding from whom, we don't all hide in their maw's house in Lerwick do we?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 20, 2011, 03:30:PM
how many jotters have you seen then.

what does writing things on jotter  have to do with murder

you will scribels like that on half the school jotters in the country.

I have seen many jotters is the answer.

I posted a pic of the jotter. I said I found it interesting. I said I had not seen it before in such detail.
I said I had not seen such scribbles on a jotter.

I am not debating about a jotter. I just posted the picture. So why do you have a problem with this?

 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 22, 2011, 12:26:AM
I suppose none of this is true either?

As Donald Findlay, the eminent QC who defended Mitchell in court, put it during his summing up: "The question that screams into everyone’s mind is ‘why’? In this case there is no ‘why’." What was Mitchell’s motive?

Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Dobbie believes he has the "why". Softly spoken and bespectacled, Dobbie was appointed head of the murder hunt after Jodi’s body was discovered in the woods near Roan’s Dyke, Dalkeith, hours after she met her death. He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence, finding himself up against a teenage suspect who showed immense cunning under the fiercest pressure.

Clues were emerging about just how dangerous he might be at a very young age. Born in July 1988, his parents Corinne and Philip split up when he was 11. He grew up under the care of his mother and she allowed him to do exactly as he pleased. He lived in a state of near squalor; keeping his own urine in bottles in his bedroom, rarely washing and wearing the same clothes for days on end.

Left largely to his own devices he became defiant, violent and brooding with an unhealthy fascination with knives, the occult and drugs. He was first brought to the attention of the mental health profession aged just 11, following a fight at King’s Park Primary in Dalkeith. Although the incident was just a minor skirmish with another pupil, Mitchell’s attitude was sufficiently troublesome to warrant a referral to a school psychiatrist. However, there appears to have been little further action taken by the education authorities or his parents to curb his behaviour.
When he was 12 he threatened his then girlfriend with a knife because she refused to have sex with him. The incidents went on. When he moved to St David’s High, a music teacher found him trying to throttle another pupil and he was sent to an educational psychologist. He refused the expert’s help. Instead Mitchell became a rebellious, mysterious teenager who was heavily into cannabis and supplied his Goth friends with the drug.

He also appeared to have an unhealthy interest in the occult. The jotters at his Catholic school were daubed with Satanic slogans, and he wrote a school essay containing references to the devil. Yet teachers appeared to have little control over him and he would simply defy their instructions when it suited him.
Even more worryingly, he also acquired a fascination with knives. His older brother, Shane, had a knife collection and Mitchell gathered his own array. At a party six weeks before killing Jones, he repeatedly jabbed her in the leg with a knife he had been using to cut up cannabis.

Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.

One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.

Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.

Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.

Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."

Further investigations were also made into Mitchell’s background and his behaviour.

Dobbie added: "By 14 August our focus was on Luke. He was interviewed again under caution. He was challenging. He was totally in control of himself and challenged the abilities and authority of the police. It was almost like taunts. He had the mental ability to sit and take control of the interview and that’s incredible from someone who has not previously been part of the criminal process, or not come from a criminal family. He was not fazed or shocked or panicking. I have never seen someone so cool and calm and who needed to control the situation."

Yet there was no proof he was the murderer, no killer fact, just an arrogant teenager who seemed to show no grief over his girlfriend’s death.

Mitchell denied the allegations from the outset, but was soon suspected by the family and banned from her funeral. He angered Jodi’s relatives when, as she was laid to rest, he appeared on television to make a public denial. He also visited her grave accompanied by his mother, stubbed out cigarettes and swore at photographers. His boldness sparked strong suspicions of his guilt in the local community and he found he could not return to normal life.

Mitchell was banned from returning to school after the summer holidays and told he would have to be educated separately - away from his fellow pupils. This led to a heated argument between Mitchell, his 45-year-old mother Corinne and the school’s headteacher, and threats of legal action.

In court Mitchell’s defence was that he was at home cooking dinner at the time of the murder. His alibi was his ever-devoted mother who backed up his story. But investigations showed that there had been an exchange of text messages between Jodi and Luke from 4.35pm to 4.38pm on June 30, in which they arranged to meet up.

A knife pouch with the initials "JJ" - apparently a reference to Jodi Jones - and the numerals "666" written on it was found in his bedroom.

Despite his mother’s claims, the evidence of Mitchell’s own brother - who said he had been at home alone viewing pornography - demonstrated that Mitchell had not been in his family’s Newbattle house at the time of the killing, and another witness testified that someone "very, very like" Mitchell was at the Easthouses end of the path with a young female just before 5pm.

Mitchell’s mother also denied the clothes he had been wearing were destroyed in a log burner in the garden of her home within hours of her murder. And it emerged that just days after his girlfriend was brutally murdered, Mitchell bought a Marilyn Manson DVD about the murder of Elizabeth Short. Would a grieving young man who had accidentally stumbled on the mutilated and naked body of his girlfriend get any comfort from such a film?

On November 21, 2003, police felt they had sufficient evidence to submit a report to the procurator fiscal which named Luke Mitchell as the prime suspect for the murder.

On April 14, last year Mitchell was arrested and charged in connection with Jodi’s murder. When police arrived to arrest the teenager they found him sharing a bedroom with his mother. She said she had been comforting him because he was not sleeping well.

Corinne and Mitchell’s 22-year-old brother, Shane, were also arrested and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. But these charges were later dropped.

The circumstances clearly pointed to Mitchell as the killer. But with no DNA or murder weapon the conviction on circumstantial evidence was by no means a certainty. When the jury went out on Thursday and appeared far from reaching its verdict speculation was rife in the local community that Mitchell would walk free with either a not guilty or not proven verdict. That lack of hard evidence drew criticism, but Dobbie staunchly defends his force’s investigation.

He said: "We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country but not one point has been inadmissible."

The case was the largest for Lothian and Borders Police in the past 20 years, leading to the longest single-accused murder trial in Scots legal history.

In the process, little of Jodi Jones’s secrets have escaped the glare of publicity. Her naked, mutilated body has been photographed and shown to witnesses, her text messages retrieved, her family life and sex life discussed and excerpts from her private diary opened to the world and used as court evidence by the defence team. This last humiliation would have "mortified" the teenager, according to a statement released by her mother on Friday. "These were private and should have remained so," it added.

These deep feelings over the exposure the 14-year-old has suffered in death has silenced her family. Instead of giving interviews they have chosen to preserve as much of her dignity as they can by keeping their feelings and the last remaining private shreds of her life to themselves, sharing only a few words and a poem she wrote with the public.

Dobbie himself did not know Jodi. "However, we came to know her, and one thing is for sure, we will never forget her," he said.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurdertrial/Natural-born-killer.2597278.jp
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 12:42:AM
 no evidence in that what so ever.

just a cop rambling.

there are a couple of bits of truth

the big lie is that there was no dna.

there is dna just none of luke mitchells.

the dna of steven kelly and others is there.


its true that there was no murder weapon ever found.

and findley is not one of finest lawers in this country or any country.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 22, 2011, 02:02:AM
I see the fans over at GI are asking questions about Shane and his daddy posting on the forums.  I won't burst their bubbles just yet but watch this space because it will come out soon....

By the way I believe as things stand the SCCRC will not be making any referral to the High Court as Mrs Leans arguments are all sawdust.   They should be receiving the provisional determination very soon now.

I have had another look at the testimony by smack-head Shane the secret poster on WAP. Half the time he couldn't remember and the other half he was repeating things that mummy had fed him earlier. What a tosser! 

I can't get over Corinne being so stupid as to admit that Luke spoke to Shane that afternoon when according to her Luke had called him down for dinner. Shane denied this ever took place when he confirmed he never saw Luke any time that afternoon until he returned home after 9pm.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 09:55:AM
I see the fans over at GI are asking questions about Shane and his daddy posting on the forums.  I won't burst their bubbles just yet but watch this space because it will come out soon....

By the way I believe as things stand the SCCRC will not be making any referral to the High Court as Mrs Leans arguments are all sawdust.   They should be receiving the provisional determination very soon now.

I have had another look at the testimony by smack-head Shane the secret poster on WAP. Half the time he couldn't remember and the other half he was repeating things that mummy had fed him earlier. What a tosser! 

I can't get over Corinne being so stupid as to admit that Luke spoke to Shane that afternoon when according to her Luke had called him down for dinner. Shane denied this ever took place when he confirmed he never saw Luke any time that afternoon until he returned home after 9pm.

how would you know what the scrsc are doing you dont whats been submited to them.

all this becouse you banned from a forum how pathetic is that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 22, 2011, 02:55:PM
Would that be the forum where I exposed Corinne Mitchell ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 03:14:PM
no the one where you were exposed as one.

the links are posted i think most people can see what went on
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 22, 2011, 03:27:PM
She never quite did that load of crap she refers to as the truth sorted out did she Sandra?  Lets say I am not surprised she ended up with you two since you all deserve each other.

Luckily Stephanie Hall saw through them before it was too late!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 03:37:PM
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp

this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 22, 2011, 05:17:PM
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp

this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.

Thought the media only printed rubbish? Or is it only rubbish when it does not suit your theories?

Did you take a note of the date that article was published? Published Date: 10 July 2003 So 8 years have passed since that article so I would say it proves nothing.

What about the blonde woman. Did she ever come forward?

Quote
DI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.

He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.

"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.

"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 22, 2011, 05:19:PM
She never quite did that load of crap she refers to as the truth sorted out did she Sandra?  Lets say I am not surprised she ended up with you two since you all deserve each other.

Luckily Stephanie Hall saw through them before it was too late!


From what I have read I would say Stephanie Hall did eventually see through them but not before she got caught up in a mess first which is unfortunate.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 05:32:PM
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp

this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.

Thought the media only printed rubbish? Or is it only rubbish when it does not suit your theories?

Did you take a note of the date that article was published? Published Date: 10 July 2003 So 8 years have passed since that article so I would say it proves nothing.

What about the blonde woman. Did she ever come forward?

Quote
DI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.

He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.

"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.

"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.

it proves the police wre lying when they said the dna transfered innocently as was the prosecutor.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 22, 2011, 05:58:PM
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp

this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.

Thought the media only printed rubbish? Or is it only rubbish when it does not suit your theories?

Did you take a note of the date that article was published? Published Date: 10 July 2003 So 8 years have passed since that article so I would say it proves nothing.

What about the blonde woman. Did she ever come forward?

Quote
DI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.

He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.

"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.

"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.

it proves the police wre lying when they said the dna transfered innocently as was the prosecutor.

how does it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 06:02:PM
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accident
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 22, 2011, 06:22:PM
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accident
again I point you to the date of the article. It was also very early on in the investigation. You cannot possibly know who was tested or not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 22, 2011, 06:25:PM
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accident


You are twisting words here. They did not say they were planning to dna the whole area. What they said was
Quote
DETECTIVES investigating the murder of schoolgirl Jodi Jones are considering DNA testing up to 1400 men living near where she was killed.

and this statement too
"DNA testing is an option open to us and we may consider it in the future.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 06:41:PM
well why would the considering that if the dident think the dna had anything to do with the murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 22, 2011, 06:52:PM
well why would the considering that if the dident the dna had anything to do with the murder.

because it was the start of a massive enquiry and like you have said on other occasions, "they always say things like that"

One reason why they might say it is to see if someone will confess.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 23, 2011, 10:45:AM
well why would the considering that if the dident the dna had anything to do with the murder.

because it was the start of a massive enquiry and like you have said on other occasions, "they always say things like that"

One reason why they might say it is to see if someone will confess.


Why would it be the start of a massive enquiry? Oh because there was lots of DNA from different men that could not be accounted for in a credible way..? So either there is a credible case for sex abuse going on in Jodi's life pre murder or there was a sexual element involved in the murder. One or the other...such large amounts of various males semen is not normal for a 14 year old girl and needs answering.  It is credible that if indeed Jodi was being sexually abused (Not a pleasant thought) then one or more or those involved fearing possible exposure could have a motive to shut her up permanently to save their own skins.

Cant see how announcing plans to possibly conduct local dna testing would really put a person into a position in which may tempt them to confess. That's cloud cuckoo land thinking to claim it would.


thanx for all the smites john... ..it just shows how much you despise my honesty and integrity and it cheers me that I attract your hostility .
 :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 02:02:PM


I will rephrase,it was ten days into what would become a massive enquiry.

So where is this large amount of semen?

Are you trying tell us that the police, the prosecutors, defence QC's, lawyers and the pathologists and any other person doing testing on Jodi totally ignored all this sperm and evidence?
 I do not believe it.
I do not believe that because this was such a vicious murder of a young girl and such a high profile case, were they would be looking for all the clues they could get.

You have no proof that Jodi was sexually abused before she was murdered or while she was being murdered. 

All you offer is theory, supposition and speculation.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 02:05:PM
no we are saying the police ignored as happens in many cases.

the sperm and the rest of the dna had to get there by some means it dident get there by magick.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 02:10:PM
no we are saying the police ignored as happens in many cases.

the sperm and the rest of the dna had to get there by some means it dident get there by magick.

Okay I get that the police fit people up sometimes but you are asking us to believe that the police, the prosecutors, defence QC's, lawyers and the pathologists and any other person doing testing on Jodi totally ignored all this sperm and evidence?  Too many people for a cover up in my eyes. I just cannot believe everyone involved in this case is guilty of ignoring evidence.

Where is the proof of this large amount of semen and other DNA?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 02:25:PM
the pathologists have nothing to do with it they don't make the decisions.

at least one of those patholigists thinks luke mitchells innocent says a lot.

the prosecution ignores all evidence that dosent suit its case.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 02:46:PM
the pathologists have nothing to do with it they don't make the decisions.

at least one of those patholigists thinks luke mitchells innocent says a lot.

the prosecution ignores all evidence that dosent suit its case.

What do you mean the pathologists have nothing to do with it? They are doing the testing, of course they are something to do with it, they have the results to give to the police and courts.

Pathologists gave evidence in court. No mention of all this DNA at trial.

What pathologist has come out and said he thinks Luke Mitchell is innocent?

Even the prosecution would not ignore all this semen if it existed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 02:56:PM
the prosecution are only interested in getting a conviction against the person in the dock.

the pathologists only answer the questions there asked.

why would the police be talking about dna testing people if there wasn't any dna to test.

prof bushiati  i hope i have spelt his name right has exspresiod doubts about the conviction many times.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 03:46:PM
Quote
Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011HCJAC10.html
Quote
Professor Busuttil gave evidence that a reddish hair bobble, or "scrunch", was situated at the back of the deceased's head, but was not easily visible among her hair which was largely uncontained by it.

Which according to things I have read, Luke Mitchell said he saw the night the body was found yet the pathologist said it was not easily visible.

Quote
There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse.


http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html

Quote
Meanwhile, the other man had provided an innocent explanation about the condom.

"Both gentlemen gave samples to the police and DNA profiles were obtained which were compared to crime-scene samples, and there is no match whatsoever," he told the court.

http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/Mitchell-faces--DNA-setback.3714068.jp
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 04:09:PM
well of course he saw the body they all saw the body when the dog found it.

it would depend  on what you consider an innocent explanation as far as the condoms concerned.
why did he not come forward for 3 years if he had an innocent explanation.

the good professor said that luke Mitchell could not have comited the murder without wearing a forensic suit.

and by all  accounts luke Mitchel did not have one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 04:43:PM
well of course he saw the body they all saw the body when the dog found it.

it would depend  on what you consider an innocent explanation as far as the condoms concerned.
why did he not come forward for 3 years if he had an innocent explanation.

the good professor said that luke Mitchell could not have comited the murder without wearing a forensic suit.

and by all  accounts luke Mitchel did not have one.

I did not say he did not see the body. He could not have seen the bauble in the dark and the pathologist said it was not easily seen.

The explanation re the condom was accepted by the police and courts.

where is your source for this information? Frontline Scotland?  So why has this not been accepted at appeals?

I know Frontline eventually went out but it was not impartial.

Quote
But when TV bosses viewed the documentary, made by the flagship Frontline Scotland team, they were appalled and claimed interviews with his mother made Mitchell out to be "a saint". They said it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and added that the programme lacked impartiality and was unbroadcastable in its current state.

One source said: "They hit the roof. It was not impartial enough and did not given enough right of reply to those it was criticising. It made the mistake of assuming that because he has lodged an appeal that he must be innocent. The truth is that almost every convicted murderer tries to chance their arm by lodging an appeal."

http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/BBC-axes-biased-Mitchell-documentary.3359191.jp

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 04:50:PM
well thats the newspaper i suggest people watch front line seemed perfectly impartial to me.

its hard to see most things in the dark that's what torches are for.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 04:52:PM
well thats the newspaper i suggest people watch front line seemed perfectly impartial to me.

its hard to see most things in the dark that's what torches are for.

just doing so again right now. I will be back with my thoughts on it
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: joolz1975 on May 23, 2011, 07:59:PM
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 08:13:PM
I have been watching this programme and taking notes from it. I have not yet finished as I have been busy with family, dinner and homework. So will continue watching now.

So far I have heard this.

Over 3000 people interviewed
He was no angel. He carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.
Prof Busitil has clearly been asked a very loaded question regarding what state the murderer could be in afterwards.
He does not mention Luke Mitchell's name. He has been asked a "hypothetical" question about a hypothetical killer and this will only be the edited part that suits Frontlines clearly biased agenda. The fact that we do not hear the question asked is pretty conclusive proof of that.

He does mention the fact that gloves could have been worn.
He does not say "I think Luke Mitchell is innocent."
Roy Ramm says if there are fibres from the murderer and it is heavy rain that it could be washed away. It was raining that night wasn't it?
Busitil says that it is a probablity that evidence may have been lost due to the rain too.
He also says the chances of transfer from assailant to victim is not that common.

I will be back soon with more comment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 08:23:PM
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...

Yes it is a very upsetting case. It has been appealed many times. One of the things that is most upsetting is that the Luke Mitchell Support hint very strongly that the Jones family are involved in some way.

Here is an example of some of their posts on their own forum. JoJ is Jospeh Jones, Jodi's brother. This is who they are accusing of the murder while saying they are not doing that. They are accusing Judith Jones of covering up this murder. This family have suffered enough and what they are doing is beyond anything I can even think of.
   
   
Quote
Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder
« Reply #7578 on: May 22, 2011, 10:24:40 PM »
   
Quote from: fishy on May 22, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
Quote from: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 08:52:52 PM
i still find it strange that judy jones and allen oven were not doing the press conference.

Maybe because they'd have had to bring JoJ along.
Or leave him "Home Alone". Again.
Remember what happened last time they did that.


more like...erm...remember what happened when they "claimed" to have left him "Home Alone"

good old AO eh...leaves the kissing and holding hands with Judy at the funeral to Joey....how odd for a man who was so agreeable to supposedly  visit a cemetery and grave of the man he replaced in Judy's life.

Quote
fishy
Quote from: Mrssmith on May 22, 2011, 11:39:41 PM
... who are we to judge the behaviour of people just living their lives? before their loved one was brutally taken away? .. you can paint anyone in a bad light ... try and be respectful to all involved...innocent until proven otherwise
An extremely fair point. Just a pity the police and judiciary don't agree to play nice in that respect.
It's a crying shame that Corinne had her boy kidnapped.
And an even greater shame on all of us that we condone the constant propagation of absurd rumours and innuendos about almost any aspect of that family's life and relationships, up to and including complicity in murder.

I doubt the Important Family's supporters will yield for an instant in their slanders against the Mitchells, though.

I'll stop, if they do. Or if I'm caught out in a lie. Deal?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 08:28:PM
its been appealed twice and will be agian.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 08:30:PM
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...

Yes it is a very upsetting case. It has been appealed many times. One of the things that is most upsetting is that the Luke Mitchell Support hint very strongly that the Jones family are involved in some way.

Here is an example of some of their posts on their own forum. JoJ is Jospeh Jones, Jodi's brother. This is who they are accusing of the murder while saying they are not doing that. They are accusing Judith Jones of covering up this murder. This family have suffered enough and what they are doing is beyond anything I can even think of.
   
   
Quote
Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder
« Reply #7578 on: May 22, 2011, 10:24:40 PM »
   
Quote from: fishy on May 22, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
Quote from: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 08:52:52 PM
i still find it strange that judy jones and allen oven were not doing the press conference.

Maybe because they'd have had to bring JoJ along.
Or leave him "Home Alone". Again.
Remember what happened last time they did that.


more like...erm...remember what happened when they "claimed" to have left him "Home Alone"

good old AO eh...leaves the kissing and holding hands with Judy at the funeral to Joey....how odd for a man who was so agreeable to supposedly  visit a cemetery and grave of the man he replaced in Judy's life.

Quote
fishy
Quote from: Mrssmith on May 22, 2011, 11:39:41 PM
... who are we to judge the behaviour of people just living their lives? before their loved one was brutally taken away? .. you can paint anyone in a bad light ... try and be respectful to all involved...innocent until proven otherwise
An extremely fair point. Just a pity the police and judiciary don't agree to play nice in that respect.
It's a crying shame that Corinne had her boy kidnapped.
And an even greater shame on all of us that we condone the constant propagation of absurd rumours and innuendos about almost any aspect of that family's life and relationships, up to and including complicity in murder.

I doubt the Important Family's supporters will yield for an instant in their slanders against the Mitchells, though.

I'll stop, if they do. Or if I'm caught out in a lie. Deal?

you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 08:34:PM
I have been watching this programme and taking notes from it. I have not yet finished as I have been busy with family, dinner and homework. So will continue watching now.

So far I have heard this.

Over 3000 people interviewed
He was no angel. He carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.
Prof Busitil has clearly been asked a very loaded question regarding what state the murderer could be in afterwards.
He does not mention Luke Mitchell's name. He has been asked a "hypothetical" question about a hypothetical killer and this will only be the edited part that suits Frontlines clearly biased agenda. The fact that we do not hear the question asked is pretty conclusive proof of that.

He does mention the fact that gloves could have been worn.
He does not say "I think Luke Mitchell is innocent."
Roy Ramm says if there are fibres from the murderer and it is heavy rain that it could be washed away. It was raining that night wasn't it?
Busitil says that it is a probablity that evidence may have been lost due to the rain too.
He also says the chances of transfer from assailant to victim is not that common.

I will be back soon with more comment.

prof bustil was asked a qustion and he gave his honest answer.

royy ram also expressed his doubts about the conviction.

and the behavior of loathen and borders police.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 08:44:PM
I have been watching this programme and taking notes from it. I have not yet finished as I have been busy with family, dinner and homework. So will continue watching now.

So far I have heard this.

Over 3000 people interviewed
He was no angel. He carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.
Prof Busitil has clearly been asked a very loaded question regarding what state the murderer could be in afterwards.
He does not mention Luke Mitchell's name. He has been asked a "hypothetical" question about a hypothetical killer and this will only be the edited part that suits Frontlines clearly biased agenda. The fact that we do not hear the question asked is pretty conclusive proof of that.

He does mention the fact that gloves could have been worn.
He does not say "I think Luke Mitchell is innocent."
Roy Ramm says if there are fibres from the murderer and it is heavy rain that it could be washed away. It was raining that night wasn't it?
Busitil says that it is a probablity that evidence may have been lost due to the rain too.
He also says the chances of transfer from assailant to victim is not that common.

I will be back soon with more comment.

prof bustil was asked a qustion and he gave his honest answer.


royy ram also expressed his doubts about the conviction.

and the behavior of loathen and borders police.

We do not know exactly what question he was asked. He was not asked it on screen. Had he been asked it on screen they would have shown it for sure.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 08:46:PM
then how do you know the question was loaded.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 08:47:PM
you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.

There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 08:52:PM
will you stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

if what is going on on another forum bothers you  so much why dont you join that forum and tell them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 08:52:PM
then how do you know the question was loaded.

Because they have asked him a question and the question was not heard. Had they asked him a specific question for that answer they would have shown it. So they did not ask a specific question.

All you heard was the guy talking, who had clearly been having a conversation with Samantha Poling while its been recorded and they use bits and pieces of what is said.

I have seen it happen before on TV. Prof Butisil did not say Luke Mitchell was innocent.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 08:53:PM
will you stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

What words am I putting into someones mouth?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 08:54:PM
er that should be obvious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 23, 2011, 09:30:PM
er that should be obvious.

I am entitled to my opinion. I have been reading the posts being made about the Jones family and others.
The words are coming out of Luke Mitchell Supporters Mouths not mine.

What is obvious is that you do not like any opinions or ideas that do not fit in with your theories.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 10:36:PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3035614.stm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 10:41:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Luke_Mitchell_-_Timeline
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: joolz1975 on May 23, 2011, 11:08:PM
Is there a link to this programme please??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 11:09:PM
its on the thread jools ill find it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 11:11:PM
here it is jools.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6640000/newsid_6640100?redirect=6640115.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: joolz1975 on May 23, 2011, 11:22:PM
here it is jools.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6640000/newsid_6640100?redirect=6640115.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1

Thankyou! Will watch it tommorow!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2011, 11:46:PM
theres also this one from rough justice.

http://roughjusticetv.co.uk/rjlukefilm.htm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 24, 2011, 12:28:AM
Maybe you can explain why Mrs hall was also banned and blocked from accessing the forum?

There is a big difference between fact and fantasy with the WAP forum falling into the latter category.  Luke Mitchell had every opportunity to commit murder on his 14 year-old girlfriend. He had the motive, the means and the opportunity.

The sad excuse for an alibi that he was at home preparing dinner at 5.15pm on Monday 30 June 2003 while Jodi Jones had her throat cut and was thereafter mutilated just doesn't cut it as far as the evidence by his own brother has it. He was charged with perverting the course of justice as was his mother. They were also warned in court as to the consequences of perjury. Says it all really doesn't it?

What punishement did the brother and mother recieve having been charged with perverting the course of justice? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 12:31:AM
nothing the charges were all dropped just after the conviction.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 24, 2011, 12:48:AM
And just on cue up she pops.

Lets just say that I was misled into believing that the Jones family were involved in her murder. I most certainly don't believe this to be true any longer having looked at all the facts in the case.
The continued refusal by the Mitchell's to address their memory lapses is the clincher for me. Innocent people don't suddenly develop amnesia deary.

Could you point me in the direction of all the facts in this case that you have been able to look at, as I am interested in reading up on this case?  Are you saying that you actually thought the victims family were involved in this girls murder, why would you think that, never mind admit it?  Phew, this is scary stuff, what a thought!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 12:52:AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 24, 2011, 12:56:AM
Indeed Sandy, that has always concerned me in that people who promote themselves as advocates for the wrongly accused could act in such a way which could only do harm to any investigation.

Unless of course they didn't want me to get to the truth in the first place which is always a possibility?

There are too many unanswered questions in that case for me.  Why did those very same people go out of their way to have the Jodi Jones forum closed down if they themselves had nothing to hide?   Their actions speaks volumes.

John you seem to know a lot about this case, are you a private investigator or something? Why does this case interest you?  Do you live where this murder occured?

This thread is very difficult to follow as I have to start reading from the bottom of the last page to work my way through, starting from the bottom on each page, very irritating.  Will try keep with it, as Im keen to read more but links to where I can read the facts of this case would be great, much appreciated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 24, 2011, 01:06:AM
nothing the charges were all dropped just after the conviction.

but I thought John said they were charged with perverting the course of justice, and now your telling me the charges were dropped, is that right?  So basically, they were both innocent, and I come to this conclusion because if they had enough to make the charges stick they would have been severely punished by the courts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 24, 2011, 12:31:PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

Thank you, I've also found other links relating to the murder.  So far it certainly looks as if this young fellow has been convicted on circumstial evidence only.  Is it true that no one else apart from Luke Mitchell was taken to the police station immediately after the body was found?  Is it true there was semen/sperm and blood on the victims clothes belonging to the victims sister boyfriend? 

The person John that I have been asking questions, is this the same John, as in John Lamberton who claims to be a miscarriage of justice? This is a very difficult forum to navigate, if this is the same John Lamberton, could you point me in the direction of where his case is being discussed. Thank you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 12:37:PM
yes everything you state in your above post is true.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 24, 2011, 12:42:PM
Why did Luke Mitchell kill? His mother holds a clue

MELANIE REID

25 Jan 2005

AS EVER, the mother is key. Corinne Mitchell is at the heart of the mystery;

the answer to many questions. She is one person who can help explain why Luke Mitchell was able to become the monster he is - indeed, she perhaps understands better than the boy himself, for in her unhealthy relationship with him lies one explanation for his vile and violent actions.

I don't buy this "Luke was evil" stuff.

I think, too, that the focus on Marilyn Manson is to some degree a smokescreen; a frenzy of populist scaremongering about unpleasant teenage culture. Tens of thousands of youngsters adore Marilyn Manson; they don't become murderers. These things are far too facile. No, much of the blame for this tragedy must lie in what went wrong, a long time ago, in the boy's deepest emotional development.

You are what your childhood makes you. If we give credence to the basic psychological tenet that a child's connection with its mother is the biggest inf luence of all in shaping its adult life - as we should - then Corinne Mitchell must bear much responsibility for allowing a 14-year-old boy to become so disturbed that he could kill and maim the way he did. The "why?" is a question many would like her to answer.

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 and an unusual physical intimacy between son and mother. The trial appeared to expose them as people adrift, cut off from normal emotional and behavioural frameworks.

According to the evidence in the trial, Mrs Mitchell, whose husband had moved out when Luke was 11, apparently had abrogated the role of parent. Friends say Luke "replaced his father and became the man of the family". It was exposed in court that this was a house where anything went.

Her elder son sat at home and looked at pornography on the internet during the day. Luke, her younger son and the favourite, was a little emperor. She did not appear to discipline him, or impose any limits on his behaviour.

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.

When the police came to arrest Luke, he was in his mother's bedroom with her. She claimed he was upset and she was comforting him. She betrayed her intense physical closeness to her son whenever they appeared in public: during the interview he gave to Sky News, she constantly stroked his neck and clung to him.
What motherwould publicly allow herself to caress her son's neck and face like that? And what 14-year-old son would, just as publicly, allow it to happen? During their controversial visit to Jodi's grave, the pair stood face to face in intimate embrace. Had you not known they were mother and son, you could almost have confused them for girlfriend and boyfriend.

Ian Stephen, a lecturer in forensic psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University and a criminal psychologist, is quoted as saying: "The whole relationship comes across as something quite different from normal. It is almost over-close. You are left with the impression that the son has almost taken on a partner's role. She is almost more like a girlfriend than a mother."

To witness Mrs Mitchell visiting her son in Polmont, the day after he was found guilty, was to be struck by how inappropriately she was dressed: in tight jeans, thigh-high boots, bare midriff. Again, this seemed a strange choice, given her very public role at the trial. It was hardly maternal.

Her conduct from the time of the murder to the conviction appears to suggest that her son, a mere child, had been handed inappropriate control in their relationship. At a time when a 14-year-old boy needs discipline, standards and a strong moral lead, it would appear Corinne Mitchell offered none of these things. Did her relationship with him tip over into a form of abuse?

No-one is saying that. But we can look at the facts which emerged from the trial and judge that this mother-son relationship was beyond the ken of what we recognise as normal.

Corinne Mitchell's own background is not straightforward. She is adopted; her adoptive parents were said to be from a travelling family who had settled south of Edinburgh and started a caravan business. She reportedly has a reputation for being confrontational and anti-authoritarian;

did she carry emotional scars from her own childhood into parenthood?

What went wrong between her and her younger son is something we will never know for sure. Only psychology can decipher the code of their unusual relationship. Many psychologists have written of the tension between parent and child; the established tenets of the science say that children denied appropriate parenting face difficulties trying to live a normal life or understand normal constraints. This would appear to explain why Luke Mitchell seemed to lack any moral roadmap in his life.

In psychological terms, it is often considered that a healthy, loving and supportive mother-son relationship is the most important thing necessary to provide the world with the historical and emotional foundations of culture, law, civility . . . and decency.

Even if we only accept this in the broadest terms, the theory has resonance in Jodi's murder, where these essential qualities were apparently absent in Luke Mitchell.

The modern theories of analysis say that a child's emotional life is inextricably bound up from the earliest age in a triangular relationship between themselves, their mother and their father. When things go wrong between the adults, or between parent and child, the child suffers anxieties and guilt. They feel at risk, excluded, responsible.

Nobody knows what Luke Mitchell went through as a little boy when his family fell apart. But it seems that something went drastically wrong after his father, an electrician, moved away.

In this way, broken families can create chaotic, fragmented lives. In this age of divorce, psychologists describe children "lost" because of estrangement between parents. "They cannot get on in life, because there is no living relationship in the lee of which they can prosper. Sometimes they stay very still, lest the stasis give way to something far worse, " says Robert Young, from the Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies at Sheffield University. The tragedy is that Luke Mitchell, a boy psychologically severed from decency and appropriate behaviour, did not stay very still. And that "something far worse" did indeed happen.

www.heraldscotland.com/.../why-did-luke-mitchell-kill-his-mother-holds-a-clue-1.64902
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 12:52:PM
another journlist on the moral high horse.

i mean loads of parents get divorced it dosent turn there ofspring into  killers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 24, 2011, 12:59:PM
hello janet or is that john?

why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh  the iceland volcano...eh?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 01:03:PM
smiffy 211 smites that must be the record.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 24, 2011, 02:23:PM
Proof that john lamberton loves me...but alas I shall dissapoint him for he will not be allowed up my back passage. :)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 02:47:PM
oh go on smiffy you know you love him really.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 24, 2011, 05:38:PM
hello janet or is that john?

why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh  the iceland volcano...eh?


I am not named John. Why are you calling me John?  My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.

I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on May 24, 2011, 05:52:PM
hello janet or is that john?

why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh  the iceland volcano...eh?


I am not named John. Why are you calling me John?  My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.

I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.
There seems to be so much in fighting that I lose the threads. can you please stick to the facts, instead of point scoring. Thank you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: joolz1975 on May 24, 2011, 05:57:PM
I watched that documentary today it was interesting and i feel Lukes mum did not come across very well at all.

I still have a lot to read up on this case.

If he is innocent then its a complete tragedy that a boy of 15 was locked up for it .............if hes innocent!

For me its always forensics that give the best proof in a case and it seems there was very little!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 05:58:PM
oh there was forensic evidence just none of it links to luke Mitchel.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 24, 2011, 05:59:PM
I agree with you totally Cliff.

I posted an article and all hell let loose.Anyway back to the case
this is the latest appeal to be refused below.



http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/714/LUKE-MUIR-MITCHELL-V-HMA
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on May 24, 2011, 06:50:PM
hello janet or is that john?

why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh  the iceland volcano...eh?


I am not named John. Why are you calling me John?  My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.

I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.
There seems to be so much in fighting that I lose the threads. can you please stick to the facts, instead of point scoring. Thank you.
After reading Janet's post in the disclaimer I second that cliff.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on May 24, 2011, 06:57:PM
hello janet or is that john?

why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh  the iceland volcano...eh?


I am not named John. Why are you calling me John?  My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.

I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.
There seems to be so much in fighting that I lose the threads. can you please stick to the facts, instead of point scoring. Thank you.
After reading Janet's post in the disclaimer I second that cliff.
Thank you grahame.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 24, 2011, 07:58:PM
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on May 24, 2011, 08:05:PM
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.
You are quite clearly involved in this case Janet. As I am not, I will observe from a distance.
With due respect.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 24, 2011, 08:30:PM
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.
You are quite clearly involved in this case Janet. As I am not, I will observe from a distance.
With due respect.

I am not personally involved with this case Cliff. I do not know anyone involved in the case or the campaign. I do not even live near the area the murder occured. It is a case that has been pretty high profile in Scotland. My interest stems from watching what is said in the media and then looking at the main website and other sites. I actually used to think Luke Mitchell was innocent. Then I began looking at what was being written by supporters of Luke Mitchell, which in turn made me look at the appeals and other information.
I am totally appalled at how they speak about the victims family and the misinformation being put online.
In saying that if he is indeed innocent then these people are doing him a great diservice.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 09:29:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Luke_Mitchell_-_Related_Media
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 09:34:PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jul/01/ukcrime
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 24, 2011, 09:49:PM
you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.

There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.


OH YES JANET/john  ...how odd that in a later post you completely contradict yourself..
by then wanting to limit discussion as per this that you posted;

This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.

 :)
so you pointless then JANET...by your own previous words...so maybe you should go away and not come back..

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 24, 2011, 10:25:PM
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

I have been having a good read about this case and all early newspaper reports have the girl leaving home at 5.30pm, then the time changes as the days pass. How odd  :-\
I have also read that first statements by the mothers boyfriend state Jodi's brother wasnt at home.  The sister Janine said she had visited her mother's home and also said her older brother wasnt at home. (I have since read that this was a hypthetical scenario that was referred to.  However, statements were made that Janine was at her mothers home but the brother was not there, but it is not stated who made these statements) These statements then change, very strange  :o  Did Jodi not use her mothers phone to text Luke, did she actually make a call to Luke?  From what Ive read so far they exchanged texts, that someone deleted.
The above reconstruction has Jodi, walking down the path.  Why would they do this? The witness at no point said that the girl she saw walked towards or down the path.  This witness who saw a girl, she claimed could have been Jodi,  but I find this strange as she claimed not to have known Jodi when she gave this statement, so how could she have said it could have been Jodi, if she didnt know what she looked like.  The first pictures in the media were of a young 5/6 year old child, not a 14 year old girl, therefore I wonder how she came to this conclusion.  This same witness did not describe black hoody and black jeans, she said the person that she thought was Jodi had a navy hoody and blue jeans, Jodis mother said she left in a navy blue hoody and blue jeans, so why has the reconstruction got the girl dressed all in black.  I believe this was the clothes that were found scattered around the crime scene, but why did the police ask for witnessess and descriptions if they werent going to listen what was said.  I find this very confusing, as they have done a reconstruction to jog peoples memories, but dressed the victim in clothes that were nothing like the mother and witness described. ::)

Edited - in brackets.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 24, 2011, 11:20:PM
you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.

There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.


OH YES JANET/john  ...how odd that in a later post you completely contradict yourself..
by then wanting to limit discussion as per this that you posted;

This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.

 :)
so you pointless then JANET...by your own previous words...so maybe you should go away and not come back..

Why are you being so abusive?  I am pointless? because you think I am someone else?

I am not going away.

I am here to debate the Luke Mitchell case not to be accused of being someone else.

You are wrongly accusing people yet again. You are wrongly accusing me of being John and John of being me. and all because someone posts something that is not pro Luke.

 I AM NOT JOHN.

You will never realise how wrong you are but carry on discrediting the luke mitchell case and making sure anyone with real questions does not ask them, why would they when they get told they are lying?

this is what happens when anyone disagrees with these people. They accuse people of being other people. anything other than true facts of the case are not accepted it seems.
I have read about john lamberton and I am not impressed one bit how he treated people who were related to the Jones family either. Though he seems to have changed his opinon on that.  And if he got to US in the current situation then it would be surprising

I have also read his attacks on other posters on forums and he does not come over as being a nice person.

I AM NOT JOHN and am willing to speak to someone on the phone to prove it. Smiffy are you willing to talk to me? cos if you are let me know

This is just another diversion due to an article being posted that was not favourable to Mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2011, 11:28:PM
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

I have been having a good read about this case and all early newspaper reports have the girl leaving home at 5.30pm, then the time changes as the days pass. How odd  :-\
I have also read that first statements by the mothers boyfriend state Jodi's brother wasnt at home.  The sister Janine said she had visited her mother's home and also said her older brother wasnt at home. These statements then change, very strange  :o  Did Jodi not use her mothers phone to text Luke, did she actually make a call to Luke?  From what Ive read so far they exchanged texts, that someone deleted.
The above reconstruction has Jodi, walking down the path.  Why would they do this? The witness at no point said that the girl she saw walked towards or down the path.  This witness who saw a girl, she claimed could have been Jodi,  but I find this strange as she claimed not to have known Jodi when she gave this statement, so how could she have said it could have been Jodi, if she didnt know what she looked like.  The first pictures in the media were of a young 5/6 year old child, not a 14 year old girl, therefore I wonder how she came to this conclusion.  This same witness did not describe black hoody and black jeans, she said the person that she thought was Jodi had a navy hoody and blue jeans, Jodis mother said she left in a navy blue hoody and blue jeans, so why has the reconstruction got the girl dressed all in black.  I believe this was the clothes that were found scattered around the crime scene, but why did the police ask for witnessess and descriptions if they werent going to listen what was said.  I find this very confusing, as they have done a reconstruction to jog peoples memories, but dressed the victim in clothes that were nothing like the mother and witness described. ::)

yes that is very odd
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 25, 2011, 01:04:AM
janet posted;

I am here to debate the Luke Mitchell case not to be accused of being someone else.  

oh...so discuss mitchell only...  only him...not anything else.
ok  fine..prove luke did what he was wrongly convicted of....using common sense and no lies..or false science etc

Now I would like to discuss the murder of Jodi Jones.  She was killed by a person that has been named but is not Luke Mitchell.
By the way  If a policeman says .."WE GOT YOU...WE HAVE YOUR SPERM ON HER BRA!(THE MURDER VICTIMS)...WHO SHOULD THEY SAY THAT TO?

the person whose sperm it is..or another person whose sperm it is not?
the sperm belonged to SK...
oh transfer from the t shirt ...borrowed ...without asking...from the sister....but the sister cannot say when or if she ever was involved in sex with SK that involved the t-shirt...
oh  the items were not in contact with each other when it rained...so not chance of rainwater casusing transfer.

why not sperm transferred from bra to t -shirt or both items soiled with sperm in the same sexual encounter?

odd as well that in her first statement she claimed to be in a different place and with different people at the relevant time to her later statements.
as a key witness and a giver of an alibi of someone who has to be a prime suspect...cant we trust this liar  and her liar of a boyfriend ...NO


oh JOEY...the "paranoid schizophrenic" as has been claimed by several people...the mentally ill brother known for attacks with bladed weapons...the one who stabbed his mother a few weeks before Jodi was killed...the cannabis using schizo....
His mummy the liar almighty...overprotective of her golden child...what a recipe for disaster.....the mummy that many would call an alcoholic ...the stepfather a younger cannabis user himself...

no back up to the claimed visit to the cemetery...why?  were they doing something else?? something they chose to hide....pulls on emotions to dare challenge anyone ever ever ever who claims to visit a cemetery...throw in a bug heart wrenching claim to gain sympathy to sell the lie...less likely to be challenged as lie than a claimed uncheckable visit to a park or somewhere else UNCHECKABLE.

There's more...enough for me to KNOW who killed Jodi...plenty more...to beyond reasonable doubt...I know who did it..... there are legal reasons why I cant tell you...but be patient...in time it will come out.

and then the likes of Janet and stupid Melanie Reid and others will have shown what perverted sicko fools they are for what they wrongly and unjustly said about Luke and his family.

for you have committed yourself JANET.....so in advance ..I have told you what you are...so no judging others when your the one that is wrong and at fault.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on May 26, 2011, 12:53:AM
It is totally pointless trying to discuss this case since all you do is attack the family of Jodi Jones.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 26, 2011, 09:28:AM
Whats your problem "janet".  are the jone's family sacred and saintly and not to be questioned on anything they claim?
If a jones family member claims anything it must be true...is that it...?
so if they claim incest by others it is true because they said it and having a family member murdered entitles them to say and do anything they want?

quite frankly...janet...you cannot have witnesses go unquestioned ...whoever they are...and when they give contradictory stories or tell blatant lies...that invites questioning and also allows other things to be inferred or implied.

rather than moan that you think I am unfair to the Jone's family for daring to question their words and actions ...try defending them...or is that a task you find difficult?

Jone's family members were instrumental in framing and lying in putting Luke wrongly in prison so that suggests they have a motive for acting like that. Could that motive be that it was a Jone's family member or friend of theirs that really killed Jodi? Remember ..the claimed evidence against Luke is entirely circumstantial...and of the dodgiest and flimsiest nature and contained many elements contributed by the Jones's family or their associates.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 26, 2011, 10:44:AM
you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.

There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.

I shall remind you of your own post again Janet.
Clearly in that post includes discussion and questioning of the Jones family.

you have cornered yourself ...so rather than try to discuss and reason through ..you go into ATTACK THE POSTER mode.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 26, 2011, 12:17:PM
Janet claims everybody supporting luke is speculating and that this unfair.
Quite a ridiculous claim really....
Is it not the case that circumstantial evidence itself is specualtion pure and simple? Of course it is.
Is it not the case that having a belief in something such as Luke's guilt or innocence itself is speculation?..Of course it is.

What about that Melanie Reid article that "Janet" posted.....that itself is full of MR's own speculation.

so either speculation is either fair or it is not and can be used to support any argument.
Janet in her own posts speculates as to various things...that is undeniable ..to support her/his claims.

lets be fair...speculation is part and parcel of life and decisions in courts etc and arguments in real life and in courts....

So Janet has again shot him/herself in the foot on this issue and looks silly and illogical.


LETS LOOK AT A BIT OF Melanie's article;

The modern theories of analysis say that a child's emotional life is inextricably bound up from the earliest age in a triangular relationship between themselves, their mother and their father. When things go wrong between the adults, or between parent and child, the child suffers anxieties and guilt. They feel at risk, excluded, responsible.

Nobody knows what Luke Mitchell went through as a little boy when his family fell apart. But it seems that something went drastically wrong after his father, an electrician, moved away.

hmm child /mother /father...when things go wrong....hmmm divorce...but Luke and Shane still see and visit their father...

MR is speculating as to something going wrong..but has no real evidence to support this.it is mere speculation....

now lets apply to the Jone's family...
children/mother/father...when things go wrong....hmmm father found dead hanging from a tree...
how well do the 3 children do then.....Joey mental health issues ....Janine self harming etc ...Jodi self harming etc.... mother has drink issues...new stepfather a drug user...and thats just for starters
Joey stabs his mother supposedly by accident when intending to attack another with the knife!!! etc etc etc

oh  lets just add...these are facts  not some MR speculations.

which family has a bigger recipe for disaster... ...?


janet ..you ATTACKED other posters for speculating..yet do it yourself...and as I have shown ..you had no foundation to attack other posters in such a manner .


will this prompt another bleating session of showing compassion etc for the family of the victim blah blah...all about playing on emotions...and an attack on anyone who dares question the victim's family?
There would be no questions  if they told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..but they did not!
I want the truth ..not lies

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 27, 2011, 12:59:PM
Another interesting point in this case is that there was never any reward offered for information which could see the perpetrator(s) properly convicted.  It has been suggested to Mitchell's family on several occasions that they offer such a reward but they are not interested. This in itself sends out the wrong message since if they truly believed in Luke's innocence they would stop at nothing to bring the real culprits to justice.   

They would rather try and sell their story to the local rag as Luke's grandmother, Ruby Guetta, attempted to do some time ago.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/

It is the very same with the confidential hotline that you helped to set up John, they did nothing but ridicule it instead of supporting it.  They want to keep any information in the case within their own grasp and don't want to share anything of value.  They keep talking about progress but from what I have seen of their efforts they will be lucky to ever get a referral from the SCCRC.

At the end of the day there is no evidence which can clear Mitchell but plenty that can condemn him.

Hi Sandy, I have been reading up on this case lately.  Apart from a list of circumstial evidence used to convict Luke Mitchell, (which was scraping the barrel in my opinion), I have yet to come across any evidence that cant be explained, can you please give me a link to the condemning evidence against him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 27, 2011, 01:08:PM
Oncesaid....
it may help if you addressed the question to John as he was the person posting under the username "sandy"...such is his dishonest nature.

John has no real evidence and makes many false claims.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 27, 2011, 01:18:PM
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg)  (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.

Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

That's awful.  Her mum's gonna be desolate about not enforcing the curfew.

Oh this is so confusing, as I have read that Jodi was out all day on Sunday afternoon with Luke, helping to cut the grass at the caravan park and that she was also at Lukes on the Saturday night as his mother was out, and they had time on their own. That doesnt sound like someone who has been grounded and just had the grounding punishment lifted. 

It have also read that Jodi's brother was not at home, and this information is within the case files. :o This is very worrying, as most reports that I have read in the newspapers state that the brother was at home with the mother and her younger lover, but now we have the brother not at home, but the sister was, how can this be when she was supposed to be her fiance's alibi?  No wonder people are questioning the families account, as there seems to be a lot of chopping and changing of statements, why would this be? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 27, 2011, 01:43:PM
thev have have explianed themselves time agian its not there fault if people have chosen to ignore what they have said.

im not sure what overwhelming evedence your talking about.

and i think the comprasion with the brigmingham 6 is perfectly reasonable.

The Mitchell family have failed to explain the inconsistencies in their own evidence.

Shane Mitchell stated to the court that he did not see his brother in the house that afternoon from 4pm until 5.15pm yet his brother Luke claims that he made the dinner for them all.  Not hard to see who is lying is it?

Why don't you face it Sandra, you all thought that he would get out on the 'Cadder' ruling but you were sorely mistaken.

Hold the bus... Shane Mitchell said he "didnt know" if his brother Luke was in the house, as he was upstairs on the internet.  Statements from the Jones household claim that Joseph was not at home but the sister Janine was.  Does this mean they are lying? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 27, 2011, 01:51:PM
Oncesaid....
it may help if you addressed the question to John as he was the person posting under the username "sandy"...such is his dishonest nature.

John has no real evidence and makes many false claims.

Thanks, Im just working my way through from the beginning of the thread, pointing out some errors and/or misunderstandings that I have noticed along the way.  Its confusing enough so I will just reply to whoever has made the comment.  ;D

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2011, 04:38:PM
I have spent the most part of today on Luke's main site and about 50 pages of the forum and to say I'm confused is an understatement.

There can be no way these statements changed the way they did and have no one in the Police feel that there was nothing strange in it.

I understand the need for the police to get a result here but I also understand just why the Jones family have been questioned about their behavior and the statements ever since Luke's incarceration. There appear to be far more credible subjects in this case than any other I can think of and yet they go for Luke and manage(how the hell) to make that story stick!!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 28, 2011, 02:49:PM
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............

Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.

I actually disagree with this.  Why should they have kept away?  They were being respectful by not attending the funeral when asked by JJ's family, but it was only natural they would have wanted to go to the graveside and pay their respects to someone they cared about.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 29, 2011, 03:19:AM
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............

Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.

I actually disagree with this.  Why should they have kept away?  They were being respectful by not attending the funeral when asked by JJ's family, but it was only natural they would have wanted to go to the graveside and pay their respects to someone they cared about.

its a very interesting one...
The implication...of asking/demanding that Luke not attend the funeral is an issue in itself.
The person(s) making the demand ..and then publically proclaiming all about it was more or less accusing Luke in public through the press on this issue...ie decided he was the murderer ...ie they acted as judge jury and executioner... not a good state of affairs...

But as Luke was not the killer...and I know who was!!!!!!! ...
How much did such an action influence the jury and/or public perception.


hypothetically
what if the killer, or those protecting the killer from justice, were party to the decision of  banning an innocent person who was  accused of the murder...then how do people see that...how cold and calculating are such people..??


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bob on May 29, 2011, 11:06:AM
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............

Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.

I actually disagree with this.  Why should they have kept away?  They were being respectful by not attending the funeral when asked by JJ's family, but it was only natural they would have wanted to go to the graveside and pay their respects to someone they cared about.

its a very interesting one...
The implication...of asking/demanding that Luke not attend the funeral is an issue in itself.
The person(s) making the demand ..and then publically proclaiming all about it was more or less accusing Luke in public through the press on this issue...ie decided he was the murderer ...ie they acted as judge jury and executioner... not a good state of affairs...

But as Luke was not the killer...and I know who was!!!!!!! ...
How much did such an action influence the jury and/or public perception.


hypothetically
what if the killer, or those protecting the killer from justice, were party to the decision of  banning an innocent person who was  accused of the murder...then how do people see that...how cold and calculating are such people..??

I'm afraid it sounds like you are one of those "protecting the killer from justice" Smiffy, since you have used the phrase "Luke was not the killer...and I know who was". Or did you furnish the authorities with your certain information at the time of the inquiry?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on May 30, 2011, 07:27:AM
Bob...
I am not naming the killer at the moment as I would not want to hinder a future  trial of this person.
No, I am not concealing any information or protecting the killer from justice...but I know some of the people who have been.

How I know etc would not likely be useable as evidence in court but does not stop me from knowing just who the killer was and how it happened and how some of it was covered up.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on June 05, 2011, 10:26:AM
bum.
bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on June 05, 2011, 10:32:AM
bum.
bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on June 05, 2011, 10:33:AM
bum.
bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.
I think its a kid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on June 05, 2011, 11:12:AM
ah ..this "bigwullie" poster...the person who is using this name is not the known poster Big wullie who posts on the shirley mckie and GI forum but someone else entirely. this person has a grudge with the real big wullie it seems  and this person is believed to be John Lamberton..who is known to have a grudge with the real big wullie ....and many other people.
the fake "bigwullie" has acted the same way on a number of forums before getting banned .
While not knowing for sure if it is John Lamberton...I and others have experienced a lot of john's abuse and deception on various forums particularly in regards to this case that are of a nature that fits with him being this fake "bigwullie"

whether it is john or not.... the person is a sad case and needs help with their mental health issues.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on June 05, 2011, 11:25:AM
ah ..this "bigwullie" poster...the person who is using this name is not the known poster Big wullie who posts on the shirley mckie and GI forum but someone else entirely. this person has a grudge with the real big wullie it seems  and this person is believed to be John Lamberton..who is known to have a grudge with the real big wullie ....and many other people.
the fake "bigwullie" has acted the same way on a number of forums before getting banned .
While not knowing for sure if it is John Lamberton...I and others have experienced a lot of john's abuse and deception on various forums particularly in regards to this case that are of a nature that fits with him being this fake "bigwullie"

whether it is john or not.... the person is a sad case and needs help with their mental health issues.
To bo honest smiffy, I agree with Grahame on this one, and think its a kid.
Probably a big one at that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on June 05, 2011, 11:29:AM
ah ..this "bigwullie" poster...the person who is using this name is not the known poster Big wullie who posts on the shirley mckie and GI forum but someone else entirely. this person has a grudge with the real big wullie it seems  and this person is believed to be John Lamberton..who is known to have a grudge with the real big wullie ....and many other people.
the fake "bigwullie" has acted the same way on a number of forums before getting banned .
While not knowing for sure if it is John Lamberton...I and others have experienced a lot of john's abuse and deception on various forums particularly in regards to this case that are of a nature that fits with him being this fake "bigwullie"

whether it is john or not.... the person is a sad case and needs help with their mental health issues.
To bo honest smiffy, I agree with Grahame on this one, and think its a kid.
Probably a big one at that.
in any case hes a big willie.  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 06, 2011, 12:02:PM
bum.
bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.
I think its a kid.

I doubt that the real user big wullie would come on and say one word just for attention.  He's very vocal and likes to have his say and one word just wouldnt do it.  The FAKE big wullie is a complete moron, who goes round forums using words like condoms, tits, cock etc and sends users who support certain moj victims pm's with one of these words.  He only targets forums of those that he believes himself are not miscarriages of justice. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bob on June 06, 2011, 12:45:PM
bum.
bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.
I think its a kid.

I doubt that the real user big wullie would come on and say one word just for attention.  He's very vocal and likes to have his say and one word just wouldnt do it.  The FAKE big wullie is a complete moron, who goes round forums using words like condoms, tits, cock etc and sends users who support certain moj victims pm's with one of these words.  He only targets forums of those that he believes himself are not miscarriages of justice.

Well... it's nice to have a hobby I suppose...  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 06, 2011, 01:46:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/press-articles-readers-comments/four-appeals-by-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-cost-112-000-in-legal-aid/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 11, 2011, 07:45:PM
The High Court in Edinburgh has refused Mitchell permission to bring his case before the UK Supreme Court in London...now why am I not surprised?

Convicted killer Luke Mitchell's request to refer his case to the UK Supreme Court has been refused by judges at the High Court in Edinburgh.

Mitchell was trying to get his conviction for killing his girlfriend Jodi Jones, 14, in Midlothian in 2003, overturned.

But judges dismissed claims that his human rights were breached when he was questioned by police without a lawyer.

The 22-year-old now plans to appeal directly to the UK Supreme Court.

Mitchell was given a life sentence in 2005 after he was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Jodi Jones in Dalkeith when he was 14.

(http://i.imgur.com/mrsEQ.jpg)

Read more... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13672255)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 11, 2011, 07:48:PM
Luke Mitchell's mum: Jodi Jones real killer is still out there...

LUKE Mitchell's mum yesterday (7 June) claimed that Jodi Jones' killer was still at large and a danger to women.

Her astonishing comment came minutes after judges refused her sadistic son permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Corinne hit out: "Luke didn't kill Jodi. The person who did knows who he is as do the people who have shielded him all these years.

"This fight will go on until this person is where he deserves to be. Until he is, none of our daughters are safe."

Read more... (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/08/luke-mitchell-s-mum-jodi-jones-real-killer-is-still-out-there-86908-23187604/)

(http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/dailyrecord3/jun2011/2/3/corinne-mitchell-image-1-855122281.jpg)

Mitchell's mother Corinne (right) accompanied by personal advisor Sandra Lean leave the High Court in Edinburgh after yet another rebuff by the judicial establishment.


It still doesn't explain why big brother Shane gave evidence that he never saw Luke in the family home on the afternoon of the murder. Somebody must be telling the truth??  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 11, 2011, 08:44:PM
I just had to repost this taken from Lean and Middleton's forum where the mother of the murdered Jodi Jones pleads for them to stop abusing her family....

(http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000nT1oC98CrJ8/s/750/750/JUDITH-JONES-DPPA02.JPG)

Judy Jones accompanied by daughter Janine speaks to reporters outside the High Court in Edinburgh.

"I wonder after all that is said and done, why any of you wonder at all! why not just say it out and out, why be obtrusive and full of hypothetical accounts. Could be that a lot of media are watching your space, why not just say it. You are all tipping the mark. Don't be concerned in respect of my family, we wont sue you. My xbabyx would be forever proud of all of you though.

lets see,
in your eyes, xjodix was abused in every format,x shex lived a life of hell and was scared of us all, we called her 'toad' because we wanted to abuse her further by sad bullying negatives. Xshex would be so proud of you all for the way you talk about xherx family, the people xshex held so close to xherx heart. You are all a bunch of cyber court bullies. Shame on you all for your defamation of my xbabyx for that is what you are doing. I have already said to Sandra that I can not understand why people who cry our system of justice down would do doubly worse in their attacks against people.

I or my family wont sue, so just say it as it is, dont be cowards behind words anymore, let all that may read any of this dribble see you all for what you are.Cowards with no thought or feeling of those it may affect.


And I will say again. xJodix would be disgusted with you all."

Link (http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/profile/?u=537;sa=showPosts)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 11, 2011, 08:56:PM
Bad hair day girls?   :D

(http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000POcgNMa6aJU/s/750/750/CORINNE-MITCHELL-DPPA02.JPG)


Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell arrive at the High Court in Edinburgh.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 02:14:AM
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 09:01:AM
Bad hair day girls?   :D

(http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000POcgNMa6aJU/s/750/750/CORINNE-MITCHELL-DPPA02.JPG)


Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell arrive at the High Court in Edinburgh.

you really have nothing to say do you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 09:15:AM
The High Court in Edinburgh has refused Mitchell permission to bring his case before the UK Supreme Court in London...now why am I not surprised?

Convicted killer Luke Mitchell's request to refer his case to the UK Supreme Court has been refused by judges at the High Court in Edinburgh.

Mitchell was trying to get his conviction for killing his girlfriend Jodi Jones, 14, in Midlothian in 2003, overturned.

But judges dismissed claims that his human rights were breached when he was questioned by police without a lawyer.

The 22-year-old now plans to appeal directly to the UK Supreme Court.

Mitchell was given a life sentence in 2005 after he was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Jodi Jones in Dalkeith when he was 14.

(http://i.imgur.com/mrsEQ.jpg)

Read more... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13672255)

they allways do that.

all it means is an application will have to made directly.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 03:10:PM
Being released eventually on a technicality will do nothing for the Mitchell's credibility. In fact, such a release will only damage it further as it will be clearly seen that they cannot provide one single shred of evidence that Luke didn't murder Jodi Jones.

The difference in evidence given by the members of the Mitchell family leave me in no doubt that there are indeed questions to be asked about Luke and Shane's whereabouts and activities on the day of the murder.  Corinne and her fame grasping hangers-on talk about the Jones' version of events changing, at least the Jones family is consistent on the events which took place that afternoon not like the discredited version put out by the Mitchell clan.

Why are there no witnesses to Luke Mitchell's whereabouts after leaving school on 30 June 2003?

Why are there no witnesses to his alleged arriving home at 4.50pm that same day?

Why does Corinne Mitchell refuse to seek such witnesses? 

Says it all really!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 03:46:PM
but the victem was still alive then so it makes no difference.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 04:05:PM
So you keep saying and has no relevance to Mitchell's supposed whereabouts.

He claims to have been home by 4.50pm and this is uncorroborated even by his big bro who was at home after 5pm.  So who is the liar nuggy, Lukey or big bro?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 04:09:PM
Where is all this brilliant evidence now that the SCCRC was supposed to have considered?

The last time I looked at the SCCRC website, innuendo and theories don't count!   ;)



In paperwork lodged with the court, Mitchell's legal team argued that the Lord Advocate relied upon evidence identifying Mitchell which was "unfairly obtained and had the effect of rendering his trial unfair and in breach of the accused's rights".

They further argued that his interview with police, carried out when he was 15, was conducted in a way which was "oppressive and constituted an interrogation designed to break the accused and obtain an admission".

They also argued what was described in court as a "Cadder point", namely that Mitchell was interviewed as a suspect but was not given access to legal advice before being quizzed.

So where is there any evidence of his innocence?   Thought not!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 04:16:PM
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.

I quite agree Janet, no wonder the Mitchell's come in for such public ridicule and to think that Corinne Mitchell and her mum tried to court the Press and get £10,000 for their trouble not so long ago.

What sort of a decent family attempt to gain financially from their own sons conviction and imprisonment??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 04:18:PM
So you keep saying and has no relevance to Mitchell's supposed whereabouts.

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

his bro aint a convicted liar unlike yourself.

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

jodis was still alive at 5pm.

so who cooked diner if it wasnt luke the dog.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 04:20:PM
Where is all this brilliant evidence now that the SCCRC was supposed to have considered?

The last time I looked at the SCCRC website, innuendo and theories don't count!   ;)



In paperwork lodged with the court, Mitchell's legal team argued that the Lord Advocate relied upon evidence identifying Mitchell which was "unfairly obtained and had the effect of rendering his trial unfair and in breach of the accused's rights".

They further argued that his interview with police, carried out when he was 15, was conducted in a way which was "oppressive and constituted an interrogation designed to break the accused and obtain an admission".

They also argued what was described in court as a "Cadder point", namely that Mitchell was interviewed as a suspect but was not given access to legal advice before being quizzed.

So where is there any evidence of his innocence?   Thought not!

dna is a bit more than a thoesry.

other mens sperm and blood and things like that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 04:21:PM
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.

I quite agree Janet, no wonder the Mitchell's come in for such public ridicule and to think that Corinne Mitchell and her mum tried to court the Press and get £10,000 for their trouble not so long ago.

What sort of a decent family attempt to gain financially from their own sons conviction and imprisonment??

what decent person robs there dying aunty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 04:25:PM
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.

I quite agree Janet, no wonder the Mitchell's come in for such public ridicule and to think that Corinne Mitchell and her mum tried to court the Press and get £10,000 for their trouble not so long ago.

What sort of a decent family attempt to gain financially from their own sons conviction and imprisonment??

what decent person robs there dying aunty.

You never could give a straight answer could you?

Always hiding behind the village idiot theme...quite appropriate really for a serial scam and spam merchant.

The real nugnug uncovered (http://simplybillymiddleton.myfreeforum.org/forum1.php)

Remember this Billy?

http://video.stv.tv/bc/news-090310-s2-baby/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 04:34:PM
sory i though i just had.

can argue so he goes playing guess the poster how typically.

and man convicted of coning old ladys out of all the money is know position to call anyone else a scammer
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 04:41:PM
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more.  Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices.  What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it?  Sadist beast!

Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean?  Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 04:47:PM
i thought you said i was a woman earler you kept calling me missy.

i think you lie quicker than you can think sometimes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 04:49:PM
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more.  Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices.  What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it?  Sadist beast!

Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean?  Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??

your wife gave evedence agianst you in a court of law so what did you do to her to make her do that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 04:55:PM
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more.  Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices.  What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it?  Sadist beast!

Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean?  Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??

your wife gave evedence agianst you in a court of law so what did you do to her to make her do that.

Wrong nuggy, my wife never gave any evidence against me in relation to any charges, try harder and don't put so much faith in press reports provided by the Crown Office.

You of all people should know how they operate or do they have a different agenda when it comes to child murderers? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 05:06:PM
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more.  Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices.  What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it?  Sadist beast!

Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean?  Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??

your wife gave evedence agianst you in a court of law so what did you do to her to make her do that.

Wrong nuggy, my wife never gave any evidence against me in relation to any charges, try harder and don't put so much faith in press reports provided by the Crown Office.

You of all people should know how they operate or do they have a different agenda when it comes to child murderers?

come of it the crown office do a lot of dodgy but they dont make up witness they dont exist

they dont go around saying people gave evedence that dident why would they.

all the newspaper say she gave evdence agianst you did they all get it wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 05:42:PM
Quote
all the newspaper say she gave evdence agianst you did they all get it wrong.

What about all the newspaper reports on Mitchell then? You bang on about news reports in his case being rubbish? Yet when it suits your own ends they are correct.
Double standards !!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 05:48:PM
this was court reporting i cant believe all the reporters saw someone in the witness box who wasn't there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 05:53:PM
this was court reporting i cant believe all the reporters saw someone in the witness box who wasn't there.

So are the news articles about mitchell all true now then?

When you cannot answer a question you begin to attack other people. very mature,

No one takes what is said by the mitchell brigade seriously anyway.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 06:10:PM
you must take it seriously or you wouldn't bother doing this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 06:52:PM
Off course she was there but she didn't give any evidence against me. In fact, she has been most helpful in my application to the SCCRC and has been able to provide information which was previously never heard.

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

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

I have previously stated that some of the content is libellous and will be dealt with in due course.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 07:00:PM
they were there were not i think they'd no who gave evidence.

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

more than one paper reported it so that's bullshit.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 07:01:PM
Off course she was there but she didn't give any evidence against me. In fact, she has been most helpful in my application to the SCCRC and has been able to provide information which was previously never heard.

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

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

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

ill take my chances bring it on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 07:01:PM
So you keep saying and has no relevance to Mitchell's supposed whereabouts.

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

his bro aint a convicted liar unlike yourself.

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

jodis was still alive at 5pm.

so who cooked diner if it wasnt luke the dog.

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

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

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 07:02:PM
Off course she was there but she didn't give any evidence against me. In fact, she has been most helpful in my application to the SCCRC and has been able to provide information which was previously never heard.

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

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

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

ill take my chances bring it on.

I have everything I need already thank you and that includes your Plusnet account details!   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 07:19:PM
do you worst ive also got yours.

ill while wait to hear from your solicitor.

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

if they were to do that it would be serious breach of data protection act.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 08:59:PM
Given yourself away again chump!!   ;D


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

I look forward to the Forrest Gump act later this year...that is if you have the guts to face folk away from mummy's sitting-room!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 09:24:PM
how have i given myself away exactly.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 09:34:PM
Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton condemned by Jodi's mother accusing them of abusing Jodi in their cyber court.

(http://i.imgur.com/RsRLW.jpg)

Article taken from The Sunday Post today.


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

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

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg14785/#msg14785
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 09:49:PM
he was found innocent.

unlike yourself.

the judge said you showed no remorse,
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 09:55:PM
he was found innocent.

unlike yourself.

the judge said you showed no remorse,

actually that was a not proven verdict.  Mr Middleton also tried to blame his wife for the fires.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 09:58:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 10:10:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

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

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

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

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

What exactly is it you are trying to infer by your comment? Is this yet another diversionary tactic to avoid the real subject?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 10:13:PM
i dont need anyone's permission.

ive chosen to do so thats it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 10:15:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

so changing the subject from luke mitchell to billy midellton isnt a diverson.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 10:18:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 10:20:PM
i dont need anyone's permission.

ive chosen to do so thats it.

I would be guessing you would need some sort of permission to discuss parts of the case on forums. So why don't you attend appeals and speak to the media then?

You are doing a grand job here in putting people off the case. Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 10:33:PM
you dont need anyones permission to discuss things on forums if you did this forum wouldn't be here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 10:39:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

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

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   ;)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 10:44:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

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

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   ;)

only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.

and a jury found you guilty.

and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 10:51:PM
nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.

Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 10:57:PM
nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.

Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol

by his own arguments he cant be innocent.

and if he cant take it he shouldn't dish it out

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 12, 2011, 11:02:PM
nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.

Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol

by his own arguments he cant be innocent.

and if he cant take it he shouldn't dish it out

The biggest amount of people would rise above it and stick to the facts nugnug.
If you are so adamant Mitchell is innocent then should you not be trying to post coherent and credible evidence instead of bitching about other posters all the time? People will not always agree with you and just because they do not agree does not mean you have to be nasty to them. That loses you and your campaign support.

And no I don't particularly care about you losing support. It is just an observation I have made.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 11:13:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

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

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   ;)

only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.

and a jury found you guilty.

and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.

I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 11:18:PM
Nugnug or should I say Billy Middleton hasn't the first notion what stands for the truth in the Luke Mitchell case Janet. That is true for the Kate Prout case and all the others he claims to support. 

He cannot even provide a single shred of evidence in support of Luke Mitchell yet he claims to be the saviour for everyone else. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The evidence before the jury in the Mitchell case was extremely damming in relation to Mitchell and his escapades.  What we know is that Mitchell was out of control for a child of 14 years of age. There was no parental control and a complete absence of discipline of any sort.
 
How many other 14 year old children operate a drugs packaging operation from their bedroom routinely selling cannabis to school friends as if it were sweeties?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 11:24:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

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

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   ;)

only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.

and a jury found you guilty.

and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.

I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.

we only your word it was 8/7 ive seen no evidence of this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 11:25:PM
in law not proven means innocent.

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

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

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   ;)

only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.

and a jury found you guilty.

and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.

I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.

we only your word it was 8/7 ive seen no evidence of this.

You don't really know much then do you with all your scams and spamming experience?   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2011, 11:29:PM
Nugnug or should I say Billy Middleton hasn't the first notion what stands for the truth in the Luke Mitchell case Janet. That is true for the Kate Prout case and all the others he claims to support. 

He cannot even provide a single shred of evidence in support of Luke Mitchell yet he claims to be the saviour for everyone else. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

i thought you said i was a woman before your mind up.

i thought you said smiffy was billy Middleton.

i havent seen one shred evedence to say your inocent.

so dna and other mens  sperm and blood isnt evidence.

and 2 other people being present at the murder scene and not being able to say why isn't evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 12, 2011, 11:41:PM
I am certainly not interested in your opinion in relation to my case nugget.  Never have been and most certainly never will be.  Your opinion counts for absolutely nothing at the end of the day since it the courts that count and not a cyber court as Mrs Jones referred to WAP.

Stick to the subject matter if you have the intelligence to do so.

This is the Jodi Jones thread.

(http://i.imgur.com/vDshC.jpg)

Jodi Jones in happier times before her brutal murder by sadistic killer Luke Mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on June 13, 2011, 07:44:AM
why do you keep making false claims about people john lamberton... ..people do see through your nastiness and fiction....and see you for the repulsive person that you are.

btw..I KNOW who really killed Jodi Jones......so your claims about Luke are vile...just as vile as you, Jodi's real killer and those who shielded Jodi's real killer.


ps folks  nugnug is not myself nor is he Billy Middleton....but John Lamberton is a justly convicted criminal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 13, 2011, 08:16:AM
I notice that both the Record and Sun have followed on with the story from the Sunday Post. Other papers may also have done likewise.

If these papers actually read what has been written on these forums they will find there has indeed been great disrespect towards Jodi and her family. The now defunct Fact and Myth had a lot of terrible comments.

Smiffy how do you know someone else killed Jodi and who "he is and who is shielding him"? What proof do you have?


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/13/mum-of-murdered-jodi-jones-brands-luke-mitchell-a-sociopath-86908-23198262/

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3633801/Jodi-Jones-mum-Killer-had-no-emotion-as-I-cuddled-him.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on June 13, 2011, 11:21:AM
Be patient.
Judy ...oh  ....best not say too much...from my posts she may brand me a paranoid schizphrenic  or call me a liar when she is a person known to have difficulties in recalling the truth.
Though she may have particular experience of paranoid schizophrenics of a violent kind I find her judgements to be clouded by bias and her drink issues for her to form any valid opinion of me on forums etc.


I know things you dont know ....
 :)


oh by the way "Janet"...I suggest you go read back through your posts as its clear from paying attention to them that your a blatant liar. Claims you make in some posts being shot down in other posts you make....your not doing a good job using this fantasy persona...losing track of yourself.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 13, 2011, 12:18:PM

oh by the way "Janet"...I suggest you go read back through your posts as its clear from paying attention to them that your a blatant liar. Claims you make in some posts being shot down in other posts you make....your not doing a good job using this fantasy persona...losing track of yourself.

So show me the lies you allege I have posted!! As usual you have to resort to insults.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 12:49:PM
I notice that both the Record and Sun have followed on with the story from the Sunday Post. Other papers may also have done likewise.

If these papers actually read what has been written on these forums they will find there has indeed been great disrespect towards Jodi and her family. The now defunct Fact and Myth had a lot of terrible comments.

Smiffy how do you know someone else killed Jodi and who "he is and who is shielding him"? What proof do you have?


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/13/mum-of-murdered-jodi-jones-brands-luke-mitchell-a-sociopath-86908-23198262/

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3633801/Jodi-Jones-mum-Killer-had-no-emotion-as-I-cuddled-him.html
im glad the press picked up now people will be looking to see what was said.

the post articall was very fair i thought.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 01:08:PM
Smiffy is a bum Janet and we all know it to be so.  You and I know all too well who the great smiffy really is and a bigger lump of lard one would never find if one tried.  Yes, he knows who killed Jodi Jones but then again you and I and most of Scotland know who killed her too.

LUKE MITCHELL murdered Jodi Jones and then set about brutalising her corpse by slitting her eyelids and almost removing her throat and gouging her abdomen.  What sort of a depraved animal would do such a thing to a beautiful young lass who had most of her life before her??

Yes, we all why the likes of Sandra Lean and Billy (the scammer) Middleton want to disrespect the Jones family in general and Jodi Jones in particular.  Lean in particular is a snake in the grass, she says one thing in private and another in public when her discredited reputation is about to go down the toilet.

Well done to the Daily Record and The Scottish Sun for following up on the recent comments and exposing the Wrongly Accused retards for what they really are.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 01:19:PM
Be patient.
Judy ...oh  ....best not say too much...from my posts she may brand me a paranoid schizphrenic  or call me a liar when she is a person known to have difficulties in recalling the truth.
Though she may have particular experience of paranoid schizophrenics of a violent kind I find her judgements to be clouded by bias and her drink issues for her to form any valid opinion of me on forums etc.


I know things you dont know ....
 :)


oh by the way "Janet"...I suggest you go read back through your posts as its clear from paying attention to them that your a blatant liar. Claims you make in some posts being shot down in other posts you make....your not doing a good job using this fantasy persona...losing track of yourself.

Typical of a scum bag coward to ridicule a woman for drinking when her beautiful 14 year-old daughter was murdered by the psycho Luke Mitchell but then again murder is no stranger to the smiffy family is it?

Judy offered her open arms to the cold blooded killer but then saw for herself what sort of a person he really is.

I think if anyone has difficulty in recalling the truth it is the Mitchell's, who cannot even agree who was in their house the afternoon of the murder.  

So funny if it wasn't so so sad!! :D :D



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 01:41:PM
Smiffy is a bum Janet and we all know it to be so.  You and I know all too well who the great smiffy really is and a bigger lump of lard one would never find if one tried.  Yes, he knows who killed Jodi Jones but then again you and I and most of Scotland know who killed her too.

LUKE MITCHELL murdered Jodi Jones and then set about brutalising her corpse by slitting her eyelids and almost removing her throat and gouging her abdomen.  What sort of a depraved animal would do such a thing to a beautiful young lass who had most of her life before her??

Yes, we all why the likes of Sandra Lean and Billy (the scammer) Middleton want to disrespect the Jones family in general and Jodi Jones in particular.  Lean in particular is a snake in the grass, she says one thing in private and another in public when her discredited reputation is about to go down the toilet.

Well done to the Daily Record and The Scottish Sun for following up on the recent comments and exposing the Wrongly Accused retards for what they really are.

ohhh you bitch lol.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 01:47:PM
This is the best the self professed expert Sandra Lean can come up with when asked yet again why she knows Luke Mitchell is innocent..

I have been asked how I can state "Luke did not kill Jodi." It's actually very simple. Take all of the known facts, lay them side by side, work out what they mean in reality, and you find a set of events which make it impossible for Luke to have been the killer.

Link (http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg14834/#msg14834)

So he didn't have a motive , means and the opportunity then??   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 01:57:PM
I have taken your advice Sandra and it led me to the very opposite conclusion that Luke Mitchell did murder Jodi Jones and that his family are covering up for him.

Mitchell had ample time to plan his dastardly deed on 30 June 2003.  He was never seen leaving school and was never seen going home at any time.

Two brothers who supposedly were at home at the same time never saw each other. Apparently a ghost made Shane's tea and burned the chicken pie too.

Luke was seen loitering by the end of Roan's Dyke footpath at 5.42pm (27 mins after the murder some 150m away) by no less than two independent witnesses who described him and his clothing perfectly.

Mitchell had the tools to commit murder and had previously used the knife in a menacing manner.


Simple really!   ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 02:06:PM
exept the 2 witness described a man in his early late teens or early twentys who had shoulder length hair

so they dident see luke mitchell.

jodi was alive till 5pm

how did luke mitchell clean awaw all traces of dna but leave other peoples on there.

other mens sperm and blood.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 04:24:PM
You mean like this?

(http://i.imgur.com/q2wEg.png)

Luke Mitchell leaving home shorty after the murder having been identified as a suspect.

You should be asking why there was none of his DNA on her or her clothing when he had been with her earlier in the day in any event?

It seems he did a good clean-up job after all!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 04:38:PM
thats not shoulder lenth hair thats collar lenth google shoulder length hair.

how could he clean his up and leave other peoples on there.

how come didpite jodi fighting fo her life he dident have a mark on him not a scratch.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 05:02:PM
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?

We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.

Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on June 13, 2011, 05:13:PM
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
I know nothing of this case John, only what I have read on here.
It does seem strange about the dna not being on either the victim, or the accused.
Is it a fact that two types of sperm were found on the girl, or is this just hearsay.
I must point out that I have no interest either way, just curious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 05:18:PM
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim. 

One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on June 13, 2011, 05:30:PM
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim. 

One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 05:32:PM
exept her sister dident rember her borrowing it.

couldent recognise it is hers untill many days later.

how would bllod get on your girlfriends t shirt sperm dont need explaining blood does.

how does sperm get from the front of a t shirt to the strap of a bra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 05:33:PM
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim. 

One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.

They did and unsuccessfully.  The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 05:34:PM
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?

We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.

Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!

the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 05:39:PM
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim. 

One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.

They did and unsuccessfully.  The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.

 but theres no evedence they had been in close contact.

they say each other at scholl.

now if they dident touch each other there wouldent be.

luke mitchells hair was dirty and unwashed acording to the police.

his finger nails were dirty as well so how could he have cleaned himself up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 05:41:PM
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?

We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.

Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!

the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.

How did she fight?   Can't wait to hear this one!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 05:45:PM
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim. 

One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.

They did and unsuccessfully.  The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.

 but theres no evedence they had been in close contact.

they say each other at scholl.

now if they dident touch each other there wouldent be.

luke mitchells hair was dirty and unwashed acording to the police.

his finger nails were dirty as well so how could he have cleaned himself up.

You are an idiot nugget, just an upstart from beginning to end.  You know dam fine that they were seen together by other pals who had joined them for their daily get together at lunchtime.  Don't come this crap with me mate because I know the facts of this case.

Mitchell went out into the woods after the murder, does that give even you any clues?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 05:58:PM
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?

We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.

Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!

the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.

How did she fight?   Can't wait to hear this one!

she fought for her life thats a fact the patholigists said so in court.

but luke Mitchell dident have a mark on him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 06:01:PM
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?

We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.

Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!

the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.

How did she fight?   Can't wait to hear this one!

she fought for her life thats a fact the patholigists said so in court.

but luke Mitchell dident have a mark on him.

That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so.  Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away.  I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?


Only her boyfriend would have been on that side of the wall with her in any event. It is not the sort of place you go with a stranger or other boys even if they were known to her.

Have you ever been to the scene Nugget?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 06:23:PM
the patholigist said she fought for her life now haveing no medical knowledge i have to go with that and you aint qualfied to say otherwise.

jodi often used the path alone.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 13, 2011, 11:47:PM
So you know this path then nugget.  Have you ever been to it?

Which part of defensive wounds don't you understand. Maybe you should get Sandra to explain this for you being that little bit dim!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2011, 11:54:PM
and what part of fought for her life dont you understand.

they dident say struggled they said fought for her life.

there was no forensic clean up becouse luke wasnt clean simple really.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 02:45:AM
Whom did she fight and what did she use because it most certainly wasn't her hands or nails according to the pathologist?

Oh he was forensically clean alright and then went up the woods to get uncontaminated dirt on him prior to any examination.  Do you think the authorities are stupid nugget?

You never could answer the questions about Luke's whereabouts after leaving school and the discrepancies in the brothers evidence, neither could Corinne Mitchell.

If I recall she complained about her blood pressure the last time she was caught out...not surprised really as she was nailed to the floor.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 03:04:AM
Judy Jones referred to Mitchell as a SOCIOPATH>>>

Profile of the Sociopath

Some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They     appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioural Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behaviour Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioural and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviours such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behaviour/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on 'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths.


It seems Judy was well briefed!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on June 14, 2011, 11:49:AM
and persons under 18 years of old cannot be diagniosed  as  sociopaths ..Luke was 14 years old

so judy jones  is an idiot making stupid wild claims about Luke that have no basis...so what is her hidden agenda?...why do that...is she sheilding the real killer..is that why she has lied so much?

your a nasty idiot too john  as well as a  liar..

you seem to fit the profile for being a sociopath fairly well John.....it does not make you a murderer though...for many sociopaths do not kill.

ha ha john...your no longer in the information loop ...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 12:55:PM
Whom did she fight and what did she use because it most certainly wasn't her hands or nails according to the pathologist?

Oh he was forensically clean alright and then went up the woods to get uncontaminated dirt on him prior to any examination.  Do you think the authorities are stupid nugget?

You never could answer the questions about Luke's whereabouts after leaving school and the discrepancies in the brothers evidence, neither could Corinne Mitchell.

If I recall she complained about her blood pressure the last time she was caught out...not surprised really as she was nailed to the floor.


yes i know the authority are stupid

big forensic clean up then got dirty agian

dirt under after hes supposed to have cleaned when did he have time to get dirty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 12:57:PM
Judy Jones referred to Mitchell as a SOCIOPATH>>>

Profile of the Sociopath

Some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They     appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioural Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behaviour Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioural and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviours such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behaviour/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on 'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths.


It seems Judy was well briefed!

i think she got the name wrong i think she was talking about you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 01:12:PM
Information loop?  How little you know really at the end of the day.

Why don't you come out and say that your brilliant theory is that Joey Jones killed his own sister in a moment of violent rage because that is what you numpties at WAP have been promoting for weeks now?

No wonder Jodi's mother is enraged at your attacks upon her and her family.  No wonder the local Press have taken up this story at the expense of the Mitchell circus entourage.

How anyone could possibly promote the theory that a mother would protect her son if he murdered his sister just goes to show how far you and others will go to condemn the innocent while all the time promoting yourself as some sort of campaigner for miscarriages of justice.

(http://paimages.s3.amazonaws.com/categories/news/480x385/10922024.jpg)

In for the long haul.  Corinne Mitchell (right) has a quick puff after learning that her son has lost the right to have his case referred to the UK Supreme Court. Sandra Lean looks on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 01:18:PM
Information loop?  How little you know really at the end of the day.

Why don't you come out and say that your brilliant theory is that Joey Jones killed his own sister in a moment of violent rage because that is what you numpties at WAP have been promoting for weeks now?

No wonder Jodi's mother is enraged at your attacks upon her and her family.  No wonder the local Press have taken up this story at the expense of the Mitchell circus entourage.

How anyone could possibly promote the theory that a mother would protect her son if he murdered his sister just goes to show how far you and others will go to condemn the innocent while all the time promoting yourself as some sort of campaigner for miscarriages of justice.

(http://paimages.s3.amazonaws.com/categories/news/480x385/10922024.jpg)

In for the long haul.  Corinne Mitchell (right) has a quick puff after learning that her son has lost the right to have his case referred to the UK Supreme Court. Sandra Lean looks on.

extra extra man who robs old ladys trys to take the moral high ground read all about it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 01:30:PM
Joseph Jones has been a target for many months now on the Wrongly Accused forum run by Billy Middleton from his parents home in Lerwick, Shetland Islands.  Together with his co administrator Sandra Lean they have accused and besmirched just about everyone within the Jones extended family of complicity in the murder of Jodi Jones while running a campaign to free Luke Mitchell.

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39293000/jpg/_39293868_brothermotherpa203.jpg)

Joey Jones accompanied by his mother arrive for the funeral service.


It is not surprising that the Press have now seized upon these goings on which has brought much ridicule to the Mitchell campaigners.  It is clear from her comments recently made on the WAP forum that Sandra Lean is now attempting to distance herself from such comments but I fear the damage is done.

Sandra Lean previously mounted similar attacks on the Jones family while posting under the pseudonym 'jigsawman' on another former forum but it was closed down due to offensive behaviour.

This provocation by Mitchell campaigners led Joey on one occasion to turn up at Sandra Leans home where he spouted verbal abuse before leaving.  It is also understood that Sandra Lean, who maintains a high profile in the case, has been the subject of verbal abuse by members of the public on several other occasions.




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 01:37:PM
says more about them really.

the press are irelvance now any.

actully i think he threatned he found out where she lived followed her then threatened her.

i wonder was that a one has threatned voilence towards women before does he have history.

he cant deny doing it becouse he pleaded guilty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 01:45:PM
Try reading from another script Billy?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 02:36:PM
i am really glad the forum is making headlines.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 02:39:PM
i am really glad the forum is making headlines.

FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS !!

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared004.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on June 14, 2011, 02:47:PM
keep at it nugnug...the demented john lamberton keeps showing himself to be the nasty dishonest individual he really is .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 14, 2011, 02:53:PM
keep at it nugnug...the demented john lamberton keeps showing himself to be the nasty dishonest individual he really is .

And you of course are all sweetness and light aren't you Smiffy?  Personal attacks is what you are reduced to when you do not like what is being said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 02:54:PM
Looks like the WAP forum has gone down the toilet!     (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 02:56:PM
i am really glad the forum is making headlines.

FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS !!

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared004.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

jast as you did.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 02:58:PM
Looks like the WAP forum has gone down the toilet!     (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
more viewers than ive ethere seem before.

keep posting the links youl get them a few more.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 02:59:PM
Looks like the WAP forum has gone down the toilet!     (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
more viewers than ive ethere seem before.

keep posting the links youl get them a few more.

They are laughing at you!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 03:02:PM
keep at it nugnug...the demented john lamberton keeps showing himself to be the nasty dishonest individual he really is .

And you of course are all sweetness and light aren't you Smiffy?  Personal attacks is what you are reduced to when you do not like what is being said.

That is why they have attacked just about every member of the Walker/Jones extended family while all the time it is Luke Mitchell who is the murderer!

They do say that attack is the best form of defence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 14, 2011, 03:04:PM
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away.  I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"

John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi?  The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on June 14, 2011, 03:08:PM
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away.  I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"

John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi?  The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?

John doesnt know the answer
as usual living in his warped fantasy world..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 03:12:PM
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away.  I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"

John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi?  The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?

well mark kane was rejected as a suspect becouse the scraches on his face dident match.

what was under the victems nails.

that would sugest she must of scratched somebody but certainly not him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on June 14, 2011, 03:12:PM
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away.  I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"

John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi?  The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?

That's quite correct OnceSaid.  It is all there in the pathologists report...Jodi's fingernails only contained material genetically related to Jodi. 

Jodi never scratched her attacker so that would fall into line with Mitchell not having any recent scratches on him and his face in particular.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 14, 2011, 03:14:PM
it dident say that it said no reportable result not the same thing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on June 14, 2011, 03:19:PM
it dident say that it said no reportable result not the same thing.

thats correct nugnug :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 16, 2011, 08:32:PM
it dident say that it said no reportable result not the same thing.

thats correct nugnug :)

Im confused now, I was of the understanding there was no right hand fingernail scrapings reported on, just the left hand.

Who is wrong here, me or John ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 12, 2011, 12:21:AM
i think your right oncesaid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 24, 2011, 04:53:PM
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 30, 2011, 09:16:PM
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies.  I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers.  Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old.  :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 30, 2011, 09:48:PM
are well maybe we can correct those inaccuracy's

i agrea this thread was justed by john to have a pop at certain people.

do you think i should start a thread on his case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 30, 2011, 10:02:PM
are well maybe we can correct those inaccuracy's

i agrea this thread was justed by john to have a pop at certain people.

do you think i should start a thread on his case.

Quick answer, No. 

PM sent.  ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 03, 2011, 03:58:PM
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

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

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

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

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

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 03, 2011, 04:38:PM
oh i agree it shouldent be deleted.

for one thing it shows john in his true coulers witch is good.

this thread basically started by john to have a pop at people on another forum not related to this.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on September 03, 2011, 06:51:PM
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

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

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

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

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

Correct.  However there is evidence in abundance to support LM's innocence and it is not contained in the posts here from JL.  This thread was not started to give a balanced view, it was started with malicious intent, end of.  Janet have you any idea how difficult it is for someone who is factually innocent to prove that innocence?  Obviously not.  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 03, 2011, 06:55:PM
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

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

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

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

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

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

how would you know why joh started this thread.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 03, 2011, 09:28:PM
i think i forgot to post this link.
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/press-articles-readers-comments/luke-mitchell-set-to-have-his-conviction-quashed-by-supreme-court-in-england/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 02:37:PM
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

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

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

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

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

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

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

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



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 02:38:PM
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

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

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

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

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

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

how would you know why joh started this thread.

I have read the thread.  Does it matter why it was started? If there is evidence of innocence post it. You must realise though that not everything looks good for Luke Mitchell and that there are two sides to the story. Both must be told because somewhere in the middle of it all is the truth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on September 06, 2011, 03:27:PM
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

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

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

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

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

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

how would you know why joh started this thread.

I have read the thread.  Does it matter why it was started? If there is evidence of innocence post it. You must realise though that not everything looks good for Luke Mitchell and that there are two sides to the story. Both must be told because somewhere in the middle of it all is the truth.
I admit I know little of this case, but if there is doubt then in my opinion you should side with the guilty person, unless of course you believe the police would never fabricate anything.
I can chuck a ball a fair distance, but would not believe the cops that far.
Saying that Luke does not come across as a honest person, and the family are a disgrace.
Perhaps it would pay folks to start again.
 Perhaps you should start at his brother, and go from there.
The family are no help at all, and come across as money grabbers.
I admit I could be wide of the mark. but I say it as I see it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 03:32:PM
your very wide of the mark cliff.

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

theirs no evidence to say lukes family did anything wrong.

only the allegations of a few newspapers.

just the same as in jermys case.


and if you dont beilive what john said about jermy why belive him about luke mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 03:46:PM
your very wide of the mark cliff.

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

theirs no evidence to say lukes family did anything wrong.

only the allegations of a few newspapers.

just the same as in jermys case.

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

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

The Tabloids don't always get everything wrong.

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



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 03:56:PM
theres no evedence they tried to sell the story other than the word of the sunday mail.

just like jermy bamber with the topless photos.

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

wouldn't they have persued if they had really lied.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 04:12:PM
theres no evedence they tried to sell the story other than the word of the sunday mail.

just like jermy bamber with the topless photos.

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

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

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

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

Doesn't matter that charges had been dropped. Enough was said in court to show they were not credible witnesses.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 04:17:PM
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.

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

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

just like bamber with the topless photos.

t
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: clifford on September 06, 2011, 04:28:PM
your very wide of the mark cliff.

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

theirs no evidence to say lukes family did anything wrong.

only the allegations of a few newspapers.

just the same as in jermys case.


and if you dont beilive what john said about jermy why belive him about luke mitchell.
I don't want to get in a row with you Nugnug, because you have always been passionate in your beliefs, And I do not know too much about this case.
However the Mitchel family seem a tad to happy to cash in especually his granny.
What Grandmother would do that?
I know you will say this is newspaoer talk, but no one has refuted this, Why?
Why did his grandmother attempt to sell the story rather than just be open, and honest.
Looking in as an outsider it seems to me that Luke did not act alone when Jodie was abused, but his mates were involved, hence the different types of sperm.
IMO Jodie was gang raped, and some of the culprets are still at large.
Luke knows the truth about this poor girls death, but I think he is in denial.
I applaud you for your endeavers, but sadly you are wrong.
Kind regards, Cliff.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 04:34:PM
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.

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

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

just like bamber with the topless photos.

t

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 04:34:PM
there wernt his mates cliff one of them was victims sisters boyfriend who spoke agianst him in court.

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

there isnt a trace of lukes sperm there.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 04:36:PM
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.

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

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

just like bamber with the topless photos.

t

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

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

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

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

she has made sevral compliants to the press compliants comission.

and has always diened it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 04:38:PM
there wernt his mates cliff one of them was victims sisters boyfriend who spoke agianst him in court.

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

there isnt a trace of lukes sperm there.

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

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


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 04:41:PM
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.

fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.

you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 04:47:PM
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.

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

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

just like bamber with the topless photos.

t

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

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

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

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

she has made sevral compliants to the press compliants comission.

and has always denied it.

she has never denied it publicly. If she had made a complaint it would be on the complaints pages and its not.

this is though

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=Mzc0Mg==

COMPLAINANT NAME:
Ms Corrine Mitchell

CLAUSES NOTED: 1

PUBLICATION: Daily Record

COMPLAINT:
Ms Corrine Mitchell of Dalkeith complained that an article was inaccurate in its claim that she had rowed with her son while visiting him at Polmont Young Offender’s Institution. She subsequently complained – on behalf and with the signed authorisation of her son, Luke Mitchell – that the latter had not put on weight since entering Polmont.
RESOLUTION:
The newspaper publicly reiterated the complainant’s denial of the allegation that she had rowed with her son. It stood by its story but noted Ms Mitchell’s contention that she was not at Polmont on the day it had referred to. The statement in the newspaper also included a denial of the claim that Luke Mitchell had put on weight.

REPORT: 72
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 04:51:PM
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.

fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.

you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.

I do feel strongly about it because there is so much rubbish being put online and no one is allowed to have a differing opinion to the supporters. Its time you all got the veil removed from your eyes and looked at the case less passionately and objectively.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 04:55:PM
if anyone cares to read her posts on the forum she posts they would know she had

a might point out the victems familly have not dined any of the things that have been said about them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 04:56:PM
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.

fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.

you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.

I do feel strongly about it because there is so much rubbish being put online and no one is allowed to have a differing opinion to the supporters. Its time you all got the veil removed from your eyes and looked at the case less passionately and objectively.

so who's dined you a voice exactly.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 05:24:PM
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.

fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.

you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.

I do feel strongly about it because there is so much rubbish being put online and no one is allowed to have a differing opinion to the supporters. Its time you all got the veil removed from your eyes and looked at the case less passionately and objectively.

so who's dined you a voice exactly.

You deny people their voices by repeatedly telling them everything they say is wrong if it does not agree with what you say.

Corinne Mitchells so called denials about the Sunday Mail article mean nothing. She did not object to the paper or the complaints commission.

The only complaint registered on the complaints page was about a paper saying Luke Mitchell had put on weight and she had a row with her son, when she disgarees.

 Search Results For: luke mitchell (1 Results Found) from the complaints page.
 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 05:28:PM
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.

thats not denying someone a voice.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 06, 2011, 05:35:PM
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.

thats not denying someone a voice.

Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.

The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.

There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.

It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.

'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 05:38:PM
and courts never get anything wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2011, 05:39:PM
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.

thats not denying someone a voice.

Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.

The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.

There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.

It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.

'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.

well you wernt there ethere were you but you seem sure.

or were you there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on September 10, 2011, 12:17:AM
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.

thats not denying someone a voice.

Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.

The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.

There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.

It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.

'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.

well you wernt there ethere were you but you seem sure.

or were you there.

You would love to know if I was wouldn't you?  What difference would it make to you? None because you believe what you want to believe anyhow
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 10, 2011, 12:22:AM
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.

thats not denying someone a voice.

Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.

The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.

There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.

It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.

'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.

well you wernt there ethere were you but you seem sure.

or were you there.

You would love to know if I was wouldn't you?  What difference would it make to you? None because you believe what you want to believe anyhow

well if you were that would make you the killer.
would it not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:16:AM
What John Lamberton once said, regarding the wrongful arrest and  conviction of Luke Mitchell.  When he was banned for abusing forum members, he took umbrage against this, and done an about turn, and went on a hate campaign against Luke Mitchell and his family and supporters, using other miscarriage of justice forums as a vehicle to spread his lies and also went on to create his own spiteful forums to post abuse, lies, and misleading information about Luke Mitchell‘s case and certain individuals that he chose to target, using usernames that he had used prior to being banned from various forums.

I have noticed that he has now set up another forum, which he is using to target members from here, who support the innocence of Jeremy Bamber or those who have dared to stand up to him, as well as continuing his vendetta against the family of Luke Mitchell, and also attempting to make a mockery of certain miscarriage of justice victims, due to having fallen out with a family member or one of their supporters. 

It has to be said that the miscarriage of justice victims that he targets and goes out of his way to try to damage their case and interfere with their fight for freedom, have done nothing to this man.  They would never have heard of John Lamberton, but yet he uses them and the vulnerable situation that they are in to get back at their family members or supporters.  Please bear in mind that this man has spent many years planning, swindling, lying, conning, and he has a criminal record of fraud to prove it. His disruptive, vile, online behaviour is a game to him, he plays to win.  He takes on those that he believes he can beat into a submission, but becomes very frustrated when his plan fails.  Those he targets, he will use photographs of them if he can get access to any, however I find it very sinister that he chooses to post picture of babies or very young children as I have noticed pictured of 3 children already on this new site of his, related to those he has targeted.  Shame on you John Lamberton!  What reason is there to post pictures of babies and young children????? 

False accusations that he has made in the past and is continually making against Luke Mitchel and his family, can be found on this forum, his new forum, and on other forums all over the internet.  He is a stickler for saying that what is said in first statements, is more closer to the truth, so here is what he once said after thoroughly researching the Luke Mitchell case, before he spat the dummy out................
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:18:AM
John Lamberton once said - The Luke Mitchell case is a classic example of where a police investigation can go wrong. Tunnel vision and political expediency seemed to have driven this case, the need for a quick conviction at any cost. Except off-course that the cost is only going to increase and public awareness become more widespread until the point when the authorities will have to take a proper look at what occurred.

This is a case where a 14 year-old child was convicted of murdering his long-term girlfriend, also 14. Not only this, but he was also supposed to have taken time over the killing in some sort of macabre ritual slaying. I will not go into details in this post but no-doubt they will be discussed sooner rather than later.

What also worries me greatly with this conviction is the time-line which I have reproduced below. Luke had a 40 minute window to do everything that he was supposed to have done and simply put, it is impossible unless off-course you are Superman !! The map relating to the events is also reproduced below with thanks to my friend Curious.

Finally, let me add that there was not a single DNA profile lifted from the scene which put Luke there that night. I can also add there was no trace of Luke anywhere on the body. This is what passes for evidence in Scottish Courts. Oh and yes, there are several other DNA profiles lifted from the body and guess what ? ...the boys in blue haven't been able to find the people to whom they relate. Very convenient policing I call that !!

« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 08:49:46 PM by John Lamberton »
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:19:AM
JL once said - I wonder if anyone has a poem about Luke and Jodi. After all they were in love as 14 year-olds can be. I am sure Jodi would have been horrified at what they did to Luke in her name.

Anyone got a poem for them both? ...and another thing, anyone got a lovely photograph of them TOGETHER ?? Now that would be nice to see and to promote.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:21:AM
Please explain Curious?
Well, if you're in the 'Luke is innocent' camp (tiny) that may seem to be 'nice' or whatever but if you're in the 'Guilty / Don't know' camps it would come across as crass, insensitive, vile, (choose your own adjectives), depending on your perspective. The press would jump all over it.

John Lamberton replied….Great! lets have the press jump all over it...publicity is what makes the world go round.

The fact is they loved each other, no-one can change that. Not even the twisted biggots who will do anything to destroy the memory of the relationship they had. Lets have a photo and get it out there instead of the primary school photos of Jodi and the emerging from the prison van photos of Luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:21:AM
John Lamberton once said - So you would rather Luke spend the next 14+ years in s***-hole Shotts as an alternative to upsetting a few prunes??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:23:AM
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.

John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??

That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!

« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:23:AM
John Lamberton once said - Something I was just thinking about, the events immediately after the police arrived on the scene. A policeman asked Luke to show them the body (wrong thing to do), they then left the scene completely unattended (wrong thing to do).

Now, anyone with the slightest bit of wit would realise that Luke's reaction at being asked to go to the body was consistent with being traumatised. Not the reaction you would get from someone who had casually killed his girlfriend some hours earlier.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:47:46 PM by John Lamberton »
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:25:AM
John Lamberton once said ...are you trying to say the police weren't a bunch of incompetentos because from what I can see they were?? They have failed to pursue definite lines of enquiry wrt suspects while other suspects have not been identified for several years and then only by chance. Did they not think to ask the local males to voluntarily donate samples for DNA analysis or would that have impinged their human rights??

I am sure every innocent male would have been too glad TO BE SEEN to have cooperated...then by deduction...it isn't rocket science!!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 04:17:42 PM by John Lamberton »
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:25:AM
John Lamberton once said - The problem with the so-called defence in the UK is that they do not do any investigating. It is all down to hard cash and the Legal Aid Board's limited budget. However, when it comes to resources the Crown Office has unlimited cash to go all over the country if need be and to engage the best of experts from wherever. How can one possibly offer a defence when the most basics of defence rely on a proper investigation.

Today, solicitors spend their time running between their office, the prisons and the courts. Seldom do they actually go out and ask questions or take statements from anyone, let alone actually do a bit of investigating and digging. When statements are needed what do they do?...they lift the phone and cold call the person involved. Little wonder therefore that such statements are devoid of anything useful. They then turn up at the prison and give you this sob story about the statement being unhelpful...soul destroying really! If you are lucky, they might even send out a precognition agent. What he or she is, is a glorified clerk who goes out and calls with the person concerned and again attempts to get them to spill the beans to them! What they come back with is inevitably a total waste of time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:27:AM
the dairy entry's are disturbing but we may be reading to much into them. jodi could of meant anyone of 1000 things by what she wrote it would be dangerous to jump to conclusions.

John Lamberton replies - I agree, the poor girl had much c**p going on in her life and Luke was the one thing that created some stability. She would have been horrified that he is being persecuted and in her name!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:28:AM
John Lamberton once said - That's the way they work, trick and manipulation of witnesses. By the time the poor sod get to court they are beginning to doubt themselves too!

I believe in statements taken shortly after the event regardless of what is later said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:31:AM
The Appeal Decision

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html


Applying these principles the court is satisfied that there was sufficient evidence in law upon which a verdict of guilty could be returned.

John Lamberton - Given this, I consider that it is about time the whole issue of evidence was looked at by the Scottish Government because if you are going to convict people on the basis of fleeting glances, flimsy circumstantial evidence and gossip then I foresee no hope for Scotland in the modern world. In a nutshell, this verdict and the many others which are based on the same logic are a disgrace to humanity.


An important element in the Crown case was the evidence of Mrs Andrina Bryson who testified to seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses end of the Roan's Dyke Path at about 1650-55 on 30 June 2003.

John Lamberton - This is the evidence that holds the key to the conviction and their Lordship's chose to uphold it. Bryson did not know Luke so a positive identification is impossible. Given that another suspect looks exactly like Luke, I find the whole thing incredible that such a testimony could carry such weight.


If the jury accepted these identifications - as, having regard to the whole evidence bearing on them, they might reasonably do - there was ample evidence otherwise to allow them reasonably to conclude that Jodi's killer was the appellant.

John Lamberton - So now we have the huge leap from being seen with someone to having murderer them! You couldn't make it up if you tried!! WHAT AMPLE EVIDENCE EXACTLY...NO DNA, NO BLOOD, NO SEMEN, NO FIBRES....NO NOTHING!



It is the usual old get-out clause by their Lordship's....."That was a matter for the jury..." Maybe if the jury had been properly directed in the first place....QED!


I would also like to know that if their Lordship's are so sure of Bryson's evidence that Luke was with Jodi at Easthouses at 4.50pm to 4.55pm, then how come a 'mystery man' was observed following Jodi to the path by two other witnesses on Easthouses Road. They cannot both be correct and I would have thought two witnesses were better than one? It seems that the Judge chose which evidence to believe and directed or failed to direct the jury accordingly.

I would also like to know why Luke was interviewed on 14 August 2003 being some 45 days after the murder? If Luke really was a suspect he should have been interviewed at the time of the murder, not 7 weeks later. The method's employed by the police are to be deplore in relation to the manner in which the interview was actually conducted. Anyone know the cops names?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 12:59:09 PM by John Lamberton »
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:32:AM
John Lamberton once said - I read a comment earlier today and feel that it is worth a few questions.

Now most of you here know who the protagonists are in this affair. Specifically, we have all heard who was seen in and around the locus that day and others have been identified using DNA profiling.

We have 2 people on a scooter parked at the locus.
We have another who passed (he says) on a bicycle.
We have another's freshly filled condom putting him at the locus.

We have 10 DNA profiles and other semen samples allegedly unaccounted for.

I would like to know if any of the above:-

1. Provided samples for DNA analysis

2. Were ever properly interviewed in the same way that Luke was interrogated?


Why did Ferris skip town? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article394722.ece
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 09:00:06 PM by John Lamberton »
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:34:AM
John Lamberton once said - This is simply cloud cuckoo-land!

According to the appeal decision, Luke had 50 minutes to walk with Jodi from Easthouses Road (where Bryson thought she saw him), transit Roan's Dyke Path to the locus of the murder scene, murder Jodi, mutilate the corpse, head off somewhere to clean and change clothes and have time to return to Newbattle Road and sit on the wall where he was seen by 3 lads on bikes and 2 other females. ARE THESE PEOPLE FOR REAL??

This leads me onto another question...

1. What was Luke wearing when he left home after tea that evening, before he was supposed to have committed murder? Does this tie in with what Bryson described him wearing when she supposedly saw him at Easthouses?

2. What was he wearing later when he met the two Dave's at the Abbey?

I feel this is utmost important because he couldn't have committed murder in the way it was done without contamination. If he wore the same clothes on both occasions there is no possible way he could have committed this murder unless he wore a protective suit over the top of his clothing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 01:39:AM
I could go on, but dont want to fill the forum with numerous posts of what he once said.  My point being he will do and say what he can to hurt, anger, provoke, regardless of what he has said in the past.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2011, 01:46:AM
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.

John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??

That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!

« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »

is rather strange the family did not provide such photos as there were plenty of the said photos about as has been demonstrated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2011, 02:20:AM
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.

John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??

That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!

« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »

is rather strange the family did not provide such photos as there were plenty of the said photos about as has been demonstrated.

I agree with Lamberton that it does make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos.  It could be that the police asked the family for a picture, but didnt explain what is was to be used for and in their shocked state, a member of the family gave the first one to hand.  The police failed big time to get a more recent photograph at the start of their investigations, what did they hope to accomplish by using a photograph of a 6 year old girl, when Jodi was 14 years of age.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 16, 2011, 04:32:PM
well yes it does.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on October 16, 2011, 04:42:PM
youre being impersonated on the lambo forum, unless it is you!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 16, 2011, 04:43:PM
no its not me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 17, 2011, 11:39:AM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/documentaries/moj-day-meeting-2011/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 18, 2011, 01:59:PM
youre being impersonated on the lambo forum, unless it is you!

Nugnug noticed from day one that his username was being used by Lamberton on his forum, nugnug posted it was not him, on here, think it was last week. ;)

John Lamberton is using peoples usernames, tricking the readers that these people have turned on JB and the supporters of this forum.

He has had a go at most of us.  ::) 

He is an absolute low life, but I am a firm believer that what goes around, comes around.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2011, 04:22:PM
theyve got a fake smiffy now as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 19, 2011, 05:03:PM
theyve got a fake smiffy now as well.

I noticed that, pretty pathetic really  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2011, 07:49:PM
yes true.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 26, 2011, 05:49:PM
Re: OnceSaid
« Result #89 on Oct 24, 2011, 11:20am »

I have been made aware that the poster called OnceSaid is again posting lies on the Bamber forum in a sad attempt to stop me exposing the truth about Mitchell. I will never cease to expose criminals and liars no matter how much garbage these sad cowards dream up.

Their latest effort is to promote the lie that my wife and son somehow gave evidence against me in my trial in September 2004.

The truth being that they were both Defence witnesses but were taken over by the Crown to hamper my legal teams ability to discuss the case with them. They never gave evidence against me in relation to any charges, they have supported me continuously from the moment of my illegal arrest in Spain in August 2003 and continue to do so.

In actual fact they have both given statements as has my brother in support of me to the SCCRC and these are the subject of ongoing legal debate.

This coward who posts as OnceSaid is known to me, I have already provided a copy of their posts to my lawyers who have advised me that they will be pursuing them in due course.
« Last Edit: Oct 24, 2011, 11:22am by John »



Are you Mr Lamberton not a self confessed liar?  Did you not admit yourself that you lied to the police in relation to your case?  We both know the honest answer to that question, don’t we?.   Regardless of how I feel about you I would certainly not deliberately lie about you.  As for attempting to stop you “exposing the truth about Mitchell“, that is also untrue.  What I object to is you posting your opinion as fact and attempting to mislead readers. 

With regards to John Lambertons own case,  there was 37 Crown Witnesses, including John Lamberton’s family.  There was only ONE defence witness, and that was himself, John Lamberton.  Press reports covering the trial all state that his family gave statements and were witnesses against him, he admits himself that there was no defence witnesses, apart from himself, so where exactly have I lied? 

Am I to believe all media links that he himself posts as facts in relation to other miscarriages of justices cases that he targets, but ignore and disbelieve press related articles of his own case?  (As soon as I find the links where it says that his wife and son in particular gave statements, were at the trial as crown witnesses, gave evidence against him etc, I will post them here). John Lamberton will have in his possession all the newspaper reports relating to his trial, has he made any attempts to sue the newspapers/ journalists/editors who put these words in print over the years?

The following quotes are taken from his own site which features his case. http://www.justice4johnlamberton.com/thetrial/

“The trial continued for a period of some four weeks which was two weeks beyond that allocated. Crown Witnesses numbered some 37 in total although many never gave evidence, the defence were left with only one witness, John himself“.

“Family members who testified including John's brother gave evidence to the effect that John was true to his aunt to the very end when others had failed her abysmally“.

“In a final sinister turn of events just before the commencement of the trial, all John's witnesses from Northern Ireland were handed over to the Crown by a former lawyer simply because he couldn't be bothered to arrange transport and accommodation for them. The Crown had no such constraints however and took these witnesses over formally as Crown Witnesses with the Press later reporting that they had given evidence against John when this was completely untrue and yet another false and prejudiced representation of the facts“.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 26, 2011, 06:44:PM
well apparently the press are telling the truth about everybody else but lying about him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 02, 2011, 03:31:PM
http://fleastiff.blogspot.com/2011/06/luke-mitchell-to-be-released-by-supreme.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 05, 2011, 05:41:PM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/You-ARE-LUKE-Mitchell/286160341427261
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: smiffy on December 14, 2011, 09:30:PM
Those who really know the case are able to conclude who the real killer of Jodi actually is.
He is a person I have met face to face and from that viewing of him at close quarters I am satisfied that he is the killer. I cannot reveal publically or by pm as to why.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on December 14, 2011, 09:32:PM
Those who really know the case are able to conclude who the real killer of Jodi actually is.
He is a person I have met face to face and from that viewing of him at close quarters I am satisfied that he is the killer. I cannot reveal publically or by pm as to why.
No point in the post then Smiffy.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 14, 2011, 09:36:PM
well there must have been a point to it or he wouldn't some of us may not know what the point was but there must have been one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on December 15, 2011, 09:07:PM
well there must have been a point to it or he wouldn't some of us may not know what the point was but there must have been one.
Pardon.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 15, 2011, 11:53:PM
i mean there was there was a reason just we do not understand the reason.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 23, 2011, 09:22:PM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/19/anger-as-supporters-of-killer-luke-mitchell-launch-postcard-campaign-to-proclaim-his-innocence-86908-23646465/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on December 24, 2011, 12:22:PM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/19/anger-as-supporters-of-killer-luke-mitchell-launch-postcard-campaign-to-proclaim-his-innocence-86908-23646465/

Good grief, he sure gets around  :o

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 27, 2011, 03:38:PM
he certainly does
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 19, 2012, 05:07:PM
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/jodi_s_killer_to_present_new_evidence_for_fresh_appeal_1_2065945
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 21, 2012, 05:05:PM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/01/19/jodi-jones-s-killer-luke-mitchell-to-launch-his-seventh-bid-for-freedom-86908-23706672/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on February 04, 2012, 10:18:PM
The above article has got it facts wrong  ::)

In fact this whole thread is littered with inaccuracies  ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: littlepieces on February 05, 2012, 10:12:PM
Although English i know the area well as my ex wife is from Pathhead.There is just to much doubt about this case and it disturbs me.Again dodgy police are involved and I say this with a brother who served in the met for 30 years
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 18, 2012, 04:41:PM
http://www.midlothianadvertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/da_vinci_code_rapist_linked_to_jodi_jones_murder_1_2116095
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 26, 2012, 06:48:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/mail-sunday-26022012/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on February 26, 2012, 07:29:PM
This is good news for the campaign for Luke Mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 26, 2012, 09:50:PM
very good news.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on February 26, 2012, 11:22:PM
Such a big deal was made of Corinne Mitchell supposedly lying and helping her son dispose of evidence. Perverting the course of justice, perjury? Kind of blows a hole in that really :o
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 26, 2012, 11:23:PM
yes it certainly blows a hole in it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 27, 2012, 12:43:AM
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4156144/Killer-Luke-Mitchell-Let-me-take-lie-detector-test.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on February 28, 2012, 12:01:AM
Was this tester not the same guy to give Jeremy Bamber his lie detector test many moons ago?

It is of no suprise that Corrine Mitchell passed the test with flying colours.  She has not been the one that has been lying for years.

Her son is in prison because the jury believed she had lied.

She has now proven she was telling the truth from the start in that she did not burn or dispose of any clothes or the murder weapon, that she did not give a false alibi and that she did not lie under oath.  All of which the prosecution convinced the jury that she had lied about.

Although this positive result will not help to have her son released  :(  it raises many questions and doubts about those who were prosecution witnesses, especially the search party.

It is of no suprise that Luke wants the chance to prove his innocence by taking the test too.

Both Luke and Corrine have waited for this opportunity for years.

It must have been a nerve wracking experience, something I would dread to have to do, she was very brave.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2012, 12:16:AM
i wonder who else will be willing to take one in relation to this case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on February 28, 2012, 12:37:AM
So does that mean that both Corrine and Jeremy are narcissistic psychopaths?  Both passing a lie detector test?    ;)

Quote
·         Did you shoot your family on August 7th 1985? – No

·         Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? No

·         Were you present inside the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? – No

·         Did you shoot your father Neville? – No

·         Did you shoot your mother June? – No

·         Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? – No

·         Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? – No

·         Did you climb out of a window of your parent’s home after shooting your family? – No

·         Did you shoot your family in your father’s home? – No

·         Did PC Bews radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings? – Yes

·         Did you pay a professional hit man to shoot your family? – No

http://www.lafayettepolygraph.com/product_list.asp?subcatid=41

This is the equipment used on Bamber and above is their website.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on February 28, 2012, 12:40:AM
i wonder who else will be willing to take one in relation to this case.

I reckon anyone that is confident in passing would speak up.

I wouldn't expect to hear from cocky Kelly, Falconer, Ferris, Dickie, or AW, JAJ.

Nunnug, what do you make of all those discarded items of clothing being found near the crime scene?

2 different hoodies and joggies.  :-\

Everytime I think of those hoodies, I think of that half naked picture of GD, as it looks to me if the picture is taken outside, in the dark.  Not that I'm saying it is his hoody, but there is just something about that picture that gives me the creeps.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on February 28, 2012, 12:53:AM
Ha Rochford, you stole his thunder.  That is what I was waiting for him to spew out next.  It was only a matter of time before he came out with that one as he has called Corrine everything else under the sun.  She is a strong woman, something he wasnt able to handle, he likes his victims to be weaklings so that it is easier to grind them down.  Sad, pathetic man.  He hasnt even got his numerous usernames to keep himself company on his festered forum now it has been suspended.   ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2012, 01:00:PM
I reckon anyone that is confident in passing would speak up.

I wouldn't expect to hear from cocky Kelly, Falconer, Ferris, Dickie, or AW, JAJ.

Nunnug, what do you make of all those discarded items of clothing being found near the crime scene?

2 different hoodies and joggies.  :-\

Everytime I think of those hoodies, I think of that half naked picture of GD, as it looks to me if the picture is taken outside, in the dark.  Not that I'm saying it is his hoody, but there is just something about that picture that gives me the creeps.

they may have nothing to do with ther murder when i used to walk my dog in various differnt woods i used to come across dscarded clothing all the time.

very rarely hoodys though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on February 28, 2012, 01:05:PM
Ha Rochford, you stole his thunder.  That is what I was waiting for him to spew out next.  It was only a matter of time before he came out with that one as he has called Corrine everything else under the sun.  She is a strong woman, something he wasnt able to handle, he likes his victims to be weaklings so that it is easier to grind them down.  Sad, pathetic man.  He hasnt even got his numerous usernames to keep himself company on his festered forum now it has been suspended.   ;D

Yes, surely not everyone who passes these tests is a 'narcissistic psychopath'?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2012, 03:15:PM
catch 22 really if you fail one your lying if you pass one your a narcasitic pschopath.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on February 29, 2012, 04:23:PM
hes guilty guilty guilty and guilty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on March 04, 2012, 01:28:AM
hes guilty guilty guilty and guilty.

yes but Luke Mitchell is innocent  :P

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 04, 2012, 05:46:PM
http://www.midlothianadvertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/mother_of_jodi_jones_killer_luke_mitchell_takes_polygraph_test_1_2146255
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Tracy.Jayne on April 29, 2012, 04:06:PM
Innocent!!!!
Scottish Mail on Sunday... headline

LIE DETECTOR CLEARS MITCHELL

"Luke Mitchell is not guiilty of murdering Jodi Jones according to the sensational results of a lie detector test."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 29, 2012, 04:18:PM
Tracey Jane Well done another success from Scotland on the polygraph test I have been banging on about Joseph Steele who was cleared of murdering 6 people on the results of a polygraph test he had served 17 years.  It is mentioned on Jeremy,s official web site can the non believers of the polygraph test give some impact into the two posts thank you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Tracy.Jayne on April 29, 2012, 04:38:PM
Tracey Jane Well done another success from Scotland on the polygraph test I have been banging on about Joseph Steele who was cleared of murdering 6 people on the results of a polygraph test he had served 17 years.  It is mentioned on Jeremy,s official web site can the non believers of the polygraph test give some impact into the two posts thank you.
we get the response of people saying how easy it is for a psycopath to fool the test....But the non believers are more than happy to celebrate Adrain Prout failing his ....Brainless hypocrites, although it is not admissable in a court of law they've been trialling them in English prisons to check if sex offenders are safe to be released....And also what are the odds of both Luke and his mom passing the test? Big risk to take I'd say   .. x
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on April 29, 2012, 04:42:PM
we get the response of people saying how easy it is for a psycopath to fool the test....But the non believers are more than happy to celebrate Adrain Prout failing his ....Brainless hypocrites, although it is not admissable in a court of law they've been trialling them in English prisons to check if sex offenders are safe to be released....And also what are the odds of both Luke and his mom passing the test? Big risk to take I'd say    .. x

That is a very fair point Tracy.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 29, 2012, 04:45:PM
Tracey Jayne  It is so good to have somebody agree with me on the polygraph I know they use them in Scotland re. sex offenders in America they are admissible in Court as 100percent reliable but all the people on this forum who say polygraph tests are unreliable will not comment on the Joseph Steele case and now we have the Jodi Jones.  I put it to the non believers to accept our views and challenge them with some positive response about the above two cases.  After all if they have no credence why bother with them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Tracy.Jayne on April 29, 2012, 04:50:PM
Tracey Jayne  It is so good to have somebody agree with me on the polygraph I know they use them in Scotland re. sex offenders in America they are admissible in Court as 100percent reliable but all the people on this forum who say polygraph tests are unreliable will not comment on the Joseph Steele case and now we have the Jodi Jones.  I put it to the non believers to accept our views and challenge them with some positive response about the above two cases.  After all if they have no credence why bother with them.
Could you possibly send me a link to the Joseph Steele case Susan? I would be interested to read about it.
 Thank you
 TJ xx
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on April 29, 2012, 04:52:PM
It's another sock in the eye for Blunderton and his so called Justice_Forum.  If Blunderton came down on the same side as me, I would see that as an indication that it was time to jump ship and join Vic, Mat & Hartley. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 29, 2012, 04:57:PM
Tracey Jayne  I have had people on this forum saying how easy it is to cheat the polygraph test especially if you are a psychopath like Jeremy. Jeremy has had 27 different assessments and has not got any psychotic tendencies  other people have said but you only have to answer No and it is so much easier as the test was taken so long after the murders.  Jeremy has been asking for a polygraph test since shortly after he was committed finally got one I think it was 2002.  As I have said he had failed the test people would have said I told you he was guilty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 29, 2012, 05:00:PM
Rochford  so sorry I don,t understand your post could you explain.  I apologise for my ignorance.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Tracy.Jayne on April 29, 2012, 05:01:PM
Tracey Jayne  I have had people on this forum saying how easy it is to cheat the polygraph test especially if you are a psychopath like Jeremy. Jeremy has had 27 different assessments and has not got any psychotic tendencies  other people have said but you only have to answer No and it is so much easier as the test was taken so long after the murders.  Jeremy has been asking for a polygraph test since shortly after he was committed finally got one I think it was 2002.  As I have said he had failed the test people would have said I told you he was guilty.
well it's been 9 years for Luke and his mother come to that, So Id just say poppycock to all the doubters (who probably watch Jeremy Kyle every day and get quite excited by it all ) :D x
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 29, 2012, 05:06:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media/?sa=item;in=87
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 29, 2012, 05:10:PM
Tracey Jayne  so sorry I don,t have a thread but I just read about part of it on the Jeremy Bamber Official  Web Site.  Joseph Steele and another guy were involved in the Ice Cream Wars in Glasgow they were accused of setting fire to a house with 6 people inside one an 18 month old baby .  He always protested his innocence and at one stage escaped from prison and chained himself to the railings of Buckingham Palace (not suggesting Jeremy do that).  He had two failed appeals and after being imprisoned for 17 years he was released on the results of a polygraph test by the Secretary of State for Scotland.  If you Google Joseph Steele Glasgows Ice Cream Wars you will get the story up.  Hope this helps.  By the way the six people died in the fire not sure if the other guy is still in prison.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on April 29, 2012, 05:11:PM
Rochford  so sorry I don,t understand your post could you explain.  I apologise for my ignorance.

Susan, thank you for asking.  What I meant was that in my opinion, John is a dab hand at calling things incorrectly.  He also tends to give his 'expert' opinion on these cases.  His expertise knows no bounds and I suspect he holds many doctorates.  Nevertheless given his track record, had he been supportive of Jeremy Bamber, I would have to seriously consider my own position on the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Tracy.Jayne on April 29, 2012, 05:13:PM
Tracey Jayne  so sorry I don,t have a thread but I just read about part of it on the Jeremy Bamber Official  Web Site.  Joseph Steele and another guy were involved in the Ice Cream Wars in Glasgow they were accused of setting fire to a house with 6 people inside one an 18 month old baby .  He always protested his innocence and at one stage escaped from prison and chained himself to the railings of Buckingham Palace (not suggesting Jeremy do that).  He had two failed appeals and after being imprisoned for 17 years he was released on the results of a polygraph test by the Secretary of State for Scotland.  If you Google Joseph Steele Glasgows Ice Cream Wars you will get the story up.  Hope this helps.  By the way the six people died in the fire not sure if the other guy is still in prison.
Thank you Susan will read up on this tomorrow when my house is quiet  :o
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 29, 2012, 05:22:PM
Rochford  sorry I must be lacking in brain cells as I don,t know who John is and is he related to the Jodi Jones case I had not heard of this case until Tracey Jayne brought it to my attention.  Please be patient with me and explain it is the only way I will learn.  Many thanks.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 29, 2012, 05:27:PM
hes the prat posting at the beginning of the thread.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on April 29, 2012, 05:42:PM
Tracey Jayne  I have had people on this forum saying how easy it is to cheat the polygraph test especially if you are a psychopath like Jeremy. Jeremy has had 27 different assessments and has not got any psychotic tendencies  other people have said but you only have to answer No and it is so much easier as the test was taken so long after the murders.  Jeremy has been asking for a polygraph test since shortly after he was committed finally got one I think it was 2002.  As I have said he had failed the test people would have said I told you he was guilty.
Susan, I reckon that should print out at the top of every thread on the forum, I have been banging on about the Psychiatric/psychological tests and you about the polyogram endlessly. I think I say it in my sleep!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 29, 2012, 06:08:PM
Hi Maggie  I am the same and nobody takes the slightest bit of notice of us   Patti does but she has gone out on her canoe hope she gets back.  I am suffering from sun burn but I have laid down a challenge to the people who just dismiss polygraph testing but as yet no takers. I take notice of you Maggie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on April 29, 2012, 06:20:PM
Rochford  sorry I must be lacking in brain cells as I don,t know who John is and is he related to the Jodi Jones case I had not heard of this case until Tracey Jayne brought it to my attention.  Please be patient with me and explain it is the only way I will learn.  Many thanks.

Susan, John claims to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice.  He is intererested in other potential miscarriages of justice, some of which he supports and some of which he does not.  His main interest is to troll on the internet and in doing so, press as many buttons as he can, regarding supporters of the cases that he does not support him self.  He has had a forum closed down but now has another forum, with a twitter link, from which he attacks the likes of Simon McKay and Mark Williams-Thomas.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on April 29, 2012, 06:22:PM
Hi Maggie  I am the same and nobody takes the slightest bit of notice of us   Patti does but she has gone out on her canoe hope she gets back.  I am suffering from sun burn but I have laid down a challenge to the people who just dismiss polygraph testing but as yet no takers. I take notice of you Maggie.
I take.notice of you Susie.!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 29, 2012, 06:23:PM
Rochford  many many thanks for that he is a man to avoid then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 30, 2012, 12:27:AM
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/317229
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 30, 2012, 07:44:PM
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/mitchell-lie-test-can-t-be-used-in-court-1-2265342
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 30, 2012, 07:57:PM
nugnug  A polygraph test can be accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has the power to overturn the conviction and that is what he did with Joseph Steele it was not an actual Court of Law.  The Jodi Jones case I knew nothing about it till Tracey Jayne brought to my attention yesterday thanks for the thread.  I see it was Terry Mullins who carried out the test the same guy who carried out Jeremy,s test
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on April 30, 2012, 08:03:PM
nugnug  A polygraph test can be accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has the power to overturn the conviction and that is what he did with Joseph Steele it was not an actual Court of Law.  The Jodi Jones case I knew nothing about it till Tracey Jayne brought to my attention yesterday thanks for the thread.  I see it was Terry Mullins who carried out the test the same guy who carried out Jeremy,s test

Mwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa   ;) :) :D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on April 30, 2012, 08:14:PM
nugnug  A polygraph test can be accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has the power to overturn the conviction and that is what he did with Joseph Steele it was not an actual Court of Law.  The Jodi Jones case I knew nothing about it till Tracey Jayne brought to my attention yesterday thanks for the thread.  I see it was Terry Mullins who carried out the test the same guy who carried out Jeremy,s test
Susan I am acknowledging your post about the polygraph test.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 06, 2012, 03:27:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/files/2012/05/mail-on-sunday-06-05-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 07, 2012, 05:36:PM
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/crime-courts/mitchell-tells-of-night-he-found-girlfriend-jodi-dead.17517747
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: indeed on May 13, 2012, 04:45:AM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx... she caught them up to no good and they silenced her.

Indeed, 

Your post has been mod'd because the forum does not permit the potentially libelous naming of persons who members suspect to be murderers. If you have evidence of your allegation, this should be given to the police.

Also, new members are required to introduce themselves before posting to the main forum. Please do so before posting again. Thank you.

Mod'd by Keira
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: indeed on May 13, 2012, 05:08:AM


Everytime I think of those hoodies, I think of that half naked picture of GD, as it looks to me if the picture is taken outside, in the dark.  Not that I'm saying it is his hoody, but there is just something about that picture that gives me the creeps.

(http://i.imgur.com/mHSFL.jpg)

cant be taken outside, hes clearly looking in a mirror and taking a picture of his own reflection with his camera phone.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: indeed on May 13, 2012, 04:03:PM
Your post has been mod'd because the forum does not permit the potentially libelous naming of persons who members suspect to be murderers. If you have evidence of your allegation, this should be given to the police.

they arent interested, the 2 i mentioned even gave evidence against mitchell and the police dropped an unrelated charge one was facing for disfigurement for pointing the finger at luke, mitchells defense lawyer cross examined the pair in the dock and they have also been questioned, answers such as "dont know" and "cant remember" have been accepted because the police already decided they had their man
their moped was spotted propped against the wall jodis body was found behind round about the suspected time of the murder, they scrapped this moped the following day, one boy cut off his hair on the night of the murder and stuffed a pair of water soaked gloves with condoms hidden inside down the back of a relatives radiator, they didnt go to the police to say they had been in the area until a week later after the police appealed for to the 2 boys spotted on the moped to come forward, both of these boys new jodi, they were suposed to meet jodis brother that night for a smoke but something made them change their mind and not turn up. they also originally lied to the police about what time they were on the path until it was proved incorrect, they were about an hour off. the boys dealed drugs in the area jodi was murdered and even admitted in court mitchell still owed them money for drugs

all of these aspects for which their are no innocent explanation i can think of, build a far stronger case against them than the one against mitchell
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 14, 2012, 11:50:AM
(http://i.imgur.com/mHSFL.jpg)

cant be taken outside, hes clearly looking in a mirror and taking a picture of his own reflection with his camera phone.

Your probably right, but the pic still gives me the heebygeebies.  This is one of the guys that was on the moped, which was witnessed at the v in the wall, at approx time of death.  With his previous, had the investigation focussed on him, it could have been him that became a miscarriage of justice, instead of Luke Mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 23, 2012, 11:18:PM
It would seem that since Luke and his mother both passed the polygraph test that the press have started to print out articles which are honest and fair.  I for one, am pleased to see this turnaround as for years it was sensationalism at its worst.

I look forward to more and more facts of the case being highlighted in the press, and reaching a far wider audience. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on June 07, 2012, 01:16:AM
whats all this rubbish about lie detectors and dna the daily record said luke Mitchell was guilty that's good enough for me that should be good enough for any sane normal person.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 03:56:AM
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 07, 2012, 07:21:AM
Wow the parrot talks during the night as well :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 12:20:PM
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.

he fought to take the test and past that says alot to me his mum past a lie detector as well and shes his albi

it would be hard for both of them to pass it if they were lying or are they both deluded.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on June 07, 2012, 12:29:PM
he fought to take the test and past that says alot to me his mum past a lie detector as well and shes his albi

it would be hard for both of them to pass it if they were lying or are they both deluded.
That's true nugnug, unfortunately no one's listening.  A lie detector test can be dismissed as not proof in this country.  Psychological and psychiatric test results can be doubted and sneered at, where is the power?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 12:34:PM
funny though they use they youse same lie detector tests to dicide weather there going to relase dangrous sex offenders into the community if they really think there that untrustworthy they should stop using them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on June 07, 2012, 12:37:PM
funny though they use they youse same lie detector tests to dicide weather there going to relase dangrous sex offenders into the community if they really think there that untrustworthy they should stop using them.
Couldn't agree more nugnug.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 03:10:PM
i wonder if anyone else involved in the case would be willing to take the same lie detector test.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:36:PM
and why has it taken so many years for Luke to offer to take one? Funny it was only after his mum tested it that he felt confident enough to do it eh?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 05:40:PM
it was the first time they were offered they jumped at the chance to take it and they both passed i wonder who else involved in the case will except the challenge to take one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:41:PM
you say his mums his alibi, but on the frontline documentary when asked "have you ever asked luke if he killed jodi" she didnt once say "no because he was with me at the time" she answered "I didnt have to because a mother can just tell", it wouldn't be a case of motherly instinct helping you decide your son was innocent if you were with him at the time and knew for a fact it couldnt have been him, it wouldnt be left to motherly instinct to base ur opinion on. corinne messed up there. that was her chance to tell every one it couldnt have been him, luke was with her, nope she didnt mention it once.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:42:PM
it was the first time they were offered they jumped at the chance to take it and they both passed i wonder who else involved in the case will except the challenge to take one.

why should anyone else have to take one? they obviously all had an alibi. the police wanted to clear luke at the time but just couldnt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 05:43:PM
she did mention it in the lie detector test witch she passed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 05:44:PM
why should anyone else have to take one? they obviously all had an alibi. the police wanted to clear luke at the time but just couldnt.

most of them have no credible albi the police had luke down as there only suspect from day 1.

and were not intresteded any other suspects.

these other suspects keep whingeing about accused but they could stop that very easily be taking the test.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:45:PM
she did mention it in the lie detector test witch she passed.

like i said, do you know how polygraphs work, what kind of reactions detect dishonesty? one wouldnt experience these reactions if they were simply re-stating the same position they have for all these years.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:46:PM
most of them have no credible albi the police had luke down as there only suspect from day 1.

and were not intresteded any other suspects.

luke was a suspect from day 1? why did they interview 3000 people if they already had their man?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 05:51:PM
like i said, do you know how polygraphs work, what kind of reactions detect dishonesty? one wouldnt experience these reactions if they were simply re-stating the same position they have for all these years.

i know the chances of 2 people taking the test idependantly telling the same lies and passing the test are virtully non existent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:52:PM
i know the chances of 2 people taking the test idependantly telling the same lies and passing the test are virtully non existent.

how do you know that? can you post a link to any another example of 2 people saying the same lie for 9 years and not passing?

how do you know luke is innocent?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:53:PM
the mitchells pick n choose when it suits them, lie detectors arent taken seriously in law. funny when police showed their sky interview to the human lie detector in America that his opinion was completely rubbished, yet an unreliable machine is now gospel.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:55:PM
theres no doubt in my mind luke mitchell could beat a lie detector, he's proven to be a cold person, someone who shows no emotion finding a body, shows no emotion in hours of police interrogation, and doesnt even respond emotionally to being found guilty and sent down... why would he feel anything when lying to a machine?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 05:55:PM
well the presence other mens sperm and blood on the body for a start

the fact that the there not a single trace of fronsic evedence linking to the crime but plenty of fronsics linking other people.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:57:PM
well the presence other mens sperm and blood on the body for a start

the fact that the there not a single trace of fronsic evedence linking to the crime but plenty of fronsics linking other people.

the semen was her sisters boyfriend as she was wearing her sisters top. Blood? post your source please
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 05:58:PM
theres no doubt in my mind luke mitchell could beat a lie detector, he's proven to be a cold person, someone who shows no emotion finding a body, shows no emotion in hours of police interrogation, and doesnt even respond emotionally to being found guilty and sent down... why would he feel anything when lying to a machine?

he showed plenty of emotion when finding the body

and when being qustioned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 05:59:PM
how do you know that?

Wasnt Luke with her that day at school? they never hugged or made any contact? his DNA by all accounts should have been on her, and vice versa, yet it wasnt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:00:PM
the semen was her sisters boyfriend as she was wearing her sisters top. Blood? post your source please

thats not the only semon there and theres no evedence to back up the sisters boyfriends story about the t shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:01:PM
how do you know that?

Wasnt Luke with her that day at school? they never hugged or made any contact? his DNA by all accounts should have been on her, and vice versa, yet it wasnt.

so how does not haveing dna prove you guilty exactly..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:01:PM
thats not the only semon there and theres no evedence to back up the sisters boyfriends story about the t shirt.

so jodi's own sister is lyin to protect her boyfriend? jodis sister knew her boyfriend killed her little sister yet stayed with him and gave him an alibi? what planet are you lot on
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:02:PM
so how does not haveing dna prove you guilty exactly..


it doesnt, but not having your girlfriends dna on you after spending the day together at school is suspicious, almost like it was all washed off.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:03:PM
thats not the only semon there

so more than one person murdered jodi? they both ejaculated yet no signs of rape or sexual attack? still waiting on proof of the blood, never heard that before
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:04:PM
so jodi's own sister is lyin to protect her boyfriend? jodis sister knew her boyfriend killed her little sister yet stayed with him and gave him an alibi? what planet are you lot on

its happened many times before
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:05:PM
its happened many times before

he was spotted with jodi on one end of the path, then later alone at the opposite end, all the times fit in i afraid.  his own brother said he wasnt home at the time yet he was down stairs burning dinner?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:09:PM
he was never positively identified by anybody the officer in charge of the investigation admitted that.

im wondering you cliam to be supporting wullie gage but seem to show very little intrest you seem to be more intrested in this one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:10:PM
he was never positively identified by anybody the officer in charge of the investigation admitted that.

so who was it then? why didnt they ever come forward? he was identified by a witness and she was a witness at the trial.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:12:PM
at the trail she couldent point to him even though he was standing right in the dock.

hardly  a  postive id.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:14:PM
at the trail she couldent point to him even though he was standing right in the dock.

hardly  postive id.


ofcourse not he looked totally different, between 14 and 16 is some of the biggest changes a boy will go through in life

time of the murder

(http://i.imgur.com/rMPNG.jpg)

trial

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/8/3/1249299405480/Luke-Mitchell-001.jpg)




it would have been less credible if she did say he was the same boy she saw, considering the time that had passed and change in appearance. she was just being honest, no reason to be anything other than honest why would she?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:15:PM
and whats willie gage got to do with this or my username? willie gage is innocent. i also post in the madeleine mccann case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:18:PM

ofcourse not he looked totally different, between 14 and 16 is some of the biggest changes a boy will go through in life

time of the murder

(http://i.imgur.com/rMPNG.jpg)

trial

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/8/3/1249299405480/Luke-Mitchell-001.jpg)




it would have been less credible if she did say he was the same boy she saw, considering the time that had passed and change in appearance. she was just being honest, no reason to be anything other than honest why would she?

the fact is she couldn'tto point him

she couldent say positively it was him she saw.

dispite the fact his face was all over tewspapers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:19:PM
the fact is she couldn't point him

she could say positively it was him she saw.


she couldnt point him because she was being honest in court, he did not look the same, why would she originally lie about seeing him only to change her mind when she got to court?

can you admit you dont actually have a clue weather luke is innocent or guilty?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:20:PM
im postive that inocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:21:PM
im postive that inocent.

how can you be sure? im interested in seeing your proof
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:23:PM
i dont have to justify my opionions to you ive have allready stated why im sure his innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 07, 2012, 06:24:PM
FreeWillyGage  not followed this case very much and I am trying to decide after reading the posts between you and nugnug whether you think Luke is guilty or what.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:25:PM
i dont have to justify my opionions to you ive have allready stated why im sure his innocent.

ah so its just an opinion so i was right when i said you dont have a clue weather he did it or not

susan lukes guilty as far as im concerned
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:28:PM
may he reffere you to this its contians the fronsic reports.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/other-suspects/suspects-and-dna/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:28:PM
good attitude nugnug for someone trying to defend luke, whenever someone asks why he's innocent "I dont have to justify myself to you"

jeezo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:29:PM
may he reffere you to this its contians the fronsic reports.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/other-suspects/suspects-and-dna/


so 10 different people killed Jodi?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:30:PM
ah so its just an opinion so i was right when i said you dont have a clue weather he did it or not

susan lukes guilty as far as im concerned

what part of im postive that his innocent do you fail to understand.

you clearly have no intrest in freeing wullie gage at all do you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:31:PM
what part of im postive that his innocent do you fail to understand.

you clearly have no intrest in freeing wullie gage at all do you.


its not in my power to free anybody.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:32:PM

so 10 different people killed Jodi?

 it put that there becouse it contians the refrences to the blood and the sperm.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 07, 2012, 06:33:PM
Hi FreeWillyGage  I will have a read up and see whats what.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:36:PM
it put that there becouse it contians the refrences to the blood and the sperm.

why has luke failed so many appeals?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:37:PM
the same reson wullie gage does the same reason all the cases mentioned on here do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 06:39:PM
the same reson wullie gage does the same reason all the cases mentioned on here do.

willie gage supporters dont claim to have a catalogue of information to clear his name im afraid. the mitchells have blamed everyone under the sun including every male member of jodi's immediate family and more.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 06:41:PM
well thse people could take a lie detector test to prove them wrong and they could always sue.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:01:PM
well thse people could take a lie detector test to prove them wrong and they could always sue.

and what kind of questions would you like to be put to the Jones family? funny how afew inconsistancies by the Jones family during a traumatic time in their life gets pounced on by the Mitchell camp yet when Shane completely forgets his brother was home and burnt his dinner that evening while he was masturbating in his bedroom, it was no big deal and just an honest mistake.

So let me get this straight, Jodi was supposed to meet Luke and never showed, so he just went on with his night, went out with his mates, went home and watched a video, and not once wondered where Jodi was or why she never showed up or hasnt contacted him to let him know? doesnt sound right.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:06:PM
oh thers a few questions i would love to ask maybe i could make a list

when i was the same age as luke if girlfriends dident show i thought nothing it merly thought i had been stood up hardly an unusall occurrence.

at the end of the day the mitchells have a certifcate to back up there story the jones have not though they could easly get one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:07:PM
oh thers a few questions i would love to ask maybe i could make a list

when i was the same age as luke if girlfriends dident show i thought nothing it merly thought i had been stood up hardly an unusall occurrence.

you wouldnt phoning them wondering what happened?

i'd be interested in seeing that list

and didnt jodi's step dad or whoever tell luke on the phone "she already left to meet you" yet he told police he just assumed she no showed due to possibly being grounded


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:10:PM
luke did phone back ounce to be told she wasn't there why would he phone when the family had told him she wasnt in it would make no sense.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:12:PM
luke did phone back ounce to be told she wasn't there why would he phone when the family had told him she wasnt in it would make no sense.

im talking about later that night after hed been out with his mates, he went home and put on a video, surely he would suspect jodi would also be home from wherever she was and this would be the perfect time to call and see what was going on? youre not willing to admit there is nothing strange about that?


judging by his recent letter published in a paper, he and Jodi were inseperable and in love, yet he had no concerns? when i had girlfriends at 14 texts were constant.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:16:PM
no im not there abslutly nothing strange about it all he would be seeing her the next day at school anyway.

it would of been to late for them to do anything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:18:PM
no im not there abslutly nothing strange about it all he would be seeing her the next day at school anyway.

it would of been to late for them to do anything.

so its not strange that they were apparently so close and in love, for him to wonder where she was or who she was with? who she stood him up for?

at the very least, you'd expect a good night call or text between the young couple, no?

why did Luke tell his mate jodi wont be coming out tonight, even tho he apparently was expecting her and told his mum  to tell her where to find him if she turned up at the house?

why didnt he head down the path if he was expecting her to show at the house?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:22:PM
and that makes him guilty of murder does it becouse he forgot to phone his girlfiend who he would talk to the next day anyway by the same logic you could lock  half the population up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:25:PM
and that makes him guilty of murder does it becouse he forgot to phone his girlfiend who he would talk to the next day anyway by the same logic you could lock half the population up.

no that alone doesnt make him guilty of murder, it makes his actions on the night of the murder regarding hte victim suspicious though. either that or he was lying in that letter about how close he and Jodi were, in that case, ask urself why he would lie about that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:30:PM
him and his mum are the only people in this case who have a certificate to prove they dident lie
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:32:PM
no they don't, no one takes those tests seriously other than chavs on the jeremy kyle show.
Don't you know that guilty killers have passed lie detectors before then been proven to have been lying?

Lukes tracker dog found the body apparently, yet luke and the dog would have had to have passed the body and the same v break in the wall on the way up the path yet he didnt alert him of anything then? only on the way back down? this is proof it was Luke who found the body and not the dog, and this means Luke wanted to lead the family to the body as he wanted to witness their distress and reaction to his 'work'. truly evil.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:35:PM
there taken very soriously by the probation service they use them to decied weather to relase sex offenders.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:37:PM
no they don't, no one takes those tests seriously other than chavs on the jeremy kyle show.
Don't you know that guilty killers have passed lie detectors before then been proven to have been lying?

Lukes tracker dog found the body apparently, yet luke and the dog would have had to have passed the body and the same v break in the wall on the way up the path yet he didnt alert him of anything then? only on the way back down? this is proof it was Luke who found the body and not the dog, and this means Luke wanted to lead the family to the body as he wanted to witness their distress and reaction to his 'work'. truly evil.


a dog found sarah pians body a dog finds bodys that are concealed in the woods thats what dogs do.

would anybody suggest that the dog walker who found sarah pains body was involved hin her murder,
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:38:PM

a dog found sarah pians body a dog finds bodys that are concealed in the woods thats what dogs do.

exactly so why didnt it find the body on the way up the very same path? it would have to have walked right by it, why didnt it smell the body at that point? isn't that "what dogs do"? can you explain that?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:44:PM
a dog finds the body in most murder cases you read about it the papers all the time a man walking his dog found the body
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:45:PM
a dog finds the body in most murder cases you read about it the papers all the time a man walking his dog found the body

im aware of this, cant you read? i'm asking why the dog didnt find the body on the way up the path, it would have to have passed to body on the way to meet jodis family

im sure you can understand my question though and are choosing to avoid it because there is no innocent explanation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:46:PM
exactly so why didnt it find the body on the way up the very same path? it would have to have walked right by it, why didnt it smell the body at that point? isn't that "what dogs do"? can you explain that?

probably because he relaxed his grip on the lead the rest of the search backed up his story about the dog.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:49:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:49:PM
probably because he relaxed his grip on the lead the rest of the search backed up his story about the dog.

im not doubting the dog 'found' the body, i would expect a dog to smell a dead body/blood. What i want to know is why it didnt smell it passing it on the way up. (im guessing it probably did, why then didnt luke go over the wall then? he probably just tugged at the dog to keep coming... he didnt want to find the body at this time, he wanted to find it with the family to appear innocent)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:51:PM
are you saying he could control his dogs sense of smell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 07:56:PM
are you saying he could control his dogs sense of smell.

what are you talking about

i dont doubt the dog smelled the body, i just presume for it to have done this, it would have had to have smelled it also on the way up the path, why didnt luke and mia discover the body then?

luke wanted to find the body with the search party to appear innocent and perhaps for his own twisted thrills
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 07:58:PM
no killer would want the body to found or be anywhere near the body when it was found.

if hes storys not true how come the rest of search party backed it up.

on the way back down the path probably had more time to pick up the sent

on the way back down the path luke had also given it a command to seek and being a trcker dog it would of done.

h
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 07, 2012, 08:01:PM
no killer would want the body to found or be anywhere near the body when it was found.

if hes storys not true how come the rest of search party backed it up.

h

im not saying his stories not true about the dog finding the body on the way back down the path

i want to know why it didnt find the body on the way up the path?

it must have walked right past the exact same spot. No one was there other than the dog and luke on the way up, its consistant with the dog smelling the body on the way down, that the dog must have alerted luke to the body on the way up also, so why didnt luke discover it on the way up?



can i ask if anyone else on here believes luke to be guilty
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 07, 2012, 08:07:PM
probably because he wasnt in charge of the search party jodis grandmother was and he was following them and pulling the dog along till jodis grandmother decided to search the path agian.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lonny on June 08, 2012, 02:04:PM
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.

Please post the evidence for this
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 08, 2012, 02:54:PM
I would like to see this evidence too
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 08, 2012, 02:55:PM
im not saying his stories not true about the dog finding the body on the way back down the path

i want to know why it didnt find the body on the way up the path?

it must have walked right past the exact same spot. No one was there other than the dog and luke on the way up, its consistant with the dog smelling the body on the way down, that the dog must have alerted luke to the body on the way up also, so why didnt luke discover it on the way up?



can i ask if anyone else on here believes luke to be guilty

I used to think he was guilty now I do not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on June 08, 2012, 03:15:PM
I believe Luke had a call from Jodi's mum that it was arranged that he make his way to her house by going up the same route he felt Jodi would have came down should she have been on her way at some point to his house. This was not a casual stroll with the dog, this was someone who had if you like an appointment and a place to be and was worried that Jodi had not been seen at all since she left the house before 5pm.

It would not be natural for Luke let alone any 14 year old to be going through any breaks in walls on a secluded path in darkness on his own, even if the dog had alerted him to some form of smell. FWG put it that the dog would have scented Jodi but then follows on with the lack of DNA of both people on each other after having spent the day with each other. Is it possible then that the dog would have scented Jodi off Luke? and therefore until the dog was asked to find Jodi it would have followed the course of its handler no matter what it scented on the way up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on June 08, 2012, 03:19:PM
im not doubting the dog 'found' the body, i would expect a dog to smell a dead body/blood. What i want to know is why it didnt smell it passing it on the way up. (im guessing it probably did, why then didnt luke go over the wall then? he probably just tugged at the dog to keep coming... he didnt want to find the body at this time, he wanted to find it with the family to appear innocent)

I also find this rather misleading as it was not Luke in control of the search party,he could not have known that they would have went back down the path he had just came up, I have heard that it was Jodi's gran who suggested they go back the way he came, this idea that he could of and didn't so brilliantly carry out a plan when so many variables were outwith his control amazes me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 08, 2012, 03:20:PM
well it was tracker dog so it would tend to sniff on comand

pluss what it could do depend on how he was holding the lead.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 08, 2012, 03:21:PM
I also find this rather misleading as it was not Luke in control of the search party,he could not have known that they would have went back down the path he had just came up, I have heard that it was Jodi's gran who suggested they go back the way he came, this idea that he could of and didn't so brilliantly carry out a plan when so many variables were outwith his control amazes me.

your right it was gran in charge of the search party.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 08, 2012, 03:24:PM
can I ask why someone claiming to support one alleged moj is attacking another alleged moj ? something is not ringing true here


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 08, 2012, 03:27:PM
yes thats what i thought janet.

see the thread here that might explian a few things.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2815.15.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on June 08, 2012, 03:31:PM
the mitchells pick n choose when it suits them, lie detectors arent taken seriously in law. funny when police showed their sky interview to the human lie detector in America that his opinion was completely rubbished, yet an unreliable machine is now gospel.

We know that Lie detector tests are not permissible in court but they are of no less and on a personal level more  important than mere circumstantial evidence. Luke's was convicted on nothing more than the weight of circumstantial evidence that seems to be turning full circle when we take into account these lie detector case's.

When you say FWG that the Mitchells seem to rubbish the human lie detector that was Prof Eckman then he did a very good job of that himself when he stated while a consultant on a film set of his profession that he could not tell if Luke Mitchell was lying, he felt that Luke had had so much contempt for the police that he just couldn't tell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 08, 2012, 03:38:PM
Hi Janet  please excuse my ignorance but I am now becoming interested in this case could you just explain what you meant by your post as I said I know very little about it and cannot decide who thinks what.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 08, 2012, 04:08:PM
Hi Janet  please excuse my ignorance but I am now becoming interested in this case could you just explain what you meant by your post as I said I know very little about it and cannot decide who thinks what.

Do you mean the comment I made re the freewillie person attacking the mitchell case?

If so what I meant is this free willie person posted a thread about this Gage guy and then instead of concentrating on telling people more about the case  which is an alleged moj while using a freewillie user name he/she then begins to attack the mitchell case which is also another alleged moj. I find that odd that someone in the same boat would do this and it looks like someone is out to cause trouble for some reason known only to them.

If freewillie wants to let us know about the case then why can't he/she answer anything?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 08, 2012, 05:00:PM
Hi Janet  I am becoming confused with the freewilly gage and nugnug as I have got to the stage I just don,t know who thinks what about either case think only the two of them are in tune I gather freewillygage thinks luke is guilty and nugnug thinks innocent freewullygage thinks willy gage is innocent and nugnug thinks guilty.  That is what I am picking up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 08, 2012, 06:31:PM
Hi Janet  I am becoming confused with the freewilly gage and nugnug as I have got to the stage I just don,t know who thinks what about either case think only the two of them are in tune I gather freewillygage thinks luke is guilty and nugnug thinks innocent freewullygage thinks willy gage is innocent and nugnug thinks guilty.  That is what I am picking up.

I think I have worked it out Susan. FreeWillie might think gage is innocent but they don't really care either way. i think FreeWillie is just a cover. Someone might have run out of user names.   nugnug thinks both gage and mitchell are innocent. FreeWillie thinks mitchell is guilty and instead of talking about the case Freewillie posted Freewillie wants to discuss the mitchell case in a nasty way. You keeping up now?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 08, 2012, 06:41:PM
I chose this username as I lurked this forum and was surprised there was no William Gage thread... I am not being nasty just realistic.

There is absolutely no proof Luke is innocent I'm afraid. That's the problem with Mitchell supporters, they don't actually know if he's innocent. Sandra Lean doesn't really know if Luke did it or not. They've just all decided their opinion is fact. No matter how many times you repeat the same things though it won't make it fact, he can't prove he's innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 08, 2012, 06:44:PM
I chose this username as I lurked this forum and was surprised there was no William Gage thread... I am not being nasty just realistic.

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

There is enough reasonable doubt to get at least a retrial for Mitchell. No one needs to prove his innocence on forums it is enough to show that there is evidence that he might indeed be innocent. The court is the place to prove innocence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 08, 2012, 06:46:PM
There is enough reasonable doubt to get at least a retrial for Mitchell. No one needs to prove his innocence on forums it is enough to show that there is evidence that he might indeed be innocence. The court is the place to prove innocence.

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

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

my problem with Lukes supporters is that they refuse to admit there is even a slight chance he could have done it, they are all in denial. It's very possible he done it yet nugnug even in this thread states his opinion as fact that Luke is innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 08, 2012, 06:48:PM
can I ask why someone claiming to support one alleged moj is attacking another alleged moj ? something is not ringing true here

I dont believe this case to be a MOJ... So in order for me to believe Gage is innocent I too must believe Mitchell is? what kind of logic is that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 08, 2012, 06:51:PM
I dont believe this case to be a MOJ... So in order for me to believe Gage is innocent I too must believe Mitchell is? what kind of logic is that.

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

There is not one case on this forum that anyone can say for 100 per cent that someone is innocent.
The only people to really know if they are innocent or not are the people convicted.  But people can debate all the differing evidence and make up their own minds what they think about a case. That is called an opinion and not a fact. And that is all each of us really have on here to offer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 08, 2012, 06:53:PM
Hi Janet  thanks for that I know now what is happening freewilly gage came on the forum supporting willygage who I feel is innocent and was set up.  He has got involved with nugnug over Luke Mitchell and gone off track on what he came to do.  I have not read enough about Luke,s case to consider one way or another.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 08, 2012, 06:53:PM
you dont have to believe anyone is innocent but if you are promoting a case with the belief someone may be innocent, it does not seem good form to be nasty about someone else claiming innocence.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 08, 2012, 06:59:PM
I'm being nasty? show me any post ive made where im doing anything other than stating facts???

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

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



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

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

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

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 08, 2012, 07:05:PM
yea but i make it clear im only stating my opinion, by using words such as "perhaps"

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 08, 2012, 10:36:PM
heres the Facebook group.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/You-ARE-LUKE-Mitchell/286160341427261
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on June 08, 2012, 11:03:PM
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 09, 2012, 12:28:AM
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.

you could be right.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bloggs and son on June 09, 2012, 12:28:AM
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.
Well all I can say is that your view of the case surprised me for one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on June 09, 2012, 02:05:PM
well its a fact 90 out of 100 killers aer celtic supporters i know that donald findley told me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 09, 2012, 02:19:PM
only ten per cent are Rangers supporters wichfinder? Do you have any documentation to support this
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 09, 2012, 02:51:PM
Janet take no notice of wichfinder is really a parrot who watches Celtic on the teli :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 09, 2012, 02:54:PM
Petty Polly is talking silly back in your cage now :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 09, 2012, 06:43:PM
heres another thread about the case witch covers lot about the case.

rather a long read though.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/12870/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 09, 2012, 08:35:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-relevant-maps/

relevant maps
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 10, 2012, 07:48:PM
Freewilliegage, I'm really disappointed as I thought you had registered on here to promote Willie's case.  You have posted more comments on this thread, (most of which are inaccurate and misleading) than what you have on the thread you started for Willie.   

People are showing an interest in Willie's case, between us all, we could get as much info as possible out into the public domain, and debate issues of concern that may arise.  Surely the most important thing in all of this is to get as much factual info out to a wider audience about the individual cases, so that readers can form their own views about whether a potential miscarriage of justice has occured.

I know a little about Willie Gage's case, but would be interested in learning more, so I would be grateful for any info you have, if you would post it on his thread to keep the discussion going.

I'm also a supporter of Luke Mitchell and think that he is innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones.  Can we all just get on with discussing the cases, regardless of what views we have?  It's the guys in prison who end up suffering when us on the outside all start bickering.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 10, 2012, 08:32:PM
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.

Who was he telling?  He had been excluded from school therefore kept away from his classmates, was arrested and placed in a secure unit away from friends and family, convicted and placed on protection.  In 2003 and after arrest when pleading his innocence he asked if he could do one and he was told he would never get the opportunity of doing a lie detector test.  That remained the case until 2012 when he was given the chance to do one if the prison agreed.  He was not informed of the opportunity of doing the lie detector until the prison gave their approval, and within a few days he was offered, he agreed, it was arranged and done, and passed. 

His mother had already done one weeks before.  As you know she passed too.  For years she had no one to tell either.  It is only really since the Luke Mitchell is innocent website was created, that his mother has been able to tell anyone anything.  People have different views on polygraphs, but if eye witness evidence and dna can be accepted in our courts, why not polygraph results? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 10, 2012, 10:25:PM
as i have said how many other people involved in the case will be willing to take one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 10, 2012, 11:07:PM
Sorry for the lengthy reply, but hopefully you will see where I'm coming from, as to why I said that your posts were inaccurate/misleading.  You are actually addressing nugnug with your questions, but I thought I would share with you what I know of the case, and also my opinion. 

you say his mums his alibi, but on the frontline documentary when asked "have you ever asked luke
if he killed jodi" she didnt once say "no because he was with me at the time" she answered "I
didnt have to because a mother can just tell", it wouldn't be a case of motherly instinct helping
you decide your son was innocent if you were with him at the time and knew for a fact it couldnt
have been him, it wouldnt be left to motherly instinct to base ur opinion on. corinne messed up there. that was her chance to tell every one it couldnt have been him, luke was with her, nope she didnt mention it once.

   
I see where you're coming from here, but how do we know she never mentioned in the interview at one point, that Luke was with her?.  The documentary was edited and I don't think we have any way of knowing what ended up not being aired.  Luke wasn't with her all of the evening.  I think it was stated that he left home at 5.30pm.  There  was no confirmed time of death.  I don't think that "corinne messed up" I think when she answered this question, "have you ever asked luke if he killed jodi" she answered honestly, covering times, even when she could not give him an alibi.

why should anyone else have to take one? they obviously all had an alibi. the police wanted to
clear luke at the time but just couldnt.

   
No one should have to take a lie detector test.  Two people who were witnesses against Luke were asked on the stand if they killed Jodi. They were each others alibi.  The police did not make contact with another potential suspect till 3 years after the murder, so it is not known if he had an alibi or not, another potential suspect was also not traced until 3 years after the murder, so it is also not known if he had an alibi either.  It is not obvious they all had an alibi, as it wasnt known at the time. Can you elaborate on the police wanting to clear Luke, but couldnt?

like i said, do you know how polygraphs work, what kind of reactions detect dishonesty? one
wouldnt experience these reactions if they were simply re-stating the same position they have for all these years.
   

Do you know what questions Luke Mitchell and his mother were asked during the polygraph?  The questions they were asked went far beyond asking if a pie was burnt and did they see each other at tea time and did she burn clothes in a log burner.

luke was a suspect from day 1? why did they interview 3000 people if they already had their man?
   
I am not aware of any other police suspect being interviewed.  Even after interviewing thousands of people there was still not one person who could place Luke Mitchell at or near the crime scene.  No witnesses and no evidence whatsoever.  Circumstantial claptrap was all they could come up with after all their months of investigating this murder.  All the manpower used and thousand upon thousands of pounds at their disposal, and not one piece of concrete evidence.

theres no doubt in my mind luke mitchell could beat a lie detector, he's proven to be a cold person, someone who shows no emotion finding a body, shows no emotion in hours of police interrogation, and doesnt even respond emotionally to being found guilty and sent down... why would he feel anything when lying to a machine?
   
You've got my interest. Can you tell me how and where it was proven that he is a cold person, who didnt show emotion when coming across the body, etc. If what you say is true then the witness statements from people who were there, and the police statement given must contain lies as they say different from what you state as fact.

it doesnt, but not having your girlfriends dna on you after spending the day together at school is
suspicious, almost like it was all washed off.

   
Washed off by Luke or the rain?  How could Luke or the rain possibly wash off his own dna from the clothes and naked body of Jodi, but leave the DNA of known and unknown persons on the clothes
and also on the naked body?  There was blood, semen, spermheads, hairs, saliva, found on the
clothes and body, none of which belonged to Luke Mitchell.

so more than one person murdered jodi? they both ejaculated yet no signs of rape or sexual attack?
still waiting on proof of the blood, never heard that before

   
I think that the fact there was semen/spermheads on the clothes, found on and in the body,
suggests that there could have been a sexual element to the murder.  I found the following link
very interesting when I was trying to make some sense of it all, due to the presence of
semen/sperm but no sign of recent sexual abuse http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/165/5/624.full.pdf

so who was it then? why didnt they ever come forward? he was identified by a witness and she was a witness at the trial.  ofcourse not he looked totally different, between 14 and 16 is some of the biggest changes a boy will go through in life.  she couldnt point him because she was being honest in court, he did not look the same, why would she originally lie about seeing him only to change her mind when she got to court?
   
No one positively identified Luke Mitchell, other than the boys on the bike who passed him, and knew him. You are referring to Andrina Bryson who was a witness at the trial.  She did not identify Luke in her statement or when he was in the dock.  She identified someone who may have been Jodi, although the description of the clothes worn were different to what Jodi was wearing when she was killed.  She only saw, a side view, or back view of the girl, she changed the story so I am not sure what view she did see, but her evidence was used as a sighting of Jodi, and if it were Jodi, then the male she was with must have been Luke, according to the crown. The person she described in her statement was nothing like what Luke Mitchell looked like when he was 14, 15 or 16.

so 10 different people killed Jodi?    

No.  But I believe that the DNA has to be revisited to find out who killed Jodi Jones, as the sperm must belong to someone, and as we already know it was not matched to the guy who is serving a lifer for the murder.

the mitchells have blamed everyone under the sun including every male member of jodi's immediate family and more.

I have never, not once, seen or heard of any member of the Mitchell family blame anyone, nevermind any of Jodi's family. Donald Finday asked Jodi's two cousins in the dock if they killed her, that was because they were near the crime scene when it was claimed she was murdered, disposed of the bike they were on, one of them cut their hair which changed his appearance, and they did not go forward to the police till nearly a week later, when an appeal on television was aired for them to come forward.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 10, 2012, 11:16:PM
im talking about later that night after hed been out with his mates, he went home and put on a video, surely he would suspect jodi would also be home from wherever she was and this would be the perfect time to call and see what was going on? youre not willing to admit there is nothing strange about that?


judging by his recent letter published in a paper, he and Jodi were inseperable and in love, yet he had no concerns? when i had girlfriends at 14 texts were constant.

The problem with this is that Jodi didn't have a mobile phone to recieve or send texts.  When Jodi text Luke after school she had used her mothers mobile phone to send it and Luke replied.  Later that evening it would not have been the done thing to call the landline late at night when there was school in the morning.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 10, 2012, 11:40:PM
what are you talking about

i dont doubt the dog smelled the body, i just presume for it to have done this, it would have had to have smelled it also on the way up the path, why didnt luke and mia discover the body then?

luke wanted to find the body with the search party to appear innocent and perhaps for his own twisted thrills

Perhaps Mia did scent the blood on the way up the path, it is possible.  When Luke left his mothers home he had arranged with Jodi's mother on the phone that he would head to her house, via the path.  He had Mia on the lead whilst walking the path, he also had a torch.  Before you get to the v in the wall you can see right up to the top off the path.  That is where Jodi's gran, sister and the sisters boyfriend were standing with their torches on, although he did not know at the time it was them.  If Mia reacted to anything, why would he stop to investigate, if it could have been Jodi at the top of the path with others.  He wouldnt have known till he more or less reached them exactly who it was.

Luke would have had no idea on his way up the path that the gran would insist on going back down the route he had just come up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 10, 2012, 11:53:PM
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.

I would be suprised if Luke Mitchell knew one end of a football pitch from the other. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on June 11, 2012, 12:04:AM
yes but if quality newspaper like the daily record and the news of the world say his guilty i mean you've got to believe them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 11, 2012, 12:09:AM
yes but if uality newspaper like the daily record the news of the world say his guilty i mean you've got to believe them.

only if your names wichfinder  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 11, 2012, 12:15:AM
Mitchell and his mother passed lie detector tests. I do not know the ins and outs of the test or what questions had not been asked but I would be interested in knowing the answer to that.


Janet, can you explain what you mean about what questions not being asked as I'm not understanding this part of your comment, thanks?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on June 11, 2012, 08:13:AM
That's a pretty good understanding and concise summary of the case as I see it to Oncesaid, the trouble with people advocating Luke's guilt is they do it from the position of him being convicted and never see the problems with the conviction.

If FWG can answer these points with the same clarity it will certainly meet with some good discussion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 11, 2012, 02:15:PM
Once Said what I meant was is there a list of questions that Mitchell was asked and for the people who doubt the test, what questions would you have liked answered that did not get asked.

Sorry I wasnt very clear
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 11, 2012, 04:16:PM
Once Said what I meant was is there a list of questions that Mitchell was asked and for the people who doubt the test, what questions would you have liked answered that did not get asked.

Sorry I wasnt very clear

Thanks, I see what you mean now.  :) 

I have no idea what the full list of questions was that were asked of him during the test.  Apparently the test lasted 2 and a half hours.  What is known as it is public knowledge, is that Luke was asked the following questions which I think would be questions that the doubters would have on their list and for me these 3 questions in particular covers everything, as in he didn't kill her, doesn't know who killed her and had no idea when he went over the v in the wall that a dead body would be found.

Were you present when Jodi was stabbed?  Did you stab Jodi on June 30, 2003?  Did you know for certain where Jodi's body would be found?  Luke answered NO.

His mum was asked if she had given him a false alibi, did she burn clothing and/or dispose of clothing and the murder weapon, and did she lie whilst under oath.  She answered NO to these questions.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 11, 2012, 05:56:PM
Thanks Once Said.

I do not think two people could fail separate tests like this.  I did think Luke Mitchell was guilty at one point but I am no longer sure he is. 
I wish him all the very best of luck for his appeal and hope the truth comes out for not only him but also for the Jones family.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 11, 2012, 06:24:PM
one thing i dont think people is yes there books on here to beat lie detector tests though how effective i dont know.

we would have to find who has read books then lied then passed.

but you will not find any such books in the nick.

and you would not be able to smuggle one in.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 11, 2012, 06:28:PM
Hi nugnug  I think it is very difficult to cheat the lie detector test providing it is being carried out by a qualified person.  I have read so much about it on the internet and truly believe with the sophisticated machines they have now and trained operators it would not be easy.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 11, 2012, 06:33:PM
well lie detectors can give false results sometimes but what is not said is there more likely to give false results the other way your more likely to fail one when your teling the truth.

than pass one when lying.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 11, 2012, 06:36:PM
hi nugnug  I had not heard that I am of the opinion they are pretty accurate whether you pass or fail but of course that is just my opinion.  They use them in the American Courts all the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 11, 2012, 06:56:PM
and what are the chances of both of them being able to pass it while lying.

i mean to independent tests.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 11, 2012, 07:00:PM
sorry nugnug I really can,t answer your question as I am not an expert on the polygraph testing I just have my own beliefs.  You need to speak with somebody who is knowlegable.  Sorry I can,t help you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 11, 2012, 07:19:PM
i don't know myself but i think its very unlikely i except nothing 100% reliable nut that doesn't mean its unreliable.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 11, 2012, 09:51:PM
heres some nore on the main characters in the case.

http://mycrimesforum.myfastforum.org/forum4.php
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 18, 2012, 08:04:PM
theres no doubt in my mind luke mitchell could beat a lie detector, he's proven to be a cold person, someone who shows no emotion finding a body, shows no emotion in hours of police interrogation, and doesnt even respond emotionally to being found guilty and sent down... why would he feel anything when lying to a machine?

There's no doubt in my mind he was telling the truth. I'm still waiting on the proof from you where it is "proven" that he is a cold person. 

Three witnesses who were also there when the body was found explained in their statements how Luke reacted and behaved, and their individual accounts blow what you state as fact, out of the water. 

How would you know what emotions he did or didn't show when he was under police interrogation?.  Care to share what you witnessed whilst in the room, because unless you were in that room at the same time as Luke Mitchell whilst he was getting a brow beating, then you havent got a clue what sort of emotions he displayed? 

Why does Luke Mitchell showing no emotion/reaction to being found guilty go against him?  I think that even if Luke Mitchell had been found not guilty, he would have reacted in exactly the same way.

You are using words like "cold" and "shows no emotion" as a reason why you think he was able to beat a lie detector test.

Are you suggesting that his mother who also passed the test is also cold and shows no emotion?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 18, 2012, 08:40:PM
I agree about the retrial, I believe one day it will all come out that Luke really did it. Most other "suspects" have alibi's, no motive whatsover, all behaved as expected at the time. Luke stood out for a reason, and his alibi turned out to be an absolute shambles.

FWG, you agreed with Janet that "There is enough reasonable doubt to get at least a retrial for Mitchell" You then go on to say whilst agreeing that there is enough reasonable doubt to at least get a retrial that "I believe one day it will all come out that Luke really did it". 

Should it not have "all come out" in his original trial?  Should that courtroom at his original trial not have been swimming in evidence against the accused, and I mean real evidence, not the scraping the barrel nonsense they called circumstantial evidence? 

Are you suggesting that if there was ever a retrial that there would be evidence to prove his guilt which would be presented to the jury?  Evidence that was not available at his original trial "that Luke really did it"?  You cant be serious.  They had nothing concrete then, and even less now.  Are you also suggesting that Luke had a motive?  If you are, could you share with me what his motive was?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 09:38:PM
Are you also suggesting that Luke had a motive?  If you are, could you share with me what his motive was?[/font]

Are you suggesting every single killer needs a motive?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 09:40:PM

Are you suggesting that his mother who also passed the test is also cold and shows no emotion?


Funny how mummy went first eh? almost as if she was guinea pigging before Luke was confident enough to follow suit.

Please explain why, in any circumstance, his mother would feel the need to pass one before the person in question, Luke?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 09:50:PM
the thing about Mitchells supporters is, they have absolutely no clue weather or not he's guilty or innocent, there is no proof hes innocent, there is every possibility and chance he could have done it, yet they put so much faith into it to the point they will disrespect Jodi and every member of her family with their accusations. They are a very sad little bunch indeed, thankfully there's only about 10 of them. The only miscarriage of justice on that site is that Billy Middleton got a "not proven" verdict at his trial.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 09:58:PM
Are you suggesting every single killer needs a motive?

FWG I was responding to you when you stated "I believe one day it will all come out that Luke really did it. Most other "suspects" have alibi's, no motive whatsover, all behaved as expected at the time".

Now that I have reread what you have written in bold, could you explain what you mean, do you mean other suspects in this case had alibis, no motive whatsever, all behaved as expected etc
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 10:01:PM
FWG I was responding to you when you stated "I believe one day it will all come out that Luke really did it. Most other "suspects" have alibi's, no motive whatsover, all behaved as expected at the time".

Now that I have reread what you have written in bold, could you explain what you mean, do you mean other suspects in this case had alibis, no motive whatsever, all behaved as expected etc


well they all got cleared didnt they i heard 3000 people were interviewed yet you all seem to think police decided "oh its luke" the second they arrived at the scene....

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 10:10:PM

Funny how mummy went first eh? almost as if she was guinea pigging before Luke was confident enough to follow suit.

Please explain why, in any circumstance, his mother would feel the need to pass one before the person in question, Luke?

Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds?  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 10:14:PM
Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds?  ::)

Just as I expected, no explanation for why the maw would feel the need to do the test more than him...

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 10:17:PM
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )

a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 10:41:PM
the thing about Mitchells supporters is, they have absolutely no clue weather or not he's guilty or innocent, there is no proof hes innocent, there is every possibility and chance he could have done it, yet they put so much faith into it to the point they will disrespect Jodi and every member of her family with their accusations. They are a very sad little bunch indeed, thankfully there's only about 10 of them. The only miscarriage of justice on that site is that Billy Middleton got a "not proven" verdict at his trial.

FWG, could you please enlighten me as to how he could have done it?  You are adamant that Luke Mitchell is guilty so you surely must have an idea as to how he committed this crime and I am genuinely interested in knowing your opinion.  Unfortunately when discussing cases the victim has to be spoken about, but everything that has been mentioned about Jodi has been in the public domain since 2003, that is not disrespecting the girl, that is discussing facts in relation to the case which were part of the murder enquiry and trial. As for the family being disrespected, and accusations, accusations about who/what?  Again, what certain members of the Jones family did or didnt do has been public knowledge, and was made so due to the murder investigation of Jodi Jones and the trial of Luke Mitchell.  Debating the family's statements, and the drug use/dealing within the family etc etc is not making accusations, it is facts related to the case.

As for mentioning the WAP forum, why?  You have already had a dig at Dr Sandra Lean, and now your on about the websites owner who promotes Lukes case.  Do you seriously think that they are the only people that believe in Luke Mitchells innocence? 

What really pisses me off most of all is that you have used another miscarriage of justice victims name, to get your foot in the door, so that you could start your abuse towards Luke Mitchell supporters.  You clearly dont give a toss about Willie Gage.

If you think the correct person is in prison for the murder of Jodi Jones, why dont you leave his supporters to continue getting the facts out to a wider audience via the internet, instead of coming on to forums like this with the sole intention to mislead and disrupt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 10:50:PM
I dont know that he did it,  i am willing to admit there is a chance it was someone else, you cant admit it could have been him though can you? you cant admit jodi set off to meet Luke, something happened and he killed her, Lukes brother doesnt even remember seeing him in the house n apparently he burned his dinner. sure. Massive inconsistancy there in the alibi, but when some members of the search party change minor details in their statements, youl latch on to it for years.

ps I believe Willie Gage is innocent, thats as far as you need to read into my username choice.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 10:54:PM
why would i have to "get my foot in the door" of a forum? please go outside.

I could have joined here as any name and said the exact same things, I could have made up something random, like you have...

Im failing to see your problem with me choosing a supportive username for a certain individual.

You have no idea how I know Willie Gage.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 10:55:PM


If you think the correct person is in prison for the murder of Jodi Jones, why dont you leave his supporters to continue getting the facts out to a wider audience via the internet, instead of coming on to forums like this with the sole intention to mislead and disrupt.


speaking of facts...

Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )

a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.

still waiting



lol @ a debate/argument and genuine fair points being raised being "misleading and distrubting" this is exactly what Im talking about.

I'm not misleading anyone. You're avoiding basic questions.





ps If my username is such an issue with you, I'll gladly sign up as my real name, if you will too...

no? thought not


funny how all of mitchells supporters hide behind an alias to make their points. Billy doesnt even use his own name on his own forum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 11:08:PM

Funny how mummy went first eh? almost as if she was guinea pigging before Luke was confident enough to follow suit.

Please explain why, in any circumstance, his mother would feel the need to pass one before the person in question, Luke?

I can't speak on behalf of Luke Mitchells mother,  but what I can tell you is what I know as fact and my opinion and that is it was not a case of who would go first.  Corrine Mitchell was asked first to do the polygraph test.  From the initial time of being asked, and doing it, Luke was not aware of what was going on.  It was done and dusted in a few days and he was informed on the day the test was completed, by his mother.  She is not in prison, she did not have to request permission from anyone, she could have agreed to take the test, or she could have refused and no one, as in the general public, would have been any the wiser. 

There was no evidence against Luke Mitchell, his trial was ran on circumstantial evidence alone.  The crown introduced that his mother had helped him to dispose of blood stained clothing, for the jury to consider this they had to discredit her, and they did.  I expect that most of the jury believed that his mother had lied under oath.  The crown also accused her of giving him a false alibi.  She wanted to prove that she had not lied for her son, had not given him a false alibi or disposed of clothes or a murder weapon, etc hence the reason why she jumped at the chance of a polygraph.  Taking the test was not about Luke, it was about her.  She wanted people to know that she had been telling the truth all along.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 11:11:PM
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.

If you care to read my previous posts, I did give an explanation, based on my opinion, of course.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 11:15:PM
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )
a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.

FWG, This is what I said on a previous post.  Perhaps Mia did scent the blood on the way up the path, it is possible.  When Luke left his mothers home he had arranged with Jodi's mother on the phone that he would head to her house, via the path.  He had Mia on the lead whilst walking the path, he also had a torch.  Before you get to the v in the wall you can see right up to the top off the path.  That is where Jodi's gran, sister and the sisters boyfriend were standing with their torches on, although he did not know at the time it was them.  If Mia reacted to anything, why would he stop to investigate, if it could have been Jodi at the top of the path with others.  He wouldnt have known till he more or less reached them exactly who it was.

Luke would have had no idea on his way up the path that the gran would insist on going back down the route he had just come up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 19, 2012, 11:17:PM
Too little too late..

btw..

From the initial time of being asked, and doing it, Luke was not aware of what was going on.  It was done and dusted in a few days and he was informed on the day the test was completed, by his mother. 


woops, blatant lie there =/

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 11:26:PM
why would i have to "get my foot in the door" of a forum? please go outside.

I could have joined here as any name and said the exact same things, I could have made up something random, like you have...

Im failing to see your problem with me choosing a supportive username for a certain individual.

You have no idea how I know Willie Gage.

If that is the case, then why are we on this thread discussing Luke Mitchell?  Why are we not on Willie's thread, that you started?  Willies case needs exposure and more people need to hear about it.  My problem is if you are using Willie Gage's name and dont give a shit about him or his predicament, that would be bang out of order.  As I have said on a previous post, I'm interested in Willies case, and if you genuinely do know of him/his case and believe in his innocence, then I would genuinely be interested in hearing more about his case, on his thread.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 11:35:PM
Too little too late..

btw..


woops, blatant lie there =/

What is a blatant lie?  Why would I lie about anything? If you mean the number of days since being asked and taking the test, I thought it was 3 days but I will be able to double check that information tomorrow, unless another poster can confirm the timescale before then.  If you are saying it is a lie, then can you tell me how many days it was then to correct my error?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 20, 2012, 12:39:AM
Are you suggesting every single killer needs a motive?

If someone is going to kill someone else they do so for a reason. Surely that is motive
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on June 20, 2012, 01:37:AM
If someone is going to kill someone else they do so for a reason. Surely that is motive

if that counts as a motive, then Luke had one.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on June 20, 2012, 08:27:AM
If someone is going to kill someone else they do so for a reason. Surely that is motive

This part of the question is whats important what was the reason he had to go for killing someone in the 1st place? just by doing it doesn't provide motive.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 20, 2012, 10:11:AM
at the end of day as oncesaid pointed out Corrine could of refused to take the test and nobody would have known nobody had challenged Luke or Corrine to take the test.

but both chose to take it anyway.

nobody else involved in the case has ever volunteered to take one
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 20, 2012, 01:37:PM
if that counts as a motive, then Luke had one.

As I stated if someone kills another person, then there is always a reason behind it.
I think there was other people who may have had a motive also.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 20, 2012, 09:38:PM
well you would think that any sane person would need a motive to kill someone and luke was pronounced to be sane.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Nuala on June 20, 2012, 09:44:PM
well you would think that any sane person would need a motive to kill someone and luke was pronounced to be sane.


Good points here and in the post above, Nug Nug.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 21, 2012, 11:18:AM
Quote from: OnceSaid on June 19, 2012, 11:08:PM
From the initial time of being asked, and doing it, Luke was not aware of what was going on.  It was done and dusted in a few days and he was informed on the day the test was completed, by his mother. 

Too little too late..

btw..

woops, blatant lie there =/

What is a blatant lie?  Why would I lie about anything? If you mean the number of days since being asked and taking the test, I thought it was 3 days but I will be able to double check that information tomorrow, unless another poster can confirm the timescale before then.  If you are saying it is a lie, then can you tell me how many days it was then to correct my error?

FWG, I have double checked the information that you say is a "blatant lie". I only rechecked as in the back of my mind I thought it may have been four days from start to finish.  I was correct, it was done and dusted in 3 days. 

Mrs Mitchell was contacted after office hours on the evening of Monday 20th February and asked if given the opportunity to do a lie detector would she do it. 
Tuesday 21st February the test was booked.
Wednesday 22nd February the test was confirmed. 
Thursday 23rd February the test was done.
Luke was informed by his mother at a visit on the 23rd, that she had been given the chance to do the test and had done it.

I find it really odd that you would say that my information was a blatant lie, so you are either deliberately trying to goad me, or someone else has been filling your head with nonsense and you have soaked it in like a sponge. 




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 21, 2012, 11:28:AM
Quote
I find it really odd that you would say that my information was a blatant lie, so you are either deliberately trying to goad me, or someone else has been filling your head with nonsense and you have soaked it in like a sponge. 

OnceSaid   you answered yourself. It is clear what is happening here. I wonder who could be doing this?  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 22, 2012, 03:29:PM
are so in other words Corrine was offered the test immediately excepted then passed it.

no uming and erring about weather she would or not no asking for time to think about it she said yes straght away.

now would someone who was lying do that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lonny on June 22, 2012, 03:39:PM
I don't think he did it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 22, 2012, 06:41:PM
well if i was lying about something and someone offred to give me a polygraph test now even if i thought there was a chance i could fool it i would have to have a good think before i agreed to take it but corrine dident she said yes straght away.

so i can only conclude she was telling the truth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 22, 2012, 06:49:PM
Hi nugnug  If I knew that every question I was asked I was going to give a truthful answer yes of course I would take a polygraph test if I thought I was going to have to tell one lie I would not risk it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 22, 2012, 07:02:PM
May I also point out that neither Corinne nor Luke knew what the questions would be until the day of the actual test itself. So there was no way they could have "rehearsed" answers in advance - both went into the test completely "blind,"  prepared to answer any question put to them.

For me, that speaks volumes, regardless of the "admissibility" of polygraphs as evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 22, 2012, 07:06:PM
are so they couldn't possibly train themselves to pass the test.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 22, 2012, 07:09:PM
Just to clarify, by "the day of the test," I mean actually in the room with the polygraph tester - they didn't even have any warning before going into the test itself.

So yes, nugnug, no chance to "train themselves" whatsoever.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 22, 2012, 07:10:PM
nugnug I would not have thought it possible to train yourself to pass a polygraph test people try different ways but they are sussed out very quick.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 22, 2012, 07:11:PM
so it would be a completly insane thing to do if you wernt telling the truth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 22, 2012, 07:16:PM
Hi, Susan, the argument about "training" to pass the polygraph is one which has been floated several times by people who doubt the reliability of the test.

These are the same people who use previous cases in which the perpetrator has passed a test when they actually committed the crime to negate the modern polygraph.

However, the points about Luke and Corinne both passing independently, with completely different questions, of which they had no knowledge prior to the test, are that (a) the likelihood of both passing in these circumstnaces, had they been dishonest, is virtually non-existent and (b), as nugnug says, they would have to have been totally crazy to take the tests, in these circumstnaces, had they been lying.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 22, 2012, 07:21:PM
Hi Sandra L  to be totally honest with you I am not well up on the case or polygraph testings I have read it is difficult to cheat the test but who am I to argue any different.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bloggs and son on June 22, 2012, 07:21:PM
Hi, Susan, the argument about "training" to pass the polygraph is one which has been floated several times by people who doubt the reliability of the test.

These are the same people who use previous cases in which the perpetrator has passed a test when they actually committed the crime to negate the modern polygraph.

However, the points about Luke and Corinne both passing independently, with completely different questions, of which they had no knowledge prior to the test, are that (a) the likelihood of both passing in these circumstnaces, had they been dishonest, is virtually non-existent and (b), as nugnug says, they would have to have been totally crazy to take the tests, in these circumstnaces, had they been lying.
A very good point Sandra. The one backs up the other so to speak.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 22, 2012, 07:48:PM
Hi Sandra L  to be totally honest with you I am not well up on the case or polygraph testings I have read it is difficult to cheat the test but who am I to argue any different.

Yes, there are many reports of how difficult it is to cheat the test, and similarly, arguments about how unreliable the test is - I really had no idea one way or the other, since the available information seemed to be split 50/50. I will see if I can find the links to the reports I read when the possibiity of Corinne and Luke taking the tests came up - if I still have them, I'll try to post them up.

A little background info on this case - Corinne and Luke had both said, right from the beginning, that they would take polygraphs anywhere, any time, when it became apparent that the police investigation was focussing on Luke as the perpetrator. They were refused repeatedly, and for a number of reasons - they're not admissible as evidence, they can't be done in Scottish prisons, etc, etc. It was only this year that we were lucky enough to discover that they can be done in Scottish prisons (or any other prisons for that matter) - as soon as that was clear, the whole thing swung into motion, and thereafter, it all happened very quickly for Corinne.

It was a little more difficult with Luke, as the prison took some time to make its decision - I don't think that was so much about whether it should be allowed or not, but more to do with the security arrangements because of the high profile of the case. What I will say is that the prison was fantastic once permission had been obtained - they really accomodated the difficulties of time, privacy, etc, and were very helpful all round.

You can read about Luke's case at http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/, although that site is now in much need of updating. There's also a forum which runs to over 800 pages - it's a lot of reading and a very complex case. I rarely have time to post other than on the above forum or facebook - I just happen to have a few days free at the moment, and noticed the discussion about the polygraph on here, so thought I'd pop in and say hello.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 22, 2012, 07:56:PM
now the question is will other people involved in the case except the challenge so readily or at all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 22, 2012, 11:12:PM
Hi Sandra, do you know how many questions were asked in total, in both Luke's and his mothers test?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 23, 2012, 12:03:AM
so it would be a completly insane thing to do if you wernt telling the truth.

Absolutely.  If I was Luke Mitchell's mother and I was telling the truth all along and had nothing to hide, I would do the test but I would have been an absolute nervous wreck, before during and after.  Over the years, this woman has suffered terribly due to the negative press attention, which in turn resulted in her being asaulted, threatened, her buisness attacked etc.  The consequences would have been too great and dangerous to take a risk, if she were in anyway being dishonest.

If I was Luke Mitchell and I was telling the truth and had nothing to hide, same as his mum, I would have been a wreck, but I would have done the test.  In a prison enviroment, if I had anything to hide whatsover, I would not take the test, especially after pleading my innocence from day one.  To fail a lie detector in prison when claiming to be a moj victim, could put your life in danger, so it would not be worth it having to look over your shoulder 24/7 getting caught out in a lie.

If it were me, reports of the tests being unreliable, or advice that it could all backfire, would probably fall on deaf ears, because if I knew I was telling the truth, the chance to prove it would be so great, it would be something I had to do regardless, but as long as I knew I was being honest there would be no hesitation. 

I'm with nugnug on this, who else related to this case would be brave enough to step up to the plate?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2012, 12:23:AM
well if you would have been a nervous wreck telling the truth what you be like if you were lying ten times worse i would imagine

i mean even someone who thought they could con the test would have no way of knowing it for a fact.

i certanly think its time this test was suggested to others involved in there case if only just to see what there reaction is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra on June 23, 2012, 01:35:AM
well if you would have been a nervous wreck telling the truth what you be like if you were lying ten times worse i would imagine

i mean even someone who thought they could con the test would have no way of knowing it for a fact.

i certanly think its time this test was suggested to others involved in there case if only just to see what there reaction is.
polygraph tests are a fake science. they just dont work and the mitchells were lucky not to have come of even worse because of all this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2012, 01:48:AM
so why do the authority use them then if there fake science.

luck had nothing to do with it nobody can be that lucky.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra on June 23, 2012, 01:56:AM
so why do the authority use them then if there fake science.

luck had nothing to do with it nobody can be that lucky.
what authority?   

its all down to the operator.  he can say whatever he likes.  after all he gets paid by results.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2012, 02:01:AM
lie detectors are used in this country when deciding weather or not to release dangerous back in to the comunity.

something that you cant afford to get wrong to many times.

now they wouldn't be used for that if they wernt trusted as reasonably reliable.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra on June 23, 2012, 02:09:AM
lie detectors are used in this country when deciding weather or not to release dangerous back in to the comunity.

something that you cant afford to get wrong to many times.

now they wouldn't be used for that if they wernt trusted as reasonably reliable.
it is a false science that is why it is never used by the criminal justice system.

Don't you know of all the convicted people who passed the polygraph and then they admit they are guilty.   ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2012, 02:15:AM
i only no of one.

at the end of the day the Mitchell dident have to take the test

and no chance to prepare.

i can name at least 2 cases where lie detecters are known to have worked.

colin stag and adrian prout.
oh and also rubin carter.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra on June 23, 2012, 02:22:AM
i thought he was so obviously guilty that he was running out of options.  it looks like he wont be coming home for a long time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2012, 02:28:AM
not a matter of running out of options way they were offered the cance to take the test and emedatly said yes not something a guilty person would want to do i mean someone who was guilty would at least want to think about it.

but corrines just gone yes ill do it.

we can only speclate on when hes comeing home but i think it will be sooner than you think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra on June 23, 2012, 02:33:AM
but he has no options left to him from what i have read.  didt the supreme court knock him back as well?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra on June 23, 2012, 02:35:AM
maybe his brother shane should take the test as well and the we will know who is really lying.

its called a junk science and the us is getting wise to it.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/05/like-most-junk-science-that-just-wont.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: D-FENS on June 23, 2012, 04:22:AM
clearly guilty

he wis pumpin the maw anaw
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bloggs and son on June 23, 2012, 10:20:AM
clearly guilty

he wis pumpin the maw anaw
Oh dear, not another numpty in the camp.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 23, 2012, 10:22:AM
Hi Grahame we certainly get um don,t we and they can,t even speak English
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2012, 11:10:AM
maybe his brother shane should take the test as well and the we will know who is really lying.

its called a junk science and the us is getting wise to it.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/05/like-most-junk-science-that-just-wont.html

maybe you can elaborate ive quoted a few cases where it has worked.

if its junk science why is it used by so many government agency's.

what are the chances of  people takeing the test and independently and passing when they were both lying.

if you think there junk why do you want shane to take the test.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 23, 2012, 12:56:PM
Oh dear, another Sandra - this might get confusing.

Anyway, the poster who said that the tester is paid for the results was, of course, absolutely correct. Just one problem with that. It was a national newspaper which paid for Corinne's test, so they had no vested interest in the result one way or the other - they would have had a massively sensational story with either result.

The polygraph tester (and you do the professionals a disservice in suggesting that their tests are "slanted" to suit the paymaster, but that's another story, for those who take the care to research the subject), therefore had no "pressure" to produce results one way or the other.

What could the tester possibly have gained from a "slanted" result?

The "junk science" argument is something of a waste of time and energy, but may I just point out that polygraph tests have been used in the UK for some years to assess whether sex offenders are "safe" for release (and continued liberty), and have now been introduced on a trial basis within certain police forces (to assess whether suspects should be further pursued or not). So, if it's junk, it's junk being relied upon by our prison service and our police forces, sanctioned by our government.

On another note, as someone else, I believe, pointed out, the findings of fingerprint evidence, DNA testing, various forensic processes etc, have all turned out, in some cases, to be "junk science" by individuals using highly selective (and unprofessional) techniques. So perhaps it would be more accurate to say the sciences themselves are sound, the problem lies with the junk scientists who allow themselves to be unduly influenced by their paymasters.

That however, can't be said about the polygraph tester who carried out these tests, as has just been explained.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: D-FENS on June 23, 2012, 02:14:PM
Hi Grahame we certainly get um don,t we and they can,t even speak English

susan at least a ken the difference between commas and apostrophes ! is this a young couple or a maw n son?

(http://www.scotimage.com/images/scotimage-wsigv163428.jpg)

(http://www.scotimage.com/images/scotimage-wsidn163434.jpg)

creepy . n who takes a big wean eatin devil dug tae a grave site? head cases
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: D-FENS on June 23, 2012, 02:16:PM
funny how luke was "no tall enough to be the witness sighting because he was a short arse n the witness described a guy in there early 20s yet there he is towerin orr his maw and roughly the same height as 2 grown coppers !
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 23, 2012, 02:18:PM
D-Fens  sorry I am unable to understand your posts can you translate please :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: D-FENS on June 23, 2012, 02:21:PM
but youv nae bother readin nug nugs i bet eh cause it caters to your ideals
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on June 23, 2012, 02:22:PM
D-FENS - Please do not post further until you have introduced yourself in the foyer, in accordance with forum rules.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 23, 2012, 02:25:PM
Hi D-Fen  Poor me does not have apostrophes on her laptop so she has to use commas I do know the difference as I was taught that before I went to Grammar School so please bear with me and I will do the same with you with I suspect your Aberdonian accent which I fine rather nice :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: D-FENS on June 23, 2012, 02:30:PM
ye can detect an accent fi text oan a screen ? you are a clever yin ! would you kiss yer son like that be honest
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 23, 2012, 02:34:PM
Hi D-Fin  No I will be totally honest with you I would never kiss my son in that way it is not the kind of kiss I approve of between Mother and Son.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: D-FENS on June 23, 2012, 02:41:PM
ad be mortified if ma mother grabbed my face wi both hands like that and leaned in for a kiss . no sayin this makes him a killer like but it suggests an abnormal relationship the pair hav got ! n add that wi the fact his mammy is his only alibi ! was the brother eatin dinner wi his family or chuggin in his room ? no tryin to be funny like just heard both diff accounts n wonderin what 1 it wis
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 23, 2012, 03:17:PM
A kiss, D FENS?

Most people realise that the press take photos from specific angles, etc, to make one thing look like another. Look carefully at the photo to which you refer - where's the kiss?

Your comment about the "relationship" between Corinne and Luke is based on the same misinformation disseminated by L&B police. In fact, the original statements from the officer involved state that Corinne and Luke were sleeping in the livingroom, on separate settees, because Luke was on strong medication, and Corinne was worried about him falling down the stairs. The police knew this to be the case, yet chose to start a whispering campaign about them sleeping "in the same room," and inferring from this that the relationship was incestuous.

That's another thing - if people want to talk about this aspect of the case, it woud be helpful if they were honest about what they are implying - by "abnormal" or "unnatural" relationship, the many commentators over the years have clearly meant incestuous, but were worried about using the term, because that would tip the balance into an actionable accusation.

As for the height comparisons, again, be careful with selective photography. I am 5'3'', Corinne is an inch or so taller than me, which would put Luke, from these pics, at about 5'6'' - either these are quite short cops, or there is something to be considered about the camera angle etc.

All of the documentation about how the "incestuous" relationship rubbish got into the public domain is in the police files - it was a uite deliberate ploy, with no basis whatsoever in fact or reality.

Furthermore, it goes no way whatsoever to assisting anyone in deciding whether or not the available evidence supports or undermines the contention that the conviction of Luke Mitchell is safe or not, which is my sole interest in the case. If you don't mind, therefore, I'll restrict my participation to discussions about the actual evidence, not the media generated nonsense which surrounds the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 23, 2012, 03:29:PM
sandra L  Thank you for that excellent post and I see what you are meaning things get twisted and warped and I can see the angle of the photo after studying it carefully.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: D-FENS on June 23, 2012, 03:33:PM
either these are quite short cops, or there is something to be considered about the camera angle etc."

all of these different excuses instead o just sayin right ok maybe he could pass as a 20 year old

and no im not implyin incest atall i never even knew they shared a room thegether! am implyin a relationship wher she clearly has an infactuation for her baby boy and canni keep her hands off him she seems over protective enough to make up an alibi ! not her precious luke ! that the brother canni even back up even tho he wis in the hoose !!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 23, 2012, 03:35:PM
Hi D-Fens  maybe more Fife than Aberdonian :) ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Alyce on June 23, 2012, 04:37:PM
clearly guilty

he wis pumpin the maw anaw
Oh dear! have you escaped the Jeremy Kyle holding pen? Taxi for D-FENS! ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 23, 2012, 05:27:PM
The brother could not remember what he'd done that evening - it was a perfectly ordinary weekday evening until midnight, when Corinne found out that Jodi had been found dead, and some time after that before Shane was informed.

In his initial statement, he said he presumed he had come home from work as normal, at around 3.30pm. It was evidence from his phone and another witness which drew attention to the fact that this part of his statement was incorrect. No negative inference was drawn from this - it was totally accepted that he had simply forgotten that he had stopped off at a friend's house on his way home from work that evening. It is that evidence which places him as arriving home at around 4.50pm, and other phone evidence which shows his arrangement to go out later that evening.

He discussed the evening with his mother, who reminded him that the only thing that might have made the evening stand out in his memory was that that was the night his dinner had been slightly burned. He returned voluntarily to the police to add this information to his statement.

Now, the two boys on the moped, who were Jodi's cousins, and were on the path, and their bike was at the V break without them at 5.15pm, took 5 days to come forward. They did not volunteer the information that they had been on the path at any point until a police appeal on Saturday 5th July, complete with description, was broadcast. When they did contact the police, following this broadcast, they both gave a different time - they said they were on the path about an hour earlier. When asked why they had not come forward sooner, one of them said Jodi's grandmother had told him not to go to the police, because they were on the path "too early."

The main point about these two, however, is that they said in evidence that they had spent the 5 days "talking about everything" before "realising they might have been on the path at the time Jodi was killed." there are a few points to this:

(1) They must have known from day 2 of the investigation that they were on the path at the time in question - police were appealing for anyone who had been in the vicinity of the path between 5pm and 10pm that evening.

(2) After realising this, why did they then lie to the police, and give a different time instead? Why did one of them lie to Jodi's grandmother about the time he was on the path. Was it a lie or a mistake? Well, given that one of them had an appointment, and knew the time of that appointment, and the other picked him up after that appointment, in order for the time given to have been a "mistake," both would have had to have suffered total amnesia for these events!

(3) Why is it "suspicious" that Luke's brother made a mistake about the period around 5pm that evening, discovered his mistake when speaking to his mother (a mistake which had already been verified by other evidence, incidentally) and going straight back to the police to correct it, when it is not considered suspicious that two of Jodi's cousins were discussing "everything" for 5 days, failed to come forward until they were forced to do so, and then lied about their whereabouts and whenabouts?

Why is it not suspicious that they "could not remember" where they were or what they were doing while their bike was propped against the V break, behind which Jodi's body was found, at 5.15pm, the claimed time of death?

Shane may have forgotten what he had for dinner, but there was no suggestion that he was anywhere near the murder scene at the claimed time of the murder. Yet there is direct, provable evidence, (including their own admission)  that these two were right at the spot, at exactly the time the police claimed Jodi was murdered, but it's not in any way suspcious that they could not account for their movements, and chose, instead, to lie about them?

And, for clarity, Shane did not say Luke was not at home, he said he could not remember. He also said, in evidence, that his treatment at the hands of the police had been so hostile and aggressive that he was no longer sure of anything relating to that evening. Having seen the various interrogations, etc, I am not at all surprised. In one "interview," the police officer says repeatedly, "I'm not accepting I don't know, I'm not accepting I can't remember, that's just not good enough. You'll give me an answer," When he protests that he can't answer definitively, and that the police officer is confusing him (by asking several questions at once without waiting for a response, then demanding an answer to somethng entirely different) he is told, "Picture this in your head... can you see this, I'm asking you to picture this..." (the officer describes a particular scene)...

Would D FENS apply the same criticisms to Jodi's brother who is attributed as having told police officers that the family, Jodi included, sat down and had dinner at the table together before Jodi left, when no such thing took place?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on June 23, 2012, 05:39:PM


The charade has gone on too long.  Contrary to what has been suggested elsewhere, D-FENS is not Kevin Craigie, he is John Lamberton using yet another of his fake IDs.  D-FENS is now banned.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buster2 on June 23, 2012, 05:44:PM
I think we can all work out who the other Sandra is and DFens.
Do you never get bored of trying to disrupt forums?
Why are you so obsessed with Mitchell, his family and supporters?
We all get that you think he is guilty and his mother and brother are liars. You have told us often enough.
Many people disagree with you.
Time will tell with this case and I hope you are ready to eat your hat. I can supply you with salt and pepper to go with it.

There is much evidence in this case to show very reasonable doubt. The case was not investigated properly for starters, but that will all come out too.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 23, 2012, 05:48:PM
Hi ngb1066 thought the silly accent was strange how ever you speak you don,t write with an accent.  also it was commented before on the other forum that my grammar was awful as I did not know when to use commas and apostrophes so that rang some alarm bells and as I said don,t have apostrophes on my laptop.  Hope he never applies for a job with Secret Service :) ;) ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on June 23, 2012, 05:55:PM
Hi ngb1066 thought the silly accent was strange how ever you speak you don,t write with an accent.  also it was commented before on the other forum that my grammar was awful as I did not know when to use commas and apostrophes so that rang some alarm bells and as I said don,t have apostrophes on my laptop.  Hope he never applies for a job with Secret Service :) ;) ;)

We knew his identity from the outset Susan.  It was just interesting to see what games he would play this time.  Whatever you may read elsewhere, D-FENS was definitely our old friend John Lamberton, not Kevin Craigie.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on June 23, 2012, 06:10:PM
I pity Stephanie Hall, she seem's to have been taken in hook, line and sinker by Lamberton.  She seems to be quite a fragile person.  I wonder if he has a genuine interest in her case, or is just using her.  What do you think?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 23, 2012, 06:18:PM
This man Lamberton makes my skin crawl.  Is it possible to cleanse this thread or the entire forum, by deleting any post made by him and his alias's, to allow genuine interested members, whether they be pro or anti, to discuss the details of the case, without having to read his filth and deliberate lies.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on June 23, 2012, 06:21:PM
We knew his identity from the outset Susan.  It was just interesting to see what games he would play this time.  Whatever you may read elsewhere, D-FENS was definitely our old friend John Lamberton, not Kevin Craigie.

It is the only time I am likely to do this, so make the most of it.  I owe john Lamberton an apology.  D-FENS is not John Lamberton, he is in fact Tim Bennett.  For those with long memories the IP used was the same as Captain Chevasse and Ama Dablam.  I misremembered the identity of Captain Chevasse.  In fairness to Lamberton he does not use crude language or make sexually suggestive posts and that should have alerted me to my mistake.  Bennett of course does.  Apologies.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buster2 on June 23, 2012, 06:29:PM
I pity Stephanie Hall, she seem's to have been taken in hook, line and sinker by Lamberton.  She seems to be quite a fragile person.  I wonder if he has a genuine interest in her case, or is just using her.  What do you think?

Very easily led and taken in by the man who was once a cop Neil and tossed out the force.
He is using her and it just damages her cause more.
He will turn on her when she sees the light
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on June 23, 2012, 06:33:PM
Very easily led and taken in by the man who was once a cop Neil and tossed out the force.
He is using her and it just damages her cause more.
He will turn on her when she sees the light
Thanks Buster
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on June 23, 2012, 06:41:PM
D-FENS IP:  193.200.150.82

Since I have done the right thing I hope John Lamberton reciprocates, and openly confirms my identification of D-FENS as Tim Bennett.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Bridget on June 23, 2012, 07:00:PM
D-FENS IP:  193.200.150.82

Since I have done the right thing I hope John Lamberton reciprocates, and openly confirms my identification of D-FENS as Tim Bennett.

He couldn't even if he wanted to - that's an 'anonymouse' proxy IP.

It is, but he can ask his chum Bennett.  I have another reason for knowing it is Bennett, but I will wait to see what happens.

 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 23, 2012, 07:48:PM
It is the only time I am likely to do this, so make the most of it.  I owe john Lamberton an apology.  D-FENS is not John Lamberton, he is in fact Tim Bennett.  For those with long memories the IP used was the same as Captain Chevasse and Ama Dablam.  I misremembered the identity of Captain Chevasse.  In fairness to Lamberton he does not use crude language or make sexually suggestive posts and that should have alerted me to my mistake.  Bennett of course does.  Apologies.

Maybe not on this forum, but it has been known on other forums as I have seen posters comment on it, now and again.  Here is one such comment.

Recevied another few sexually offensive e-mails from the man himself this week.
What a very sad and deranged individual he really is!

He might think he's some keyboard warrior bullying people at arms length ,but as he's about to discover-he's picked the wrong one this time!!

Enjoy your xmas beast-I will!
http://glasgowinnocence.myfreeforum.org/Lambertons_latest_forum_about282.html

Is it not possible JL and TB are one and the same? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bloggs and son on June 23, 2012, 08:24:PM
but youv nae bother readin nug nugs i bet eh cause it caters to your ideals
Someone please ban this twat. He's just a troll. I can smell 'em a mile off. Well I can smell this one at least. He comes straight from the lambo camp. Get rid of the bastard please. He's only here to cause trouble. He belongs with the numpties and the retards on lam chops forum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bloggs and son on June 23, 2012, 08:27:PM
D-FENS IP:  193.200.150.82

Since I have done the right thing I hope John Lamberton reciprocates, and openly confirms my identification of D-FENS as Tim Bennett.
Don't hold your breath.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Nuala on June 23, 2012, 08:29:PM
Someone please ban this twat. He's just a troll. I can smell 'em a mile off. Well I can smell this one at least. He comes straight from the lambo camp. Get rid of the bastard please. He's only here to cause trouble. He belongs with the numpties and the retards on lam chops forum.

Hi Grahame,

He has been banned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 24, 2012, 12:24:AM
Quote
Is it not possible JL and TB are one and the same?

The thought crossed my mind too.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bloggs and son on June 24, 2012, 12:32:AM
The thought crossed my mind too.
Well he does qualify to have an imaginary friend. Because all his copper mates have deserted him. ;D Instead of living with his family, who also have forsaken him he has loads of mirrors in his house so he doesn't feel alone. And if he feels like talking to someone he goes to the local mountain and shouts out his own name so he can listen to the echo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra on June 24, 2012, 12:59:AM
The thought crossed my mind too.
everyone knows that tim bennett has a canine business in luxembourg so your theory is gone with the wind.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 24, 2012, 01:15:AM
everyone knows that tim bennett has a canine business in luxembourg so your theory is gone with the wind.   Last Edit: Today at 01:05 AM by Dr Sandra »
Report

I don't know anything of the sort.

why are you pretending to be the other Sandra?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Nuala on June 24, 2012, 01:23:AM
everyone knows that tim bennett has a canine business in luxembourg so your theory is gone with the wind.



Sandra, Dr Sandra, you have not introduced yourself in the foyer. Newbies can post in the main forum only once  they've introduced themselves.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra on June 24, 2012, 01:24:AM
I don't know anything of the sort.

why are you pretending to be the other Sandra?
its time you caught up then and stopped talking absolute xxx.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bloggs and son on June 24, 2012, 01:28:AM
its time you caught up then and stopped talking absolute xxx.
This sandra is a troll. I get the wiff of swamp life from him. Ban the bugger. Atrouble maker thats for sure.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on June 24, 2012, 10:39:AM
Maybe not on this forum, but it has been known on other forums as I have seen posters comment on it, now and again.  Here is one such comment.

Recevied another few sexually offensive e-mails from the man himself this week.
What a very sad and deranged individual he really is!

He might think he's some keyboard warrior bullying people at arms length ,but as he's about to discover-he's picked the wrong one this time!!

Enjoy your xmas beast-I will!
http://glasgowinnocence.myfreeforum.org/Lambertons_latest_forum_about282.html

Is it not possible JL and TB are one and the same?  

No, they are definitely two separate people.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 24, 2012, 08:24:PM




Sandra, Dr Sandra, you have not introduced yourself in the foyer. Newbies can post in the main forum only once  they've introduced themselves.

Sandra L username, who is Dr Sandra Lean, posted hello in the foyer on the 30th April.

Sandra, as in username Sandra the troll who is editing their posts as Dr Sandra, has yet to introduce herself.

Just pointing this out for other readers, as it is rather confusing.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 24, 2012, 09:13:PM
sandra L  Thank you for that excellent post and I see what you are meaning things get twisted and warped and I can see the angle of the photo after studying it carefully.

Susan, that was the first time I had seen that photograph, but what stood out for me first and foremost was the poor girl who was with them, she is clearly devastated that it is her friend lying their in that grave.  Secondly, I saw a young lad, who looks absolutely distraught, his face and body language says it all, the pain and suffering he feels is obvious to me, he looks like a lost soul.  What I see is a loving mother giving softly spoken words of comfort to her son at the graveside of his fourteen years old girlfriend.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 24, 2012, 09:27:PM
No, they are definitely two separate people.

Obviously tarred with the same brush then.

There families must be so proud of them  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 25, 2012, 12:37:PM
Is there anything new happening in this case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 26, 2012, 10:41:AM
its gion the eropean court there is also a sccrc review.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 26, 2012, 10:42:AM
Hi nugnug  is that the Scottish Review Board.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 26, 2012, 10:46:AM
yes thats what the s stands for.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 26, 2012, 10:56:AM
Hi nugnug  I seem to think Nat Fraser had refusals from them and that is why he went to the Supreme Court and I believe he is Appealing again after his unsuccesful retrial.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 26, 2012, 11:13:AM
its gion the eropean court there is also a sccrc review.


Thats good. Hope it all works out sooner rather than later for this young man.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 26, 2012, 05:34:PM
i stink to eventully get so great from this case justice will have to be done.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 28, 2012, 11:52:PM
Hi nugnug  is that the Scottish Review Board.

Hi Susan, here is a link to the SCCRC
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=429
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 29, 2012, 07:31:AM
Hi oncesaid  Thanks for the link to the SCCRC I am just about to read it, :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 29, 2012, 10:17:PM
Hi oncesaid  Thanks for the link to the SCCRC I am just about to read it, :)

I haven't read it myself  :-[ will add it to my things to do list  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gerrae on June 30, 2012, 05:49:PM
I’ve read this whole thread and my first set of posts are in response to posts by Lamberton (who is, of course, infamous from many forums) and Janet. Lamberton seems to have disappeared from this forum now, thank goodness, and Janet seems to have had a change of heart (unless it’s a different Janet) , which is great, but I still feel these posts had to be responded to, as there are other people getting their information from the same sources and posting the same kind of non-arguments (i.e. no facts, they just think Luke is guilty).


Replies to Janet 
It’s no surprise that you don’t understand why so many people believe the conviction of Luke Mitchell to be unsafe. You get all your information from the gutter press. So many of your links are to the some of the most biased reporting I’ve ever read. Was no surprise that you eventually posted an article by the hysterical Melanie Reid, trying her best as usual to create moral panics. If she’s to be believed, given the high incidence of divorce and the large number of single parents in this country, we must be raising a new race of Hitlers.

And just when you think the the filth at NOW couldn’t stoop any lower we find out about them hacking poor Milly Dowler’s phone, giving her family false hope that she was still alive.  And the police have known about this (and about all the other illegal hacking) for years and did nothing. Why? Because these are the same wretched excuses for human beings that the police use any time they want someone ripped apart by the press, any time they want someone tried in the court of public opinion not in a court of law. They’re as bad as each other.

If knowing what they did to Milly Dowler’s family doesn’t make you stop and think about all the other people they’ve harmed for no reason other than to sell their rags then nothing will.

Janet wrote:You are trying to tell me that every single thing ever printed about Luke Mitchell or his family is all lies? Not one shred of truth in anything ever said if it is bad for Mitchell? Is that what you are trying to say here? Its not just the Mail you say this about. Its every single news paper.

You are very naïve. I don’t have time to give you a lesson on how these hacks work, but they’re experts at taking everyday occurences or behaviour, never mind anything even slightly eccentric, and making it seems sinister. They spread lies and disinformation like the plague. It’s their foul job to write the most sensational, lurid stories they can to sell their rags – truth doesn’t come in to it.  Just give the people what they want. There’s so much material already to work with that when they do finally set their sights on the Jones family (and they will when the truth about Jodi’s murder comes out) God help them.

Janet quote: We all know the papers get things wrong but come on they do not get everything wrong now do they?

No, they don’t ALL always get everything wrong, and the decent papers will at least try to be balanced. Why don’t you read an article from September 2003 that was published in the Guardian and you’ll find that journalists were not only perfectly aware of what the police were doing to Luke but most of them actively colluded in it.  You might find the last paragraph very ironic:

'Hate Me,' sang Kurt Cobain. I suppose there are some small mercies left in this horrible tale. At least, unlike in America, nobody is claiming the music was responsible for this crime.

Dobbie hadn’t been to the Feds yet, to get the winning idea of using ownership of a Marilyn Manson CD/DVD, bought AFTER Jodi died, to prove Luke committed murder!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/07/ukcrime.comment?INTCMP=SRCH   

You read every rag in the country so you never get a balanced opinion based on good investigative journalism. You read lazy, sensationalist rubbish, from journos who have just as much vested interest in seeing Luke stay in prison as the cops and courts do seeing as how they, as much as the police, ensured that he would never get a fair trial. How I’m looking forward to those vile excuses for human beings having to eat their own foul words.

Janet quote: No one takes what is said by the mitchell brigade seriously anyway.

Thought you didn’t know anyone involved, are a complete outsider, so why do you find it impossible to keep a sense of proportion and resort to personal insult when you don’t like what someone says? If no-one was taking the ‘mitchell brigade’ seriously why are people like you so defensive, and why did JoJ threaten Sandra Lean with ABH? Did it make him feel like a big man to threaten a tiny little woman, or is it just his violent impulses out of control again?


Janet quote: Do you know who said what in court?

It’s what wasn’t said in court that’s more pertinent to finding out the truth!

Janet quote: It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case

No it isn’t.  All the 'facts’ weren’t put before the jury. And if investigations into MOJs only stuck to the ‘facts’ of the original trials no one innocent would ever be released!

Janet quote on the 'not proven' verdict meaning someone is innocent: It might mean it in law, but we all know what it really means don't we?
 

What a smug comment from someone who claims to be interested in justice! Just one of many reasons so many innocent people do get convicted – too many people who think like you. No doubt there are guilty people who walk free, just as there are innocent people who are convicted, but if a case isn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then the person is innocent, whether the verdict is ‘Not Guilty’ or ‘Not Proven’. This is supposed to be not just a sacrosanct legal principle but a moral one too.

Posting a photo of a teenager’s school jotter to prove he’s a maniacal killer – clutching at straws, just like the cops, but secure in the knowledge that so many people are too stupid to see these tactics for what they are or too lazy to look beyond the rubbish you’re fed by the gutter press every day.

Janet quote: I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.

Funny how some folk love to dish it out... 

Janet quote: Are you trying tell us that the police, the prosecutors, defence QC's, lawyers and the pathologists and any other person doing testing on Jodi totally ignored all this sperm and evidence?  I do not believe it.

Doesn’t matter whether you believe it – it’s true. You could read all about this if you wanted to - I believe nugnug has posted links several times to a site with information about this - but perhaps that’s too much effort to make to try and learn the truth. Much easier to read the rags.

Janet quote: Pathologists gave evidence in court. No mention of all this DNA at trial.

And it doesn't strike you as wrong that it wasn't? Again I say, why don’t you read about why this wasn’t raised at trial? Why don’t you question why such deals are done? Why don’t you consider how you’d feel if your own advocate sold you down the river like that. He should be disbarred, or at least censured for his handling of what is laughingly referred to as a defence.

Janet quote: Which according to things I have read, Luke Mitchell said he saw the night the body was found yet the pathologist said it was not easily visible.

Luke couldn’t give a detailed description of what he saw, yet despite this poor visibility Alice Walker managed to give a vivid and graphic description of what Jodi’s body looked like when she first saw it, in stark contrast to Luke’s or SKs.  Is it usual for a 65 (or thereabouts) year old woman to have better eyesight than a 14 year-old boy with a torch?

And you’re really happy to just ignore all the statements changing, lies about phone calls and texts, people being in places they just could not have got to in the time scales they claim, all the male members of the extended Jones family being kept well out the picture, police disregarding the most incredibly suspicious behaviour by members of the Jones family, collusion between family members, etc. etc.? There’s really nothing at all that makes you wonder what the hell really went on that night and during the subsequent investigation?

If the answer is no, why don’t you post why you believe so strongly that Luke is guilty, and upon what evidence you base that belief. Funny how no members of the Jones family, or SK, will do that either. Why don’t you explain all the contradictions, inconsistencies and lies. Why don’t you explain why you think it’s ok for all the Jones family to completely change their statements over a significant period of time but Shane Mitchell was pilloried for once asking to add a detail to his statement which he dared to remember after talking to his mother.

Janet quote: Frontlines clearly biased agenda

What about the press bias that you so happily overlook as you post link after link to articles from the worst of the gutter press?

Janet quote: Luke Mitchell Support hint very strongly that the Jones family are involved in some way

I’m afraid that it’s the evidence that more than hints that the family lied about very many things. To read the details of the way all their stories changed so dramatically, including all forgetting the same stuff, to all remembering the same stuff, from all remembering the same things, to all remembering something completely different, is breathtaking. All the details that they didn’t know:  when Jodi left, what she was wearing, no recollection of Jodi using Judy’s phone to send any texts. Yet after about a month of kind assistance from the cops they were able to present such a loving story of a happy family sitting together listening to a ’meaningful’ song, before Jodi was ‘ungrounded’ and set off so happily to meet her boyfriend – that according to Dobbie she was about to confront over having another girlfriend in such a manner he’d go mental and kill her!

Many people are gobsmacked at the extent of the lies and the amount of family members involved in lying, including, let's not forget, cousins JoF and GD. People want an explanation. Until more details from their statements, and the progression of the changed stories, came into the public domain the extent of the lying by the Jones family was not public knowledge, so even people who were disquieted at the lies that were exposed at trial, felt they could not discuss these feelings openly as it was unthinkable surely that Jodi's family could have had any involvement in the murder, or be shielding the guilty parties.

Yet how a jury could ignore the lies and suspicious behaviour of JF, GD and SK, with such a history of violence, drug abuse and involvement in drug dealing (and they aren't the only ones), and find it was proved beyond doubt that a 14 year old with no history of violence (except a fight at school when he was about 10!),  and no evidence to link him to the crime, is truly terrifying.  And thanks to the police determining it was Luke who was guilty from the very beginning (many of the facts that prove this to be true have been made public on WAP), they weren’t the only people whose history could have been relevant but who were never properly investigated.

And unlike the police and the Jones family, I for one do not for a second buy any 'transfer' rubbish about why SKs sperm was not just on Jodi’s t-shirt but on her underwear too. It beggars belief that no one in the Jones family, not Jodi’s mother, not Jodi’s sister who was SKs fiancé (who even married him), had any problems with this at all.  It wasn’t even him who offered the explanation that Jodi must have been wearing Janine’s t-shirt. The first suggestion of this was made by the POLICE themselves (read about it on WAP). And the Jones family don’t find anything strange about that? No. In fact, Janine is quite happy to go along with that suggestion, although her statements regarding it seem to have been very vague. And what a happy coincidence that she had two identical t-shirts!  And so into this police theory do the Jones family get that auntie Agnes even works into the appeal for information that Jodi was always borrowing Janine’s clothes WITHOUT ASKING! WTF was that included in such an appeal, if not to establish as fact something that has never been proven as fact.

And why was the t-shirt not shown on the reconstruction – Jodi was known to wear her hoody unzipped and hanging off her shoulders.  Seeing the t-shirt could have helped jog memories. Why couldn’t the police even get that right?

Such was the horror of what happened to Jodi that for many years the Jones family have not had to answer for anything, with the police and the media practically elevating Judy to sainthood, and ignoring very many nasty problems within that family that might have had a bearing on what happened that night. Such was the public sympathy for the Jones family that Donald Findlay wouldn't even cross-examine them on all the inconsistencies, contradictions and lies because it would alienate the jury! Shame on him for not doing right by Luke and exposing all these things. Shame on him for not having an independent forensic report done and introducing the DNA evidence at trial. Shame, shame, shame on L&B police for ignoring ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT POINTED TO OTHER PEOPLE in their determination not to concede that they’d screwed up big time in going after a 14 year-old kid without any evidence whatsoever.  Shame, shame, shame on everyone who has denied Jodi justice by lying and covering up for the real killer/s.

Replies to Lamberton
You are a seriously disturbed person. Attacking people for not having much money – well, hardly surprising. Money is obviously more important to you than anything else. Your greed led you to become a convicted criminal.

Lamberton criticising nugnug - He cannot even provide a single shred of evidence in support of Luke Mitchell yet he claims to be the saviour for everyone else. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Well, Lamberton, you started out being one of LMs strongest supporters yet now you hate him – but it’s you that can’t provide one shred of proof that Luke Mitchell killed Jodi. The police couldn’t do it either. You are the hypocrite.

I don’t know, nor do I care, if you’re innocent or not, but I do know that you have an ego the size of Mount Everest – you only do Luke down now because people on WAP wouldn’t allow you to keep posting wild theories, and you’re so mad at them that you’ve turned into their biggest detractors. 

I don’t know or care whether Janet and John are one and the same (although the use of ‘Janet’ as an alter-ego would seem to reflect Lamberton’s juvenile sense of humour and his belief that he’s cleverer than everyone else – trait of conmen everywhere) but ‘she’ has certainly come to reflect his style and seems more concerned with having a public love-in with him (who appears to have created new online identities for this specific purpose many times) rather than have any desire whatsoever to find out the truth about who murdered Jodi

Your posts continually describe horrific injuries to Jodi. We all know what they were. Why do you regurgitate the details at every opportunity? What’s worse for Judy Jones – having to constantly read your lurid descriptions or people simply asking questions or presenting facts which cast, at the very least, serious doubt on the safety of Luke's conviction, if not pointing very clearly towards the actual killers of her daughter? If it’s the latter (and I’ve never seen her make any objection to you and your ilk writing in this way) then people who want to know the truth must ask why this is the case.

Lamberton quote: Typical of a scum bag coward to ridicule a woman for drinking when her beautiful 14 year-old daughter was murdered by the psycho Luke Mitchell but then again murder is no stranger to the smiffy family is it? 

Judy Jones didn’t start drinking because her daughter was murdered, it’s something she’s done for years. Indeed, it’s what she was doing the night Jodi was killed, in between lifting a non-existent grounding, making lasagne, visiting graves, failing to notice her daughter was in effect reported missing by Luke to her partner AO at 6.40pm – she apparently didn’t realise this until she called Luke at 10.40pm, although Jodi’s usual curfew was around 9.30 or 10.

When Judy does decide to get in touch with Jodi she doesn’t even phone, yet she did call someone else that night, around 10.15pm – why won’t she say what that was about? What was so important that that person merited a phone call but her own daughter didn’t? Most parents would have been sending out the search parties at 6.40 when they’re first informed their child is not where they’re supposed to be, but even knowing this Judy still isn’t concerned enough to even phone her when she hasn’t got home by 10.40. Most parents fear the worst if their kids are even a little late – it’s why the relief when they turn up safe and well turn them into lunatics.

Many people questioned this behaviour privately but tempered it with the utmost sympathy for her grief – after all, every parent makes mistakes. But in the light of all the curious phone calls, the behaviour of the search parties, the aunties who must have been on the scene even before they’ve been told what’s happened, the vast gulf between original statements and what is finally said by the Jones family and SK in court (statements which were developed over a considerable period of time and in some cases with considerable prompting from police officers), the DNA results that were obtained (not to mention DNA results that weren’t – for example, from under Jodi’s fingernails), people have to ask questions.

Lamberton quote: Well done to the Daily Record and The Scottish Sun for following up on the recent comments and exposing the Wrongly Accused retards for what they really are.

Bizarre that someone who purports to care about justice and decency would congratulate two of the worst offenders for peddling lies and filth – then again, their articles are written so they can be understood by people with an average reading age of 7! They know their audience.

Lamberton quote: Luke was seen loitering by the end of Roan's Dyke footpath at 5.42pm (27 mins after the murder some 150m away) by no less than two independent witnesses who described him and his clothing perfectly.

This says it all about what you know – nothing! You don't know when she died – no one does. Time of death was never established. You're doing what the cops did – using a fictitious timeline so Luke can be neatly slotted in and blamed for the murder. This is one reason why the time of Jodi leaving home was changed so drastically – from 5.30 to 4.50. 

Re Luke being near RD and at what time – you’re accepting evidence from witnesses who changed their statements from what they originally said (especially in relation to WHERE they saw him, which was near the Abbey) and who even Findlay couldn't fail to discredit in court. But again, you’re only doing what the cops, courts and jury did. And yes, those 2 witnesses did describe Luke’s bomber jacket, the one he’d been wearing all day, the one the cops had, the one that had no forensic evidence on it (like all his other clothes) to link him with Jodi’s murder, the one he never denied wearing. What they didn't describe was the parka that the police were so insistent that he had been wearing!

And leaving aside the fact that you don’t know that Jodi was dead by 5.15, are you seriously saying that a mere 27 minutes later Luke would be casually loitering on Newbattle Road (regardless of whether it was closer to the path or not) having disposed of the weapon so well it’s never been found, erased all trace of his having been at the scene, but being careful to leave behind blood, semen and saliva from other people, (and unidentified hairs), got rid of all his clothing from the skin out (including the forensic suit he must have been wearing or, failing possession of that, a parka, which is apparently just as effective at ensuring a crime scene doesn’t get contaminated). Are you sure you’re not Craig Dobbie?

And why did he not phone his mates to meet him at that point? Why just hang about quite openly on the main road? If he’d just killed her he’d sure as hell know Jodi wasn’t coming to meet him and he’d want to be with other people as quickly after the event as possible. And if he was cool and calculated enough to ensure there was ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO LINK HIM TO THE MURDER he’d be cool and calculated enough to do that.

Lamberton quote: The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.

You’re just making that ‘close contact’ bit up. They smoked weed at lunchtime in the company of other friends, none of whom described them as having had close PHYSICAL contact, and they weren’t in each others classes.  Also, why are you saying it’s suspicious that Luke’s DNA wasn’t on her clothing because they’d had contact at school that day – don’t you believe that Jodi wasn’t wearing the same clothes she’d worn to school that day? That she was wearing her sister’s t-shirt (even though nothing was produced to prove that and it was the police who first made that suggestion to SK as he struggled to explain why his semen was all over Jodi)? Another resemblance to Dobbie –  neither of you let the truth get in the way of a good story so you contradict yourselves time and again without even realising it. 

Hope you've gone for good. You won't be missed.

To everyone posting about alibis – how does anyone know whether someone had an alibi for the time the murder happened as there was no positive time of death established. The police built a circumstantial case for the time the murder occurred but this was never backed up by any scientific evidence. ( And why there wasn’t any is another question that those of us who care about truth and justice would like answered.)  Luke can state where he was and with whom for the entire period of Jodi leaving home until she was found dead. For some of that time he was home with his mother but for the majority of the period his whereabouts are corroborated by witnesses who had nothing to gain from their testimony. SOME of the jury (remember it was not a unanimous decision) chose to disregard these witnesses and trust a witness who had caught a glimpse of a couple of people as she drove round a sharp bend with her 2 children in the car, who did not describe the clothing Jodi was known to have been wearing, who did not describe the jacket the police claimed Luke had been wearing, who refused to identify Luke in court as the ‘man’ she had seen, and who had changed her story (including the time she drove round that bend) several times. SOME also chose to believe 2 witnesses who placed Luke near the entrance to the other end of the path although they had originally told the police, and other people, that he was much further down the road near the Abbey, where he himself said he was, and which is corroborated by independent witnesses. Neither did they describe him as wearing the jacket that the police claimed Luke was wearing. They also changed the time they originally said they’d seen him. And some people on this forum wonder why so many people think there has been a miscarriage of justice!

FreeWillieGage – why do you accept that SKs sperm was on Jodi’s clothing, including her underwear, because she was wearing her sister’s t-shirt? If you knew anything about semen stains you would find it ridiculous that a young girl about to go and meet her boyfriend would wear a t-shirt stained with another man’s semen. It’s not as if she wouldn’t have noticed it! It would have been highly visible (the t-shirt was black!) and would have felt nasty.

And, to reiterate, the information that is now in the public domain (details on WAP) that no DNA samples taken from Jodi’s body matched Luke’s DNA, that some samples have been identified and match SK, that there are a number of samples which are still unidentified, all come from the reports of the forensic testing carried out for the police. It is fact, and no amount of refusing to believe it, or trying to argue it away will alter the facts. Luke’s DNA was not on Jodi, but DNA BELONGING TO OTHER MEN was. Why do you not want to get to the truth of why the person whose DNA wasn’t found is sitting in jail while all the other DNA evidence is ignored?

You also question why Luke’s DNA wasn’t found on Jodi as they’d been together at school that day. (Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don’t!) Like Lamberton, you’re clutching at straws here because the answer is very simple. Jodi and Luke met at lunchtime that day but were not alone, several other friends were with them, so they weren’t being intimate with each other. They may well have sat close together, and hugged on parting, so Luke’s DNA probably was on her at that point – maybe some hair, some skin cells. So why wasn’t it found however many HOURS LATER that the testing was done? Well, when Jodi came home from school SHE CHANGED HER CLOTHES BEFORE GOING OUT. She probably also washed and cleaned her teeth. And Luke never met up with her that night, ergo his DNA was not found on her body.

And why is it odd to you that a teenage boy who phoned his girlfriend and was told she wasn’t in didn’t call back again but went to meet his mates, especially as arrangements to meet were often casual and flexible. Yet to you it’s not odd that her parents weren’t concerned that she wasn’t with Luke 40 minutes after she’d allegedly left to meet him (although the ever-changing statements from Judy Jones about the time Jodi actually left home suggest she didn’t have a clue what time it was.) Neither do you seem to find it bizarre that she then waited until 10.40pm (40 minutes past her curfew, and 4 HOURS AFTER LUKE TOLD ALAN OVENS THAT JODI WASN’T WITH HIM) to try and contact Jodi, and even then it she did not phone but sent a text! You have a very skewed idea about who should have been taking responsibility for Jodi’s well being.

I also question why you are so hellbent on attacking people concerned about this case and appointing yourself arbiter of whether or not they believe that Luke is innocent. The fact is, while many people are certain that Luke is innocent other people may not be so certain. They do not have to be because what they are certain about is that Luke was not treated fairly by the police and the press, that public opinion was so turned against him that he could not get a fair trial (remember juries are picked from the general population, and remember some of the shenanigans that went on with the jury!), that the police botched the investigation from the very beginning (failing to cover the scene, evidence being moved, bins not being searched for the murder weapon, the police surgeon not attending the scene until the next day because the police could neither assist the first one to attend to get over a wall nor suggest that she WALK ROUND IT!, people linked to the crime scene by DNA and/or witnesses were ignored as possible suspects, etc., etc.). What they are concerned about are all the conflicting and contradictory phone calls and the ever-changing statements of who was where, why and at what time, things the police should have been concerned about but weren’t. What they do know is that the truth about Jodi’s murder is not yet known.

People caught up in the investigation KNOW the underhanded and bullying tactics used by the police to try and get the statements they wanted, to turn the many people who did not believe that Luke was guilty against him. Tactics used not just with adults but with vulnerable children, of whom, let’s not forget, Luke Mitchell was one. Those people also KNOW the PART PLAYED BY THE TABLOIDS – lies, smears, innuendo and even bigger lies – AND ALL OF IT SANCTIONED BY THE POLICE AND THE COURTS. And how the ‘tabloid-reading public’ loved it. Just another blood sport - watching a child, who had the right, legally and morally, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, being ripped apart. Funny how everyone knows that you ‘can’t believe everything you read in the papers’ – until it turns them on. One young life cut short so tragically wasn’t enough for the tabloids or for them.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gerrae on June 30, 2012, 06:13:PM
Thoughts of Jodi are never far from my mind, but especially on her anniversary, and I want to let everyone who loved her know that you are all in my thoughts and prayers. I have to believe that one day the truth of what happened to that loving, caring girl will be revealed, and all those who are still suffering so much will finally find some peace and freedom from all this horror.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on June 30, 2012, 07:24:PM
Gerrae


I had a change of heart after reading all the available information and also stopping listening to other people. I made my own mind up. Is that not what is wanted? I think that fact is pretty clear from my later postings so I really do not see why you are being so agressive.

I don't know anyone from the Mitchells or their people. I expressed views which have now changed and that is my right to do so.

I believe Luke Mitchell should at the least have a new trial. I believe he may indeed be innocent.
This should be enough explanation should it not?

I have just noticed what today's date is. Rest in Peace Jodi.My thoughts are with her family especially today.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on June 30, 2012, 10:31:PM
9 years today  :(  So many people were and still are affected by the murder of this young girl, even after 9 years its as if it was only yesterday as everything is still raw. R.I.P. Jodi
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on July 01, 2012, 03:03:AM
only one message of condolence on Lukes forum today, that website isn't about Jodi Jones one bit.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 01, 2012, 11:14:AM
only one message of condolence on Lukes forum today, that website isn't about Jodi Jones one bit.

I agree that the website isn't about Jodi Jones and rightly so IMO.  Luke Mitchell is only one of half a dozen cases that are hosted on that site.  The site is more for moj victims, their families and friends/supporters.  The victims are never forgotton but the main thoughts of members must surely be for the people who have been wrongly convicted, and their families.  There are so many victims when a miscarriage of justice occurs.  :( Campaigning and supporting miscarriage of justice victims, is also about getting justice for the victim of crime and finding out the truth about what happened to them. 

I had a look through all the moj cases that are supported on the wap forum and checked to see whether anyone comments on the anniversary of the other victims deaths.  It's not something the posters/members do on other moj threads so Jodi not having any comments, or having one or two, I don't think is such a big deal. 

What you've got to remember is the circumstances of the death in all the cases of moj.  It is not just the fact that someone has been murdered.  A murder happens, then someone is wrongly arrested and convicted.  Two sets of families lives are turned upside down, their lives will never be the same. :(   

It is tragic when someone takes the life of another, but if you, your son, husband, daughter etc were not responsible for the death what are you supposed to say?  Sometimes it is best to say nothing IMO.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 01, 2012, 11:55:AM
The brother could not remember what he'd done that evening - it was a perfectly ordinary weekday evening until midnight, when Corinne found out that Jodi had been found dead, and some time after that before Shane was informed.

In his initial statement, he said he presumed he had come home from work as normal, at around 3.30pm. It was evidence from his phone and another witness which drew attention to the fact that this part of his statement was incorrect. No negative inference was drawn from this - it was totally accepted that he had simply forgotten that he had stopped off at a friend's house on his way home from work that evening. It is that evidence which places him as arriving home at around 4.50pm, and other phone evidence which shows his arrangement to go out later that evening.

He discussed the evening with his mother, who reminded him that the only thing that might have made the evening stand out in his memory was that that was the night his dinner had been slightly burned. He returned voluntarily to the police to add this information to his statement.

Now, the two boys on the moped, who were Jodi's cousins, and were on the path, and their bike was at the V break without them at 5.15pm, took 5 days to come forward. They did not volunteer the information that they had been on the path at any point until a police appeal on Saturday 5th July, complete with description, was broadcast. When they did contact the police, following this broadcast, they both gave a different time - they said they were on the path about an hour earlier. When asked why they had not come forward sooner, one of them said Jodi's grandmother had told him not to go to the police, because they were on the path "too early."

If it was only the bike that was seen there is only two places they could have been, one is over the v in the wall where the attack occured, or two, lying in the long grass next to the path they were on with their bike, as this is the only way witnesses would have been unable to see them.

I have always had my suspicions about these two for not going voluntarily to the police, but more so for disposing of the bike which would have had their fingerprints all over it, and placed them at the scene of the crime, and one of them cutting off his hair.  They also maintained that they had been at the v in the wall at 4.15pm.  The murder was supposed to have happened at 5.15pm.  If they didnt know of the time when the murder occured why would they lie about the time they were on the path?

The main point about these two, however, is that they said in evidence that they had spent the 5 days "talking about everything" before "realising they might have been on the path at the time Jodi was killed." there are a few points to this:

(1) They must have known from day 2 of the investigation that they were on the path at the time in question - police were appealing for anyone who had been in the vicinity of the path between 5pm and 10pm that evening.

(2) After realising this, why did they then lie to the police, and give a different time instead? Why did one of them lie to Jodi's grandmother about the time he was on the path. Was it a lie or a mistake? Well, given that one of them had an appointment, and knew the time of that appointment, and the other picked him up after that appointment, in order for the time given to have been a "mistake," both would have had to have suffered total amnesia for these events!

(3) Why is it "suspicious" that Luke's brother made a mistake about the period around 5pm that evening, discovered his mistake when speaking to his mother (a mistake which had already been verified by other evidence, incidentally) and going straight back to the police to correct it, when it is not considered suspicious that two of Jodi's cousins were discussing "everything" for 5 days, failed to come forward until they were forced to do so, and then lied about their whereabouts and whenabouts?
IMO, it was made to look suspicious because they had to discredit Lukes brother and his mother.  They had nothing else to go on, discrediting both of them was the crowns way of convincing the jury of Lukes guilt.  There was no suspicion placed on the others who chopped and changed their stories, because they were handpicked witnesses for the crown.

Why is it not suspicious that they "could not remember" where they were or what they were doing while their bike was propped against the V break, behind which Jodi's body was found, at 5.15pm, the claimed time of death?

Shane may have forgotten what he had for dinner, but there was no suggestion that he was anywhere near the murder scene at the claimed time of the murder. Yet there is direct, provable evidence, (including their own admission)  that these two were right at the spot, at exactly the time the police claimed Jodi was murdered, but it's not in any way suspcious that they could not account for their movements, and chose, instead, to lie about them?

And, for clarity, Shane did not say Luke was not at home, he said he could not remember. He also said, in evidence, that his treatment at the hands of the police had been so hostile and aggressive that he was no longer sure of anything relating to that evening. Having seen the various interrogations, etc, I am not at all surprised. In one "interview," the police officer says repeatedly, "I'm not accepting I don't know, I'm not accepting I can't remember, that's just not good enough. You'll give me an answer," When he protests that he can't answer definitively, and that the police officer is confusing him (by asking several questions at once without waiting for a response, then demanding an answer to somethng entirely different) he is told, "Picture this in your head... can you see this, I'm asking you to picture this..." (the officer describes a particular scene)...

Would D FENS apply the same criticisms to Jodi's brother who is attributed as having told police officers that the family, Jodi included, sat down and had dinner at the table together before Jodi left, when no such thing took place?
I hadn't heard that before.  I find that very odd, considering at one point a witness said the brother wasnt even there himself in the home, but yet the brother was saying that not only was he there, but Jodi was too, at a time the crown claimed she had already been killed.  It was never a fair and honest investigation so there were never going to be a fair trial.   
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 06, 2012, 01:23:PM
only one message of condolence on Lukes forum today, that website isn't about Jodi Jones one bit.

its funny you should say that becouse there were no messages of condolence on her official site ether.

and that was from people who do procliam to care about her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on July 07, 2012, 04:38:AM
its funny you should say that becouse there were no messages of condolence on her official site ether.

and that was from people who do procliam to care about her.


What's her official website?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on July 07, 2012, 07:24:PM

What's her official website?

there isn't a website except a memorial page

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 08, 2012, 01:45:PM
here it is as you can see there were no posts.

http://www.respectance.com/JodiJones/

funny litle tribute altogether really.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on July 08, 2012, 05:56:PM
nugnug, has there been any explanation as to what happened to the knife that luke carried, but has never been found?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 08, 2012, 06:23:PM
oh you mean the empty knife pouch that knife was found.

it was  in lukes house it just wasn't in the pouch his mum had put it away.

in truth there was no missing knife.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 08, 2012, 06:33:PM
this should explain.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/

if you read this link it should explian
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on July 08, 2012, 06:36:PM
oh you mean the empty knife pouch that knife was found.

it was  in lukes house it just wasn't in the pouch his mum had put it away.

in truth there was no missing knife.
Thanks nugs.
I am not sure of this case, but what I find compelling is the semen stains on Jodi's top and pants that belonged to Jaines boy friend. I do not believe that Jodi would have put on soiled clothing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 08, 2012, 06:38:PM
well it would depend weather she could see them or not.

but i dont think any girl that age would knowingly put on a shirt with a sperm stain on it.

i mean most tramps wouldn't do it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 16, 2012, 05:46:PM
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/edinburgh/campaigners-poised-for-new-bid-to-clear-jodi-jones-killer-1-2414295
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 16, 2012, 07:28:PM
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/edinburgh/campaigners-poised-for-new-bid-to-clear-jodi-jones-killer-1-2414295

An excellent article, well done to David O'Leary and the Scotsman.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 16, 2012, 10:55:PM
i am somewhat confused as to how a review can be done on the basis of something that is not admissible evedence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2012, 02:21:PM
still deafining silence from the record i notice.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 20, 2012, 02:54:PM
i am somewhat confused as to how a review can be done on the basis of something that is not admissible evedence.

The lie detector results will be a tiny part of what is contained in the submissions to the SCCRC and will not form the basis of a review.  I think the journalist has got the wrong end of the stick. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 20, 2012, 03:00:PM
still deafining silence from the record i notice.

nugnug I think it is possible that the DR now realizes that Luke might just be innocent right enough, and have taken a backseat from reporting on him.  Perhaps this is a good thing that they have not reported on him recently, due to the damage they have done to him and his family since 2003.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 20, 2012, 03:05:PM
this should explain.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/

if you read this link it should explian

I think if anyone is interested in discussing this case on here they should read the caseblog in full, and if they have the time, read the thread which discusses the case, because if it is factual information they are looking for, that is where they will find it.

It is such a complex case, but well worth reading about.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2012, 03:14:PM
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/luke-mitchell-in-new-bid-to-gain-freedom.18196698
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on July 20, 2012, 03:33:PM
nugnug I think it is possible that the DR now realizes that Luke might just be innocent right enough, and have taken a backseat from reporting on him.  Perhaps this is a good thing that they have not reported on him recently, due to the damage they have done to him and his family since 2003.

And yet it seems they now have something to say. They used his proper name too.

Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/07/20/luke-mitchell-to-launch-new-appeal-over-jodi-jones-murder-claiming-lookalike-confused-eyewitnesses-86908-23910418/)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2012, 03:41:PM
i was rather shocked by that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on July 20, 2012, 03:47:PM
i was rather shocked by that.

I know, you had to have a lay down :)
 Nice to see they reported the facts without all the lurid headlines. Now if they were to keep reporting the facts, that would make some very interesting reading for their paying customers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2012, 04:06:PM
oh yes i mean theres a mountian of inforemation about the case all there waiting for them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2012, 07:42:PM
i wonder if we will hear anything from the sun.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2012, 08:26:PM
http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2012, 09:36:PM
Today was a big day in the progess of Luke's case, and I am very pleased with how it went - we got a great deal of media coverage and, as some posters have already discussed, even the Daily Record, which has been consistently negative for nine years, printed, for the first time, an article which reported only the facts.

The submission to the SCCRC took months to put together, and we had the help of some brilliant legal people - it's a very long, very hard route, as I know so many of you already now.

It was a huge shock, however, to get back from Glasgow, and hear on the news that there are plans to make lie detector tests mandatory for sex offenders, since Luke and Corinne (his mother) both took, and passed, lie detector tests earlier this year. If these tests are being considered reliable enough to decide whether or not dangerous sex offenders should be allowed liberty (or continued liberty), then surely they are reliable enough to at least suggest a re-examination of a terrible miscarriage of justice involving a 15 year old boy?

I have said elsewhere, I would love to see a test case challenging the "double standards" surrounding the use of the polygraph in the UK - I believe Jeremy took, and passed, a polygraph, I know Jordan Towers is desperate to take one, Luke and Corinne have taken them, and I read on this forum that Simon Hall wanted to take one - yet none of this is "admissible." I have also said elsewhere that the willingness to take the test is something worth consideration - Luke and Corinne said yes immediately when they were asked, even though they had no idea what the questions would be (as is the case, I believe, for anyone taking the test). Those who are actively asking to take the test are surely putting themselves at enormous risk if they are not telling the truth - either that, or they genuinely believe they can "fool" the test - either way, if the government is willing to pay for tests for sex offenders, then why not for those claiming innocence who want to take them?

Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone on here discussing Lukes case - it's good to see different support forums running threads supportive of other MoJs.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 20, 2012, 09:40:PM
And yet it seems they now have something to say. They used his proper name too.

Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/07/20/luke-mitchell-to-launch-new-appeal-over-jodi-jones-murder-claiming-lookalike-confused-eyewitnesses-86908-23910418/)

Brilliant!!!  I think this is a major turning point. I would hope that they continue to report fairly, and accurately on this case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2012, 09:45:PM
well if they want stories there is plenty there them to print all free and all right there for them all they need to do is copy.

they dont have to worry about being sued i mean nobody has sued us.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2012, 09:49:PM
Nor can they, nugnug. Or rather, they can try, and they would lose, because every single thing I have put into the public domain is backed up by paperwork.

In fact, if the papers wanted to lift anything from the WAP wesite/forum about Luke's case, I will appily show them the papers which back up the points they want to use, i exchange for a small donation to charities supporting the wrongly accused.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 20, 2012, 09:52:PM
Hi Sandra, just noticed your post.  I'm delighted to hear that today went well.  I hope that Luke gets to read all the press articles, especially the Daily Record as I think that is what is needed, all the tabloids and broadsheets to start getting the truth out there once and for all.

What a boost this will be for him, well done to everyone involved who made this happen.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2012, 10:11:PM
On a completely separate note, I often eat bombay mix or peanuts whilst working and the crumbs creep into my keyboard. Eventually, my posts have so many typos because the keys don't work properly, that I don't always manage to edit them all... that's when I know it's time to get the hoover out!

Oncesaid, thank you, it has been a long journey, often with no apparent progress, but we have never given up, and there has always been something going on behind the scenes, even if things have appeared quiet outwardly. Days like today are big achievements - we need to win over public opinion as much as legal process.

I haven't posted on other forums for a long time - the people who know me know why - but I realised that getting the stories of wrongly accused persons out to as wide an audience as possible is the only way to muster enough support and opinion to push for the changes to the justice systm that we need to help all MoJs.

So I have tentatively dipped a toe back into two forums - this one, and the Shirley McKie forum - we need to be working together. The system already isolates those suffering injustice - those of us fighting need to make sure we don't exacerbate that isolation by ending up fighting each other
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on July 20, 2012, 10:17:PM
How can this ever be achieved when one individual has single handedly destroyed that prospect ? The system are releieved by it, as they know its then been defragmented.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2012, 10:44:PM
Chelsea, no one person can "single handedly" destroy anything.

We have limited energy - we can choose to use it to focus on where we're going, or on what's in our way. Guess what we'll see, whichever one we decide to focus on?

I believe that if something is destroyed by people, then it's destroyed by everyone involved - if we give our energy to something we believe is destroying what we are trying to achieve, then we have given away that portion of our energy that could have been used to..... well, just achieve it!

Today, in moving one family enduring wrongful conviction forward, we gave hope to all families hoping to move their own circumstances forward - that's good enough for me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on July 20, 2012, 10:56:PM
Read that three times ! Makes sense, so I shall go back to thinking the way I used to., and hopefully feel happier too. Negative people just drain my energy. They make me feel depressed. When I meet older people like that, it makes me question the point of this world of ours.That said, your wisdom has cheered me up, as I believe in what you have said. Thanks
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 21, 2012, 11:31:AM
The Scotsman have today run a story quoting the statement from Luke which we handed out to the media yesterday:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/i-m-an-innocent-lad-condemned-by-lies-and-errors-claims-luke-mitchell-1-2424857

Pretty good story (except, of course, I'm not a lawyer!!!) Good to see the media printing facts, at last.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 21, 2012, 01:03:PM
The Scotsman have today run a story quoting the statement from Luke which we handed out to the media yesterday:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/i-m-an-innocent-lad-condemned-by-lies-and-errors-claims-luke-mitchell-1-2424857

Pretty good story (except, of course, I'm not a lawyer!!!) Good to see the media printing facts, at last.

I laughed out loud when I read you were a lawyer, because you could probably do a better job than those claiming to be and getting paid handsomely for being lawyers.

Another good article, with no nonsense, thats what I like to see. :)


I was disappointed that the Daily Record didn't last long with there fair reporting.  ::)  I remember this guy Paul O'hare who wrote the article, (if one could call it that as its about a dozen lines), as he had written another unrelated article last year and his name stuck in my head as he got pelters for it by a blogger, as shit journalism.  Think the blogger was onto to something there. ;D

Shit Journalism Digest #4
Just a quick one today, focusing on a local bit of news for me...

Last night, there was a 'bomb scare' at the Aberdeen University Hillhead Halls of Residence. I hesitate to call it a bomb scare because there were no bombs involved; the bomb squad were in attendance, though, and apparently some materials which could possibly have been used to make a bomb were present.

Essentially, a Chemistry student, known among his peers for making and pretty much being constantly high on his own LSD, was trying something a bit different by cooking crystal meth. I guess he'd been watching acclaimed American suspense-drama Breaking Bad. Most papers reported on this calmly enough; the Press and Journal stuck it on the front page, with a cursory mention of the fact that the police had refused to confirm that there was any trace of methamphetamine. STV ran a similar story, as did the Herald; what mention of the drug that there was was made calmly and in a reserved, sensible fashion. None of them used the word "sex", for example.

And then, the Daily Record ran with the huge headline: "BOMB SQUAD BUST STUDENT SEX DRUGS LABORATORY".

Hang on, did they just jam the word "sex" in there at random? I mean, I know sex sells and all, but it's a bit uncalled for just jimmying it into every other sentence...oh, wait. They're going to try to justify it.

Within a few pars, the story (written by one Paul O'Hare; take a bow Paul!) notes that the "deadly sex drug" is "highly addictive" - true - and "heightens sexual pleasure". Now, while that second part may be nominally true, it's not that high in the list of the effects of methamphetamine. Indeed, if you go through the Wikipedia page for just about any drug, eventually it's going to mention some mild form of arousal...cannabis, for example, apparently causes "increased sensuality and libido". So does cocaine. Both, obviously, are also sex drugs - because the only other possibility is that none of them are. And we've already established for a fact, a stone-cold, honest-to-goodness fact, that meth is a sex drug.

Or could it be that the Record latched onto the most sensationalist part of the description that they could find, and decided that crystal meth is an obscure enough drug that they can get away with essentially bullshitting the public?

I'm almost certain that Paul O'Hare knows that the description he's written up is bullshit. Even working for the Retard, he's got to be world-wise enough to know that methamphetamine isn't Viagra. It's a lot of things, a lot of extremely bad things indeed - it's a lot worse than just a sex drug. It's incredibly addictive, and it can be deadly - so the Record have advertised it as being "claimed to improve sexual performance". That's just plain irresponsible in itself.

It's good, though, to know that this is the standard we're working with, though. One possible effect out of about twenty of crystal meth having a mildly sexual connotation makes it a sex drug - well, I'm pretty sure more than one in twenty stories in the Record are sex-based. This is one of them, even. So by the same logic, that would make the Record a sex paper.

A sex paper! And they're allowed to sell this kind of violent pornography in newsagents? Really, there should be a law against it. It should be stored on the very highest of high shelves, coming with a warning of extreme content, and in no circumstances be sold to anyone under the age of 30. Let us just pray that such a depraved publication never falls into the hands of a child or anyone of an impressionable mind.
Posted by Phil at 15:23 
Labels: news, shit journalism, UK

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 21, 2012, 01:41:PM
oh dident the record stick to it then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 21, 2012, 04:22:PM
i dont think the sun will cover this story becouse of there somewhat complicated relshanship with the proscuter.

witch of course i will not delve into any further.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 21, 2012, 08:18:PM
oh dident the record stick to it then.

No, and I was so pleased with their article on Friday, I went out and bought a copy of the DR today. Fairs Fair, I thought.  Wish I hadnt now  ;D  It was a silly wee article but it managed to undo the good from yesterday.

Anyway what was interesting for me, and stupid for them was directly under that there was an article about polygraphs and a call for them to be introduced for sex offenders in Scotland.
The headline was FORCE BEASTS TO TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST, (slightly different from the online version but the content is the same).

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/07/21/freed-sex-beasts-should-be-made-to-take-lie-detector-tests-say-tories-86908-23910790/

Luke Mitchell didnt need forced, he wanted to take one and he happily took the test and passed, as did his mother.   If the use of polygraphs and the results are good enough to be used to protect the public from serious sex offenders then they should be good enough for innocent people trying to fight for their freedom and be admissable in court alongside their other evidence.
 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/07/21/freed-sex-beasts-should-be-made-to-take-lie-detector-tests-say-tories-86908-23910790/ 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 21, 2012, 08:35:PM
scotish tories say it is that all 4 of them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on July 22, 2012, 07:19:AM
Morning nugnug  I thought Scotland had more Panda's than Conservative MP's :) :) :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 22, 2012, 07:43:AM
Lol!

I did actually laugh when I saw the Record - as nugnug and Oncesaid have already posted, the story about Luke was at the top of the page, the story about lie detectors and sex offenders was directly underneath, and to the left, was a little bit telling us all about how the Record prides itself on its honest and fair reporting! Almost choked on my coffee!

How confused must their readers be? Oh, sorry, I forgot, they were the only paper that didn't report on Luke and Corinne's lie detector tests - their readers wouldn't realise there was a contradiction by having the two stories on the same page.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on July 22, 2012, 08:12:AM
Morning sandra L  Well put I would never describe The Daily Record of giving a balanced fair view of anything it is ok for wrapping fish suppers in. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 22, 2012, 08:25:AM
Morning, Susan. I wrote to them via their "For the Record" section which promises to correct mistakes, etc - they had printed some rubbish about Luke's case. Didn't even get an acknowlegement.

Corinne called them up - they'd made up a ridiculous story about Luke and Corinne having a fight in the prison (like they could!!!) - Corinne said, "It never happened - you can check with the prison if you don't believe me." Response from the Record - I kid you not - "We got it from a reliable source."

How do you deal with that? They've got the person the story is about, telling them it didn't happen, offering them proof that it didn't happen, but they prefer to trust the person who made the story up in the first place as "reliable."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on July 22, 2012, 08:33:AM
Hi sandra L  they are not interested in truth just selling their paper and I don't think they are selling many. At one time The Daily Record was thee paper in Scotland but that's not the case now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 22, 2012, 08:42:AM
It's been very frustrating over the years, since nearly all of the papers took a negative stance in this case. This last year or so has seen a slow but steady turnaround - the headlines have gradually become less strident, some of the papers have taken to reporting the facts (and calling up to check they've got it right) - all in all, it's been really encouraging.

I've said many times, it's not just the legal process we need to turn around - Luke was tried in the court of public opinion as well - getting people talking about cases of MoJ is a way of letting the wider public know exactly what goes on, and how easily it could be any one of us.

I realise, of course, that changing public opinion isn't going to get Luke or ay of the others home, but maybe, just maybe, enough people will become angry at what is being done in their names, to demand that the system be cleaned up - that way, we might just help prevent future MoJs. Got to be worth a try anyway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Margot on July 24, 2012, 10:21:AM
Your doing an absolutely wonderful job Sandra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 25, 2012, 01:05:AM
It's been very frustrating over the years, since nearly all of the papers took a negative stance in this case. This last year or so has seen a slow but steady turnaround - the headlines have gradually become less strident, some of the papers have taken to reporting the facts (and calling up to check they've got it right) - all in all, it's been really encouraging.

I've said many times, it's not just the legal process we need to turn around - Luke was tried in the court of public opinion as well - getting people talking about cases of MoJ is a way of letting the wider public know exactly what goes on, and how easily it could be any one of us.
I realise, of course, that changing public opinion isn't going to get Luke or ay of the others home, but maybe, just maybe, enough people will become angry at what is being done in their names, to demand that the system be cleaned up - that way, we might just help prevent future MoJs. Got to be worth a try anyway.

Hi Sandra, there has been quite a lot going on in Scotland lately with different cases being reported about in the press or spoken about on miscarriage of justice public forums, surely the public reading about everything that has been going on cant continue to bury their heads in the sand.  There was the Nat Fraser retrial for instance.  Now whether people thought he was innocent or guilty or had no opinion either way, the whole case has been a disaster from beginning to end and threw up a lot of concerns to at least get the public thinking, I would have thought.  Then there is the guy Sean Toals his case which is on your site.  Nearly a six month wait on a decision from the appeal court, now that is just unbelievable considering all the information that is known relating to the case. Willie Gage he was another guy, who lost his appeal not that long ago, that sounds like another farce of a case, then there is Luke Mitchells case which is an another embaressment for the justice system in Scotland but it should be more than that, Scottish people should be embaressed that this sort of thing is going on and that innocent people are being locked away.  I know there is a lot more but those I mentioned are ones that I have read about in recent months in the press.  If it wasnt for the likes of yourself, forums like this and families and friends of the prisoner who has suffered a miscarriage of justice, then these people and many many others would be locked up and forgotton about. 

I think that the internet is a great way of highlighting miscarriage of justice cases but not everyone follows the cases online so it would be great if the press took more interest in people who claim to have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

I dont know whether you have read this thread or not.  If there is any interest in Lukes case, and members were looking for factual information would you be able to contribute to this thread, even just by correcting any errors?  I know its a big ask and it would be easier if members were members on Lukes site/caseblog then you wouldnt need to go between the two, but if you had the time, and their was interest perhaps we could start a new thread which would mean the information provided from the beginning was accurate?  I totally understand if you do not have the time, but I just thought it may be an idea and since you were on I thought theres no harm in asking. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 25, 2012, 01:12:AM
well the luke Mitchell case will certainly come back to hount them i think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 25, 2012, 08:37:AM
Oncesaid, I haven't read this thread from the beginning, simply because I haven't had time. I don't often have time to keep up with other forums, but I'm quite happy to contribute where I can. Following the completion of two rather large projects in the last month  :), I've had a little more free time, although there's not telling how long that will last.

The only thing I would say is, if it gets to the stupid stage that we've all seen so many times before, and disruptive posters twist what's posted, or ignore it and continue to post rubbish, I wouldn't have the time (or inclination, to be honest) to keep correcting it.

I have noticed the admin/mods here do seem to act pretty quickly when the troublemakers appear, and, like WAP, the genuine posters are quite adept at ignoring them, so it's something that I think could be done sensibly - the only problem I foresee is lack of time on my part.

Nugnug, I think that they genuinely thought much of what went on in the Luke Mitchell case would never see the light of day (and those who thought it might knew it would take so long, they'd be retired off with nice fat pensions by the time it did). I certainly didn't think, back then, that I'd still be doing this more than nine years later. It's been nipping at their ankles right from the beginning - all going well, it's just about to bite a large chunk out of a number of bottoms!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 26, 2012, 12:12:AM
Could I ask that members who are curious about this case to read the following link, then comment on this thread if delving deeper into it and discussing the case in more detail is something you would be interested in doing.  This was a simple case made complex by Lothian and Borders police, IMO.

caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/

This site was made available on the 14th April 2010 with Luke's permission and is his official website.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 26, 2012, 12:19:AM
Thanks Sandra, (I'm dropping the L when addressing you), I totally understand where your coming from.







Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on July 26, 2012, 09:39:PM
Sorry but I am having a terrible time posting links.  Hope this one works  :)

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 04, 2012, 02:54:PM
considring the case was at the sccrc  takeing a lie detector test and failing could be a big risk it could affect an appeal it would certanly affect a retrial but luke and corrine still wanted to take anyway witch i think says a lot.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on August 04, 2012, 05:50:PM
well yes it proves hes guilty i mean who would take such at test if they weren't in league with Satan and he wasn't helping them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 04, 2012, 07:45:PM
maybe the scotish sun editors would like to take a polygraph about there relationship with prosecutor in this case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 05, 2012, 09:05:AM
well yes it proves hes guilty i mean who would take such at test if they weren't in league with Satan and he wasn't helping them.

If the need arose, would you take a polygraph test to prove your innocence?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 06, 2012, 04:11:PM
i think its rather significant that both luke and corrine took the tests so its a double pass.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 06, 2012, 04:20:PM
i think its rather significant that both luke and corrine took the tests so its a double pass.
Good point Nugs.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: rhodes on August 06, 2012, 04:24:PM
Good point Nugs.
They were lucky.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buster2 on August 06, 2012, 04:33:PM
how do you mean lucky?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 06, 2012, 04:43:PM
They were lucky.

they would have to be very lucky.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 07, 2012, 04:16:PM
i dont think this can all just be put down to luck.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 07, 2012, 05:13:PM
They were lucky.

Are you saing that both Luke Mitchell and his mother wanting to take a polygraph, actually doing it and both passing with different questions was down to being lucky?  Since 30th June 2003 this family was struck a major blow and it has been 9 years of bad luck ever since, but it seems out of all this devastation you are suggesting that luck was on their side the day they sat the individual polygraph tests.  Did you actually think things through before you left that comment?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 07, 2012, 05:24:PM
Its hard for people with little insight to come up with anything other than the profound "they were lucky" comment as that would take too much thought to actually come up with any real reason behind it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 07, 2012, 05:36:PM
so if it was just the case that were lucky we must asume that colin stagg was lucky as well and that adrian prout was just unlucky.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on August 13, 2012, 03:51:PM
theres a thread about the case here.

http://wichfindersjusticeforum.myfastforum.org/luke_mitchell_is_guilty_about8.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: simong on August 13, 2012, 04:21:PM
Thats a very good forum you have there Wichfinder. What do you think of Polygraph testing? Would you consider it to be a modern day version of the dunking stool?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on August 13, 2012, 05:25:PM
i think it is the work of Satan.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: simong on August 13, 2012, 06:33:PM
i think it is the work of Satan.

You are mistaken Wichfinder. Simon Cowell has nothing to do with Polygragh testing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 13, 2012, 06:40:PM
simong

 :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 13, 2012, 09:57:PM
i think it is the work of Satan.

I see you have a thread titled james falconers not a pervert, and the thread is to clear his good name.  So, lets hear it then. I'm all ears.  ;D Pervert does sound a very strong word, but what else could be used to describe his behaviour and actions?  Wichfinder, do you think that someone frequenting the woods regularly on their own to masterbate, is common with young men, taking into consideration it is next to a school?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 13, 2012, 10:12:PM


I have no words  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 13, 2012, 10:26:PM
LUKE MITCHELL IS INNOCENT
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: wichfinder on August 13, 2012, 10:31:PM
well the dailey record said he was guilty and they are the experts there the best qualified to know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 01:42:PM
the dailey record does not seem to record much does it it dident record luke and corrine passing a lie detector.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 14, 2012, 01:51:PM
nugnug  The Daily Record  - Fish and Chips :) ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 02:17:PM
about all its good for.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 02:22:PM
Luke Mitchell, innocent?  :o :o :o :o

"A knife pouch was also found in Mitchell's possession on which he had marked "JJ 1989 - 2003"


 ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 02:30:PM
witch means abslutly nothing.

how many kids scribble things on there property its prefectly normall.

the missing knife was accounted for.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 02:38:PM
I disagree it means 'nothing' of course it means something - I'm sure kids scribble notes all the time - but not something like that.

Didn't his alibi fall apart? He claimed to be at home but his own brother says he wasn't. Then he finds the body so easily even though it was hidden.

He was a druggie kid, obessed with death, murder and knives.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 02:41:PM
he dident find the body his dog did just like a dog walker found sarah pains body.

theres no evedence he was obbsesed with any of those things.

everybody involved body involved in the case took drugs including the victims family.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 02:44:PM
No, don't get the facts mixed up - don't allow the story that he has changed after the trial to replace the actual timing of events. He claims it was his dog, this his dog alerted him to 'something strange' through that shaped hole in the fence.

Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.

I suppose he was just walking past whilst his girlfriend (one he claims to have loved yet he was two timing) was being killed.

Wake up, nug nug.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 02:46:PM
your the one getting the facts mixed up all the search agread origannly that the dog found the body the change there statements in court.

at the end of the day his sperm and blood were not found on the body but the sperm and blood of others were.

there were no eye witness they couldn't point to him in court.

the description they gave looked nothing like him.

theres no evedence to put him anywhere near the scene of the crime but plenty of evedence to put othere people there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 02:54:PM
I'm not sure I understand your post. But..The dog found the body? And what - went to the police? ::) No, it was the dog with Luke.. he wasn't side by side with the search party. It's accepted that he found the body - what he says leads him there will change from time to time.

But I can't ignore.
His obessesion with knife murders.
The fact that his own brother failed to give him an alibi - he lied about being home.
The two witnesses that saw him on that lane at the time of the murders.
The note he wrote on the knife.
That it was he who quickly discovered the body in poor conditions (and the attempts to twist this information after the trial has finished).

He had a good lawyer, hell a great lawyer. But his own family were a huge factor in him being convicted, as well as the witnesses that saw him on that lane.

Every 'appeal' has failed. In fact - there was an appeal that decided not to appeal on the evidence but to appeal ont he fact he should be let out (or at least re-tried) because he didn't have access to a lawyer or the first how ever many hours he was arrested. When you get THAT desperate then you know hope is lost.


I don't even think he has a lawyer now - isn't Sandra Lean in charge of his case?

Mitchell isn't going anywhere. Bamber has more of a chance than getting out than Mitchell ever does.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 02:58:PM
donald findley is not a great lawer he never wins he is was one of the worst lawers in history dont believe the hype.

his was in the army caadets he would have knives that does not mean he was obbsesd with them.

we will have to what and see what happens in the case buti can see him being free very soon.

by the logig your using you could say that the guy who found sarah pains body was the killer but we all know he wasnt.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:02:PM
He was obsessed with knives/death/and body multilation. There was a crime in particular that he was obessed with but I can't recall it off the top of my head. It was an American murder - a woman stabbed to death.


I don't think there is anything happening in the case. He losts the appeal in November in near record time. His Mum changes her stories almost as much as he does.

To say he will be free - is mind boggling.
To say he will be free 'soon' ....  ;D :o
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:05:PM
well nobody can predict what the future.


and how has changed her story can you give any examples

there absolutely no evidence he was obbsesd with any of those things.

i think sooner or later they might notice of the dna evedence pointing to other people.

how would he have cleaned his own dna off but left other peoples on there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 14, 2012, 03:19:PM
The dog that accompanied Luke in the search, was a trained tracking dog, this FACT is not disputed.

The dog found the body, as I believe others in the search party confirmed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:21:PM
yes thats exactly right neil.

mat all the points you have allready been covered on lukes website.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:27:PM
I can't see anything on there about the inscription. If it is on there - can someone point me in the direction?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 03:28:PM
Mat before you make anymore statements re the Mitchell case you should atleast read up on what your posting. The majority of it doesn't even resemble the case in question and it seems your very much at odds with even the most basic of details.

Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.

This is just rediculous thing to say as is the majority of what you have posted.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:29:PM
i think this might be what your looking for mat.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/why-luke-is-not-the-murderer-e-and-f/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:31:PM
Mat before you make anymore statements re the Mitchell case you should atleast read up on what your posting. The majority of it doesn't even resemble the case in question and it seems your very much at odds with even the most basic of details.

Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.

This is just rediculous thing to say as is the majority of what you have posted.

I'm not suprised you'd say that.  ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 03:32:PM
Im just trying to stop you making an even bigger fool of yourself.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:35:PM
Im just trying to stop you making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Well thank you. But I can handle myself.
The two witnesses I talked about are mentioned on Luke's official website.  ;) The website complains that it took them a while to come forward.



i think this might be what your looking for mat.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/why-luke-is-not-the-murderer-e-and-f/

Thanks, but not quite. I was looking for anything that mentions the "JJ 1989-2003"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:38:PM
the investigating stated very clearly that there was no postive id.

the website does not say that anyone who bothers to read it will no that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:40:PM
No, I wasn't saying that the website says that. I said that the two witnesses I mentioned are spoken of on the website.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:44:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:45:PM
Still not what I was looking. I've come to the conclusion that the website doesn't mention it.  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 03:45:PM
Quote
The two witnesses I talked about are mentioned on Luke's official website.  ;) The website complains that it took them a while to come forward.

The two witnesses you talk of didn't see him at the exact area of the murder(your words) and didn't come forward of their own accord ever!! That had to be facilitated by a collegue of theirs. These are the same two who lied and I can say that  without fear of incrimination about the time and method of their 1st sightings of Luke. They stated that It was the husband who brought home a paper which had Lukes picture init even although at the time in question the husband was working in Ireland and no picture had been published in the national press.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:46:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:49:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/documentaries/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:50:PM
The two witnesses you talk of didn't see him at the exact area of the murder(your words) and didn't come forward of their own accord ever!! That had to be facilitated by a collegue of theirs. These are the same two who lied and I can say that  without fear of incrimination about the time and method of their 1st sightings of Luke. They stated that It was the husband who brought home a paper which had Lukes picture init even although at the time in question the husband was working in Ireland and no picture had been published in the national press.

So two people lie that they saw Luke in the area?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 03:52:PM
I think your starting to get it , but what concerns me more is your continuous attempts to state that Luke was in "the Area" of course he was he happened to live a matter of yards away.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:52:PM
the discription the gave looked nothing like luke.

they described a man in his early twenty or late teens with shoulder length hair that's certainly not luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:54:PM
It looked enough like Luke to convince a jury. It also looked enough like Luke for Sandra Lean to put forward a suspect because he looks just like Luke so this could have been who the two saw in the area and believed that it was Luke.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 03:54:PM
Oh but the eyes nugnug how they were decribed as the Devils Eyes and then later they couldn't say what hieght he was as he was leaning against a fence looking at the ground!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:55:PM
yes hardly a reliable sighting.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:56:PM
Howcome the website doesn't mention the inscription, gorgo30?  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:57:PM
I think your starting to get it , but what concerns me more is your continuous attempts to state that Luke was in "the Area" of course he was he happened to live a matter of yards away.

yes so if you live in the area you are going to be in the area arnt you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 03:59:PM
It looked enough like Luke to convince a jury. It also looked enough like Luke for Sandra Lean to put forward a suspect because he looks just like Luke so this could have been who the two saw in the area and believed that it was Luke.  :)

yes a jury convicted him well but that nobody can be a moj victem.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 03:59:PM
yes so if you live in the area you are going to be in the area arnt you.

So it was him then?  :o Or it wasn't?
Do you base your beliefs from the court documents/witness statements. Or from the offical website?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 04:00:PM
I must admit mat that even I don't believe that you feel that on the evidence of F&W that some members of the jury(not all) convicted Luke. I have been reading this forum for a while now and I have seen many posts by you that I would describe as concise,articulate and of the utmost import but there has to be a different agenda here today for some reason. I don't feel your being to straight with your proffered views on this case, more so when its obvious that you know little of the case.

The added information about a look alike is not to suggest or highlight to those on the commision that someone was the killer but simply to show the commision the failings of the authorities in this case for not allowing or attempting to interview someone who was not only on their radar but part of those in the vacinity that should have been interviewed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 04:03:PM
So it was him then?  :o Or it wasn't?
Do you base your beliefs from the court documents/witness statements. Or from the offical website?

i said nothing of the sort pointed out a fact.

it based on all of those things.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:05:PM
I must admit mat that even I don't believe that you feel that on the evidence of F&W that some members of the jury(not all) convicted Luke. I have been reading this forum for a while now and I have seen many posts by you that I would describe as concise,articulate and of the utmost import but there has to be a different agenda here today for some reason. I don't feel your being to straight with your proffered views on this case, more so when its obvious that you know little of the case.

The added information about a look alike is not to suggest or highlight to those on the commision that someone was the killer but simply to show the commision the failings of the authorities in this case for not allowing or attempting to interview someone who was not only on their radar but part of those in the vacinity that should have been interviewed.

Of course I'm being straight with my views on the case and I have no agenda. The Luke Mitchell case has never been within a hundred miles of my offices. It's completely out of our jurisdication. I've no dog in the race - I speak about it as a outsider completely.

But, Gordo30. Is it possible to get an answer as to why the website doesn't mention the inscription?


i said nothing of the sort pointed out a fact.

it based on all of those things.


Okay, Nugnug. In which case (if you truly base your opinions/arguments on the court transcripts and interviews) can you point me in the direction as to where you claim you've read them. Or at least tell me where you accessed them.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 04:09:PM
i dont have to explain anything tou.

who do you think you are exactly people dont have to explian themselves becouse they dont agrea with you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:10:PM
i dont have to explain anything tou.

Thought so. Just thought I'd check.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 14, 2012, 04:14:PM
One of the most worrying things about this case was the conduct of the police.  From an early stage it seems that they had made their minds up about who was responsible and collected the evidence accordingly.  This is demonstrated by their despicable questioning of Luke, which incidentally was condemned at appeal. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:16:PM
I don't agree with some of the questioning the police did, and the fact that they used that small loop hole to make sure he was 16 by the time they moved forward (although legal) is.. interesting. Doesn't change my opinion though, I think the police knew from quite early on they were looking at the right killer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 04:17:PM
Quote
But, Gordo30. Is it possible to get an answer as to why the website doesn't mention the inscription?

I didn't realise the official site had not mentioned the inscription, infact Im am sure it was discussed many times before and as the forum is an integral part of the main site, it is here you should maybe direct your attentions,time and energy if indeed you are willing to atleast argue your view point with some form of semblance to the real case.

It is for me more a point of interpretation in relation to the inscriptions you mention as on the one hand having the mass hysteria,intrusion and lies accorded to the Mitchell case from the media the pouch and inscription can and will look rather sinister. It could also be interpreted as a form of endearment as I have witnessed on many occasions on other forums when someone has passed away. RIP written on anything that is not associated to the crime cannot and should not be manipulated to simply fit somerones agenda.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:19:PM
I didn't realise the official site had not mentioned the inscription, infact Im am sure it was discussed many times before and as the forum is an integral part of the main site, it is here you should maybe direct your attentions,time and energy if indeed you are willing to atleast argue your view point with some form of semblance to the real case.

It is for me more a point of interpretation in relation to the inscriptions you mention as on the one hand having the mass hysteria,intrusion and lies accorded to the Mitchell case from the media the pouch and inscription can and will look rather sinister. It could also be interpreted as a form of endearment as I have witnessed on many occasions on other forums when someone has passed away. RIP written on anything that is not associated to the crime cannot and should not be manipulated to simply fit somerones agenda.

Thanks for the answer. I just wondered why trivial things like the Sky news comments made by the mother were mentioned on the site and not something like the inscription.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 04:24:PM
probebly becouse they dident think it was relvant


as i dont well not campared to the dna evedence implicating othere people.

wat do you think of the dna evedence mat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:24:PM
The more I read..


"youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder.  Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.

They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.

One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 04:25:PM
Quote
Thanks for the answer. I just wondered why trivial things like the Sky news comments made by the mother were mentioned on the site and not something like the inscription

Is it possible to enlighten me to the particular comments your mean and your reason for feeling that these should or should not be relevent to the main site as oppessed to other aspects of the case you feel are more important.

When I think of it the Sky news issue you seem to consider trivial turned out to be anything but, however you seem to feel it shouldn't be on there?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 04:26:PM
The more I read..


"youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder.  Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.

They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.

One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon."

were did you get that from could you post the link please.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:29:PM
Is it possible to enlighten me to the particular comments your mean and your reason for feeling that these should or should not be relevent to the main site as oppessed to other aspects of the case you feel are more important.

When I think of it the Sky news issue you seem to consider trivial turned out to be anything but, however you seem to feel it shouldn't be on there?

It's not that I don't think that they shouldn't be on there - just that I was suprised the Sky News comments were on the website. When something like the inscription wasn't because from an outsider looking in the inscription looks like an alarm bell - so I thought the website would at least try and explain...rather than not mention it.


were did you get that from could you post the link please.

Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.

They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.

^ You've read the trial documents, or least you said you have nugnug, so you should know whether above statement is true or not without a link?  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 04:33:PM
i dont need i can find the news artical somwhere if you will be with me.

so i take it you made that up then mat.

its really very simple to post a link from a newspaer atical witch is where i assume you are cliaming to have got it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 04:36:PM
There you go again mat including things that become contentious as in "the gate" what gate do you mean? what gate did F&W mean? why didn't the jogger they reported to have seen also not see Luke  at "this gate".

What time did all this occur? was it after 6pm when the husband who was working in Ireland usually came home and as F&W stated they left after maybe giving him his dinner, or was it at 5:40 pm before the sed occurance's normally took place? wow im getting confused just writting this and let me tell you there are more inaccuracies that could be added but they would simply just create a stramash(good scottish word with no real meaning). This of course is the testimony you seem to be hedging you belief that Luke is guilty on, so I must say I pity you because of you can get clarity from even half of F&W testimony then im sure there is a case for commital right there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:39:PM
i dont need i can find the news artical somwhere if you will be with me.

so i take it you made that up then mat.


 :o

No. Not at all.


There you go again mat including things that become contentious as in "the gate" what gate do you mean? what gate did F&W mean? why didn't the jogger they reported to have seen also not see Luke  at "this gate".

What time did all this occur? was it after 6pm when the husband who was working in Ireland usually came home and as F&W stated they left after maybe giving him his dinner, or was it at 5:40 pm before the sed occurance's normally took place? wow im getting confused just writting this and let me tell you there are more inaccuracies that could be added but they would simply just create a stramash(good scottish word with no real meaning). This of course is the testimony you seem to be hedging you belief that Luke is guilty on, so I must say I pity you because of you can get clarity from even half of F&W testimony then im sure there is a case for commital right there.


I didn't say 'gate' - the word 'gate' was in a quote. I'm pretty sure you said no formal I.D was ever though - yet...the quote says they identified Luke in court.

I don't mean to be rude, Gordo - but you must be family (or close to it) as the lies and deception you try to impound on the case seems strikingly familiar.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 04:43:PM
If thats the case then I would be willing to address all these lies and deceptions with you, If of course you can put forward and arguement worthy of my time.

I am of course nothing to do with the Mitchells and although I have spent many an evening in the good graces of certain people in the town of Newtongrange(nitton they call it) I have never been to Lukes house or personally met Luke,Corrine,Sandra or Billy or any of Mrs Mitchells family. I do however believe completely in Luke mitchell innocence and will defend that stance with ever ability and resourse open to me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 04:46:PM
well im going to find all the newspaper articals about flemming and walsh in a little while and that will clearly prove who is lying.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:46:PM
If thats the case then I would be willing to address all these lies and deceptions with you, If of course you can put forward and arguement worthy of my time.

I don't see the point though. To be blunt, anything that doesn't twist the way you want it - is turned around into witnesses making things up, saying they saw him when they didn't and the police went after him even if the evidence didn't fit.  :o

Seems you play the blame game. So I don't see room for debate.  :)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 04:54:PM
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:56:PM
"This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court's decision. It does not form part of the reasons for that decision. The full opinion of the Court is the only authoritative document."


 :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 04:57:PM
Have you ever directed that assessment on yourself mat? the way I twist things!! doesn't that start to become surreal when all I have is the same information as yourself to base my opinion on. Is it that you want to take away my right to develope my opinion? is it wrong to have an opposite opinion to anyone? If I do am I beset with the same credentials as someone who would commit such a crime as this is this what your trying to say?

I am here to debate with you, to put forward my perspective if its not too much of a shock for you!! could it be that someone who was jailed for the most terrible of crimes could well be innocent, is that too much to take for some?

I am away for dinner but I am always here to debate and I always consider myself to be able to be swayed by proof
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 04:58:PM
is it wrong to have an opposite opinion to anyone? If I do am I beset with the same credentials as someone who would commit such a crime as this is this what your trying to say?



Yeah.....of course I am................absolutely.............  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 05:05:PM
so what do you think of all the dna evedence then mat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 14, 2012, 05:15:PM
Are you saing that both Luke Mitchell and his mother wanting to take a polygraph, actually doing it and both passing with different questions was down to being lucky?  Since 30th June 2003 this family was struck a major blow and it has been 9 years of bad luck ever since, but it seems out of all this devastation you are suggesting that luck was on their side the day they sat the individual polygraph tests.  Did you actually think things through before you left that comment?
It was a joke. Sorry.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 05:19:PM
i dont think that was directed at you buddy.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 05:29:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/how-the-stories-changed/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 05:48:PM
Yeah.....of course I am................absolutely.............  ::)

I mentioned this because I have a strong fasination on the black dhalia murder also, Im a member of a forum dedicated to it and I spend a lot of time there so you see Im trying to impart a sense of reality about what you have stated in a previous post about Lukes obsession about other knife crimes, basicly a lot of crap.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 05:52:PM
well if you look at the injuries you can see this murder is nothing like the black dahiala killing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 14, 2012, 06:01:PM
i dont think that was directed at you buddy.
Thank god fot that.
I don't think that mitchel is guilty. DNA points me in another direction.
I think the fact that his brother was galloping his maggot at the time was enough to deny that he had seen Luke.
The fact that there was no DNA sets alarm bells ringing.
There really is not a lot to link Luke to this murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 07:25:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-misinformation-posted-elsewhere-corrected/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 07:27:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-relevant-maps/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 07:35:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-gate-dispute/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 07:43:PM
Thank god fot that.
I don't think that mitchel is guilty. DNA points me in another direction.
I think the fact that his brother was galloping his maggot at the time was enough to deny that he had seen Luke.
The fact that there was no DNA sets alarm bells ringing.
There really is not a lot to link Luke to this murder.

yes but plenty of dna to implicate others.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 14, 2012, 08:20:PM
The more I read..


"youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder.  Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.

They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.

One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon."





How many people claimed to have seen Tia Sharp following her disappearance?  I think it ran into dozens!  My point is, as we all know, eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 14, 2012, 08:22:PM
I don't think you can compare the two.  None of those witnesses ever testified in court so you don't know how sure they were that they had seen Tia or if they'd be willing to stand up in court - no idea what they told the police.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 08:29:PM
craig dobbie the detective in charge of the case stated clearly there was no postive id.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 14, 2012, 08:32:PM
I do have concerns about how the Police sometimes collect their evidence.  I suppose it's human nature but they get a hunch and then investigate accordingly.  They then neglect to fully investigate all other lines of enquiry.  I think that there are signs that they did exactly this in Lukes case and quite blatantly so in Simon Halls.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 14, 2012, 08:37:PM
Was the verdict a unanimous one or by majority?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 08:44:PM
majority and in scotland it only takes a simple majority to convict
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 08:48:PM
It is strange that the police put more emphasis on the Bryson sighting and used it as a central point to the whole case,then again she quite eloquently stated that the boy they had in court was not the one she had seen.
Its  is terrible to think that not all people could be that honest, then again they never wanted to be in the position where they had to somehow corroborate their stories infront of a jury. I must admit it fails me to think why anyone who had seen something possibly as vital to such  a terrible crime would not want to come forward to begin with.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 08:56:PM
well she dident say it wasnt him she stated she dident know so therefore it is not a postive id.

and flemming and walsh desecribed someone with shoulder lentgh hair any who takss a look at luke can see he did not have shoulder lenth hair at the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 14, 2012, 09:17:PM
majority and in scotland it only takes a simple majority to convict
From my understanding that could mean it was a majority of 8 to 7.  Do you know what the split was?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 09:20:PM
i heard that it was 9/6 but i canot confirm that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 14, 2012, 09:22:PM
i heard that it was 9/6 but i canot confirm that.
Thanks nugnug
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 09:58:PM
It is strange that the police put more emphasis on the Bryson sighting and used it as a central point to the whole case,then again she quite eloquently stated that the boy they had in court was not the one she had seen.
Its  is terrible to think that not all people could be that honest, then again they never wanted to be in the position where they had to somehow corroborate their stories infront of a jury. I must admit it fails me to think why anyone who had seen something possibly as vital to such  a terrible crime would not want to come forward to begin with.

what has not been mentioned is the bryson links to the family she was not an independant witness.

the fact they put so much emphises on that sighting proves that they dident take the flemming and walsh sighting seriously.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 14, 2012, 10:05:PM
well she dident say it wasnt him she stated she dident know so therefore it is not a postive id.

and flemming and walsh desecribed someone with shoulder lentgh hair any who takss a look at luke can see he did not have shoulder lenth hair at the time.


Nugnug AB was asked for a dock identification and as a result she did not identify Luke Mitchel as the person she had seen standing in the dock, It can only be taken In one way and that was that he was not the person she had seen.
This was after more than a year of Luke being pictured in the press for the most part of that year and the fact that she was at the trial of the person who was up for the murder of Jodi jones. She knew who he was no matter what but declined to identify him, how else would you interpret that?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 14, 2012, 10:08:PM
well you could only interpret that she knew it wasnt him she saw.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 12:11:AM
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMurder_of_Jodi_Jones&ei=ttoqULfXMaHE0QX0-oCICQ&usg=AFQjCNG3xMBlhx5xDHcL0P17OGfUPegwxA
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 12:24:AM

Nugnug AB was asked for a dock identification and as a result she did not identify Luke Mitchel as the person she had seen standing in the dock, It can only be taken In one way and that was that he was not the person she had seen.
This was after more than a year of Luke being pictured in the press for the most part of that year and the fact that she was at the trial of the person who was up for the murder of Jodi jones. She knew who he was no matter what but declined to identify him, how else would you interpret that?

well yes and dispite all that there was not what one cerdible eye witness.

bye credible i mean one that could get his age and appearance right witch Flemming and walsh could not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 12:38:AM

 :o

No. Not at all.


I didn't say 'gate' - the word 'gate' was in a quote. I'm pretty sure you said no formal I.D was ever though - yet...the quote says they identified Luke in court.

I don't mean to be rude, Gordo - but you must be family (or close to it) as the lies and deception you try to impound on the case seems strikingly familiar.  :)

not that its any of your business anyway but gordos identy is well knbown he has never hidden it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 12:50:AM
not that its any of your business anyway but gordos identy is well knbown he has never hidden it.

Well not to me. Which is why I was saying I don't know who he is.  :o
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: FreeWillieGage on August 15, 2012, 12:58:AM
then again she quite eloquently stated that the boy they had in court was not the one she had seen.

you lot really need to stop clinging on to that

here is luke on the night of the murder

(http://i.imgur.com/o2LRK.jpg)

here's luke in court at his trial

(http://i.imgur.com/fKfEP.jpg)

he looked completely different so it isn't in your favour saying she never pointed him out in court

she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory,  ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 01:02:AM
you lot really need to stop clinging on to that

here is luke on the night of the murder

(http://i.imgur.com/o2LRK.jpg)

here's luke in court at his trial

(http://i.imgur.com/fKfEP.jpg)

he looked completely different so it isn't in your favour saying she never pointed him out in court

she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory,  ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.

Don't worry, FreeWillieGage, I'm aware of the deceptive nature of the postings and the information in this case. Which is why I stopped trying to debate it here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 01:28:AM
you lot really need to stop clinging on to that

here is luke on the night of the murder

(http://i.imgur.com/o2LRK.jpg)

here's luke in court at his trial

(http://i.imgur.com/fKfEP.jpg)

he looked completely different so it isn't in your favour saying she never pointed him out in court

she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory,  ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.

the fact is she could not pick him out.

there was no postive id the police dident do a line up as they should of done.

a mugshot is not how you pick people out a line up is and the police did not do a line up as the proper procedure.

now i am only speculating but i think they did not do a line up because they knew she would not be able to pick him out i cant see any other reason for not doing one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 01:30:AM
Don't worry, FreeWillieGage, I'm aware of the deceptive nature of the postings and the information in this case. Which is why I stopped trying to debate it here.

its not deception its different opinion.

why do you keep accusing people of being deceptive just because they dont agree with you.

by the way mat what do you think about the dna evedence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 01:36:AM
its not deception its different opinion.

why do you keep accusing people of being deceptive just because they dont agree with you.

by the way mat what do you think about the dna evedence.

It's not that they disagree with me that I find some of the wording deceptive.
You'll have to give me time to look at the DNA evidence Nugnug, I haven't read/heard about it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 15, 2012, 10:19:AM
I disagree it means 'nothing' of course it means something - I'm sure kids scribble notes all the time - but not something like that.

Didn't his alibi fall apart? He claimed to be at home but his own brother says he wasn't. Then he finds the body so easily even though it was hidden.

He was a druggie kid, obessed with death, murder and knives.

The knife pouch was found in the Mitchells home by the police.  It was not just the dates that were inscribed on it.  Inside the top flap of the leather-type pouch was written: "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came."

This quotation from Kurt Cobain, was also found on Lukes's school jotters and the same quotation was also in Jodi's bedroom as Kurt Cobain was a favourite of Jodi's.

The knife pouch and relevant discussion took place on the wrongly accused person forum as I read about it many months ago, it is there for all to see.

It looks to me like that this inscription on the pouch was no different to the tattoo and the lip piercing that he got after the murder as did a few of her friends, all in memory of Jodi. 

Luke claimed to be at home, his brother said he didnt know if he was at home or not.  There is a difference between saying he wasnt at home, and dont know if he was at home.

According to the statements the dog reacted passed the v break in the wall, getting excited, standing on its hind legs air sniffing etc and Luke reacted to what the dog was doing as it was obvious that the dog had detected something.  As Luke was the first to go over the wall I guess that he is the first to see the body but I would argue that he found the body.  He also doesnt mention a body at the time, but he sees something.  Steven Kelly goes over and he too sees something from the same distance as Luke, Kelly thinks its a speckled log.  The gran Alice Walker also goes over, and from the same view point thinks its, wont say what she says as its not very nice.  The gran then goes to the body and cradles her grandaughter, witnessed by Mitchell and Kelly.

"A druggie kid"??? His drug test came back with minimal amounts of cannabis detected in his system, so hardly a druggie kid Mat, when this test was done hours after Jodi had been murdered.

"Obssessed with death, murder and knives"???  I see no evidence of this, is this your personal opinion?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 15, 2012, 10:47:AM
No, don't get the facts mixed up - don't allow the story that he has changed after the trial to replace the actual timing of events. He claims it was his dog, this his dog alerted him to 'something strange' through that shaped hole in the fence.

Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.

I suppose he was just walking past whilst his girlfriend (one he claims to have loved yet he was two timing) was being killed.

Wake up, nug nug.



Mat you are failing to even get the basics correct.  It was a wall not a fence.

There was never ever 2 witnesses that saw him there in that "exact area at the time of the murder".  Are you confusing yourself with the witnesses who saw the motorbike which belonged to Gordon Dickie and John Ferris "at the exact area at the time of the murder" with them nowhere to be seen?  When questioned about there whereabouts they dont know what they were doing or where they were when there were motorbike was parked there at the v in the wall, the same v in the wall that the prosecution claimed that Jodi went over.  On that stretch of path there is only one place they could have been and that is over the wall, there is nowhere else they could have been or they would have been seen, just like their bike was.

You are telling nugnug to wake up.  How very rude of you.  After all this time on the forum you seem to have come alive on this very thread, however your information is incorrect and misleading. Can you please furnish yourself with at least the basics of the facts before being rude to other posters who have obviously researched the case. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 15, 2012, 01:21:PM
Quote
she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory,  ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.

Its a strange idea of justice you have FWG as by your reasoning then any body guilty of a crime only need to grow their hair long,stick on a new suit and therefore can't be identified? It does however highlight the fact that F&W are full of the proverbial here as after the same amount of time and having only glansed at him from a passing car they were able to identify him!! thats ok but it doesn't fit with your reasoning re AB.

I don't try and be deceptive mat but maybe its your own insecurities about the case that you feel others have some other motive for being resolutly behind Luke.
15 members of the jury heard what each other heard at the trial, some of those found him guilty and some didn't. There will always be differing opinions with  a case like this when the jury themselves couldn't even make up their minds. It is however more about the information we have now that has come to light since the trial that makes me sure Luke is innocent and it is from this information that I try to base my defense of him on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 01:54:PM
when i think about it there is only reason for the police not to have done a line up they knew that none of there so called witnes we be able to pick him out of a line up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 02:56:PM
I'm sure many don't agree with me, especially those that have read the official website but as a rule I don't take campaign websites as anything other than opinion and would much rather read witness statements or court transcripts for information.  :)

I didn't mean to be rude to Nugnug - but when asked what his opinions are based on 'interview transcripts - court transcripts or the website' he said 'all of them' but couldn't/wouldn't say when or where he had seen them so I wonder if he has or if he has been dragged into some of the propaganda.

I was at times struggling to respond to NugNug because I wasn't able to understand some of the posts directed at me because of the spelling/grammar.  :-\

Oncesaid - I agree. My wording has been quite dire in places and does appear that I don't know the basics of the case. I wouldn't comment though if I didn't feel confident enough to make a statement which is why I haven't commented on the DNA evidence because I haven't read enough about it.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 03:02:PM
Luke claimed to be at home, his brother said he didnt know if he was at home or not.  There is a difference between saying he wasnt at home, and dont know if he was at home.


I'm not sure I agree with the wording of that. I'm not comfortable as to that matching up with the ORIGINAL wording where the brother said he wasn't at home because he wouldn't be watching porn unless he thought the house was empty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 15, 2012, 03:04:PM
Quote
I'm sure many don't agree with me, especially those that have read the official website but as a rule I don't take campaign websites as anything other than opinion and would much rather read witness statements or court transcripts for information.  :)

If this is the case mat then you should read the official site as the majority of it is from the transcripts and even police records as Dr Lean has much of it. Thats the reason for nugnug's reply re all of them.

To comment from the stand point that your sure someones guilty without the basic knowledge of the case is irresponsible at best.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 15, 2012, 03:08:PM
Shane has always stated that he hadn't seen Luke in the house, whatever he was doing at the time may well have stopped him finding out but even if he felt he was alone it doesn't mean he was. He certainly never said he "was alone".
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 03:08:PM
I'd prefer to read the full transcripts though rather than pieces that Dr Lean has put on the site though - I think thats responsible.

I can't say i have much faith in Sandra Lean.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 15, 2012, 03:15:PM
Im sorry you feel that way mat, anything on the site does come from official documents though and therefore has to be considered primary to anyone on either side of the debate. If your wanting to read the full transcript then you will have to apply for it at your own cost as its illegal to produce vast parts of it online, due to copyright I think.

The main site has everything you need about the DNA and it can be quite enlightening. If you feel that Dr Lean has somehow doctered these for her clients benefit then I don't see where else you could get hold of them as they didn't constitute any part of the trial. If they have been altered in anyway of course its a pretty dodgy road for the innocence debate.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 03:18:PM
Im sorry you feel that way mat, anything on the site does come from official documents though and therefore has to be considered primary to anyone on either side of the debate. If your wanting to read the full transcript then you will have to apply for it at your own cost as its illegal to produce vast parts of it online, due to copyright I think.

The main site has everything you need about the DNA and it can be quite enlightening. If you feel that Dr Lean has somehow doctered these for her clients benefit then I don't see where else you could get hold of them as they didn't constitute any part of the trial. If they have been altered in anyway of course its a pretty dodgy road for the innocence debate.

But if it all comes from official documents - then Sandra Lean would be agreeing with the case presented by the prosecution. But she isn't - she's against the official documents - she believes them to be wrong and puts forward her version of events.

For example - the talk about the cutting of the throat. Sandra Lean - or the official website- disagrees with it greatly. I believe she's wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 03:20:PM
the fact the police did not want to do a line up i think proves thse so caled witnesses were not reliable and i dident get that from the website thats just simple logic.

i had graves doubts about before i had even heard of sandra lean.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 15, 2012, 03:23:PM
Quote
But if it all comes from official documents - then Sandra Lean would be agreeing with the case presented by the prosecution. But she isn't - she's against the official documents - she believes them to be wrong and puts forward her version of events.

Very presumptious mat and as much of the information Dr Lean has at hand wasn't even included in the trial then why should she naturally be on the side of the presecution? thats what law is all about the interpretation of evidence and her putting forward her take on things is her right.
I understand also that you have the right to interpret these differently and thats what were discussing.

Not sure on the cutting of the throat mat or what your alluding to here?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 03:31:PM
at the end of the day i dont see any of the people mentioned threatening to sue her witch is strange.

the fact they dident perue charges against his mother is proof enough to me they dident lie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 15, 2012, 04:44:PM
Firstly, an apology - I have very little time at the moment to read forums or post, so i won't be able to join in the debate for a number of weeks.

However, there are a couple of things I can clarify from what I have read today. Firstly, the photograph of Luke which has been posted here was taken on August 14th 2003 (six weeks after the murder) in Dalkeith Police Station at 8am. It was placed in a spread of 11 other pictures that morning, and all 12 were taken to AB that day for her to "identify" Luke. Those events have been severely criticised by Roy Ramm and John Scott, John Scott commenting that they didn't have an arrow pointing to Luke Mitchell, but they might as well have done, because Luke's picture stood out so much. Having seen the other 11 pictures, I agree completely - the others were of much younger children, the hair- styles, although all similar to each other (close cropped), were very different to Luke's. All of the other backgrounds were "rooms" of some description, Luke's was a polaroid style with a white band across the top, and very little background detail.

This photograph was not, as has been claimed, taken when Luke was arrested in April 2004 - the "identification" by AB from that photograph was made on August 14th, six weeks after the murder, and the day before pictures of Luke began to appear in newspapers.. However, the picture of Luke did not match the descriptions AB gave to the police in her first two statements in July 2003, right after the murder. she was describing someone completely different - late teens, early twenties, brown, thick, messy hair, some of it sticking up at the back, wearing "fishing gear" with the same colour jacket and trousers. She said in both of those early statements that she would only recognise him again by his clothing and hair as she had not seen his face.

Fleming and Walsh's statements are so far removed from "descriptions" of Luke, it is surprising that they were ever actually used as witnesses. Both said, in their initial statements, that the youth had dark hair, both said they didn't see his face, one had him wearing jeans - definitely, categorically not baggies, because she would have noticed that, their descriptions of his jacket differed from each other, and neither could say what he was wearing under the jacket, although they weren't sure if the jacket was zipped up or open. By the time it got to court, one stated she would never forget his eyes (which, according to her statements, she had never seen), they described a black t shirt with writing on it (which neither had mentioned in their statements), and, at one point, one of them was pulled up in court for using the exact phrase the other had given in evidence the day before - a phrase which had never appeared in any of their statements (the obvious point being that they were discussing their evidence).

These witnesses were shown newspaper photographs of Luke by police investigators, apparently becuase they had claimed to recognise Luke from newspaper photographs prior to August 15th (before which there had been no newspaper pictures of Luke).

Other witnesses have since come forward to say that one of them told work colleagues that the youth she had seen was at the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College (which was the opposite side of the road to where Luke had been standing waiting for Jodi before crossing over to the Abbey) - she never mentioned to any of them, at any time, the youth being at the broken gate near to the end of Roan's Dyke path. They were unable, in their statements, to decide what time they had been on the Newbattle Road, and claimed to have seen a jogger at the same time as they saw the youth - the jogger was, they said, 200 yards ahead. Had the youth been at the broken gate, that was impossible, as the road goes into a series of sweeping bends - it would be impossible to see anyone 200 years up ahead, because of those bends.

The inscription on the knife pouch is not on the website because I had a limited amount of time to get the info for the website together, no other reason. I haven't had a chance to properly update the website, due to other commitments, but I will do so when I get the chance.

It is an offence in Scotland to make public many documents relating to a criminal case, so I am restricted in law as to what I can post from transcripts, statements, etc. I have tried to post as much as I thought I could, without crossing over any legal lines - it's sometimes a difficult judgement call.

Someone commented that they wre "not impressed" with me - that's ok, I'm not doing this to impress anyone, I do what I do because innocent people are being jailed for crimes they did not commit, and that could happen to any one of us, including me and my family. Doing something just because it's the right thing to do doesn't seem to be particularly popular - people are always looking for ulterior motives - for the record, I have none - being involved in MoJs has cost me greatly over the years, in many different ways, but I do not regret getting involved. I understand that people will believe whatever they want to believe - the way I see it, I can put the information out there, and people can do as they please with it. If it's not out there, then people don't know about it, so they can't discuss it, and - far more importantly - they are not forewarned that this could happen to them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 15, 2012, 04:58:PM
The "original wording" of Shane's statement was not as it has been posted here. Indeed, the whole watching porn thing did not even arise until April 2004, so it couldn't possibly have been mentioned in any of the original statements.

Shane's first statement was pretty straightforward - it was just an ordinary evening until he heard Jodi was missing, and then within a couple of hours, that she was dead. He had no recollection of the earlier part of the evening - nothing unusual had happened, so nothing stood out for him. Initially, he said that Luke had "probably" been in, because Luke cooked the dinner, so Shane assumed he would have done so on the Monday evening - he just couldn't remember anything about it. He had forgotten that was the evening he had stopped of at a friend's on the way home from work - it was the police who reminded him when they were questioning various phone calls Shane had made from his mobile phone on the Monday evening. There was never, ever, any suggestion that it was "sinister" that Shane had forgotten this visit, yet when Corinne reminded him that there had been something that made Monday's dinner memorable - Luke had burned it - this was claimed to be a "change of story."

The police questioning of Shane was in the same vein as the questioning of Luke - the questioning that three appeal court judges called "outrageous and to be deplored" - I have seen the interviews, and Shane was hauled from pillar to post by officers who had no interest in his answers, they just wanted to have him on record saying certain things. One officer repeatedly tells him "I'm not accepting can't remember, that won't do, you'll have to do better than that." How can anyone "do better than that" if the honest answer is "I don't remember." Shane did not say, in any of those early interviews, that Luke was "not in." Nor did he say that he "did not see Luke." He said, over and over again, that he could not remember any specifics about that evening, including if he'd seen Luke, or where he'd seen him in the house.

The whole humiliation of having him admit to masturbating was done at trial - that had been part of any of the earlier interviews - the interrogation of April 2004 covered the fact that they had "found out" he had been "looking at porn sites" - and whether he worried whether anyone would come into his room when he was doing so. Alan Turnbull QC took it to a whole new level, to utterly humiliate the witness and destroy his credibility.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 15, 2012, 05:30:PM
I guess your right mat this should be your que to stop posting as its pretty obvious from early on you knew nothing of what you spoke off, except of course your confidence in regards to Lukes guilt.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 15, 2012, 06:12:PM
Firstly, an apology - I have very little time at the moment to read forums or post, so i won't be able to join in the debate for a number of weeks.

However, there are a couple of things I can clarify from what I have read today. Firstly, the photograph of Luke which has been posted here was taken on August 14th 2003 (six weeks after the murder) in Dalkeith Police Station at 8am. It was placed in a spread of 11 other pictures that morning, and all 12 were taken to AB that day for her to "identify" Luke. Those events have been severely criticised by Roy Ramm and John Scott, John Scott commenting that they didn't have an arrow pointing to Luke Mitchell, but they might as well have done, because Luke's picture stood out so much. Having seen the other 11 pictures, I agree completely - the others were of much younger children, the hair- styles, although all similar to each other (close cropped), were very different to Luke's. All of the other backgrounds were "rooms" of some description, Luke's was a polaroid style with a white band across the top, and very little background detail.

This photograph was not, as has been claimed, taken when Luke was arrested in April 2004 - the "identification" by AB from that photograph was made on August 14th, six weeks after the murder, and the day before pictures of Luke began to appear in newspapers.. However, the picture of Luke did not match the descriptions AB gave to the police in her first two statements in July 2003, right after the murder. she was describing someone completely different - late teens, early twenties, brown, thick, messy hair, some of it sticking up at the back, wearing "fishing gear" with the same colour jacket and trousers. She said in both of those early statements that she would only recognise him again by his clothing and hair as she had not seen his face.

Fleming and Walsh's statements are so far removed from "descriptions" of Luke, it is surprising that they were ever actually used as witnesses. Both said, in their initial statements, that the youth had dark hair, both said they didn't see his face, one had him wearing jeans - definitely, categorically not baggies, because she would have noticed that, their descriptions of his jacket differed from each other, and neither could say what he was wearing under the jacket, although they weren't sure if the jacket was zipped up or open. By the time it got to court, one stated she would never forget his eyes (which, according to her statements, she had never seen), they described a black t shirt with writing on it (which neither had mentioned in their statements), and, at one point, one of them was pulled up in court for using the exact phrase the other had given in evidence the day before - a phrase which had never appeared in any of their statements (the obvious point being that they were discussing their evidence).

These witnesses were shown newspaper photographs of Luke by police investigators, apparently becuase they had claimed to recognise Luke from newspaper photographs prior to August 15th (before which there had been no newspaper pictures of Luke).

Other witnesses have since come forward to say that one of them told work colleagues that the youth she had seen was at the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College (which was the opposite side of the road to where Luke had been standing waiting for Jodi before crossing over to the Abbey) - she never mentioned to any of them, at any time, the youth being at the broken gate near to the end of Roan's Dyke path. They were unable, in their statements, to decide what time they had been on the Newbattle Road, and claimed to have seen a jogger at the same time as they saw the youth - the jogger was, they said, 200 yards ahead. Had the youth been at the broken gate, that was impossible, as the road goes into a series of sweeping bends - it would be impossible to see anyone 200 years up ahead, because of those bends.

The inscription on the knife pouch is not on the website because I had a limited amount of time to get the info for the website together, no other reason. I haven't had a chance to properly update the website, due to other commitments, but I will do so when I get the chance.

It is an offence in Scotland to make public many documents relating to a criminal case, so I am restricted in law as to what I can post from transcripts, statements, etc. I have tried to post as much as I thought I could, without crossing over any legal lines - it's sometimes a difficult judgement call.

Someone commented that they wre "not impressed" with me - that's ok, I'm not doing this to impress anyone, I do what I do because innocent people are being jailed for crimes they did not commit, and that could happen to any one of us, including me and my family. Doing something just because it's the right thing to do doesn't seem to be particularly popular - people are always looking for ulterior motives - for the record, I have none - being involved in MoJs has cost me greatly over the years, in many different ways, but I do not regret getting involved. I understand that people will believe whatever they want to believe - the way I see it, I can put the information out there, and people can do as they please with it. If it's not out there, then people don't know about it, so they can't discuss it, and - far more importantly - they are not forewarned that this could happen to them.
Dr. Lean I think that you have studied this case in depth and are therefore qualified and very able to write about it. Take no notice of those little tyros who know nothing much and believe nothing but the light that somehow filters down through the chinks in their own roofs. As for me together with every other person who has at least some reasoning power in their heads I will rather trust and believe you rather than some Mr nobody whose esteem goes only as far as his own back garden.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 15, 2012, 07:25:PM
Thanks, Grahame, it's been over 9 years now - I couldn't tell you how many pages of documents, conversations with lawyers, experts, etc. I think the fact that so many high profile people were willing to appear in the Frontline documentary (Tim Valentine, Roy Ramm, John Scott, to name just a few), speaks volumes - it's not just "my opinion" (even though everything I post comes from the case files) - these are highly trained experts who have all expressed real misgivings about the conviction. Also, the fact that a top legal professional helped with the SCCRC application, behind the scenes, and pro bono - these people wouldn't risk their professional credibility unless they were pretty sure they had their facts right!

For almost all of those 9 years, there have been people who come wading in with "I know he's guilty because..." and then can't finish the sentence because the so called facts on which they are basing their opinions are all wrong - and I can prove them to be so.

I think it's great the case is being discussed here - it's just a pity I don't have enough time to post more often - I'll pop by when I can, and try to catch up as I go along.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 08:54:PM
Dr. Lean I think that you have studied this case in depth and are therefore qualified and very able to write about it. Take no notice of those little tyros who know nothing much and believe nothing but the light that somehow filters down through the chinks in their own roofs. As for me together with every other person who has at least some reasoning power in their heads I will rather trust and believe you rather than some Mr nobody whose esteem goes only as far as his own back garden.

There is only one tyro here Grahame - Mr Back Seat Mod.  ;)



Thanks, Grahame, it's been over 9 years now - I couldn't tell you how many pages of documents, conversations with lawyers, experts, etc. I think the fact that so many high profile people were willing to appear in the Frontline documentary (Tim Valentine, Roy Ramm, John Scott, to name just a few), speaks volumes - it's not just "my opinion" (even though everything I post comes from the case files) - these are highly trained experts who have all expressed real misgivings about the conviction. Also, the fact that a top legal professional helped with the SCCRC application, behind the scenes, and pro bono - these people wouldn't risk their professional credibility unless they were pretty sure they had their facts right!

For almost all of those 9 years, there have been people who come wading in with "I know he's guilty because..." and then can't finish the sentence because the so called facts on which they are basing their opinions are all wrong - and I can prove them to be so.

I think it's great the case is being discussed here - it's just a pity I don't have enough time to post more often - I'll pop by when I can, and try to catch up as I go along.


Whilst you're talking about credibility......
Just an idea. But if you need more time - maybe drop some cases? Working on too many cases can lead to mistakes or lead to you promoting the wrong cases. Such as that as Adrian Prout which I believe to be a huge stain on your own credibility.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 09:03:PM
yes and the prout case proved te realibility of lie detectors witch of course and Corrine both passed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 09:06:PM
I'm not about to get into a debate regarding 'lie detectors' if they were at all reliable they would be in courts.

But they're not allowed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 09:07:PM
there allowed when they are deciding to release people.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 15, 2012, 09:31:PM
Mat, what is your motivation for posting on this case?  I can understand the motives of someone arguing on a not guilty stance, which is quite obvious of course.  I find it particularly perplexing, as you readily admit that you know very little about the case and have had to resort to enlisting John Lambertons assistance in forming your posts.  No offence intended.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 15, 2012, 09:40:PM
Thanks, Grahame, it's been over 9 years now - I couldn't tell you how many pages of documents, conversations with lawyers, experts, etc. I think the fact that so many high profile people were willing to appear in the Frontline documentary (Tim Valentine, Roy Ramm, John Scott, to name just a few), speaks volumes - it's not just "my opinion" (even though everything I post comes from the case files) - these are highly trained experts who have all expressed real misgivings about the conviction. Also, the fact that a top legal professional helped with the SCCRC application, behind the scenes, and pro bono - these people wouldn't risk their professional credibility unless they were pretty sure they had their facts right!

For almost all of those 9 years, there have been people who come wading in with "I know he's guilty because..." and then can't finish the sentence because the so called facts on which they are basing their opinions are all wrong - and I can prove them to be so.


I think it's great the case is being discussed here - it's just a pity I don't have enough time to post more often - I'll pop by when I can, and try to catch up as I go along.

Hello Sandra,

Whether I believe that you're right in your assertion that Luke is innocent, is neither here nor there.  The mere fact that there are people like you, who are prepared to make personal sacrifices and fight on behalf of others, makes the world a better place. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 15, 2012, 09:51:PM
The "original wording" of Shane's statement was not as it has been posted here. Indeed, the whole watching porn thing did not even arise until April 2004, so it couldn't possibly have been mentioned in any of the original statements.

Shane's first statement was pretty straightforward - it was just an ordinary evening until he heard Jodi was missing, and then within a couple of hours, that she was dead. He had no recollection of the earlier part of the evening - nothing unusual had happened, so nothing stood out for him. Initially, he said that Luke had "probably" been in, because Luke cooked the dinner, so Shane assumed he would have done so on the Monday evening - he just couldn't remember anything about it. He had forgotten that was the evening he had stopped of at a friend's on the way home from work - it was the police who reminded him when they were questioning various phone calls Shane had made from his mobile phone on the Monday evening. There was never, ever, any suggestion that it was "sinister" that Shane had forgotten this visit, yet when Corinne reminded him that there had been something that made Monday's dinner memorable - Luke had burned it - this was claimed to be a "change of story."

The police questioning of Shane was in the same vein as the questioning of Luke - the questioning that three appeal court judges called "outrageous and to be deplored" - I have seen the interviews, and Shane was hauled from pillar to post by officers who had no interest in his answers, they just wanted to have him on record saying certain things. One officer repeatedly tells him "I'm not accepting can't remember, that won't do, you'll have to do better than that." How can anyone "do better than that" if the honest answer is "I don't remember." Shane did not say, in any of those early interviews, that Luke was "not in." Nor did he say that he "did not see Luke." He said, over and over again, that he could not remember any specifics about that evening, including if he'd seen Luke, or where he'd seen him in the house.

The whole humiliation of having him admit to masturbating was done at trial - that had been part of any of the earlier interviews - the interrogation of April 2004 covered the fact that they had "found out" he had been "looking at porn sites" - and whether he worried whether anyone would come into his room when he was doing so. Alan Turnbull QC took it to a whole new level, to utterly humiliate the witness and destroy his credibility.
How long after the murder did Shane make his first statement?
I think that even after a few days, most of us would struggle to recount the events of a particular day, in minute detail. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 10:30:PM
Mat, what is your motivation for posting on this case?  I can understand the motives of someone arguing on a not guilty stance, which is quite obvious of course.  I find it particularly perplexing, as you readily admit that you know very little about the case and have had to resort to enlisting John Lambertons assistance in forming your posts.  No offence intended.

I don't have a motivation - other than express opinion, listen to opinions, seek more information. Which I think is the aim for forums - no one can join and know everything about any case. I'm sure you yourself have learned alot more about the Jeremy Bamber case since joining this forum.

As for enlisting John's help? I asked for his opinion on certain aspects of the case. I posting long before I asked him about the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 15, 2012, 10:57:PM
were did you get that from could you post the link please.

Mat got it from Lambertons forum,  his quote is in amongst the rest of the drivel in the post ;D


Posted by John
Re: Why was Luke not seen after school?
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2012, 05:12:29 AM »Quote I now know why Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell failed to identify this 5-bar wooden gate but that will remain my secret for the moment.


For those readers who are new to the forum I can tell you that a youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder.  Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 15, 2012, 11:03:PM
The more I read..


"youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder.  Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.

They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.

One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon."

This is from Lambertons forum Mat.  If you are interested in the case why would you not read his official site and quote from there or question what has been said there?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 15, 2012, 11:19:PM
Thank god fot that.
I don't think that mitchel is guilty. DNA points me in another direction.
I think the fact that his brother was galloping his maggot at the time was enough to deny that he had seen Luke.
The fact that there was no DNA sets alarm bells ringing.
There really is not a lot to link Luke to this murder.

Hi Buddy, my reply was to Rhodes as he claimed that it was down to luck that Luke and his mother passed the polygraph test.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 15, 2012, 11:20:PM
Quote
As for enlisting John's help? I asked for his opinion on certain aspects of the case. I posting long before I asked him about the case.

I wonder how you feel now though mat after having seen John not just edit but totally over write that whole 1st post about misrepresentation on this forum. This is the man your asking questions of! this is the man you seem to place a lot of trust in and it was this forum that had to provide him with the information he needed to make an accurate post on his.
This is the reason why so many people have challenged you and those on the other forum these past few days because its so hard seeing total rubbish written elsewhere that has to be corrected. Directly or indirectly it will be us who will provide you with the information you will need to form an objective and balanced view point on this case as has been shown by the debacle on the other forum today.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 15, 2012, 11:30:PM
I don't have a motivation - other than express opinion, listen to opinions, seek more information. Which I think is the aim for forums - no one can join and know everything about any case. I'm sure you yourself have learned alot more about the Jeremy Bamber case since joining this forum.

As for enlisting John's help? I asked for his opinion on certain aspects of the case. I posting long before I asked him about the case.
I didn't mean to be confrontational although it could well have read that way.  I think that having opposing views on the same forum is very healthy and something that I would encourage.  However,  I am genuinely interested in what motivates anyone to 'fight' for a cause that has already been won.  If someone has a personal interest in the case, then that's understandable but otherwise, I just don't understand. 

I do reiterate, I'm glad that you do though.

What do you think about John Lambertons case?  Please do not feel obliged to answer this question.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 11:34:PM
This is from Lambertons forum Mat.  If you are interested in the case why would you not read his official site and quote from there or question what has been said there?

I did read the official site - I didn't know about it until nugnug pointed it out.


I didn't mean to be confrontational although it could well have read that way.  I think that having opposing views on the same forum is very healthy and something that I would encourage.  However,  I am genuinely interested in what motivates anyone to 'fight' for a cause that has already been won.  If someone has a personal interest in the case, then that's understandable but otherwise, I just don't understand. 



No personal interest in the case for me.



What do you think about John Lambertons case?  Please do not feel obliged to answer this question.


What case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 15, 2012, 11:43:PM
I did read the official site - I didn't know about it until nugnug pointed it out.


No personal interest in the case for me.


What case?
http://www.justice4johnlamberton.com/

I am trying to find more information on this case but so far I've not got too far.  I did read in one article that his wife and brother appeared in court as prosecution witnesses.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 15, 2012, 11:45:PM
Oh. It is a case I've heard one side of (from a member here) but nothing I have ever looked at before. Why do you care what I think? Just curious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 15, 2012, 11:48:PM
Im getting curious also, I mean you probably know about the same amount of info on Lambertons case as you did about the Mitchell case but you managed to comment on one of them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 15, 2012, 11:52:PM
im curios why someone who admits they know very little about the case would go around calling other posters liars and say they were being deceptive.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 15, 2012, 11:53:PM
Oh. It is a case I've heard one side of (from a member here) but nothing I have ever looked at before. Why do you care what I think? Just curious.
It's just that ive formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly no doubt you'll correct me, that you tend to first approach a MoJ case from a guilty stand point.  I therefor thought it odd that you didn't, when it came to Johns. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 16, 2012, 12:05:AM
It's just that ive formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly no doubt you'll correct me, that you tend to first approach a MoJ case from a guilty stand point.  I therefor thought it odd that you didn't, when it came to Johns.

 I don't know if John is guilty or innocent. Or even when he is fully accused of or charged with or if he has appealled, plans to appeal.  :-\


im curios why someone who admits they know very little about the case would go around calling other posters liars and say they were being deceptive.

I do find parts of this case deceptive.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 16, 2012, 12:14:AM
I can't remember ever commenting on JL's case before unless it was for point scoring but that is not the opinion I have on his case. Neil I do understand what your trying to say and on most case's I believe you to be correct. I do however feel that JL's case is unique as I feel he is both innocent and guilty at the same time. The goverment used him as a test case to close loop holes or set precedents on a number of issues and case's they have most probably followed through with in the past decade and it is through that that I have sympathy with Johns plight. What he did was certainly within the law but when that changes to suit then the official stand point will of course be what he went through and any defence would be futile.

There is of course another point to JL's case that may throw a spanner in the works and thats if JL had a motive whereby he was doing what he did to make sure that someone would not get their inheritance because of past indiscretions, that is if he had went out pre planned to defraud someone else and not his aunt to begin with.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 16, 2012, 12:20:AM

Whilst you're talking about credibility......
Just an idea. But if you need more time - maybe drop some cases? Working on too many cases can lead to mistakes or lead to you promoting the wrong cases. Such as that as Adrian Prout which I believe to be a huge stain on your own credibility.

Mat, you are talking here as if Adrian Prout only had one supporter, that supporter being SL, but that is so far from the truth.  He had plenty of support from various groups and individuals.  From what I had managed to read regarding the case I also believed that he could have been unfairly convicted as did many others.  I am shocked to hear you say that you have no faith in SL, perhaps that view may change if you ever find yourself in need of her help, like the many people who have been falsely arrested and convicted who would rubbish your claim that she has a stain on her own credibility.  There are many people within the moj world who have supported cases only to drop them/change their minds or come across evidence later on which throws doubt on their original findings.  Many of these people and the situations have not been made public. Adrian Prout could have refused to take the test, or he could have taken it and passed (as according to many on this forum it is a junk science anyway) and no one would have been any the wiser as the evidence just wasnt there to say he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion. 

SL may put herself out there, but she has a team of legal and non legal people supporting her in the work that she does and is admired and respected by each and every one of them that is why I am shocked by your comment especially when you dont know the person.   
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 16, 2012, 12:25:AM
I can't remember ever commenting on JL's case before unless it was for point scoring but that is not the opinion I have on his case. Neil I do understand what your trying to say and on most case's I believe you to be correct. I do however feel that JL's case is unique as I feel he is both innocent and guilty at the same time. The goverment used him as a test case to close loop holes or set precedents on a number of issues and case's they have most probably followed through with in the past decade and it is through that that I have sympathy with Johns plight. What he did was certainly within the law but when that changes to suit then the official stand point will of course be what he went through and any defence would be futile.

There is of course another point to JL's case that may throw a spanner in the works and thats if JL had a motive whereby he was doing what he did to make sure that someone would not get their inheritance because of past indiscretions, that is if he had went out pre planned to defraud someone else and not his aunt to begin with.

Hi Gordo,

I am having difficulty with this case also.  I've obviously read Johns version of events but have only seen a few lines in newspaper articles, putting forward the opposing side.  7 years was a considerable sentence to hand down for a crime of this nature.  This makes me wonder if there was more to it than John is letting on.
I would very much like to read the judges summing up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 16, 2012, 12:33:AM
Mat, you are talking here as if Adrian Prout only had one supporter, that supporter being SL, but that is so far from the truth.  He had plenty of support from various groups and individuals.  From what I had managed to read regarding the case I also believed that he could have been unfairly convicted as did many others.  I am shocked to hear you say that you have no faith in SL, perhaps that view may change if you ever find yourself in need of her help, like the many people who have been falsely arrested and convicted who would rubbish your claim that she has a stain on her own credibility.  There are many people within the moj world who have supported cases only to drop them/change their minds or come across evidence later on which throws doubt on their original findings.  Many of these people and the situations have not been made public. Adrian Prout could have refused to take the test, or he could have taken it and passed (as according to many on this forum it is a junk science anyway) and no one would have been any the wiser as the evidence just wasnt there to say he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion. 

SL may put herself out there, but she has a team of legal and non legal people supporting her in the work that she does and is admired and respected by each and every one of them that is why I am shocked by your comment especially when you dont know the person.

Well said, OnceSaid
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 16, 2012, 12:41:AM
I did read the official site - I didn't know about it until nugnug pointed it out.

//
I also meant the Luke Mitchell thread and related topics.  To be honest I find the threads more informative than the caseblog.  It is very time consuming, but if you are at all interested in the case and getting your teeth into something, you may give it a read as some point.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 16, 2012, 12:53:AM
Part of the circumstantial case against LM was that he led a goth lifestyle, was into drugs and obsessed with the goth rocker Marilyn Manson, and also had an obession with the satanic. Ask any goth, and they will happily tell you LM was no goth, never in looks nor lifestyle, but even if he were a goth, that would  not make him a murderer. 

His home had been raided, computers taken away, anything belonging to him was taken by the police as well as anything else they thought may be relevant.  His relatives homes were searched as well as his mothers business. 

All computers were painstakingly searched and there was no evidence that Luke Mitchell had accessed any gothic sites, Marilyn Manson, anything to do with satan, etc.  All that was found was one CD which had been a freebie in a magazine which was purchased after the murder and a ripped up calender that he had been given. 

Where is the obssession that the prosecution spoke of? Due to the connection of Marlyn Manson and the Black Dahlia murder the police were desperate to make a connection due to the nature of the murder, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Luke Mitchell was aware of this Black Dahlia murder at all, not being into MM as the prosection claimed him to be. 

It is known that the police were given information on someone who was apparently obsessed with MM and the BD murder.  In the Frontline Scotland documentary the pathologist admits that the “similarities” between the Dahlia murder and Jodi Jones murder were “superficial” and that there were far more differences than there were similarities.

Even if this other person who the police had been made aware of and his obsession with MM and the BD murder, if there was more differences than there was similarities I cant see him being the murderer of JJ either, the problem is that they could have easily have built a circumstantial case against him too.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2012, 01:09:AM
well youonly have to look at him to see he was not a goth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 16, 2012, 08:42:AM
Mat said
Quote
Whilst you're talking about credibility......
Just an idea. But if you need more time - maybe drop some cases? Working on too many cases can lead to mistakes or lead to you promoting the wrong cases. Such as that as Adrian Prout which I believe to be a huge stain on your own credibility.

With respect, Mat, do you know how many cases I am actively involved in? Do you think I am unaware of the difficulties which would arise in trying to work on too many cases? Do you know how many cases I have declined to get involved in for a number of reasons? Do you know what else I do with my time, apart from trying to help people who have been wrongly accused?

I don't mind what you think about my involvement in the Adrian Prout case, or, indeed, what you think of my "credibility." Adrian failed the polygraph, and then admitted he had killed his wife. Had he not done so, there would have been nothing in the evidence to prove he was a murderer. There is always that risk, when trying to help people claiming wrongful conviction - that is why I put so much effort into checking as much as possible about the cases I do get involved with. On WAP, we currently host websites for just 9 people, over a period of three years (many of them I have known for several years).

Fighting wrongful convictions is a very long, slow process, as anyone doing so will tell you. I never, ever promise anyone anything - I tell people I will look at their cases, and if I can, I will do what I can to help. End of story.

Thanks to everyone for the kind comments - I believe those of us trying to help the wrongly accused and convicted need to support each other and work together.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 16, 2012, 09:13:AM
Mat said
With respect, Mat, do you know how many cases I am actively involved in? Do you think I am unaware of the difficulties which would arise in trying to work on too many cases? Do you know how many cases I have declined to get involved in for a number of reasons? Do you know what else I do with my time, apart from trying to help people who have been wrongly accused?

I don't mind what you think about my involvement in the Adrian Prout case, or, indeed, what you think of my "credibility." Adrian failed the polygraph, and then admitted he had killed his wife. Had he not done so, there would have been nothing in the evidence to prove he was a murderer. There is always that risk, when trying to help people claiming wrongful conviction - that is why I put so much effort into checking as much as possible about the cases I do get involved with. On WAP, we currently host websites for just 9 people, over a period of three years (many of them I have known for several years).

Fighting wrongful convictions is a very long, slow process, as anyone doing so will tell you. I never, ever promise anyone anything - I tell people I will look at their cases, and if I can, I will do what I can to help. End of story.

Thanks to everyone for the kind comments - I believe those of us trying to help the wrongly accused and convicted need to support each other and work together.
Dr. Lean you have the support on the forum of all who matter I can assure you. We appreciate the brilliant work that you do for those who are the victims of miscarriages of justice. I think that most people have so much faith in our justice system today that they blindly follow the system without question. Without really realising just how many moj's there actually are in this country and just how many people are convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
I count it a priviledge that you have chosen to comment on this forum. We can do with a lot more analytical minds on here who "honestly" investicate these cases.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 16, 2012, 09:38:AM
Dr. Lean you have the support on the forum of all you matter I can assure you. We appreciate the brilliant work that you do for those who are the victims of miscarriages of justice. I think that most people have so much faith in our justice system today that they blindly follow the system without question. Without really realising just how many moj's there actually are in this country and just how many people are convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
I count it a priviledge that you have chosen to comment on this forum. We can do with a lot more analytical on here who "honestly" investicate these cases.
Well said Grahame.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Janet on August 16, 2012, 10:01:AM
Dr Lean is doing the best she can, the same as everyone else who tries to help MOJ.
She puts her time and her energies into trying to help people who are suffering injustices.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 16, 2012, 02:09:PM
Mat said
With respect, Mat, do you know how many cases I am actively involved in? Do you think I am unaware of the difficulties which would arise in trying to work on too many cases? Do you know how many cases I have declined to get involved in for a number of reasons? Do you know what else I do with my time, apart from trying to help people who have been wrongly accused?



No, I'm not aware how many cases you and your erm... team.. have under your wings at the moment. Maybe you could tell us roughly how many cases you work? You host 9 websites? Is that nine cases? So at any given time you and your team are working on 9 appeals/CCRC submissions/ investigating 9 cases.

Thanks for the comment on the AP case.

Do you know what else I do with my time, apart from trying to help people who have been wrongly accused?


No, I dont?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2012, 02:20:PM
Dr Lean is doing the best she can, the same as everyone else who tries to help MOJ.
She puts her time and her energies into trying to help people who are suffering injustices.

yes thats all anybody can do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Margot on August 16, 2012, 02:36:PM
yes thats all anybody can do.

yes it is and I admire the hard work Dr Lean and others do to help.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 16, 2012, 02:39:PM
Of course anyone who has their heart in the right place to help out people who have suffered genuine MOJ's should be applauded.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 16, 2012, 06:21:PM

No, I'm not aware how many cases you and your erm... team.. have under your wings at the moment. Maybe you could tell us roughly how many cases you work? You host 9 websites? Is that nine cases? So at any given time you and your team are working on 9 appeals/CCRC submissions/ investigating 9 cases.

Thanks for the comment on the AP case.

No, I dont?

Mat, you seem to be taking quite an aggressive stance, where Sandra Lean is concerned.  Why is this? Have you had dealings with her in the past?  Or are you blindly following Johns lead?  The way he talks about her, you'd think that she had killed Kate Prout.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2012, 06:27:PM
ive noticed when ever this case is discused it soon turns from argueing the facts of the case into personal attacks on lukes supporters with suggests to me that the guilty camp have no real argument and they know it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 16, 2012, 06:59:PM
Mat, you seem to be taking quite an aggressive stance, where Sandra Lean is concerned.  Why is this? Have you had dealings with her in the past?  Or are you blindly following Johns lead?  The way he talks about her, you'd think that she had killed Kate Prout.
By trying to destroy the credability of the supporters they weaken support for the one they support. It's called muck spreading.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2012, 07:10:PM
and if they had a credible argument that luke was guilty they wouldent need to do it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 16, 2012, 07:15:PM
Mat, you seem to be taking quite an aggressive stance, where Sandra Lean is concerned.  Why is this? Have you had dealings with her in the past?  Or are you blindly following Johns lead?  The way he talks about her, you'd think that she had killed Kate Prout.

Personal between me and Lean. Nothing to do with John.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 16, 2012, 07:17:PM
But for the record, I didn't intend to appear agressive towards her just..amused.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 16, 2012, 07:17:PM
oh so its just a personal gripe and nothing to do with luke mitchell really.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 16, 2012, 07:19:PM
My comments to SL have been about AP. I didn't realise SL was the same SL I knew of until I'd already began posting in this topic.

My thoughts on SL and on Luke Mitchell are different matters.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 16, 2012, 07:33:PM
But for the record, I didn't intend to appear agressive towards her just..amused.
Agressive was a little harsh, agreed.  However, I am still struggling to fathom exactly where you are coming from.  Do you regard her as charlatan, who has no place in the judicial system?  I'm not sure what your profession is but I have formed the impression that it is within the legal field (having considered your tip off about the CCRC decision).  Is it a case of jealousy?  Again, no offence is intended.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 16, 2012, 08:35:PM
Mat said
Quote
No, I'm not aware how many cases you and your erm... team.. have under your wings at the moment. Maybe you could tell us roughly how many cases you work? You host 9 websites? Is that nine cases? So at any given time you and your team are working on 9 appeals/CCRC submissions/ investigating 9 cases.

Please, Mat, I understand from your posts today that you have some sort of complaint about me - I think you said it was "personal" between us? I don't know you, but, by all means, PM me, or even post on the forum what it is you believe I have done which has caused your reaction to me - that way I can at least respond. (Apologies to regular posters - if Mat wants to set up a separate thread for that, rather than it hijacking posts about MoJ cases, I think that would be best.)

My ...erm... team? I work with different teams on different cases, obviously, since there are different solicitors, experts, families, etc, involved in each individual case. I said WAP hosted websites for 9 cases - you're clearly not stupid, Mat, you know what "hosted" means, and it doesn't even begin to imply working on appeals, CCRC applications, etc. Hosting websites is a way of supporting families who want the wider public to know their stories - it can't, and won't, influence how those cases progress, except perhaps in a roundabout way by bringing witnesses forward - every case we host on WAP is aware of this.

The cases we host are investigated before we agree to host sites - there would be no other sensible way to do it.

I would just like to say, though, that I don't have the time, energy or inclination to keep responding to posts which have nothing to do with MoJs. If you have a gripe with me, that's fine - there are a number of ways you can contact me directly and air your grievances without disrupting forums which are trying to discuss injustice. If you want to claim I have been involved in any wrongdoing of any description, then let's have it - preferably not on a thread discussing a MoJ, as that is not fair. Otherwise, sorry, but you're wasting everyone's time and energy.

Deliberately misquoting someone has been used by many others in the past to derail sensible discussion - it's not a new approach, and it's totally transparent. So that's my bottom line - I'm happy to discuss the cases I've commented on, I'm happy to discuss my work, provided it does not impinge on threads about other matters, and I'm happy to address any complaint you have about me - privately or publicly. Now, can we please get back to the subject of this thread, which is the murder of Jodi Jones, and the lack of justice for all concerned in the case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 16, 2012, 08:50:PM
Oncesaid sai
Quote
All computers were painstakingly searched and there was no evidence that Luke Mitchell had accessed any gothic sites, Marilyn Manson, anything to do with satan, etc.  All that was found was one CD which had been a freebie in a magazine which was purchased after the murder and a ripped up calender that he had been given. 

Where is the obssession that the prosecution spoke of? Due to the connection of Marlyn Manson and the Black Dahlia murder the police were desperate to make a connection due to the nature of the murder, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Luke Mitchell was aware of this Black Dahlia murder at all, not being into MM as the prosection claimed him to be. 

It is known that the police were given information on someone who was apparently obsessed with MM and the BD murder.  In the Frontline Scotland documentary the pathologist admits that the “similarities” between the Dahlia murder and Jodi Jones murder were “superficial” and that there were far more differences than there were similarities.

Even if this other person who the police had been made aware of and his obsession with MM and the BD murder, if there was more differences than there was similarities I cant see him being the murderer of JJ either, the problem is that they could have easily have built a circumstantial case against him too.

The so called Marilyn Manson connection is interesting. When Jodi's sister took the stand, she told the court that she probably had every one of Manson's cds and DVDs. She said Jodi was not as big a fan as she (the sister) but had been introduced to some of his music by her sister and liked a few of the tracks she'd heard/seen. If an "obsession" with Manson was a part of this murder in any way (which I don't believe it was, for all of the reasons Oncesaid listed), then why was the sister's interest not investigated further, especially when it emerged, within just over two weeks, that the sister's boyfriend's DNA, from body fluids, had turned up on the victim's clothing?

If we strip it back to circumstances before all the incredible "explanations" which were either accepted at face value, or (worse) suggested by investigators, we have a 14 year old girl, murdered in the most horrific and brutal manner, a potential belief that the Black Dahlia murder, as depicted by Marilyn Manson, may have been an influence, a close family member who not only has a keen interest in Manson's work, but has also seen the DVD which was the "freebie" purchased with a magazine by Luke, and another "about to be" relative whose DNA turns up on the victim's clothing - an none of that is considered of interest to a murder investigation?

I'm not suggesting that the sister or her boyfriend had anything to do with the murder - I'm questioning why these things were not properly investigated and conclusively ruled out.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 16, 2012, 09:32:PM
Hi Sandra, do you always believe the internet is a good thing? I realise its importance of spreading the word to a wider audience, and that it helps in that way. But have you found any downfalls to it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 16, 2012, 11:27:PM
Mat said
Please, Mat, I understand from your posts today that you have some sort of complaint about me - I think you said it was "personal" between us? I don't know you, but, by all means, PM me, or even post on the forum what it is you believe I have done which has caused your reaction to me - that way I can at least respond. (Apologies to regular posters - if Mat wants to set up a separate thread for that, rather than it hijacking posts about MoJ cases, I think that would be best.)

My ...erm... team? I work with different teams on different cases, obviously, since there are different solicitors, experts, families, etc, involved in each individual case. I said WAP hosted websites for 9 cases - you're clearly not stupid, Mat, you know what "hosted" means, and it doesn't even begin to imply working on appeals, CCRC applications, etc. Hosting websites is a way of supporting families who want the wider public to know their stories - it can't, and won't, influence how those cases progress, except perhaps in a roundabout way by bringing witnesses forward - every case we host on WAP is aware of this.

The cases we host are investigated before we agree to host sites - there would be no other sensible way to do it.

I would just like to say, though, that I don't have the time, energy or inclination to keep responding to posts which have nothing to do with MoJs. If you have a gripe with me, that's fine - there are a number of ways you can contact me directly and air your grievances without disrupting forums which are trying to discuss injustice. If you want to claim I have been involved in any wrongdoing of any description, then let's have it - preferably not on a thread discussing a MoJ, as that is not fair. Otherwise, sorry, but you're wasting everyone's time and energy.

Deliberately misquoting someone has been used by many others in the past to derail sensible discussion - it's not a new approach, and it's totally transparent. So that's my bottom line - I'm happy to discuss the cases I've commented on, I'm happy to discuss my work, provided it does not impinge on threads about other matters, and I'm happy to address any complaint you have about me - privately or publicly. Now, can we please get back to the subject of this thread, which is the murder of Jodi Jones, and the lack of justice for all concerned in the case?

As you are no doubt, acutely aware, there are a lot of troublemakers out there, attempting to undermine your sterling work.  I plead with you, not to engage with these people.  They are not worth the time and trouble.  It only encourages them to continue with their bullshit.  I'm not sure that I am with you on all your cases but I would back you 100% as a person.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 17, 2012, 10:58:PM
i think the fact they have to use these tactics proves how week the case against luke mitchell is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 17, 2012, 11:10:PM
As you are no doubt, acutely aware, there are a lot of troublemakers out there, attempting to undermine your sterling work.  I plead with you, not to engage with these people.  They are not worth the time and trouble.  It only encourages them to continue with their bullshit.  I'm not sure that I am with you on all your cases but I would back you 100% as a person.

Hopefully you don't mean me, Neil?


i think the fact they have to use these tactics proves how week the case against luke mitchell is.

With respect - the case can't be that weak if it led to a conviction and to appeals being unsuccessful.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 17, 2012, 11:23:PM
so how come none of the guilty posters can discuss it without changing the subject to disccusing a completely different case.

how come none of them can discuss the case without resorting to stupid personal attacks on his supporters when you have a strong argument you don't need to do that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 06:04:PM
well theres theres the dna evidence for a start.


other mens sperm and blood.

there was no trace of lukes dna how could he clean and leave other peoples on there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 06:27:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/other-suspects/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 06:36:PM
yes there is if you bother to read it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 18, 2012, 06:56:PM
Im sure you have the ability to look through the site that the link took you to. Theres a sections in a drop down menu entitled DNA and by some crazy twist of fate thats where you will see refference's to other males sperm and blood at the crime scene.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 06:57:PM
sory i did not the right link.

if you go to the bit where it says othere suspects and click on it there will be a page witch says suspecs and dna.

that is where it is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 18, 2012, 06:59:PM
nugnug we should not have to lead people by the hand,I understand putting them in the right direction is beneficial but c.mon!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 18, 2012, 07:01:PM
There are some samples that even till now are not a full match. The blood sample is matched to a one S.Kelly and sperm samples are matched fully to two men namely S.Kelly and J.Falconer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 18, 2012, 07:04:PM
Sorry no his sample where discovered some 50 yards from the body.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 18, 2012, 07:06:PM
Heres a little test for you m8 If you are unaware of the reason given by S.Kelly as to his samples being there then try yourself to come up with a water tight alibi for the two samples being there innocently. I would really be interested in anything you come up with.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:06:PM
there is another as yet unidentified sample that ws found in jodis trainer i believe.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:10:PM
Falconer has sperm samples on the body? S.Kelly has both blood and sperm? I'm assuming he has a watertight alibi for the police not to care?

weather his albi is watertight or not is really a matter of opinion yes he gave an albi but i wouldn't say it was watertight.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 07:21:PM
S.Kelly is the sisters boyfriend who found the body with Luke yea, did he touch the body? Can't think of any other reason his blood and sperm would be on her.

She was wearing a piece of clothing that belonged to his girlfriend, right? So I think it was explained that this is why there would be sperm on it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:22:PM
Oh he's the condom guy then, I don't see any link between the condom and the murder to be honest, Jodi wasn't raped was she. Was there any female DNA on the condom?

I meant an alibi of where he was during the murder for the police to dismiss his DNA.

the police did at the time or they would not taken the condom

i do not believe that people use condoms when there alone.

it was raining at the time it was found any female dna could have been washed of.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:23:PM
She was wearing a piece of clothing that belonged to his girlfriend, right? So I think it was explained that this is why there would be sperm on it.

so why would jodi be wondering around in a sperm stained t shirt i mean most tramps wouldent do it let alone a teenage girl.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:25:PM
I'm guessing he was with the family that day considering he was part of the search then

he claimed to be with his girlfriend who was jodis sister but the times were rather vague.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 07:29:PM
so why would jodi be wondering around in a sperm stained t shirt i mean most tramps wouldent do it let alone a teenage girl.

We're not talking about a sperm stained shirt though, are we? We're not saying that the t-shirt was dripping in cum (ew) but that there was a sample recovered. It could have been so small it wasn't even visible to the human eye.


I doubt the T-shirt had a large visable white stain. Forensic tests can detec the tiniest traces, I always assumed thats all that was found correct me if I'm wrong. For it to be on a T-shirt I'm guessing it was the smallest traces maybe from S.Kelly or the sisters hands when cuddling afterwards perhaps. If there was a large white stain on the shirt then that's a different story. I've never heard of blood before until now do any independent sources report that?

I've never heard of the blood either.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:35:PM
the sperm was actually found on jodis bra not the t shirt.

now how eactly did it get from the t shirt to the bra

pluss as far as i can see very is very liitle evedence to back up the storyt that the t shirt belonged to jodis sister.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:37:PM
Both blood and semen would kind of contradict each other. For him to be bleeding it would suggest he was in a state of pain and discomfort, quite opposite from the mood he would have had to have been in to have ejaculated. Was he getting beat up while attacking Jodi or masturbating which one is it?


i would not like to speculate about that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:42:PM
so how do to dead sperm get from the front of t shirt to the back of a bra  deadsperm cant walk.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:46:PM
Just been reading that page. The minor traces of sperm tells me it has to have been some sort of innocent transfer such as dirty washing or from hands as suggested. If he ejaculated there and then at the scene like you propose, wouldn't there be a far more substantial amount of semen?

That's not to rule him out though, he could have been at the scene of the crime and the traces could have come from his unclean hands or clothes I suppose. A sexual assault didn't have to take place necessarily. But then what motive would he have?

i have never propposed any such thing i just do not accept the explanation offered.

what i am trying to point out is how did luke clean of his own dna and yet leave other peoples on there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:50:PM
even if was it does not have to be at the scene.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 07:54:PM
so how do to dead sperm get from the front of t shirt to the back of a bra  .

Very easily.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 07:58:PM
You just said the shirt would have to have been clean or else Jodi would never have put it on before she left home. So she left home, went and had sex with Kelly on the way to her boyfriends?

Kelly is completely innocent in my opinion.

i do not think a girl that age would put on a t shirt that was anything other than clean.

he may well be time time will tell.

as i said im not going to speculate how about he manged to get it on there.

its fact it is on there and i do not believe the official explanation
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 07:59:PM
I think a girl her age is more likely than someone older to pull on a t-shirt that hasn't been washed. Teenagers...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:07:PM
I think a girl her age is more likely than someone older to pull on a t-shirt that hasn't been washed. Teenagers...

if the t shirt hadent been washed it would of also smelt of sperm would any teenage girl put a smelly t shirt on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 08:08:PM
Not true at all. We're not talking a t-shirt covered in sperm. We're talking traces.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 08:11:PM
Neither, nugnug is a sniffer dog.  :P
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:15:PM
You're telling me tiny traces of sperm would cause a shirt to smell? Semen itself barely has a scent. Are you male or female?

it would smell enough for you not to want to wear if you had a clean one at hand.

i would thik that you wouldent borrow a t shirt from a relative and then put it on before washing it.

now im assumeing jodi had clean t shits to wear why would she pit on the unwashed one did she like it so much she had to wear it that day.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:20:PM
well for start as i said before the body was left uncovered for hours in the rain the maning whe dont how much of evything was on there in the first place.

we dont know much sperm or blood was there in the first place.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:33:PM
Jodi's sisters shirt had small traces of her boyfriends DNA on it, even if it was Jodi's shirt, having DNA traces of someone who spends alot of time in your household with your family wouldn't be out of the ordinary. You don't know how hygienic Kelly was, he could have arrived at the home with dirty hands or clothes himself, you don't know if he ever helped his girlfriend with chores such as folding or sorting freshly washed clothes. S.Kelly's DNA being innocent is far more likely than the other suggestions.

he would have to be very unheginic the family must have of been more tolernt than me i wouldent let somone that unhginic in my house.

and im suprised somone with such personall habitts would get a job working in a bar.

im supprised they would have a girlfriend.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:36:PM
You're treating S.Kelly and every other male in the area or with ties to the Jones family the very same way you complain about how Luke was treated before his trial. I just hope no future imployers google the poor guys name if he's ever looking for a new job.

well what you have said about him wouldn't do him a power of good ether.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 08:39:PM
Nugnug, when you asked me previously about the DNA evidence - is that the DNA evidence you meant?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:41:PM
And again you seem to think Kelly having tiny traces of semen on his clothing would be visible to his girlfriends family or even detectable by scent. Wow.

if he was as unhygienic as you are claiming then yes.

but working in a bar he couldent have been you have to wash your hands a fair few times.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 08:45:PM
Your language is a disgrace
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 08:47:PM
Your language is a disgrace


Who's?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:49:PM
You realise statistically you've probably shaken hands with someone who has traces of their semen or feces on their hand?

ive heard that said but im not sure i believe it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 08:50:PM
I'm not talking about a disgusting smelly person here covered in spunk

Yes You
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 08:53:PM
This is not America. It is the U.K. Children in the U.K do not use such vulgar terminology. Before you ask, I do the school run most mornings and chat to the kids.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 08:54:PM
In fairness, Chelsea. "Lithium" has tried hard to explain it in better terms but has hit a brick wall.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 08:55:PM
semen is the word
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:55:PM
You ever use public toilets? the door handles alone would have your hands covered in other mens DNA/urine traces.

so how does that eplian it getting on the back of a girls bra eactly why would his hands be innocently near the back of her bra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 08:56:PM
so how does that eplian it getting on the back of a girls bra eactly why would his hands be innocently near the back of her bra.

Transfered from the t-shirt to the bra when they came in contact?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 08:59:PM
Unhygienic as in not showering after masturbating and having tiny traces on him that no human could ever detect. I'm not talking about a disgusting smelly person here covered in spunk. You lack basic comprehension and understanding of what exactly these traces of semen are. Can I ask your age nugnug?

so how in the course of him being around the house and touching things would it transfer to the back of her bra why would his hands be touching the back of her bra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 09:01:PM
Dont tell me Ohio ? Texas ? San Diego ?

People dont just suddenly stumble on the JB site. They go looking for it once they have been told about it. Assuming your U.K based is quite legitimate.

Now you will perhaps declare your Canadian or from the Congo
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 18, 2012, 09:02:PM
Lithium, you've re-registered under a different user-name than you last had.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 09:05:PM
Semen went from SK to shirt, from shirt to Jodi's hands/body/bra

I don't know how to make it any simpler.

Just give up. I would.  Either that or you have to explain the same thing over and over - tiring isn't it?  :'( :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 09:08:PM
the plane fact that none of lukes dna is on there how could he clean all his own dna off but leave other peoples on there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 09:09:PM
Lithium, you've re-registered under a different user-name than you last had.

What was the other name then Roch ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 09:10:PM
Just give up. I would.  Either that or you have to explain the same thing over and over - tiring isn't it?  :'( :-\

thats is because to my mind it is not a credible explanation

.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 09:15:PM
Even I know that when anyone would try to rub their DNA/semen off, it would merely smear. It would be still on the surface/garment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 18, 2012, 09:18:PM
What was the other name then Roch ?

Maybe we should ask Lithium?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 18, 2012, 09:21:PM
ask me what?
1336 ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 09:22:PM
What's your previous username Lithium? Do we have to play a guessing game - really? Can't we just be told?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 09:23:PM
This should be interesting !!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 09:26:PM
Roch is asking you to reveal your previous username. I commented that this revelation would be interesting. Perhaps you might want to sit down for a while and think about it
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 09:26:PM
That you have previously had an account here - under a different name.

I hope that this actually is the case because people here aren't nice to new members as it is - nevermind now that a mod has openly accused you.
Good luck - you're going to need it!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 09:33:PM
That you have previously had an account here - under a different name.

I hope that this actually is the case because people here aren't nice to new members as it is - nevermind now that a mod has openly accused you.
Good luck - you're going to need it!

no we are terribly nasty to new posters we go around restricting there frree speech by not agreeing with them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 09:43:PM
well you clearly dident bother becouse if you had looked you would see it was at the bottom of the page link i gave you.

and as youve made coments about the wronglly accused site its clear you have been there before so im very suprised you have not read that before.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 10:03:PM
well what i ment was im rather suprised that you had read the poston the forum but not looked at the actull website.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 10:09:PM
Maybe we should ask Lithium?

arnt you giong to put us out of our misery roach.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 10:26:PM
Yes, the suspense is too much. I have a taxi on the way as off out to a nighclub, so get a move on please.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 18, 2012, 10:34:PM
I think we should take a leaf out of Dr. Lean's book and keep the thread case related.  So I'll say no more regarding Lithium.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 10:36:PM
I think we should take a leaf out of Dr. Lean's book and keep the thread case related.  So I'll say no more regarding Lithium.

Roch I don't mean to moan.....but it is a little careless to accuse Lithium as being a returning members (and NGB saying it to nugnug) on the open board and then leaving it, isn't it? Because now you've created a situation where Lithium is going to be given a hard time as people won't trust them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 18, 2012, 10:37:PM
Quite agree. So spill the beans Roch
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 18, 2012, 10:41:PM
Lithium's email address is easily recognisable.  However, I cant remember the other username linked to it and I'm not prepared to look through the entire membership to see if it is a current member.  It may have been a banned member.  At the moment it's Lithium 1 Roch 0.  I suppose we'll have to give Lithium the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 10:42:PM
I suppose we'll have to give Lithium the benefit of the doubt.


 :-\ No one will do that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 18, 2012, 10:46:PM

 :-\ No one will do that.

I'm not sure what to say Mat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 18, 2012, 10:56:PM
Why the negativity? Even if I was someone else, you've got to be the first forum moderator i've ever seen who is against someone joining and contributing to their forum? It's not 1-0 to me because we weren't against each other as far as I knew. I'm no expert but I don't think you can join a forum with the same e-mail twice.

Your email address does look very much like one recently used by a 'new member'.  A lot of our 'new members' tend to be pests.  So I put 2+2 together.  Don't be so wounded.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 18, 2012, 11:34:PM
now all those hours the body was left out unprotected in the rain i am sure there must have been some dna that washed of.


i dont think a body could lay uncovered in the rain that long without it haveing an effect.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 18, 2012, 11:41:PM
now all those hours the body was left out unprotected in the rain i am sure there must have been some dna that washed of.


i dont think a body could lay uncovered in the rain that long without it haveing an effect.

Well that could answer your own question from earliler as to why none of Luke's DNA was on the body.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:09:AM
the sperm was actually found on jodis bra not the t shirt.

now how eactly did it get from the t shirt to the bra

pluss as far as i can see very is very liitle evedence to back up the storyt that the t shirt belonged to jodis sister.
Work it out. Would any girl lend a tee shirt to a friend if it were not washed first? Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first? Therefore the dna found on the tee shirt would more than likely lead you to the murderer. Or is my logic not logical?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 12:10:AM
Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first?


Yes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:17:AM
You're telling me tiny traces of sperm would cause a shirt to smell? Semen itself barely has a scent. Are you male or female?
So what are we arguing here for? Luke's guilty or Kelly's innocence? Surely our aim should be to nail the real killer?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:23:AM
it would smell enough for you not to want to wear if you had a clean one at hand.

i would thik that you wouldent borrow a t shirt from a relative and then put it on before washing it.

now im assumeing jodi had clean t shits to wear why would she pit on the unwashed one did she like it so much she had to wear it that day.
It would more than likely to smell of sweat. Show me a girl who doesn't smell her clothes before she puts them on. Good grief some of the men here are so ignorance of girl's habits. Perhaps they'd better go and swat up on their girl knowledge before coming here and deliberating to pontificately about what this girl would not or would do? Perhaps a little understanding of the female thought processes would help you keep your girlfriends a little longer? ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on August 19, 2012, 12:25:AM
It wasn't noted to be smelling of sweat.In fact it was noted, recorded in fact as smelling of washing detergent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:27:AM
You ever use public toilets? the door handles alone would have your hands covered in other mens DNA/urine traces.
Wash your hands then. I have never heard of jumping through so many hoops in order to keep a possible innocent person in goal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:28:AM
Semen went from SK to shirt, from shirt to Jodi's hands/body/bra

I don't know how to make it any simpler.
In fact you're making it more and more unlikely.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:33:AM
I have no idea who Jeremy Bamber is lol.

So in recent pages, we've got an innocent explanation for the semen traces, and an innocent explanation for the eye witness not recognizing Luke in court. What else? I'm looking for proof or a convincing argument of Luke's innocence. I don't know if he did it or not. I'd like to debate it.
And yet you registered on the BAMBER forum. Do you think we were born yesterday? ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:37:AM
the plane fact that none of lukes dna is on there how could he clean all his own dna off but leave other peoples on there.
Amazing isn't it nugnug. None of lukes dna was found. But dna from this other guy was found and they arev arguing not for the innocence of Luke but for the innocence of this other guy. You will of course notice that they argue the other way round when it comes to Bamber. So inconsistent some people. ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:44:AM
well straight away you pasted the incorrect link then implied I didn't bother reading it. Then someone else chimed in saying how you shouldn't have to lead me by the hand, implying I was too stupid to find it, when infact you posted the wrong page.

So yeah you lot do have an attitude, straight on the defensive, it does you no favors. I never mentioned once weather I thought Luke was guilty or not.
Well perhaps if you had introduced yourself in the foyer first? instead of blundering in here ans pontificating of on this case. I would have said that it was your yourself who has the attitude? ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:46:AM
I think we should take a leaf out of Dr. Lean's book and keep the thread case related.  So I'll say no more regarding Lithium.
Then if that is the case maybe you should have send lithium a pm insted?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:52:AM

Yes.
I think I understand teenagers better that you do son. ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:55:AM
show me the post where I said Luke should stay in jail?
Show me a post that you are not trying to prove someone's innocence by making up the wildest theories possible in order to explain away why their dna was at the scene.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:56:AM
unlikely? it's the most obvious and probable explanation. Unless you think Kelly masturbating over a dead body but some how only left small traces of sperm.

He couldnt have been doing that anyway considering no one seen him in the area at all and Jodi's own sister said she was with him. You're barking up the wrong tree in my opinion.
I rather think that you should be looking towards Kelly rather than Luke as the murderer simply on the dna evidence alone.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:57:AM
Grahame has the most idiotic posts in this thread so far, first he claims a freshly washed shirt would smell like sweat, then he claimed by washing your hands more often you will prevent other people spreading germs to door handles. Now he doesn't realise a thread about Luke Mitchell would appear on google when searching Luke Mitchell and other relevant names. Off to bed mate youve had one too many.
see my signature it applies to you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:59:AM
Grahame has the most idiotic posts in this thread so far, first he claims a freshly washed shirt would smell like sweat, then he claimed by washing your hands more often you will prevent other people spreading germs to door handles. Now he doesn't realise a thread about Luke Mitchell would appear on google when searching Luke Mitchell and other relevant names. Off to bed mate youve had one too many.
Oh we have a bit of a cheeky insolent bastard here on the forum AGAIN have we?  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 01:01:AM
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4763941002_8f79b21e0c.jpg)
 :o :o :o

I do find this rather disturbing, how could he even fantasize about doing that to anybody after what he'd seen, unless he was completely unphased by it.  "i will stab with a big **** stick. watch your blood spill on the soil, i will watch as you wither and die."

I wonder what he put a black square over and changed to "stick"
So you DO think that Luke is guilty then?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 01:04:AM
DNA transfer from hand to clothing = a crazy wild theory? lol jog on mate youre all over the place.
So you don't reckon that dna evidence warrents more investigation then? Lets get this straight. You are basing Lukes guilt on lack of dna evidence. Yet you base the presence of Kelly's dna to prove him innocent? hmm I see.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 01:05:AM
Perhaps a little understanding of the female thought processes would help you keep your girlfriends a little longer? ::)

You really are a nasty old man that shouldn't be on the forum never mind the internet. Your hidden barbs expose you as nothing more than the tyro, trol and backseat moderator that you yourself aim to expose.

Outside your small group of friends, you're pittied, Grahame.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 01:08:AM
I do find this rather disturbing, how could he even fantasize about doing that to anybody after what he'd seen, unless he was completely unphased by it.  "i will stab with a big **** stick. watch your blood spill on the soil, i will watch as you wither and die."

I wonder what he put a black square over and changed to "stick"
Yes it is. But then I am not trying to prove him guilty or innocent. All I have done was to question why go to such elaborate lengths in order to try and prove that dna evidence is no evidence at all and in doing so may be letting a murderer off the hook? I've just never seen that before and to my mind is approaching the case arse upwards.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 01:10:AM
You just replied to the same post twice grahame pal, get to bed.
I know you. Your speech berayeth you. ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 01:13:AM
You really are a nasty old man that shouldn't be on the forum never mind the internet. Your hidden barbs expose you as nothing more than the tyro, trol and backseat moderator that you yourself aim to expose.

Outside your small group of friends, you're pittied, Grahame.
wow you certainly are a silly young man aren't you. you are the nasty one aren't you. Does that mean that I have revealed to the forum that you are no good with the girls? ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 01:14:AM
He seems the guiltiest to me but how could I possibly say.
Well you have said it in the plainest terms so far.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 19, 2012, 01:30:AM
Lithium you seem to be  addressing a point from a rather comfortable pre established fact that you cannot possible know. The semen(please call it that because thats exactly what it was and not sperm) was found on the t-shirt that was found at the scene. The amount of semen seems to have ranged from the microscopic to the miniscule or to put your own spin on it not able to be seen by the naked eye. There is nothing to say just how large the stain was, although this stain as per the prosecution/investigations case was large enough to transfer from the front of the t-shirt to the inside upper cup of the bra Jodi was wearing at the time.
The forensic team at the time noted the strong smell of detergent coming from the garments gathered up , including the t-shirt. In the process of obtaining DNA from semen a mild detergent is used to break up the lipids so that the solution namely semen can be broken down and what is left are sperm cells that are able to yeild a full profile for DNA examination purpose's. If this t-shirt had been washed then no SEMEN stain would have any relevant reason to exist on this garment, there is a sufficient case to be put forward for innocent transfer of sperm(singular or multiple spermheads being present) for various reasons and some of those you have stated here. I believe even a handshake could in essence transfer various different sources of DNA between two individuals as that is indeed the foundation of the science of DNa to begin with.

I noticed you have managed to not discuss the blood sample as this is not so easily explained away(exept simply just stating you have never heard of this sample before). It does however exist and despite anyones efforts it will always remain. On a t-shirt saturated with Jodi's blood the forensic team managed to not only detect but to firmly establish a full profile of DNA from a blood sample that came from S.Kelly. although If  I remember correctly someone tried to explain away the rain that evening washing away Lukes DNA but managing to preserve the DNA an other individual.

The various alibis for S.Kelly are infact Jodi's sister herself and as I will concur with yourself that it would be insensative to try and link someone connected to Jodi to try and cover up for her murderer it would not be beyond possiblity. Only this week alone and sadly too many times in the past have we seen family covering up for those who have carried out some of the most vile acts upon members of a family. The young 12 year old girl found in her Grandmothers house is testimont to that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 19, 2012, 01:46:AM
Quote
Ok so not only did she cover up for him but she stayed in the relationship for some time after what he'd done. Get real lol.

Do you really want me to show you just how many times this has happened over the years or are you happy to carry on with your super silliest ideas that life is not is as we want to see it and take comfort that nothing bad ever happens? FFS only today we had the Brady?Hindley crime thrust down our throats again.

Quote
As for the blood, simple, I don't believe it, it's not mentioned anywhere other than on lukes website probably posted by Sandra. I'd rather see it from an unbiased source. References or it didn't happen.

I would love for you to show me where any of the DNA samples relating to this case appear anywhere else! I have watched you argue points based on the very same samples of DNA to try and prove a point that now becomes redundant due to your non belief of what is put on the official website. I don't know about you as I have only came in and spent a few mins on this but you seem to have spent all night on points you have no belief in as they must have come from the official site.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 19, 2012, 01:58:AM
Quote
Again I'll ask was he injured or masturbating... doubtful he'd be going through both at once, and did he arrive at the search wounded? Jodis sis was with him all day and never noticed he was hurt either?

and again why such an insignificant amount of blood? it's only common sense that these tiny amounts of DNA never got there at the scene of the murder.

It beyond debate now as I could have no knowledge of him either masterbating or being injured at any point as if I did the Luke would be home where he belongs. I agree however about the not doing them both at once but then again it is very selective in that your saying it couldn't happen. It is possible that sex in a woodland may well be the precurser to both.
There you go again mate!!! do you have some information you really should pass on as you seem to know much thatwe don't, He was with Janine all day you say!!! strange as thats not what he said. here are major times throughout the day that he wasn't with Janine as well as conflicting reports and statement from the family that say that Janine was in the house and he was not.

Quote
and again why such an insignificant amount of blood?

And once again please do not keep trying to add information you cannot know as it does little to prove your point and even less for your crediblity.

Quote
How can you defend a convicted murderer without even having any proof that he's innocent. Just because you reckon he is?

Isn't this the forfront of every idea that manifest's itself in greatness!! I believe because I can and therefore it becomes real to me. There is NO evidence of Lukes guilt so why the double edged sword.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 19, 2012, 02:03:AM
Quote
I don't believe the sample is confirmed to be SK. Can you provide proof please? Or is Sandra putting it out there when it's just a case of it 'could be'?

What is it that makes you not believe? Its there in black and white on an official site. If that information is incorrect and DR Lean has lied then they may as well keep Luke locked up for the next 11 years with my blessing.
It comes from the forensic files and have I any proof? no sorry I am not privy to these documents. If that suggests I am an idiot for believing blindly then so be it but It says as much for those willing to accept the acknowledged line without standing up and say HEY!! you know that just might be wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 07:48:AM
There were several areas on the T shirt which tested positive for the presence of semen. Many of these  contained sperm heads. The one found on the back underside of the left sleeve was noted as a "large stain" which suggests that it was visible. I will be out all day, but will look out the DNA reports this evening and confirm the actual number of areas.

There were several white stains on the hoodie which were visible to the naked eye - what they consist of has never been ascertained. There was an "extensive" area of blood-staining around the underarm of the left sleeve of the hoodie - there is no wound on Jodi's body which corresponds to that staining.

Jodi's T shirt was not taken off "over her head" - it was cut and ripped up the sides, across one side of the back, and through the neckline. The sleeves remained attached to the front piece.

The semen on the bra was found on the outside of the right and left cups, and in the padding of the left cup. The "transfer" theory does not explain how semen and sperm heads soaked through the surface of the bra into the padding below. The rainwater transfer (which was the prosecution's contention- the rain had diluted the semen on the t shirt, soaking it through to the bra, and also to other areas of the t-shirt) does not hold when one realises that after the clothes were stripped off, they were not thrown/dropped in the same place -the bra, cut bra strap, and two t-shirt parts were all found in different places. It did not rain that evening until after Jodi was claimed to have been murdered, stripped and mutilated, so any rain water transfer could only have happened after the clothes were removed from the body.

Also, Jodi left home wearing a hoodie, but there is no corresponding "transfer" of semen from the T-shirt to the inside of the hoodie, which would have been at least as likely as transfer to the bra. In an attempt to explain this away, the police began to question people about whether Jodi wore her hoodie tied around her waist. Not one person could be found who had ever known Jodi to wear her hoodie like that, so that line of enquiry was dropped.

Several of the mixed male and female profiles returned either "no reportable result" or "Jodi Jones and unidentified male" - the manner in which the DNA results were labelled and logged was confusing, at best, and downright misleading at worst. For example, (and this is just one of many), one label logged a sample found on one of the trainers as "no semen detected." The results, however,  show an unknown profile, in semen, from the same sample on the same trainer.

I cannot post copies of the DNA results online, as that would be an offence in Scotland. I have explained this many times - I have posted information from the results, as it appears in the reports, but that is as far as I can go. The labels I have posted are the exact wordings which appear on the results - I am not responsible for how those labels were worded, although some people seem quite keen to shoot the messenger!

As someone else has pointed out, the stories about the whereabouts of the sister's boyfriend changed to provide him with what appeared to be a watertight alibi - however, other statements raise doubts about where he was and who he was with. He finally claimed to be with the sister at his father's house - to date, I have never seen a statement from the father to confirm this. Initially, he said he visited the sister in the morning, stayed for a short time, and then left. By the final statement, he visited the sister in the morning, stayed all day, went with her to his father's and returned with her to the grandmother's.

Whilst I accept that people in shock may not remember important details, that should apply across the board - this discrepancy did not warrant further investigation (nor did a "mistaken" statement by the mother's boyfriend that the sister had actually been in the mother's house at the time she was claimed to be elsewhere with her boyfriend). Yet any tiny discrepancies in the Mitchell family statements were jumped on as "suspicious" and "deliberate falsehoods."

Interestingly, other people in the grandmother's house that morning do not mention him being there. None of this, of course, tells us that the boyfriend was in any way implicated. What it does tell us (and what I have been banging on about for over 9 years) is that the investigation was an absolute disgrace. If it had been done properly, we would not be having these discussions all these years later, because the questions would have been answered satisfactorily, and we could all be certain that the convicted person, whoever he had turned out to be as a result of a properly conducted, thorough and professional investigation, was the real killer.

As it stands, there are so many unanswered questions, so many inexplicable omissions, apparent errors, failures to follow through, etc, that no-one can rest easy that the conviction of Luke Mitchell is "safe" - far from it.

Lithium's attempts to provide innocent explanations for the sister's boyfriend's DNA on the T shirt Jodi was wearing demonstrate my point. Had that presence been fully investigated and properly eliminated, Lithium would have no need to argue the point (just as others would have no need to argue that the presence of his DNA raises many questions). It was not properly eliminated - the police appear to have handed them the "borrowed t shirt" explanation, the other samples on the t shirt remain unidentified, the rainwater transfer theory does not hold, and there is no proof, aside from the word of Jodi's sister, that two identical t shirts ever belonged to the sister. Six black t-shirts were recovered from Jodi's clothing - it is entirely possible that Jodi owned a black t-shirt identical to one owned by her sister.

Just to answer Lithium's question about confirmation, the sample is confirmed as a full match to SK. I have always been careful to point out that partial samples cannot be safely attributed to anyone, and would never claim that a partial "could be" any one person - the furthest I would go is to say it could be any one of several potential contributors. As a general rule, I avoid such discussion, as it is pointless, and dangerous.

As I have explained, I cannot provide the sort of proof Lithium would like, as to do so, I would have to reproduce the result from the DNA report, which I am prohibited from doing in Scotland.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 08:06:AM
Lithium said
Quote
such as Jodi's cousin being due a haircut that week.

Really, Lithium? Gosh, what a strange thing, then, that he cut off his own hair, knowing  he was "due a haircut" at the barbers the following day?

Funny old thing, though, he must have forgotten to mention this "due" haircut to the police in his statements... or to anyone else, for that matter. Why would anyone who was "due" a haircut (makes it sound like a regular arrangement, doesn't it?) suddenly chop off his own hair, and not be able to offer any explanation as to why?

I don't know where you got this piece of information, Lithium, but it was never offered as an explanation by the person concerned, and makes the cutting off of his own hair prior to such an arrangement even more strange.

He took five days to come forward, knowing he had been on the very path where Jodi was believed to have been, at the very time she was believed to have been murdered, during those five days, he first cut off all his own hair, then went to the barbers to get it sorted properly, only came forward after an appeal for the two boys on the moped (with descriptions) left him "shaking," then lied about the time he was on the path.

Asked why he hadn't come forward sooner (remember, this is the victim's cousin we are talking about - he was living with her grandmother and sister at the time of the murder), he said his grandmother had told him not to, as the time he was on the path was wrong. Yet the times given for Jodi leaving changed a number of times in those first days, so no-one could have known what was a "right" or "wrong" time - even if, as he claimed, the grandmother thought it was "too early" (because he apparently lied to her about the time as well), it was still only 20 - 35 minutes before the time Jodi was (eventually) claimed to have walked down the path - he could well have seen someone lurking about in the area.

We don't know if the grandmother told him not to come forward - we only have his word that she did. It does seem like a very strange thing to say, but there are no statements which show the grandmother being asked about it, and certainly none in which she confirms or denies such a conversation. Having said that, though, it was quite a while before anyone in the family "remembered" that the cousin was living with the grandmother, having fallen out with his mother.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:27:AM
You really are a nasty old man that shouldn't be on the forum never mind the internet. Your hidden barbs expose you as nothing more than the tyro, trol and backseat moderator that you yourself aim to expose.

Outside your small group of friends, you're pittied, Grahame.
Your name calling doesn't really have any affect upon me. I am ready to accept that I am a nasty old man, a tyro and a backseat moderator. As being moderator for quite some time does take some time to get out of. Being called those names doesn't bother me. Because it is better than being seen as the forum parrot. ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:48:AM
doesn't it tell you anything when Jodi's family and sister (stevens boyfriend) aren't concerned about his DNA on there? and they obviously know more about the circumstances than us. The recurring argument is that other suspects have more evidence against them than Luke does, when its clutching at straws, such as Jodi's cousin being due a haircut that week. Luke was spotted in the right place at the right time. He had no alibi. A jacket and a knife dissapeared. This is the evidence I'm looking at.
You don't have to convince me mate. I'm neutral on this one in that I haven't really read up on it. Believe it or not I don't believe that everyone in prison for murder is a moj.
I was only questioning the logic of defending a man ie Kelly, fishing out every reason to explain why his dna was there at a murder scene, when he wasn't even in the frame anyway?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 09:49:AM
Your name calling doesn't really have any affect upon me. I am ready to accept that I am a nasty old man, a tyro and a backseat moderator. As being moderator for quite some time does take some time to get out of. Being called those names doesn't bother me. Because it is better than being seen as the forum parrot. ::)
Hi Grahame, I really have issues with Matt calling you  the 'old' word.......totally out of order ;D :o ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:54:AM
How can you defend a convicted murderer without even having any proof that he's innocent. Just because you reckon he is?
Are you referring to Dr Sandra Lean? Don't you think it would be a good thing to refer to her by the title that she has earned rather than just her Christian name? After all this would indicate that we have some respect for her achievements. Unless you are of course an expert in criminalogy?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 09:57:AM
Morning Maggie I found the way Mat used the "old" very disrespectful infact if a person is getting on in years which Grahame is not I still don't like the label OLD.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 10:00:AM
Hi Grahame, I really have issues with Matt calling you  the 'old' word.......totally out of order ;D :o ;D
Don't worry about it Maggie. I am old. Well because of my illness I feel old anyway. ;D
What I am concerned about is that young people today think they have some right to be young and fit. I just hope Mat doesn't suffer like my daughter has. She is near enough the same age as he but is sick and infirm. I really hope he stays young and healthy. I wouldn't wish such things as she is going through on anyone least of all Mat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 10:03:AM
Morning Maggie I found the way Mat used the "old" very disrespectful infact if a person is getting on in years which Grahame is not I still don't like the label OLD.
I really don't mind Susan. Age brings wisdom and grey hairs buy respect. Believe me he would not call me that to my face. People become very dold when hiding behind an internet profile. ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 10:10:AM
Don't worry about it Maggie. I am old. Well because of my illness I feel old anyway. ;D
What I am concerned about is that young people today think they have some right to be young and fit. I just hope Mat doesn't suffer like my daughter has. She is near enough the same age as he but is sick and infirm. I really hope he stays young and healthy. I wouldn't wish such things as she is going through on anyone least of all Mat.
I know Grahame, but none of us have any idea what is round the corner.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 10:10:AM
I will put this in here because I don't want it to become a forum issue. Of the opposition I find the following people I respect. Bridget, Hartley, Petey, Tony, Steve-uk, Andrea. And all those I cannot recall for the moment. ;D Opps I forgot Vic.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 10:11:AM
now if the t shir had really belonged to jodis sister then surely jodis sisters dna would be on it but none of her dna is on it witch says to me it could not of been her t shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 10:12:AM
I know Grahame, but none of us know what is round the corner.
I know Maggie. That is why Mat was very unwise in what he said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 10:13:AM
now if the t shir had really belonged to jodis sister then surely jodis sisters dna would be on it but none of her dna is on it witch says to me it could not of been her t shirt.
A good observation nugnug. Good detective work is to ignore NOTHING.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 10:13:AM
You really are a nasty old man that shouldn't be on the forum never mind the internet. Your hidden barbs expose you as nothing more than the tyro, trol and backseat moderator that you yourself aim to expose.

Outside your small group of friends, you're pittied, Grahame.

when are going to learn to debate like an adult mat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 10:15:AM
I will put this in here because I don't want it to become a forum issue. Of the opposition I find the following people I respect. Bridget, Hartley, Petey, Tony, Steve-uk, Andrea. And all thoseI cannot recall for the moment. ;D
Hey Grahame, Petey is a pro bamber!  :o
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 10:16:AM
Well that could answer your own question from earliler as to why none of Luke's DNA was on the body.

so how could the rain wash his dna off and leave other peoples on there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 10:20:AM
Hi Grahame  One thing I really admire in a person is respect it does not matter what number is attached to their name,  Respect I think is something a person acquires from their parents and how they are brought up.  I suspect campion maybe of more mature years but what a gentleman he is along with being humourous and clever.  I have seen him spoken to on this forum in the most disgusting disrespectful way and this just tells me the nature of the person dishing out the abuse.  We can all have different numbers and different views but we should always try and respect one another.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 10:39:AM
Hey Grahame, Petey is a pro bamber!  :o
Well If he was an anti I would respect him. ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 10:42:AM
so how could the rain wash his dna off and leave other peoples on there.
Again logical and as Sherlock himself would have said but didn't for some reason. "Elementary."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 10:43:AM
Hi Grahame  One thing I really admire in a person is respect it does not matter what number is attached to their name,  Respect I think is something a person acquires from their parents and how they are brought up.  I suspect campion maybe of more mature years but what a gentleman he is along with being humourous and clever.  I have seen him spoken to on this forum in the most disgusting disrespectful way and this just tells me the nature of the person dishing out the abuse.  We can all have different numbers and different views but we should always try and respect one another.
Very true susie....without respect debate cannot exist.imo
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 10:51:AM
Hi Grahame  One thing I really admire in a person is respect it does not matter what number is attached to their name,  Respect I think is something a person acquires from their parents and how they are brought up.  I suspect campion maybe of more mature years but what a gentleman he is along with being humourous and clever.  I have seen him spoken to on this forum in the most disgusting disrespectful way and this just tells me the nature of the person dishing out the abuse.  We can all have different numbers and different views but we should always try and respect one another.
Well haven't I just demonstrated that Susan? By repecting those with opposing views to myself? As the greastest man once said, "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
So I'm a hypocrite?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 10:54:AM
Grahame  you sound just like campion :) :) :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Bridget on August 19, 2012, 10:55:AM
I will put this in here because I don't want it to become a forum issue. Of the opposition I find the following people I respect. Bridget, Hartley, Petey, Tony, Steve-uk, Andrea. And all those I cannot recall for the moment. ;D Opps I forgot Vic.

Thank you. I may not always agree with what you say but the respect is mutual.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 11:03:AM
Morning Bridget  hope you are well this sunny day and ready to go by the sound of it :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on August 19, 2012, 11:05:AM
Lithium's email address is easily recognisable.  However, I cant remember the other username linked to it and I'm not prepared to look through the entire membership to see if it is a current member.  It may have been a banned member.  At the moment it's Lithium 1 Roch 0.  I suppose we'll have to give Lithium the benefit of the doubt.

Lithium's last forum username was D-FENS.  He was banned for abuse and remains banned.  His posts are still visible.  There have been other usernames associated with the IP address.  I believe this is a John Lamberton identity.



 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Bridget on August 19, 2012, 11:06:AM
Morning Bridget  hope you are well this sunny day and ready to go by the sound of it :)

Morning Susan, very well thanks, although I'm suffering a bit with the heat (mustn't complain..).
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:07:AM
Thank you. I may not always agree with what you say but the respect is mutual.
Its because you're smart and give an intelligent debate and avoid mudslinging.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:09:AM
Lithium's last forum username was D-FENS.  He was banned for abuse and remains banned.  His posts are still visible.  There have been other usernames associated with the IP address.  I believe this is a John Lamberton identity.
His speech berayeth him. ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on August 19, 2012, 11:10:AM
His speech berayeth him. ;)

I agree.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Bridget on August 19, 2012, 11:12:AM
His speech berayeth him. ;)

Is that a typo or do I have to Google it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:12:AM
Grahame  you sound just like campion :) :) :)
I may fly off the handle sometimes and say things I regret later. But all said and done I'm no worse than any of the other patients here at Rampton. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:13:AM
Is that a typo or do I have to Google it?
No its in one of the gospels. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 19, 2012, 11:14:AM
His name of lithium is very apt then as its used to control bipolar disorders.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Bridget on August 19, 2012, 11:15:AM
No its in one of the gospels. :)

I can't believe you have me googling gospels *mutter*  >:(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:16:AM
His name of lithium is very apt then as its used to control bipolar disorders.
Oh? And there's me thinking it's used to power starships. :D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 11:18:AM
Grahame difference is your rants are usually humourous.  You get more and more like the delightful campion everyday :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:20:AM
I can't believe you have me googling gospels *mutter*  >:(
Believe it or not I mispelled it. Look up "thy speech bewrayeth thee". It means the same at betray but makes me sound intelligent by using a word that nobody else knows. ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:25:AM
Grahame difference is your rants are usually humourous.  You get more and more like the delightful campion everyday :)
Susan. Before you start a rumour that I'm sure you don't intend to do let me state that I am NOT campion. Campion is a genius and I find it hard to follow him sometimes. A bit like listening to Einstien. I fell asleep once at he was trying to explain the bamber case to me and when I woke up I heard him saying, "Did you understand that?" I said, "Erm....yes of course" He replied, "What did I say then?"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 11:25:AM
Beilive it or not I mispelled it. Look up "thy speech bewrayeth thee". It means the same at betray but makes me sound intelligent by using a word that nobody else knows. ;D
No it doesn't it just makes you look like you can't spell!! ??? ??? ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 11:27:AM
Maggie

 :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:28:AM
No it doesn't it just makes you look like you can't spell!! ??? ??? ;D ;D
Yes Its a fault of mine (amongst many) that I realise what I say too late. ::) I even thought they spelt it wrong in the Bible? But apparently its supposed to be there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 11:30:AM
Grahame  I bet dear campion knows more about the Bamber Case than the rest of us put together.  I suspect he is a very wise man that says very little but observes everything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 11:33:AM
Grahame  I bet dear campion knows more about the Bamber Case than the rest of us put together.  I suspect he is a very wise man that says very little but observes everything.
Well he has a great insight into human nature and is thoroughly convinced that he is Innocent. Even more so that me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 11:38:AM
Bridget  would have been more appropriate if you had googled "nutter" :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 12:09:PM
Your obviously very eager to dismantle Sandra ! Yes, you do sound identical to John Lamberton
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:12:PM
Hi Sandra, thanks for the reply, no response to the letter Luke penned saying "i will stab with a big **** stick. watch your blood spill on the soil, i will watch as you wither and die." though, wouldn't expect someone to fantasize about such things considering what he's been through.

"Yet any tiny discrepancies in the Mitchell family statements were jumped on as "suspicious" and "deliberate falsehoods."

Claiming you cooked your brother a burnt pie and him having no recollection of seeing you in the house that evening is a pretty big discrepency don't you think?


"Really, Lithium? Gosh, what a strange thing, then, that he cut off his own hair, knowing  he was "due a haircut" at the barbers the following day?"

Again, do you have any proof J Ferris didn't always cut his own hair? I doubt he already had the appointment at the barbers when he cut it, he probably made a mess of it and the appointment came as a result of that. And if he was cutting his hair to avoid being identified then why would he bother if he had the barbers the next day anyway? Ferris cutting his hair for no reason is more believable than Luke calling the speaking clock for no reason when he was supposed to be in his house.

"Why would anyone who was "due" a haircut (makes it sound like a regular arrangement, doesn't it?) suddenly chop off his own hair, and not be able to offer any explanation as to why?"

You're really asking for an explanation for him cutting his hair? Why does anyone get a haircut? I believe he said in court it was getting curly and messy and he didn't like it that way.

Grahame-

"Are you referring to Dr Sandra Lean? Don't you think it would be a good thing to refer to her by the title that she has earned rather than just her Christian name? After all this would indicate that we have some respect for her achievements. Unless you are of course an expert in criminalogy?"

I'm not taking anything away from her achievements, I'm at uni myself and I take my hat off to her, but why would I address her as Dr? Now you're just being petty,That's like me asking people to address me as Mr. *** *** in every day conversation. I'm sure you just wanted an excuse to remind everyone she's an 'expert' though, so job done.


I'm not John Lamberton or anyone else, and my username is just a song title. If you don't want me posting here just say and I'll leave.  :-\ [/co;or]
Lithium, as far as I am concerned you can call yourself what you like. It certainy is not up to me whether you post here or not. Neither have I said anything about your posting here. All I mentioned was that perhaps people may accept you if you had entered the forum by the right door?
Other than that I have no opposition to you being here. By the way when speaking to doctors I personally always call them "doctor". If you are a doctor then I will refer to you as "doctor". It just helps to keep that little distance between us out of respect.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 12:25:PM
How come you have such an interest in the Luke Mitchell case ? How come you have expert knowledge ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:25:PM
just let me discuss the case instead of admins and moderators trying to 'out' me when all I'm doing is trying to discuss the topic at hand and contribute to the site, and instead of people jumping on the defensive attack because I hold a different opinion from sandra.
sorry, Dr Sandra Lean.
you see how that's less natural?  I'm not addressing her personally, but as a screen name, don't read into it I'm sure she wasn't offended.
What can I do I'm not a moderator and if you noted I even suggested Roch rather send you a pm.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:26:PM
just let me discuss the case instead of admins and moderators trying to 'out' me when all I'm doing is trying to discuss the topic at hand and contribute to the site, and instead of people jumping on the defensive attack because I hold a different opinion from sandra.
sorry, Dr Sandra Lean.
you see how that's less natural?  I'm not addressing her personally, but as a screen name, don't read into it I'm sure she wasn't offended.
Well how would you refer to Dr Who then? ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 12:37:PM
lol. if he joined here as "Who". I'd refer to him as such. Back on topic, I've been accused of trying to "explain away" so-called evidence. Can anyone explain away the following suspicious actions by Luke? Phone records show he phoned the speaking clock roughly the time of the murder, at a time where he claims he was at home making dinner. He didn't phone to see why Jodi hadn't turned up or where she had been all night. Just went home and went to bed without worrying about it even though she didn't show and hadn't contacted him all night.
I can't. I'm neutral and know nothing as I said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on August 19, 2012, 01:06:PM
I'm not John Lamberton or anyone else, and my username is just a song title. If you don't want me posting here just say and I'll leave.  :-\

Do you admit that you have previously posted here as D-FENS?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 01:10:PM
There were several areas on the T shirt which tested positive for the presence of semen. Many of these  contained sperm heads. The one found on the back underside of the left sleeve was noted as a "large stain" which suggests that it was visible. I will be out all day, but will look out the DNA reports this evening and confirm the actual number of areas.

There were several white stains on the hoodie which were visible to the naked eye - what they consist of has never been ascertained. There was an "extensive" area of blood-staining around the underarm of the left sleeve of the hoodie - there is no wound on Jodi's body which corresponds to that staining.

Jodi's T shirt was not taken off "over her head" - it was cut and ripped up the sides, across one side of the back, and through the neckline. The sleeves remained attached to the front piece.

The semen on the bra was found on the outside of the right and left cups, and in the padding of the left cup. The "transfer" theory does not explain how semen and sperm heads soaked through the surface of the bra into the padding below. The rainwater transfer (which was the prosecution's contention- the rain had diluted the semen on the t shirt, soaking it through to the bra, and also to other areas of the t-shirt) does not hold when one realises that after the clothes were stripped off, they were not thrown/dropped in the same place -the bra, cut bra strap, and two t-shirt parts were all found in different places. It did not rain that evening until after Jodi was claimed to have been murdered, stripped and mutilated, so any rain water transfer could only have happened after the clothes were removed from the body.

Also, Jodi left home wearing a hoodie, but there is no corresponding "transfer" of semen from the T-shirt to the inside of the hoodie, which would have been at least as likely as transfer to the bra. In an attempt to explain this away, the police began to question people about whether Jodi wore her hoodie tied around her waist. Not one person could be found who had ever known Jodi to wear her hoodie like that, so that line of enquiry was dropped.

Several of the mixed male and female profiles returned either "no reportable result" or "Jodi Jones and unidentified male" - the manner in which the DNA results were labelled and logged was confusing, at best, and downright misleading at worst. For example, (and this is just one of many), one label logged a sample found on one of the trainers as "no semen detected." The results, however,  show an unknown profile, in semen, from the same sample on the same trainer.

I cannot post copies of the DNA results online, as that would be an offence in Scotland. I have explained this many times - I have posted information from the results, as it appears in the reports, but that is as far as I can go. The labels I have posted are the exact wordings which appear on the results - I am not responsible for how those labels were worded, although some people seem quite keen to shoot the messenger!

As someone else has pointed out, the stories about the whereabouts of the sister's boyfriend changed to provide him with what appeared to be a watertight alibi - however, other statements raise doubts about where he was and who he was with. He finally claimed to be with the sister at his father's house - to date, I have never seen a statement from the father to confirm this. Initially, he said he visited the sister in the morning, stayed for a short time, and then left. By the final statement, he visited the sister in the morning, stayed all day, went with her to his father's and returned with her to the grandmother's.

Whilst I accept that people in shock may not remember important details, that should apply across the board - this discrepancy did not warrant further investigation (nor did a "mistaken" statement by the mother's boyfriend that the sister had actually been in the mother's house at the time she was claimed to be elsewhere with her boyfriend). Yet any tiny discrepancies in the Mitchell family statements were jumped on as "suspicious" and "deliberate falsehoods."

Interestingly, other people in the grandmother's house that morning do not mention him being there. None of this, of course, tells us that the boyfriend was in any way implicated. What it does tell us (and what I have been banging on about for over 9 years) is that the investigation was an absolute disgrace. If it had been done properly, we would not be having these discussions all these years later, because the questions would have been answered satisfactorily, and we could all be certain that the convicted person, whoever he had turned out to be as a result of a properly conducted, thorough and professional investigation, was the real killer.

As it stands, there are so many unanswered questions, so many inexplicable omissions, apparent errors, failures to follow through, etc, that no-one can rest easy that the conviction of Luke Mitchell is "safe" - far from it.

Lithium's attempts to provide innocent explanations for the sister's boyfriend's DNA on the T shirt Jodi was wearing demonstrate my point. Had that presence been fully investigated and properly eliminated, Lithium would have no need to argue the point (just as others would have no need to argue that the presence of his DNA raises many questions). It was not properly eliminated - the police appear to have handed them the "borrowed t shirt" explanation, the other samples on the t shirt remain unidentified, the rainwater transfer theory does not hold, and there is no proof, aside from the word of Jodi's sister, that two identical t shirts ever belonged to the sister. Six black t-shirts were recovered from Jodi's clothing - it is entirely possible that Jodi owned a black t-shirt identical to one owned by her sister.

Just to answer Lithium's question about confirmation, the sample is confirmed as a full match to SK. I have always been careful to point out that partial samples cannot be safely attributed to anyone, and would never claim that a partial "could be" any one person - the furthest I would go is to say it could be any one of several potential contributors. As a general rule, I avoid such discussion, as it is pointless, and dangerous.

As I have explained, I cannot provide the sort of proof Lithium would like, as to do so, I would have to reproduce the result from the DNA report, which I am prohibited from doing in Scotland.

are yes so a visible stained so no iso the innocent transfer thoery does not really stained up nobody would walk around in a sperm stained t shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 01:27:PM
Do you admit that you have previously posted here as D-FENS?

He will be at the airport headed to Spain
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 02:36:PM
Again I'll ask was he injured or masturbating... doubtful he'd be going through both at once, and did he arrive at the search wounded? Jodis sis was with him all day and never noticed he was hurt either? 

and again why such an insignificant amount of blood? it's only common sense that these tiny amounts of DNA never got there at the scene of the murder.
the trouble is your theory of inocent transfer fails down on one thing if his sperm and blood had transfred inocently to jodi while he was jodis i would epect other males who lived with jodi to inocently have transfered thers as well.

but they dident the dna of jodis brother and mum and stepfather are not there.

and if your theory was correct there dna would be there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 03:45:PM
Always amazed that wherever Grahame goes to cause trouble, and he was only here to cause trouble, his posts here were directed at SL to ignore me and then to take a cheap shot at my relationship status, Maggie and Susan are quickly in the topic to defend him  :-\ nice of them to stumble into the topic at the right time  :-\ .

His posts here were just to target me, he can barely debate the Bamber case so don't think for one minute he was going to be able to add anything to the Mitchell case that wasn't an attack.

So he posts his abuse.
Gets his friends in.
Bring up his daughter.
Feels good about himself.......on the internet.

Pathetic.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 03:54:PM
Mat  you have picked it up wrong.  I have no desire to get involved with any spats between you and Grahame I as a person object to the word "old" being used in a difference of a opinion just something that gets to me.  Infact I was replying to Maggie's post about the old being used as an adjective re: Grahame.  In no way was I knocking you and if it came across like I was I apologise.  I think we both know Grahame does not need me to defend he is quite capable of doing that himself.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 03:56:PM
I just found it strange how first Grahame comes in here to start his games, I respond to him - then you and Maggie are suddenly in here too.

When this is about LM case and the topic has now gone way off topic even though last night there was some good debate going on in here.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 04:05:PM
Mat  I honestly can't remember what you and Grahame were arguing about I responded to Maggie's post and it was not  having a pop at you personally maybe I need to be more sensitive with my posts if they are going to cause offence as I can assure you none was meant.  Forgiven :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 04:08:PM
Always amazed that wherever Grahame goes to cause trouble, and he was only here to cause trouble, his posts here were directed at SL to ignore me and then to take a cheap shot at my relationship status, Maggie and Susan are quickly in the topic to defend him  :-\ nice of them to stumble into the topic at the right time  :-\ .

His posts here were just to target me, he can barely debate the Bamber case so don't think for one minute he was going to be able to add anything to the Mitchell case that wasn't an attack.

So he posts his abuse.
Gets his friends in.
Bring up his daughter.
Feels good about himself.......on the internet.

Pathetic.
Mat, I read the Recent posts so can see all the posts on the forum.  If I want to agree with some one I have every right to do so as you have. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 04:09:PM
Mat  I honestly can't remember what you and Grahame were arguing about I responded to Maggie's post and it was not  having a pop at you personally maybe I need to be more sensitive with my posts if they are going to cause offence as I can assure you none was meant.  Forgiven :)

It's cool Susan. No probs.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 04:10:PM
Mat Thanks for that :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 04:44:PM
Always amazed that wherever Grahame goes to cause trouble, and he was only here to cause trouble, his posts here were directed at SL to ignore me and then to take a cheap shot at my relationship status, Maggie and Susan are quickly in the topic to defend him  :-\ nice of them to stumble into the topic at the right time  :-\ .

His posts here were just to target me, he can barely debate the Bamber case so don't think for one minute he was going to be able to add anything to the Mitchell case that wasn't an attack.

So he posts his abuse.
Gets his friends in.
Bring up his daughter.
Feels good about himself.......on the internet.

Pathetic.
Give it a rest Mat. However you may long it to be, it's not ALL about you is it. ::) Go an have a coffee or something and chill out.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 04:48:PM
I just found it strange how first Grahame comes in here to start his games, I respond to him - then you and Maggie are suddenly in here too.

When this is about LM case and the topic has now gone way off topic even though last night there was some good debate going on in here.  :-\
Well you took it off topic by insulting me Mat. Before that I was arguing on topic with Lithium. Can't you just accept the fact that I really don't consider you all that important? Please do not engage with me at all. Because it is obvious that you cannot even mention my name without being insulting.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 19, 2012, 04:58:PM
I have introduced this thread as a trial experiment, in the hope that case related threads can remain relatively clear of disputes:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3061.0.html

This may not work but I thought that it would worth a try.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 05:16:PM
Okay, so where were we? Can anyone point us in the direction of any information pertaining to the samples of 'blood' and semen that isn't on the official website? If that information is available.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 05:22:PM
you wont find it online.
the police and courts do not stick such things online.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 19, 2012, 05:34:PM
Hmm, to many user names here. I can't get it out of my head that lithium, and Mat are the same person, and are both john.
The fact that no dna links Luke to the crime makes it unreliable, coupled with the fact that the boyfriends dna was discovered at the scene makes me wonder more.. All this transfer of sperm/semen is going over my head.
I wonder if Luke was known to the police, and wanted him out of the way for a time.
I admit it is a bit fishy him finding the body of Jodi with his dog sounds a little convenient.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 05:45:PM
 he dient find the body on his own there wre 4 people there.

a tracker dog finding a body is hardly unusual

luke wasnt known to police thats the funy thing hes about the only connected to the case that wasn't..

surely if you had kiled someone the last thing you woudl want is for the body to be found.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 19, 2012, 05:51:PM
he dient find the body on his own there wre 4 people there.

a tracker dog finding a body is hardly unusual

luke wasnt known to police thats the funy thing hes about the only connected to the case that wasn't..

surely if you had kiled someone the last thing you woul want is for the body to be found.
Hardly a tracker dod Nugs, It was Lukes own dog.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 05:58:PM
witch was  t trained tracker dog.

there is suspicious about a dog finding  body anyway that is what police dogs are  used for.

how many on the news do we hear a man with is dog found the body.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 06:00:PM
Rain stopped play today, so I'm home a little earlier than expected.

Lithium said
Quote
Claiming you cooked your brother a burnt pie and him having no recollection of seeing you in the house that evening is a pretty big discrepency don't you think?

No, I don’t. It was an ordinary weekday evening until Jodi’s body was found. Initially, Shane simply could not remember anything in particular detail about tea time on the Monday evening – right this minute, I have no idea what I had for dinner on Friday, whether I cooked, my daughter cooked, we had takeaway or ate with friends. Those are the four possibilities for a Friday evening in my home, but without checking, I really couldn’t tell you. As for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday last week, I haven’t a clue. Any poster on here can try it for themselves – what did you have for dinner on Thursday or Friday evening? What were you wearing? What time did you eat? Who did you eat with?

Quote
Again, do you have any proof J Ferris didn't always cut his own hair?

Well, not proof, exactly. But why would he lie in his statements and say he didn’t usually cut his own hair, this was the first time he’d done it, and he didn’t know why he’d done so on this occasion?

Quote
I doubt he already had the appointment at the barbers when he cut it, he probably made a mess of it and the appointment came as a result of that.

You were the one who said he was “due a haircut that week” – I took that to mean you thought he had a regular appointment.

 
Quote
And if he was cutting his hair to avoid being identified then why would he bother if he had the barbers the next day anyway?

I don’t know – you introduced the idea of a regular hair cutting date – I was responding to that.

Quote
Ferris cutting his hair for no reason is more believable than Luke calling the speaking clock for no reason when he was supposed to be in his house.

He had never cut his own hair before, according to what he told the police. Luke, on the other hand, regularly phoned the speaking clock, and the phone records demonstrate this. The times he phoned the speaking clock most often were in the mornings, before school started, and in the afternoons between 4 and 5pm.  He did not wear a watch, and the kitchen clock was known to be unreliable. There is nothing to suggest that Luke was out of his house when he phoned the speaking clock – the investigators failed to get phone mast readings to show if there was movement of the phone from west to east and back again.

Quote
You're really asking for an explanation for him cutting his hair? Why does anyone get a haircut? I believe he said in court it was getting curly and messy and he didn't like it that way.

No, I was asking for an explanation as to why he cut his own hair, just after his cousin had been found murdered, but before he was forced to come forward to say he was on the path where Jodi was believed to have been, at the exact time she was claimed to have been murdered. Your belief about what he said in court is not correct – he was asked why he had cut his own hair, at first he responded with a “don’t know,” asked again, he responded, it was curly, and I don’t like curly hair. He’d had it all his life, and suddenly, after the brutal murder of his cousin, an idea dawns on him. I know what I can do about this curly hair that I hate, I’ll just cut it off myself. Of course it’s possible, but shouldn’t he have been thinking about contacting the police, who were appealing for anyone who had been in the vicinity, rather than having a bad hair day?

Quote
Can anyone explain away the following suspicious actions by Luke? Phone records show he phoned the speaking clock roughly the time of the murder, at a time where he claims he was at home making dinner. He didn't phone to see why Jodi hadn't turned up or where she had been all night. Just went home and went to bed without worrying about it even though she didn't show and hadn't contacted him all night.

Suspicious, perhaps, if presented like that, but, alas, not accurate. He called the speaking clock at 4.53, just three minutes after Jodi was claimed to have left home. He called Jodi’s home twice – once at 5.30, but was unable to connect, the second time at 5.38, when he spoke to Jodi’s stepfather who told him Jodi was out. (There’s no point in getting into an argument about what was said, as only Luke and the step father know, and they give different versions – the stepfather says he told Luke “She’s left to meet you,” Luke can’t remember exactly what was said, but thinks it was either “she’s left,” or “she’s out.” He couldn’t call Jodi’s mobile because it was broken, so he left a message with his mum to say if Jodi turned up at the house, to tell her to come to the Abbey, where a group of them were going to be hanging around.

Jodi was often grounded/punished at the drop of a hat (that’s from the case papers, not from the Mitchell statements), Luke knew he would see her at school in the morning, and would be able to ask her then what had happened on the Monday evening. He did not go home and go to bed – he was in his room watching a video when his mum asked him to take the dog out. That was when he received the text from Jodi’s mum – he called her immediately.

Quote
He also told his mom before he went out with his friends "if Jodi arrives tell her where to find us" yet told his friends "Jodi won't be coming out tonight.

Again, nearly, but not quite. He was already out when he called his mum with the above message – he had gone out earlier, expecting to meet Jodi at the end of his street, and phoned his mum when Jodi had failed to show. None of the three friends he was with that night initially said he had said “Jodi’s not coming out” (notice the different wording). One then changed his statements to say Luke had said this. The other two maintained throughout that Luke did not say it. So, out of four boys that evening, three maintained steadfastly that this comment was never made, one says it was, and it’s the minority of one who is believed? Whatever happened to the need for corroboration in Scots law?

Quote
What do you make of that speaking clock thing? at a time of Pay-And-Go top up phones, what teenager would waste credit on a premium rate number when they are in a house full of clocks?

See above.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 19, 2012, 06:02:PM
witch was  t trained tracker dog.

there is suspicious about a dog finding  body anyway that is what police dogs are  used for.

how many on the news do we hear a man with is dog found the body.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/
No Nugs it was not a trained tracker dog. It was a mutt that Luke owned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 06:05:PM
read the link i have just posted scroll down to the bottom.

where it says the role of the dog.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 06:05:PM
What will you do with your doctorate Sandra ? Your still young and now have so many opportunities available to you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 06:10:PM
sorry, cross posted.

The dog's training records were taken by the police, and examined by dog handling experts who agreed that the dog had had some formal tracker training, although she was not fully trained.

People have asked why it was, then, that the dog did not react on the way up the path, when Luke was alone, but did so on the way back down, when the family members who met up with Luke insisted on "double checking."

Luke was 14 years old, he was on a dark, secluded path, his girlfriend was missing, he had told her mum he would check the path and, if he didn't meet Jodi en route, he would make his way to the mother's house. He said at the time, he just wanted to get up the path as quickly as possible - 14 year old boys generally don't willingly admit to being scared, but he said Mia the dog waas very excitable on the way up the path, and he just pulled her in, to keep her moving forward.

On the way back down, in the safety of numbers, he put her into "tracking mode" which he had not done on the way up, so he was actively looking for an "alert" or signal from her - on the way up, he had only been checking the path - on the way back down, he knew Jodi was not on the path, but if she had been in the field or the woods, the dog may have scented her. At 14, alone in the darkness, he was unlikely to go checking in the woods or the fields on his own - the arrangement had been clear - check the path, then up to the mother's house if he didn't meet up with Jodi. it was a catch 22 situation for Lue - he knew Jodi's mother was waiting for him to come up the path - if he'd gone off searching about in woods and fields, her mother would have been frantic that he was taking so long. Anyway, he has said many times since that he wasn't looking anywhere but the path, because he was afraid - if anything bad had happened to Jodi, he didn't want to be on his own.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 06:14:PM
Hmm, to many user names here. I can't get it out of my head that lithium, and Mat are the same person, and are both john.
The fact that no dna links Luke to the crime makes it unreliable, coupled with the fact that the boyfriends dna was discovered at the scene makes me wonder more.. All this transfer of sperm/semen is going over my head.
I wonder if Luke was known to the police, and wanted him out of the way for a time.
I admit it is a bit fishy him finding the body of Jodi with his dog sounds a little convenient.
You know Buddy that was the very thing I posted and was immediately accused of attacking Mat, when my post was to Lithium. Shameful. But you can confirm that is a logical concern?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 06:14:PM
What will you do with your doctorate Sandra ? Your still young and now have so many opportunities available to you.

I don't know yet, Chelsea - I'm not that young any more - 50 next year   ;D - but my daughter is going off to uni next week, so my options are wide open. It's all still very new to me, and I needed some time out to just get used to the idea that I actually did it, and then decide what's next.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 06:16:PM
sandra L  very well done :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 06:18:PM
Yes, well done Doctor Lean. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 06:19:PM
I find you inspirational as you went off and done something because you believed in something.  50 is not old anymore, its the new 40. I can see you like Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs getting into Hannibal's mind to rescue the victim.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 06:20:PM
Thanks susan, and grahame,  but I couldn't have done it without all the people who trusted me enough to tell me their stories, their experiences, and their heartbreak. These people were facing huge obstacles, but took the time out to talk with me, to allow me to carry out my research, and I will always be eternally grateful, and extremely humbled, by their kindness.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 06:24:PM
I find you inspirational as you went off and done something because you believed in something.  50 is not old anymore, its the new 40. I can see you like Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs getting into Hannibal's mind to rescue the victim.

When my dad died, I was just 26, and didn't know at the time I was pregnant with my first daughter. The death was very sudden, and made me realise that there is only now - my dad was waiting until he retired to go to all these places he'd never seen - he was 56 when he died, 9 years short of retirement. Since then, if I've really wanted to do something, I've gone ahead and done it. Some people think it's irresponsible, but we only have one life, we can't have it back to live over (or differently), and we may not even have tomorrow, so if the chance comes up today - grab it, is my philosophy.

Not sure about the Clarice Starling thing, though ... too scary!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 06:26:PM
I find you inspirational as you went off and done something because you believed in something.  50 is not old anymore, its the new 40. I can see you like Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs getting into Hannibal's mind to rescue the victim.
Does that mean I'm really only 50? :) Wow! if only I felt that young. ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 06:30:PM
I get what your saying Sandra. Live today as tomorrow may never come. Sorry about your Dad, 56 is well young.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 06:33:PM
I find you inspirational as you went off and done something because you believed in something.  50 is not old anymore, its the new 40. I can see you like Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs getting into Hannibal's mind to rescue the victim.
Chelsea, I do agree with you apart from one fact.  I have it on good authority (mine) that 50 is the new 30........no argument 8) 8)   
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 06:35:PM
Maggie when I get to fifty it will be the new 20 !!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 06:36:PM
Maggie when I get to fifty it will be the new 20 !!!
Too right Chelsea...you go girl! :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 06:39:PM
Hmm, to many user names here. I can't get it out of my head that lithium, and Mat are the same person, and are both john.


Don't be so foolish!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 06:40:PM
What will happen to Luke Mitchell now Sandra ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 06:44:PM
Too right Chelsea...you go girl! :)

You never catch me with those bingo wings wearing a dowdy old cardigan or flowery dress down to my ankles !!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 06:45:PM
Maggie I have always said age is just a number and you are the age I want you to be when it suits me :)Have you ever thought of taking up the pole in your evenings off great fun and good money per session.but you did say you were 5. 10  too tall your head would stick out too far above the pole. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 06:46:PM
Don't be so foolish!
Interesting thought Buddy :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 06:47:PM
Interesting thought Buddy :-\

Maggie are you actually foolish enough to think that me and John are one in the same? Actually - don't answer that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 06:48:PM
You never catch me with those bingo wings wearing a dowdy old cardigan or flowery dress down to my ankles !!
Nor me Chelsea!! :D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 06:48:PM
The SCCRC will review the application, and decide whether the case should be referred back to the court of appeal. It's pretty much a waiting game now, although there will be periodic updates.

We were very lucky to have some of the finest legal assistance available, so the legal aspects of the review are comprehensively outlined in the application, as well as the - I suppose you would call them "common sense" aspects to the case.

For example, it's one thing to say the police investigation was dreadful, and list all of the evidence to support that - the Commission can decide whether such a poor investigation may have caused a Miscarriage of Justice and refer the case back to the appeal court on that basis. But how much more powerful to have that backed up with a list of legal examples of exactly how such an investigation may have impacted on the case - from breaches of human rights, to flawed processes which are accountable in law, and so on.

It's been a long time getting to this stage - we can only hope it's enough.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 06:51:PM
Maggie are you actually foolish enough to think that me and John are one in the same? Actually - don't answer that.
;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 06:51:PM
Please, keep on posting Sandra. Between the bullshit meant to distract the members from the actual deabte - I am reading.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 06:52:PM
Hi Chelsea don't tell maggie I told you (but she has all the things you mentioned) hush hush.  If I go quickly she has not attacked me we appear to have a storm coming and last one blow my modem on the laptop.  So next storm disconnect. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 06:52:PM
I really do hope he is acquitted. I read some of the case, and cant believe that a 14yr old killed his girlfriend in such a way. It's not like it was an argument and he struck out. Jodi suffered so much. The media then demonised him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 06:54:PM
Maggie I have always said age is just a number and you are the age I want you to be when it suits me :)Have you ever thought of taking up the pole in your evenings off great fun and good money per session.but you did say you were 5. 10  too tall your head would stick out too far above the pole. :)
5' 8" Susie, is that ok or am I too tall?  It is a thought, it must keep you super fit.  I do use a vibration plate which keeps my muscles very strong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 06:55:PM
Hi Chelsea don't tell maggie I told you (but she has all the things you mentioned) hush hush.  If I go quickly she has not attacked me we appear to have a storm coming and last one blow my modem on the laptop.  So next storm disconnect. :)

My Mum went to Dorothy Perkins last Saturday. When she put all  her new flowery stuff on I was laughing so much. She thought she looked well cool !!  Guess what she did ? Took it all back the following Monday
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 07:00:PM
Hi Mags  5. 8 would be fine for the pole.  try it sometime.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 07:03:PM
Chelsea  I bet your Mum looked cool Dorothy Perkins caters for the fashion of today.  I myself love Laura Ashley and French Connection my nearest Laura Ashley is 200 miles away :(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 07:05:PM
Chelsea  I bet your Mum looked cool Dorothy Perkins caters for the fashion of today.  I myself love Laura Ashley and French Connection my nearest Laura Ashley is 200 miles away :(
Tough luck susie, serves you right...fancy sayng I have bingo wings.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 07:07:PM
Not to be rude but... Can we get back on topic, please? There was some good debate in here about the actual topic (the murder of a young girl) and I don't think the conversation being had at the moment should be being had in this topic.

 :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 07:08:PM
Susan believe me she looked far from cool. She has Laura Ashley. Her Wallis stuff is nice though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on August 19, 2012, 07:08:PM
Sorry Mat we girls just getting silly will behave now. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 07:10:PM
Please, keep on posting Sandra. Between the bullshit meant to distract the members from the actual deabte - I am reading.
Mat, I am curious, last time Dr Sandra Lean was on line you were quite up front with her and if I may say so a tad aggressive.  Today you are sweetness and light. Just wondered why the change?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 07:12:PM
I'm interested in what she has to say, Maggie. I don't believe much of it. But still she should be allowed to post,
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 08:02:PM
I've never really been able to understand why it matters if someone is lying about their identity.  You just have to judge each post on it's own merits.  I'm convinced that Mat is Mat and John is John.  Would it matter if they were the same person? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 08:03:PM
Yes, it would matter. We all know what John Lambertons about
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:04:PM
I've never really been able to understand why it matters if someone is lying about their identity.  You just have to judge each post on it's own merits.  I'm convinced that Mat is Mat and John is John.  Would it matter if they were the same person?

Thanks, Neil.

It would matter to me. I'm tired of having to prove to people who I am. Was hounded by Keira, so proved to her. Was hounded by Jackie, so proved to her, then by Stephanie Hall so I proved to John so he was able to confirm it on his forum.

Anyone who wants to think differently, well more fool them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 08:08:PM
Thanks, Neil.

It would matter to me. I'm tired of having to prove to people who I am. Was hounded by Keira, so proved to her. Was hounded by Jackie, so proved to her, then by Stephanie Hall so I proved to John so he was able to confirm it on his forum.

Anyone who wants to think differently, well more fool them.
I have to object,I'm really sorry but one of these days mat just for once maybe you can admit that at least half the fault was with you. I cannot understand your holier than thou attitude.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:10:PM
Maggie - go away. Your agenda is obvious. It's not my fault if people don't believe who I say I am. You can object all you want.

If people want to say that I'm not who I say I am, then let them - they are free to do as they wish. But each and every one of them is WRONG.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 08:10:PM
I've said this before but I will say it again!  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people with an opposing view, post on here, it makes things a lot more interesting.  What I don't understand however is, what motivates someone to post and proclaim someone's guilt, when that someone has already been convicted?  It's fighting for a cause that has already been won.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 08:11:PM
Maggie - go away. Your agenda is obvious. It's not my fault if people don't believe who I say I am. You can object all you want.

If people want to say that I'm not who I say I am, then let them - they are free to do as they wish. But each and every one of them is WRONG.
I don't have an agenda except to stand up for my friends when they are being bullied. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 08:13:PM
I'm interested in what she has to say, Maggie. I don't believe much of it. But still she should be allowed to post,

I have an idea, Mat. Why don't you post what you do believe, and why, and then we can compare that against the various other bits and pieces, and see where it leads us?

I can't post transcripts, reports, statements, etc - that's an offence in Scotland, although I can quote bits from some of the documents. Unfortunately, I know that means you have to accept my word that that is actually what the documents say, but there's no real way around that.

However, Luke's site on WAP has been live for three years, as has the forum thread, and I haven't been taken to task by any authority regarding the information I have posted - given the hostility towards any challenges to the judicial system in Scotland, it would be surprising, if I'd said anything which was not accuate, if they didn't come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Also, I'd be risking everything I've worked for for more than 9 years, if I was found to be being dishonest about what's in the papers - why would I take such a stupid risk? I realise that you may not wish to discuss the case on that basis, and I fully understand if that's the case - unlike our friends south of the border, we supporters in Scotland are hog tied when it comes to providing data for online campaigns.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 08:14:PM
Maggie - go away. Your agenda is obvious. It's not my fault if people don't believe who I say I am. You can object all you want.

If people want to say that I'm not who I say I am, then let them - they are free to do as they wish. But each and every one of them is WRONG.
I only said that I thought you should take your share of the blame.  I m willing to apologise for anything I may do.  I am not perfect, the problem is you seem to think you are.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:17:PM
I've said this before but I will say it again!  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people with an opposing view, post on here, it makes things a lot more interesting.  What I don't understand however is, what motivates someone to post and proclaim someone's guilt, when that someone has already been convicted?  It's fighting for a cause that has already been won.

A conviction is never the end of the story though, Neil. When someone is convicted and they complain they are a MOJ the defence and the campaign teams them give THEIR version of the evidence and why the courts/police are wrong. This is where the debate comes in.


I don't have an agenda except to stand up for my friends when they are being bullied. 

Oh, Maggie. I am not bullying Grahame. This topic was a good topic, there was good debate happening  - it's one of the best topics that has been on here for a while and was free of spam and fighting and then Grahame came in and ruined it by trying to start something.
If you want to speak about bullying then go and speak with the members who Grahame bullied when he was in power and still bullies to this day, there are many of them. But I am not a bully.


I have an idea, Mat. Why don't you post what you do believe, and why, and then we can compare that against the various other bits and pieces, and see where it leads us?

I can't post transcripts, reports, statements, etc - that's an offence in Scotland, although I can quote bits from some of the documents. Unfortunately, I know that means you have to accept my word that that is actually what the documents say, but there's no real way around that.

However, Luke's site on WAP has been live for three years, as has the forum thread, and I haven't been taken to task by any authority regarding the information I have posted - given the hostility towards any challenges to the judicial system in Scotland, it would be surprising, if I'd said anything which was not accuate, if they didn't come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Also, I'd be risking everything I've worked for for more than 9 years, if I was found to be being dishonest about what's in the papers - why would I take such a stupid risk? I realise that you may not wish to discuss the case on that basis, and I fully understand if that's the case - unlike our friends south of the border, we supporters in Scotland are hog tied when it comes to providing data for online campaigns.

I already have. You'll have to go back through all the spam to find it. I was asked most recently about the DNA evidence. I believe that it doesn't point anywhere - and certianly won't give you the grounds to appeall. However, I believe that the supporters of LM believe it will and this is because of the interpretation on the official website or because they don't fully understand the evidence.

I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 08:24:PM
Yes, it would matter. We all know what John Lambertons about
Hello Chelsea,  I'm afraid that it's a situation you can't do anything about.  You are rarely certain of anyone's true identity.  It's been suggested before that I am John Lamberton!
As long as the posts are within the rules of this forum, then I don't really see that it matters who is making them.  I fail to see what John Lamberton has done to jepordise any MoJ case.  His forum is dead with almost no serious debate.  Considering his alleged shabby treatment from the authorities, I really struggle to understand his motivation.  I can't see any evidence that he has influenced anyone's opinion, well....apart from one notable member!!! ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 08:27:PM
I have an idea, Mat. Why don't you post what you do believe, and why, and then we can compare that against the various other bits and pieces, and see where it leads us?

I can't post transcripts, reports, statements, etc - that's an offence in Scotland, although I can quote bits from some of the documents. Unfortunately, I know that means you have to accept my word that that is actually what the documents say, but there's no real way around that.

However, Luke's site on WAP has been live for three years, as has the forum thread, and I haven't been taken to task by any authority regarding the information I have posted - given the hostility towards any challenges to the judicial system in Scotland, it would be surprising, if I'd said anything which was not accuate, if they didn't come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Also, I'd be risking everything I've worked for for more than 9 years, if I was found to be being dishonest about what's in the papers - why would I take such a stupid risk? I realise that you may not wish to discuss the case on that basis, and I fully understand if that's the case - unlike our friends south of the border, we supporters in Scotland are hog tied when it comes to providing data for online campaigns.

i would of also thought the things said on that if site werethey not true it would of resulted in a hefty lawsuit from somebody.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 08:28:PM
I fail to see what John Lamberton has done to jepordise any MoJ case.

He routinely attempts to destroy several cases based on blatant lies and manipulation. He also goes for those who are representing these cases.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 08:29:PM
Work it out. Would any girl lend a tee shirt to a friend if it were not washed first? Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first? Therefore the dna found on the tee shirt would more than likely lead you to the murderer. Or is my logic not logical?
This was my first post on the subject. Was it aimed at mat? I leave you all to judge.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:32:PM
This was my first post on the subject. Was it aimed at mat? I leave you all to judge.

Yet another lie, Grahame.

You were int he topic much earlier than that when you were telling Sandra Lean to ignore trolls blah blah after I'd just been speaking to her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 08:33:PM
Hello Chelsea,  I'm afraid that it's a situation you can't do anything about.  You are rarely certain of anyone's true identity.  It's been suggested before that I am John Lamberton!
As long as the posts are within the rules of this forum, then I don't really see that it matters who is making them.  I fail to see what John Lamberton has done to jepordise any MoJ case.  His forum is dead with almost no serious debate.  Considering his alleged shabby treatment from the authorities, I really struggle to understand his motivation.  I can't see any evidence that he has influenced anyone's opinion, well....apart from one notable member!!! ;)

All anyone need do is think for a while about it. John Lamberton spends around 20 hours a day on the internet trying to destroy peoples reputations. He ropes in the odd one or two gullible ones as his "support network"  The rest of the "posters" are John Lamberton, trying and failing to give the impression he has widespread approval. His weapons are lies, lies and more lies. These people whom he is trying to discredit (Dr Sandra Lean, Billy Middleton, Roch, Kevin Craigie, Tesko, Karen Torlley) are all the very people who have and are having an impact on M.O.J cases. John Lamberton attempts to divide and conquer, picking them off one by one until there is no one left. He has succeeded in his mission. Who remains to promote M.O.J in the U.K in 2012 ? The answer is nobody ( If Lamberton had not been spotted....by my Uncle Billy)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 08:33:PM
I've never really been able to understand why it matters if someone is lying about their identity.  You just have to judge each post on it's own merits.  I'm convinced that Mat is Mat and John is John.  Would it matter if they were the same person?
On the other hand john could be marie25 or ian or any number of other members. mat may criticise me for my practical jokes on the forum but notice he never ever criticises lamberton for his miriad names. What does that tell you? ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 08:35:PM
[quote author=mat link=topic=551.msg .

I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work.
[/quote]

I don't think there's any doubt that Dr Lean is utterly convinced that Luke is innocent.  I find her hugely impressive and she makes a strong argument against Lukes conviction.  The Mitchells are very lucky to have her onboard.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 08:37:PM
Yet another lie, Grahame.

You were int he topic much earlier than that when you were telling Sandra Lean to ignore trolls blah blah after I'd just been speaking to her.
Please don't call me a liar mat. Just show me the post where I said that in this thread. I have searched this thread and that as far as I can see is the first post of mine I can see. But please stop using emotive words such as lie or liar. I am not liar so please do not judge other people by your own standards of conduct.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:39:PM
On the other hand john could be marie25 or ian or any number of other members. mat may criticise me for my practical jokes on the forum but notice he never ever criticises lamberton for his miriad names. What does that tell you? ;)

I think anyone that uses multiple usernames needs to stop it. I've never caught John doing it the way I caught you. John has never denied it to me. You did, you denied it to the board when you created accounts to cause trouble - I can give names of these accounts BLOGGSANDSON and GAV.

Can you give names of accounts that John has had? Because I have never knowingly come across them.


[quote author=mat link=topic=551.msg .

I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work.


I don't think there's any doubt that Dr Lean is utterly convinced that Luke is innocent.  I find her hugely impressive and she makes a strong argument against Lukes conviction.  The Mitchells are very lucky to have her onboard.


Not sure if I whole-heartedly agree. There has always got to be a slight piece of doubt regarding a MOJ when you're representing them - especially when the evidence isn't competely overwhelming.


Please dopn't call me a liar mat. Just show me the post where I said that in this thread. I have searched this thread and that as far as I can see is the first post of mine I can see. But please stop using emotive words such as lie or liar. I am not liar so please do not judge other people by your own standards of conduct.

You are a liar - that wasn't your first post here. I don't need to go and search because I know a day or two ago you told Sandra to beware of trolls....and I called you out on it. Knowing you you have deleted the post.
But yes, you do tell lies. Remember bloggsandson I said "You're Grahame hiding behind another name to cause trouble" you said "I am not Grahame!"........that was a lie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 08:39:PM
I don't think there's any doubt that Dr Lean is utterly convinced that Luke is innocent.  I find her hugely impressive and she makes a strong argument against Lukes conviction.  The Mitchells are very lucky to have her onboard.

Why would Sandra even contemplate compromising her career and credibility by being so passionate about the Luke Mitchell case if she were not entirely convinced he was as he says he is...Innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:40:PM

Why would Sandra even contemplate compromising her career and credibility by being so passionate about the Luke Mitchell case if she were not entirely convinced he was as he says he is...Innocent.

But would it really damage her career and credibility if she was wrong? Because if you believe that then isn't her career damaged from this happening in cases previously?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 08:40:PM
All anyone need do is think for a while about it. John Lamberton spends around 20 hours a day on the internet trying to destroy peoples reputations. He ropes in the odd one or two gullible ones as his "support network"  The rest of the "posters" are John Lamberton, trying and failing to give the impression he has widespread approval. His weapons are lies, lies and more lies. These people whom he is trying to discredit (Dr Sandra Lean, Billy Middleton, Roch, Kevin Craigie, Tesko, Karen Torlley) are all the very people who have and are having an impact on M.O.J cases. John Lamberton attempts to divide and conquer, picking them off one by one until there is no one left. He has succeeded in his mission. Who remains to promote M.O.J in the U.K in 2012 ? The answer is nobody ( If Lamberton had not been spotted....by my Uncle Billy)
So you think that Lamberton has adversely affected MoJ's?

I don't know much about his Internet campaign history but I would be surprised if anyone took any serious notice of what he says.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 08:42:PM
Matt,

Bloggs and son was a joke, most people knew it was Grahame.  Why are you banging on about that, no one cared.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:43:PM
So you think that Lamberton has adversely affected MoJ's?

I don't know much about his Internet campaign history but I would be surprised if anyone took any serious notice of what he says.

I believe he has. He's exposed people as frauds etc. Or dished dirt on their dirty deeds. Now I don't know about you but if I had read some of the material he has posted I would stay away from those proffesionals.


Matt,

Bloggs and son was a joke, most people knew it was Grahame.  Why are you banging on about that, no one cared.

It was only a joke afterwards, Maggie. Not when he was hiding behind it to cause trouble. How about Gav? Joke too?  :o
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 08:44:PM
So you think that Lamberton has adversely affected MoJ's?

He tried to Neil. However, along with his frumpy little sidekick he failed. People are not as naive as he likes to think we all are.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 08:49:PM
I think anyone that uses multiple usernames needs to stop it. I've never caught John doing it the way I caught you. John has never denied it to me. You did, you denied it to the board when you created accounts to cause trouble - I can give names of these accounts BLOGGSANDSON and GAV.

Can you give names of accounts that John has had? Because I have never knowingly come across them.



Not sure if I whole-heartedly agree. There has always got to be a slight piece of doubt regarding a MOJ when you're representing them - especially when the evidence isn't competely overwhelming.


You are a liar - that wasn't your first post here. I don't need to go and search because I know a day or two ago you told Sandra to beware of trolls....and I called you out on it. Knowing you you have deleted the post.
But yes, you do tell lies. Remember bloggsandson I said "You're Grahame hiding behind another name to cause trouble" you said "I am not Grahame!"........that was a lie.
Mat, you do tell lies, if we talk about Jackie as you so often like to, I would tell you right from the start you lied about her changing pms., it was not possible fo her to do that and why would she?  She was using her new software which enabled her to take screen shots...you can't alter a screen shot. You were always screaming that she had put up posts and deleted them more quickly than the speed of sound so just admit that sometimes you tell the odd porky and then we will all be happy ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 08:49:PM
I think anyone that uses multiple usernames needs to stop it. I've never caught John doing it the way I caught you. John has never denied it to me. You did, you denied it to the board when you created accounts to cause trouble - I can give names of these accounts BLOGGSANDSON and GAV.

Can you give names of accounts that John has had? Because I have never knowingly come across them.



Not sure if I whole-heartedly agree. There has always got to be a slight piece of doubt regarding a MOJ when you're representing them - especially when the evidence isn't competely overwhelming.


You are a liar - that wasn't your first post here. I don't need to go and search because I know a day or two ago you told Sandra to beware of trolls....and I called you out on it. Knowing you you have deleted the post.
But yes, you do tell lies. Remember bloggsandson I said "You're Grahame hiding behind another name to cause trouble" you said "I am not Grahame!"........that was a lie.
Again please don't call me a liar mat. I've warned you before and have reported your post as I have this one as well. All I want is for you to show me my first post on this thread.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 08:50:PM
I believe he has. He's exposed people as frauds etc. Or dished dirt on their dirty deeds. Now I don't know about you but if I had read some of the material he has posted I would stay away from those proffesionals.



That's interesting Mat.  Are you able to give any examples?  I have read a few of his anti Bamber posts but I feel that there are other 'anti's' that do a better job.  To be honest, I don't know a great deal about him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 08:51:PM
I believe he has. He's exposed people as frauds etc. Or dished dirt on their dirty deeds. Now I don't know about you but if I had read some of the material he has posted I would stay away from those proffesionals.


Could you give us all some examples or at least one ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:51:PM
Again please don't call me a liar mat. I've warned you before and have reported your post as I have this one as well. All I want is for you to show me my first post on this thread.

You did lie though.  :-\ You said you weren't Grahame  - when REALLY you were. So you didn't tell the truth... you told a lie.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 08:53:PM
I believe he has. He's exposed people as frauds etc. Or dished dirt on their dirty deeds. Now I don't know about you but if I had read some of the material he has posted I would stay away from those proffesionals.


It was only a joke afterwards, Maggie. Not when he was hiding behind it to cause trouble. How about Gav? Joke too?  :o
Gav is real. Only thats not his reall name his reall name is Alan and he was in the army attached to a special unit.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:55:PM
And just to prove you as a liar AGAIN Grahame.


Dr. Lean I think that you have studied this case in depth and are therefore qualified and very able to write about it. Take no notice of those little tyros who know nothing much and believe nothing but the light that somehow filters down through the chinks in their own roofs. As for me together with every other person who has at least some reasoning power in their heads I will rather trust and believe you rather than some Mr nobody whose esteem goes only as far as his own back garden.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 08:55:PM
Gav is real. Only thats not his reall name his reall name is Alan and he was in the army attached to a special unit.
Mat, loosen up, it was a joke, we all knew, it wasn't hard ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 08:56:PM
Real or a joke? Maybe you should get your stories straight Grahame/Maggie. But in the meantime why do you continue to spam a topic up?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 09:03:PM
Mat said
Quote
I already have. You'll have to go back through all the spam to find it. I was asked most recently about the DNA evidence. I believe that it doesn't point anywhere - and certianly won't give you the grounds to appeall. However, I believe that the supporters of LM believe it will and this is because of the interpretation on the official website or because they don't fully understand the evidence.

I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work

Sorry, I must have missed it - I don't have a lot of time, and often can't check back more than a page or two.

OK, the DNA evidence. You are absolutely correct - it doesn't "point" anywhere, as it currently stands, including at Luke. Grounds for appeal on the DNA, however, are another thing entirely, and that's nothing to do with interpretations on the website, or supporter's understandings. None of the DNA results have ever been checked for accuracy - they have never been verified. Luke had an absolute right to have the nature and manner of instruction, testing, reporting and interpretation checked to ensure that the forensic processes were carried out properly and fairly. That never happened, and the relevant files were "lost" when questions were asked about why legal aid funding for this was never obtained.

The police investigation highlights flaws too numerous to mention, but it is the effects of those flaws - on Luke's right to a fair trial, on equality of arms by the time it came to trial, on potential disclosure issues, on his rights as a child... all of which have implications for the DNA evidence, as it currently stands... which would give rise to grounds for appeal.

Whether I believe Luke to be innocent is of no consequence, I completely accept that - that is my opinion, but it is an opinion based on literally thousands of pages of documents, dozens of interviews with people - experts, lawyers, media personnel, police officers, individuals who were involved with the case at the time - and a knowledge of how wrongful convictions are obtained. However, from a professional standpoint, the case against Luke was never proven "beyond reasonable doubt" (or anywhere near that standard.) The whole process from investigation to conviction was so flawed as to make each stage untenable, based on the flaws of the previous stages. Basic guidelines were ignored, rules were broken, prejudicial evidence was allowed to be presented to the jury, even though it in no way supported any of the accusations against Luke, numerous highly questionable processes were nodded through... there are just far too many factors which, if left unchallenged, ultimately damage the justice system itself, and also leave open the possibility of the same thing happening to another innocent person.

I'm not sure what, of the submissions made, I am allowed to make public - as soon as I have checked this out, I will post whatever I can on Luke's website.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:04:PM
You did lie though.  :-\ You said you weren't Grahame  - when REALLY you were. So you didn't tell the truth... you told a lie.  :-\
Just show me my first post on this thread mat. That is all I ask.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:06:PM


OK, the DNA evidence. You are absolutely correct - it doesn't "point" anywhere, as it currently stands, including at Luke. Grounds for appeal on the DNA, however, are another thing entirely, and that's nothing to do with interpretations on the website, or supporter's understandings. None of the DNA results have ever been checked for accuracy - they have never been verified. Luke had an absolute right to have the nature and manner of instruction, testing, reporting and interpretation checked to ensure that the forensic processes were carried out properly and fairly. That never happened, and the relevant files were "lost" when questions were asked about why legal aid funding for this was never obtained.


Thanks, this is the point I was trying to make. We're both in the same boat when it comes to that.




I'm not sure what, of the submissions made, I am allowed to make public - as soon as I have checked this out, I will post whatever I can on Luke's website.



Thanks, I appreciate it. It would be good to see what your case is from a legal standpoint.

Just show me my first post on this thread mat. That is all I ask.

I already have!!!  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 09:08:PM
Real or a joke? Maybe you should get your stories straight Grahame/Maggie. But in the meantime why do you continue to spam a topic up?
It's obvious what you are up to Mat, who's the troll, me or Grahame or maybe both.  Don't be rediculous.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:08:PM
And just to prove you as a liar AGAIN Grahame.
Well I obviously made a mistake. But I was referring to the debate last night and I believe my first post was as I showed in answer to nugnug in reference to lithium's posts about dna. But I am at a lost as to where that post is referring to you.?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 09:09:PM
of course what ever our interpretation of the dna is the real qustion is what the jurys interpretion of what the ment been had they got to hear about.

would the verdict have been different.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:09:PM
Well I obviously made a mistake. But I was referring to the debate last night and I believe my first post was as I showed in answer to nugnug in reference to lithium's posts about dna. But I am at a lost as to where that post is referring to you.?
And that is the third time you have called me a liar mat. third time reported to the moderators.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 09:10:PM
That is a powerful collection of arguments Sandra. Luke should certainly succeed at the S.C.C.R.C, then the courts
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:12:PM
It's obvious what you are up to Mat, who's the troll, me or Grahame or maybe both.  Don't be rediculous.

Grahame!


I was in here trying to debate the LM case. Grahame isn't able to - he came in for insults and then lied about it and couldn't even find his first post - he lied about what his first post was and I've happily shown to people what his ACTUAL first post was and not what he CLAIMED it was. So can we just draw a line under it. It's disrespectful to be posting so much spam in a topic like this.



Well I obviously made a mistake. But I was referring to the debate last night and I believe my first post was as I showed in answer to nugnug in reference to lithium's posts about dna. But I am at a lost as to where that post is referring to you.?

It's already been agreed upon Grahame that the little digs in the posts you made (including the silly attack about me being single) were aimed at me. So good luck in getting someone to believe otherwise, Grahame.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 09:12:PM
Did SF have a criminal record at the time of Jodies murder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:12:PM
Thanks, this is the point I was trying to make. We're both in the same boat when it comes to that.


Thanks, I appreciate it. It would be good to see what your case is from a legal standpoint.

I already have!!!  ::)
I was referring to the debate last night when you accused me of coming in and going off at you. I believe my first post wasa as I said the first time round.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:14:PM
I was referring to the debate last night when you accused me of coming in and going off at you. I believe my first post wasa as I said the first time round.

No, what was said was YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS TOPIC WAS MEANT TO CAUSE TROUBLE. Not YOUR FIRST POST LAST NIGHT. So don't try and back track again, Grahame. You know what you were up to.


That is a powerful collection of arguments Sandra. Luke should certainly succeed at the S.C.C.R.C, then the courts

But have those arguement sbeen fully presented in the submissions and backed up by the appropriate experts? For example, the latest Bamber subimissons were said to be impressive and an outline of the information that they continued was seen on the boards and in the papers but the actual documents failed to live up to the needed standards and the information inside wasn't fully coobarated by the expert findings.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:16:PM
Grahame!


I was in here trying to debate the LM case. Grahame isn't able to - he came in for insults and then lied about it and couldn't even find his first post - he lied about what his first post was and I've happily shown to people what his ACTUAL first post was and not what he CLAIMED it was. So can we just draw a line under it. It's disrespectful to be posting so much spam in a topic like this.



It's already been agreed upon Grahame that the little digs in the posts you made (including the silly attack about me being single) were aimed at me. So good luck in getting someone to believe otherwise, Grahame.
I am afraid that you initiated that yourself mat. I donly answered your question by saying I think I know more  about teenagers than you. My other post you obviously took my "general" post as applyinmg to you. This was not me applying to you but applying it to young people in general.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 09:17:PM
Did SF have a criminal record at the time of Jodies murder?

yes he did im not sure what for though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 09:20:PM
Grahame didn't say anything that nasty, did he?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 09:21:PM
yes he did im not sure what for though.
Thanks Nugnug.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:23:PM
Grahame didn't say anything that nasty, did he?

Yes. I found his digs at my relationship status not only unnecessary but also an attepmpt to be unpleasant.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:30:PM
Yes. I found his digs at my relationship status not only unnecessary but also an attepmpt to be unpleasant.
mat I never mentioned anything about your relationships. My post was general to all young men being able to understand women. It was you yourself who seemed to think I was referring to you especially. I don't know what your relationship status is and I don't want to know thank you. Not everything I say is about you. Read my post again and tell me in all honesty if I was referring to you and if you think I was then tell me how I know about you? Because I don't. So can you see how silly this accusation is?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Bridget on August 19, 2012, 09:31:PM
2 suggestions:

1) The discussion between Mat and Grahame be taken to Roch's fight thread, and

2) The phrase 'I suggest you are mistaken' be used, since it tends to put people's backs up a little less than 'you are a liar'.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 09:31:PM
Mat, I think you would have to accept that by forming an association with John, you have left yourself wide open to attack.  Grahame is very passionate about this forum and has obviously been here for ages.  I believe that the loyalty he has demonstrated towards this site, affords him the right to post with less restraint than others.  I know that this is not the official line but in the real world, that's the way things work. 

Did he say anything that bad, really?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 19, 2012, 09:33:PM
Mat, I think you would have to accept that by forming an association with John, you have left yourself wide open to attack.  Grahame is very passionate about this forum and has obviously been here for ages.  I believe that the loyalty he has demonstrated towards this site, affords him the right to post with less restraint than others.  I know that this is not the official line but in the real world, that's the way things work. 

Did he say anything that bad, really?
Well said Neil ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:34:PM
mat I never mentioned anything about your relationships. My post was general to all young men being able to understand women. It was you yourself who seemed to think I was referring to you especially. I don't know what your relationship status is and I don't want to know thank you. Not everything I say is about you. Read my post again and tell me in all honesty if I was referring to you and if you think I was then tell me how I know about you? Because I don't. So can you see how silly this accusation is?

You know well enough what my relationship status is. You made a dig about it a few months ago along the same lines as your post in this topic but this time you just didn't mention my name. But feel free to deny it, Grahame. It must feel pretty shitty to post so much rubbish and then feel you have to back down when you're called upon it.


Mat, I think you would have to accept that by forming an association with John, you have left yourself wide open to attack.  Grahame is very passionate about this forum and has obviously been here for ages.  I believe that the loyalty he has demonstrated towards this site, affords him the right to post with less restraint than others.  I know that this is not the official line but in the real world, that's the way things work. 

Did he say anything that bad, really?

He's called me a twat, moron etc... in fact tonight he called me Hitler. I find that offensive.


2 suggestions:

1) The discussion between Mat and Grahame be taken to Roch's fight thread, and

2) The phrase 'I suggest you are mistaken' be used, since it tends to put people's backs up a little less than 'you are a liar'.

Mistaken about his first post, maybe although it seems a bit convienient. But as for being bloggsandson .....that was a lie. Blatantly.

Well said Neil ;D

You might not think calling someone Hitler is bad, I do though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:35:PM
Mat, I think you would have to accept that by forming an association with John, you have left yourself wide open to attack.  Grahame is very passionate about this forum and has obviously been here for ages.  I believe that the loyalty he has demonstrated towards this site, affords him the right to post with less restraint than others.  I know that this is not the official line but in the real world, that's the way things work. 

Did he say anything that bad, really?
Well thank you for saying so Neil. But it does not however excuse me from posting abuse. I do get carried away sometimes and I should apologise to mat for any such abuse. I a really nice guy really. Well thats what the doctor at Rampton said before I released his neck. ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 09:36:PM
2 suggestions:

1) The discussion between Mat and Grahame be taken to Roch's fight thread, and

2) The phrase 'I suggest you are mistaken' be used, since it tends to put people's backs up a little less than 'you are a liar'.

Hello Bridget,

I see that you're at it now!  With the morse code, I mean! :)

I'm afraid that I don't have enough time on my hands to attempt to translate it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 09:36:PM
Mat said
Quote
But would it really damage her career and credibility if she was wrong? Because if you believe that then isn't her career damaged from this happening in cases previously?

We need to get a couple of things straight here, I think. Firstly, I don't have a "career" - I don't support people claiming wrongful conviction for financial gain, job promotion (I don't have a "job"), or recognition for myself - my "public" persona, as far as Luke's case is concerned, came about because of the local negative reaction to Luke's case - I had worked "behind the scenes" for four years - no-one knew who I was, or what I was doing. But someone let it be known not only who I was, but where I was - when the book was published I decided it was safer if everyone knew who I was, just in case.

The media communication with myself over the years has been at Luke and Corinne's request- they were crucified by the media, and didn't trust any of them - they began to run media enquiries by me, and that is how I ended up making statements, etc, on the Mitchell family's behalf.

Secondly, the case - singular - to which Mat refers here, is the Adrian Prout case. I am not ashamed of my involvement in that case, but it is probably as well to clarify what that involvement was and what "damage" it did.

We were approached at WAP and ased if we would host a website for Adrian. Having done all our usual checks, we set up the website, based on the evidence we had seen. As always, a forum discussion was set up to accompany the website. During that discussion, I did what I always do, and argued that, with no body, and a number of conflicting pieces of evidence, nobody could be sure that a murder had occurred. Various aspects of the evidence, as it then stood, were discussed.

Then Adrian took, and failed, a polygraph test, and confessed that he had murdered his wife. We had to wait a couple of days for confirmation that (a) the confession was genuine, and (b) the resultant search had found Kate's body. (The website and forum were suspended during this period.) Immediately we had confirmation, we opened the website and forum, with all content removed, and an apology to Kate's family was posted on each. Those were left visible for 14 days, and then the sites were taken down.

Without Adrian's confession, there was absolutely nothing in the evidence which warranted a conviction - I believe that we absolutely have to be rigid in our determination that cases must be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, or we open up the possibility of a state/justice system free for all, where anyone can be accused and convicted on nothing. That is a terrifying prospect, and I know too many people it has already happened to - I don't want to see any more, but sadly, because ordinary people really don't believe it can happen, or that it's only a very, very rare occurrence, and could never happen to them, it's not a top priority in most people's minds.

It certainly wasn't something I gave a lot of thought to in 2003 - I knew about the "famous" cases from the past, and thought they were terrible, but I had no idea how bad the problem really is.

That is why I am not ashamed of my involvement in the Adrian Prout case. I would much rather take the risk of potentially being fooled on occasion than sit back, knowing what I do, and do nothing. For what it's worth, through all of the cases I have been involved in, to a greater or lesser degree in the last 9 plus years, Adrian is the only one whose claim of innocence has been destroyed - all of the others, over the years, have produced more and more evidence supportive of their innocence. It's a track record I can handle - I don't pay much heed to the critics, since I don't see most of them even attempting to do what I do every day of the year.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:37:PM
Well thank you for saying so Neil. But it does not however excuse me from posting abuse. I do get carried away sometimes and I should apologise to mat for any such abuse.

Erm. Thanks?  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:38:PM
You know well enough what my relationship status is. You made a dig about it a few months ago along the same lines as your post in this topic but this time you just didn't mention my name. But feel free to deny it, Grahame. It must feel pretty shitty to post so much rubbish and then feel you have to back down when you're called upon it.


He's called me a twat, moron etc... in fact tonight he called me Hitler. I find that offensive.


Mistaken about his first post, maybe although it seems a bit convienient. But as for being bloggsandson .....that was a lie. Blatantly.

You might not think calling someone Hitler is bad, I do though.
Well I've been called hitler as well and a nazi. but people can and are abused in very polite terms believe it or not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 09:38:PM
[quote author=mat link=topic=551.msg115756#msg115756 date=


He's called me a twat, moron etc... in fact tonight he called me Hitler. I find that offensive.


Mistaken about his first post, maybe although it seems a bit convienient. But as for being bloggsandson .....that was a lie. Blatantly.

You might not think calling someone Hitler is bad, I do though.
[/quote]

I've been called a lot worse Mat!  Not by Grahame though, I hasten to add!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:41:PM
Well I've been called hitler as well and a nazi. but people can and are abused in very polite terms believe it or not.

So? Not by me you haven't!

Mat said
We need to get a couple of things straight here, I think. Firstly, I don't have a "career" - I don't support people claiming wrongful conviction for financial gain, job promotion (I don't have a "job"), or recognition for myself - my "public" persona, as far as Luke's case is concerned, came about because of the local negative reaction to Luke's case - I had worked "behind the scenes" for four years - no-one knew who I was, or what I was doing. But someone let it be known not only who I was, but where I was - when the book was published I decided it was safer if everyone knew who I was, just in case.

The media communication with myself over the years has been at Luke and Corinne's request- they were crucified by the media, and didn't trust any of them - they began to run media enquiries by me, and that is how I ended up making statements, etc, on the Mitchell family's behalf.

Secondly, the case - singular - to which Mat refers here, is the Adrian Prout case. I am not ashamed of my involvement in that case, but it is probably as well to clarify what that involvement was and what "damage" it did.

We were approached at WAP and ased if we would host a website for Adrian. Having done all our usual checks, we set up the website, based on the evidence we had seen. As always, a forum discussion was set up to accompany the website. During that discussion, I did what I always do, and argued that, with no body, and a number of conflicting pieces of evidence, nobody could be sure that a murder had occurred. Various aspects of the evidence, as it then stood, were discussed.

Then Adrian took, and failed, a polygraph test, and confessed that he had murdered his wife. We had to wait a couple of days for confirmation that (a) the confession was genuine, and (b) the resultant search had found Kate's body. (The website and forum were suspended during this period.) Immediately we had confirmation, we opened the website and forum, with all content removed, and an apology to Kate's family was posted on each. Those were left visible for 14 days, and then the sites were taken down.

Without Adrian's confession, there was absolutely nothing in the evidence which warranted a conviction - I believe that we absolutely have to be rigid in our determination that cases must be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, or we open up the possibility of a state/justice system free for all, where anyone can be accused and convicted on nothing. That is a terrifying prospect, and I know too many people it has already happened to - I don't want to see any more, but sadly, because ordinary people really don't believe it can happen, or that it's only a very, very rare occurrence, and could never happen to them, it's not a top priority in most people's minds.

It certainly wasn't something I gave a lot of thought to in 2003 - I knew about the "famous" cases from the past, and thought they were terrible, but I had no idea how bad the problem really is.

That is why I am not ashamed of my involvement in the Adrian Prout case. I would much rather take the risk of potentially being fooled on occasion than sit back, knowing what I do, and do nothing. For what it's worth, through all of the cases I have been involved in, to a greater or lesser degree in the last 9 plus years, Adrian is the only one whose claim of innocence has been destroyed - all of the others, over the years, have produced more and more evidence supportive of their innocence. It's a track record I can handle - I don't pay much heed to the critics, since I don't see most of them even attempting to do what I do every day of the year.

Thanks, I see. You were convinced of innocence until the lie detector which led to a confession - although that confession actually didn't shock a great many of people.

I wasn't being a critic - the comment that the lost case would damage your credibility didn't come from me. Although I do sort of agree with it.

As for you saying you don't have a career. Of course you do.  A career/job is how someone makes their living.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Bridget on August 19, 2012, 09:42:PM
Hello Bridget,

I see that you're at it now!  With the morse code, I mean! :)

I'm afraid that I don't have enough time on my hands to attempt to translate it.

I actually put that in my sig a couple of weeks ago, it's a response to Hartley's code. Off the top of my head it says something like:

.. or an anorak with nothing better to do.

:)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 09:44:PM
I actually put that in my sig a couple of weeks ago, it's a response to Hartley's code. Off the top of my head it says something like:

.. or an anorak with nothing better to do.

:)
Thanks Bridget,  I did actually look it up! :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:45:PM
Didn't Lamberton support Prout once? I seem to recall something along those lines?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 19, 2012, 09:46:PM
Right, I'm off now - can't keep up with all this stuff. I came here to discuss MoJs - it's virtually impossible to do so with all the other squabbles going on - I don't know who's who, or what your various gripes are with each other, but really, there's no way of having any sensible debate in the midst of this.

Last two questions - SF had an old criminal record from his youth- he had not been in trouble for many years by the time of Jodi's murder.

The SCCRC submission - the vast bulk of the submission was made by highly qualified legal personnel - I am not a lawyer, and would not dream of trying to behave like one - I think I explained earlier that the submission included a large number of legal arguments, tied to the actual practicalities of the case as it progressed. I am not qualified to make those arguments, and was very, very grateful indeed, for the input and assistance of those who did that, pro bono, on Luke's behalf.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 09:50:PM
if sfs crimes were committed before the age of 18 it would almost impossible to find out what they were they wouldn't be on his record.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:54:PM
Right, I'm off now - can't keep up with all this stuff. I came here to discuss MoJs - it's virtually impossible to do so with all the other squabbles going on - I don't know who's who, or what your various gripes are with each other, but really, there's no way of having any sensible debate in the midst of this.

Last two questions - SF had an old criminal record from his youth- he had not been in trouble for many years by the time of Jodi's murder.

The SCCRC submission - the vast bulk of the submission was made by highly qualified legal personnel - I am not a lawyer, and would not dream of trying to behave like one - I think I explained earlier that the submission included a large number of legal arguments, tied to the actual practicalities of the case as it progressed. I am not qualified to make those arguments, and was very, very grateful indeed, for the input and assistance of those who did that, pro bono, on Luke's behalf.

You shouldn't leave - just log off for a while. But come back  - if allowed and all the this spamming stops then I believe there is a lot more left to be said - particularly when you hear back from the courts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 19, 2012, 09:55:PM
Right, I'm off now - can't keep up with all this stuff. I came here to discuss MoJs - it's virtually impossible to do so with all the other squabbles going on - I don't know who's who, or what your various gripes are with each other, but really, there's no way of having any sensible debate in the midst of this.

Last two questions - SF had an old criminal record from his youth- he had not been in trouble for many years by the time of Jodi's murder.

The SCCRC submission - the vast bulk of the submission was made by highly qualified legal personnel - I am not a lawyer, and would not dream of trying to behave like one - I think I explained earlier that the submission included a large number of legal arguments, tied to the actual practicalities of the case as it progressed. I am not qualified to make those arguments, and was very, very grateful indeed, for the input and assistance of those who did that, pro bono, on Luke's behalf.
Ok keep up the good work. Enjoyed reading your book. I recommend others to read it as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 19, 2012, 09:56:PM
Wouldnt a CRB check show any previous convictions?  My friend had an offence show on hers that she did when she was 15
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 09:59:PM
Wouldnt a CRB check show any previous convictions?  My friend had an offence show on hers that she did when she was 15

My CRB shows something from 15 too -  but maybe it is different in Scotland?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 10:01:PM
You seem disappointed that Sandra has vanished Mat. Yet the whole time she was on here you were arguing with Grahame like a couple of old woman. I wanted to ask her some questions too, but darent as you two were squabbling
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 19, 2012, 10:02:PM
Could be, but i doubt it. If you have a criminal conviction there will be a record of it somewhere. There has to be, especially if you want to work with vulnerable adults or children, a check has to be done to see if youre suitable.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 10:03:PM
there will be a record of it somwhere yes but it would be much harder to find.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 10:04:PM
You seem disappointed that Sandra has vanished Mat. Yet the whole time she was on here you were arguing with Grahame like a couple of old woman. I wanted to ask her some questions too, but darent as you two were squabbling

I am dissapointed. I had a lot more to ask her. But if you look back, when I said numerous times to get back on topic or cut the spam I was ignored.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 19, 2012, 10:07:PM
there will be a record of it somwhere yes but it would be much harder to find.


The police will have a record of any previous convictions, its the police who provide the information for CRB checks.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 19, 2012, 10:19:PM
we cant do a crb on him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 10:21:PM
I am dissapointed. I had a lot more to ask her. But if you look back, when I said numerous times to get back on topic or cut the spam I was ignored.

I was very disappointed too. There was far more I wanted to ask Sandra. However, I doubt she will come back again. It was almost like you had picked your moment
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 10:22:PM
I was very disappointed too. There was far more I wanted to ask Sandra. However, I doubt she will come back again. It was almost like you had picked your moment

No - me and Grahame were told to take it into another topic set up by a mod. I did try, I replied to posts in there.

we cant do a crb on him.

'we'?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 19, 2012, 10:25:PM
nugnug a criminal record shows everything from 16 and onwards.


A CRB will show a conviction or caution before you are 16, my friend had a caution at 15 it was on her CRB.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 10:35:PM
I am always very careful in what I say. I have just finished researching the posts of Lithium, Mat and Lamberton. Some of them go away back to 2011. Lithium was confronted by Roch earlier as to his previous identity. We never were told, as he vanished until just now.

The posts by Lithium, Mat, Rhodes and John Lamberton are written by the same person. Same theme, same structure, same methods, same grammatical errors. Rather like a fingerprint.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 10:37:PM
I am always very careful in what I say. I have just finished researching the posts of Lithium, Mat and Lamberton. Some of them go away back to 2011. Lithium was confronted by Roch earlier as to his previous identity. We never were told, as he vanished until just now.

The posts by Lithium, Mat, Rhodes and John Lamberton are written by the same person. Same theme, same structure, same methods, same grammatical errors. Rather like a fingerprint.

Oh, don't be daft! I've gone to great lengths numerous times to show you strange people that doubt EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that posts here - that I'm Mat and Mat only.
Who is Rhodes? I haven't even seen a username Rhodes.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 19, 2012, 10:48:PM
I saw that lithium.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 10:52:PM
You revealed that you used a self destruct e mail address. Why do that ?

I believe that you take on various guises to cause distrust and doubt in the M.O.J world. I think this is a disgrace. Many people are trying so hard just to get through each day knowing they have someone they love in a prison when they should not be there. Yet you leap on them, accusing them of being guilty and all those who assist them. You use lies and manipulation to achieve this
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 10:55:PM
You revealed that you used a self destruct e mail address. Why do that ?

I believe that you take on various guises to cause distrust and doubt in the M.O.J world. I think this is a disgrace. Many people are trying so hard just to get through each day knowing they have someone they love in a prison when they should not be there. Yet you leap on them, accusing them of being guilty and all those who assist them. You use lies and manipulation to achieve this

I haven't used a self destruct email though - yet you dare accuse me of being a fraud 'Chelsea'.  ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 10:56:PM
I would speak to you on the phone Chelsea. But.....then it wouldn't be me that was exposed.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 10:59:PM
Lithium, you've re-registered under a different user-name than you last had.

There you go.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 19, 2012, 11:01:PM
I may of missed it, but I would be interested to know the motive for Luke to kill Jodi. Surely it was not just because he could.
On the other hand it seems Jodi had semen stains and other dna on her body, and clothes which suggest a sexual attack. I do not buy into the wearing of her sisters clothes. Most girls going to meet their boyfriend would have been wearing clean clothes.
How was her sisters boyfriend cleared of any involvment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 11:02:PM
You revealed that you used a self destruct e mail address. Why do that ?

I believe that you take on various guises to cause distrust and doubt in the M.O.J world. I think this is a disgrace. Many people are trying so hard just to get through each day knowing they have someone they love in a prison when they should not be there. Yet you leap on them, accusing them of being guilty and all those who assist them. You use lies and manipulation to achieve this
In that case, the only way to deal with the issue is to ignore the offending posts.  To engage with these posters is to play into their hands, they crave attention and confrontation. 

For the record, I am not referring to anyone in particular when I say 'these posters'.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:03:PM
Your postings are very very similar to each other, almost identical.  the grammar, the structure. Also, the content.

I don't give my phone number out to people unless I know them
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:05:PM
Do keep up Chelsea.... Roch went on to say this-

"Lithium's email address is easily recognisable.  However, I cant remember the other username linked to it and I'm not prepared to look through the entire membership to see if it is a current member.  It may have been a banned member.  At the moment it's Lithium 1 Roch 0.  I suppose we'll have to give Lithium the benefit of the doubt"


then this

"Your email address does look very much like one recently used by a 'new member'.  A lot of our 'new members' tend to be pests.  So I put 2+2 together.  Don't be so wounded."


I read that again three minutes ago before I responded. I already had suspicions BEFORE  ROCH mentioned this, as did many other people
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:07:PM
I have already posted the evidence which supports my allegations. I
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:08:PM
I am always very careful in what I say. I have just finished researching the posts of Lithium, Mat and Lamberton. Some of them go away back to 2011. Lithium was confronted by Roch earlier as to his previous identity. We never were told, as he vanished until just now.

The posts by Lithium, Mat, Rhodes and John Lamberton are written by the same person. Same theme, same structure, same methods, same grammatical errors. Rather like a fingerprint.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:09:PM
I'm probaly one of the only people who have stuck to ONE name here so it is ironic I'm one accused the most.

I'm about to disprove it though  - just so some people shut their mouths.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:10:PM
My dignity and self respect are more valuable to me than money.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 19, 2012, 11:11:PM
I only use one name too!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:11:PM
same here
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:14:PM
Amusing that when Lithium goes away, mat comes on and vice versa. They are never on at the same time
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 19, 2012, 11:15:PM
I dont have an opinion on this case, im afraid. i havent really read anything about it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:15:PM
Chelsea is not destroying anything. Thats your world, not mine.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:17:PM
Far from criticising opposing views, I regard that as the very manner in which we learn.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:19:PM
I have stated my belief after considering all the posts and comparing them. I am not staying up all night playing at Punch and Judy with you. We are not the fools you think we are.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2012, 11:21:PM
I can't see where Lithium has done anything wrong!  I don't care if his/her name isn't actually Lithium, what difference does it make?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:22:PM
Your attempts are now to try and make me out to be the bad guy. I have been here long enough for others to know that I am not a forum nuisance. That is your department.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:26:PM
"I will stab with a big **** stick and watch your blood spill on the soil, I will watch as you wither and die." - Luke Mitchell

Is that your motto at the bottom of your posts ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:28:PM
It's pathetic that it's come to this but Mat are you up for posting a time stamped picture of yourself holding a sign and I'll do the same? Just so we can prevent Chelsea disrupting the debate at hand any further?

"We are not the fools you think we are."


You are though, you're wrong.

Give me a sec to upload. Shut fools up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:29:PM
This is like the puppet show at the seaside. Up pops one, then vanishes. Then up pops the other one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:31:PM
This is like the puppet show at the seaside. Up pops one, then vanishes. Then up pops the other one.

Haha.... I was busy taking a pic!!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:32:PM
(http://i47.tinypic.com/23h6gyb.jpg)

Now unless Lithium has a tattoo where I do (and a hairy hand). You can now please apologise.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:35:PM
What does that prove ? You scribbled your name and date on your arm with a pen
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:37:PM
wait what good is posting a pic of your hand lol if i posted mines it would look the same and chelsea would say we are the same person

Don't post anything with your face on here. I did and you saw what someone did to me, they used it to track me down - phone my office and post pictures of my kid.

Just post the same hand as I did - I'm guessing we both don't have a tattoo in that exact same place.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:38:PM

It's a quote by Luke Mitchell. Again related to the case I joined here to discuss. Mods please let me know if putting that in my sig is against the rules. I can provide the source.

You see J.L also says the exact same thing. Very biased dont you think for a man who proposes to enter a rational discussion regarding a teenager who was convicted of murder, and could be innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:47:PM
Going to bed, waited  ten minutes for a response and none came. As Martha Costello in SILK would say

"Another day tomorrow"

Night John Lamberton (and all your other made up personalities)

Chelsea Marie  xx
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:48:PM
I'll wait for the apology.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:49:PM
Yeah, enough, please. Let me get on with posting!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:52:PM
Lmao........You know - you could be right. Could be worse. Could have posted something else..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 19, 2012, 11:54:PM
Thought I was off to bed and could not defend myself more like.

The two pics cannot be compared. Your face is shadowed and you have what resembles my Nans tea cosy on your head. The Lamberton snap does not display his width, so cannot be compared.

What can be compared are your identical themes, grammar, etc etc.

This time I am off to get ready for my bed
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 19, 2012, 11:55:PM
Nutter.  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 12:02:AM
She deleted her post.... ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 20, 2012, 12:14:AM
You need hands, to show the world your handy!!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 12:14:AM
You need hands, to show the world your handy!!!

 ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 20, 2012, 12:16:AM
I had Malcom Mclarens song in my head, from The Great Rock n Roll Swindle.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 20, 2012, 12:22:AM
Looked fine to me, Lithium.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Chelsea on August 20, 2012, 08:13:AM
You obviously know the case inside out. Whats your agenda this time ? Try and  dismantle Luke Mitchells campaign with your pot of lies.

Only a sociopath could say something like a tea cosy ? Really ? How about my desk lamp which was shining on the screen distorted the image.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 08:40:AM
Quote
As for Luke's motive, it's been suggested they had a falling out at school that day. An eye witness told police she saw them outside a local chinese at lunchtime smoking a joint, and they were sitting not facing each other or talking to each other. 'as if they had just been arguing'. Police tried to link this argument to a girl Luke met on holiday who he had been in contact with while seeing Jodi. The fact Lukes DNA wasnt on Jodis body also backs the suggestion they were on bad terms that day, ie no hugging or contact. Prosecution suggest their was a meeting arranged between Luke and Jodi behind the V cut in the wall, (the half way mark basically for both of them) where they were going to have it out about this other girl. This is purely speculation by me: Jodi's mobile phone was broken around the time of the murder, so her using Luke's mobile could be one possibility for her finding out about the other girl. She and Luke had been texting regularly.

Im not sure where you got any of this as all of it looks to me as you have read a little and then assumed too much!

They were nevers seen outside a local take away, I think you read about an area they called the chinese garden and came up with a load of rubbish. This area was a secluded area out with the school where pupils went, Jodi and Lukes friends went there to smoke dope and they were in the company of another boy(atleast one) who stated they were normal.
Jodi confided in friends about much of what was personal to her including things like self harming and according to police files also about other relationships, so why after lunchtime when Jodi had not been with Luke in class or shared a bus home with him didn't she confide in her friends about what you state?Why would they have it out in a secluded spot?

If any of what you say could ever be verified this must occur 1000's of time throughout the world on a daily basis and very rarely leads to a brutal murder, I will put my neck on the line here and say never between 14 years old kids.
 Luke would have had to have thought ok I have been rumbled here and Jodi wants to meet so I better take this bloody big knife with me to shut her up! I better tell my mother to cover for me and help me get rid of all DNA from the crime scene. I better not be seen by anyone on the way even although independant witnesses see 2 people who were on a bike and that bike propped next to wall at the very scene and time and them even to this day never saying where they were but they also don't see Luke.

I see why you think this might mean that none of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke but there is a far more plausible reason for that anyway.

I have read loads of rubbished spouted about this case but thats close to the craziest so far, I would love to read your story on how he managed it with no DNA or the slightest amount of Jodi's  blood on him, no murder weapon ever found! him doing it in the timescale required.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 08:42:AM
Funnily enough the police only interviewed the girl who saw them arguing because Luke told them about her. Police wanted to find out if Luke and Jodi were on good terms that day and he said "go and ask ****"

Is it possible you can link me to where you have read this, as I have never heard of this and as you were new to the case you have either read it or someone has fed you this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 20, 2012, 08:59:AM
Chelsea a.k.a Guest #6 currently viewing, sullied a once interesting thread. Mods please obliterate the 2-4 previous pages.
I've come across that before. It is not what you think When I was admin I saw the same anomaly on my own name. I also for some reason was shown as guest as well. I asked hartley abvout it when he was in one of his more amiable moods and he said it was something to do with the software.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 12:53:PM
The way it read it seemed like you were stating it as fact.

If you could now that you have a better understanding of what happened how do you feel about some of the issues raised?

The lack of DNA.

The lack of blood.

A  plausible motive (if you don't think the prosecutions fits)

The timescale in order to carry out the crime and be seen depending on what you believe be either F&W at 5:42 or the young lads just before 6pm.

Why was he never seen at the crime scene although its certain others were there at the time of the murder.

How do you feel about the way the case was investigated and how much of the prosecutions case to think fits in with the crime?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 01:00:PM
What you have a done is accuse me of the same thing you have done just now, how would you know where I learned this case from. I was interested in this case prior to the WAP being set up, and I only knew about F&M site through the WAP site. I was a regular visitor to the area and had an understanding of the charecters in the case long before I started any discussion. Your everything and anything comment is way off the mark.

Quote
I'm sure you're referring to the one friend who said Jodi told her she was having a thing with S Kelly.

Don't try and put words in my mouth as I did not mention any particular scenario and was generalising.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Margot on August 20, 2012, 01:07:PM
From what I have read so far, it sounds as if the police really botched this case up.
They would be desperate to get a conviction because this was such a horrendous murder of a young girl.

In some ways this case reminds me of Stephen Downing's miscarriage of justice case. He was a gardener I believe when he came across the body of the victim.  This case too had many suspects not investigated at the time and the police did not do their job properly either.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 01:11:PM
your makeing this up as you go along arnt you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 01:29:PM
The other suspects that were witnessed at the time hadn't been followed up so if they had then the no blood agrument would indeed rule them out. The motive would be personal to the killer so this point again could only have been established had the police followed up other possible suspects. They did follow up with Luke and could put no realistic motive in place for him as a killer.

The timescale is very easy as we have the sighting or the established leaving time of Jodi and the 1st known sighting of Luke either at 5:42 or 6pm depending on what you believe. Thats a timescale of between 45 mins between Jodi being alive and Luke being sighted.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 01:30:PM

Quote
Can you blame them when their only suspect at the time was telling interviewing officers to go home and listen to this song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcUgsvpchms

Is it possible that you could link me to this or at the very least corroborate it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 01:38:PM
Quote
So you think it wasn't Luke because the murderer would need longer than 45 minutes? Really? This murder could have been carried out in 10. And if other people 'were witnessed' at the scene, it's safe to say they weren't witnessed covered in blood. I appreciate the sensible response and discussion though gordo thanks.

Then how was it done. The two people witnessed on the path were not witnessed after the murder as only the bike was seen propped up against the V. The idea that the murderer would not have had blood on them is only relevant if the murderer was seen, Im not saying that anyone seen without blood on them was not the murderer but as you state we can't have it both ways so that has to exclude Luke also.

This idea that you could have done this in 10 mins is a rediculous thing to say. I'm talking about everything here not just the murder itself. It takes slightly more than the 10 mins for Luke to get to the V.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 01:43:PM
Then how was it done. The two people witnessed on the path were not witnessed after the murder as only the bike was seen propped up against the V. The idea that the murderer would not have had blood on them is only relevant if the murderer was seen, Im not saying that anyone seen without blood on them was not the murderer but as you state we can't have it both ways so that has to exclude Luke also.

This idea that you could have done this in 10 mins is a rediculous thing to say. I'm talking about everythigng here not just the murder itself. It takes slightly more than the 10 mins for Luke to get to the V.

there is also the fact of how does he manage to clean his own dna off and leave other peoples on there
when he was examined his hair was unwashed and his fingernails were dirty so he clearly hadent cleaned himself up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 02:01:PM
Do I think he spent more time on the murder? well as I don't believe he did the murder this would all be supposition.
The murderer would have to have met Jodi at some point, we know that a struggle took place(this from expert testimony) the amount of time spent on the struggle could vary dramaticly but I feel about 2-3 mins, he then proceeds to murder her. The throat being slashed around 12-20 times shows a great deal of precision in that he has to avoid himself with the knive and whilst in a frenzied state that becomes more difficult. he then moves the body from where the throat was cut to where the body was discovered and all done so by himself I might add(still not getting blood on himself) a distance if my memory is correct of about 14 feet. He then has to decloth her by cuting the t-shirt and romoving the jeans. Then attempt to tie her up with the jeans by twisting them and securing one hand, doing this to someone who didn't want to be tied would take a while but to a body that is limp is very time consuming. He then has to cut the eyelids very precise and complete other things like repositioning the socks.In all this time he has people in the area and without wanting to draw attention to himslef.

I take it you still think he can complete this in 10 mins?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 02:07:PM
then of course he has to go home get clean and get out to stand at the corner of his street to be seen by 3 schoolboy cyclists.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 02:17:PM
There are aspects like the post mortem cuts that were carried out. Its crazy to think these were done in a frenzied manner simply to hurry up and leave the crime scene, these were done specifically and done with thought, they were done for a reason and it took time to carry these out. This murderer was not in a hurry but was content at what he had done.

The cleaning up of course never happened nugnug as it is the last thing that anyone could fit into this timescale, as well of course as making 2 phone calls inbetween to Jodi's house in a manner that did not arouse suspicion from AO.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 03:31:PM
oh yes he appears to super boy according to the police and prosecution

hes got to overpower jodi he was by the way biggir than him then strip her tie her up kill her mutliate the body then make phone calls then get back without being spotted then clean himself up in what is a very short period of time..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 03:40:PM
oh yes he appears to super boy according to the police and prosecution

hes got to overpower jodi he was by the way biggir than him then strip her tie her up kill her mutliate the body then make phone calls then get back without being spotted then clean himself up in what is a very short period of time..

Did he get back without being spotted though?

Gordo, Lithium, nugnug - glad that this topic has got back to what it was
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on August 20, 2012, 03:45:PM
You seem disappointed that Sandra has vanished Mat. Yet the whole time she was on here you were arguing with Grahame like a couple of old woman. I wanted to ask her some questions too, but darent as you two were squabbling
Hey careful with the old.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 03:57:PM
Mat it does appear that he was not spotted going home after the murder if your talking about the F&W sighting as surely if their testimony is correct he had no time to go home between 5:42 and just before 6pm at the point he was spotted by the boys on their bikes. So if that was Luke it wasn't him on his way home.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 03:59:PM
Hey careful with the old.

Something that is getting old grahame is your need to try and take over this thread with irrrelevant posts that do nothing for anyone wishing to read about this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 04:00:PM
thats a good point gordo he couldent have been in 2 places at ounce and the boys on the bikes would have no reaon to lie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 04:04:PM
No nugnug for me the boys on the bikes was a  diffinative sighting, Im just struggling to find the timeline on the other sites nugnug do you remember if it was taken down on WAP?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 04:06:PM
there is still a timline on there its on the wiki page at the top of the forum page.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 04:09:PM
Cool I knew it was put somewhere thx.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 04:10:PM
That aint the one im talking about as thats to do more with the calls. Is there another?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 04:12:PM
If you find it, could you copy and paste it here - or post a link please?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 04:16:PM
That aint the one im talking about as thats to do more with the calls. Is there another?

i think we did one on another forum  but im not sure avout the acrucy it was a long time ago ill have a look.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 04:18:PM
http://wiki.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/index.php?title=Luke_Mitchell_-_Timeline (ftp://wiki.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/index.php?title=Luke_Mitchell_-_Timeline)

This is one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 20, 2012, 04:28:PM
back on topic

So you think the quote makes him look guilty then?


(the last post before Chelsea's silliness)


He was cleared of involvement on the basis of alibi. Corroborated by Jodi's sister no less. I have an easier time believing innocent DNA transfer than I do a boy murdering his girlfriends sister, confessing to said sister, then her giving him an alibi and staying in the relationship.

As for Luke's motive, it's been suggested they had a falling out at school that day. An eye witness told police she saw them outside a local chinese at lunchtime smoking a joint, and they were sitting not facing each other or talking to each other. 'as if they had just been arguing'. Police tried to link this argument to a girl Luke met on holiday who he had been in contact with while seeing Jodi. The fact Lukes DNA wasnt on Jodis body also backs the suggestion they were on bad terms that day, ie no hugging or contact. Prosecution suggest their was a meeting arranged between Luke and Jodi behind the V cut in the wall, (the half way mark basically for both of them) where they were going to have it out about this other girl. This is purely speculation by me: Jodi's mobile phone was broken around the time of the murder, so her using Luke's mobile could be one possibility for her finding out about the other girl. She and Luke had been texting regularly.
Thanks for the reply Lithium. I am still troubled by the dna though. Is it known how Jodi got on with her sister?
It would not be the first time a girl protected her boyfriend.
How old was her sister. I only ask because I am assuming that the sister was more developed than Jodi, and the shirt may have been a little baggy on Jodi.
Did Jodi's sister marry the boyfriend? Are they still married.
It seems this case is full of lies and deciet from all parties.
On the balance of probability, I would suggest that Luke is innocent. Nothing convinces me of guilt, just another bungled operation by the[lazy] police.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 20, 2012, 04:46:PM
Right, I'm off now - can't keep up with all this stuff. I came here to discuss MoJs - it's virtually impossible to do so with all the other squabbles going on - I don't know who's who, or what your various gripes are with each other, but really, there's no way of having any sensible debate in the midst of this.

I hope you return.  I have to agree that non case related squabbles, on case related threads are not helpful at all.  It's sometimes difficult not to intervene to question somebody.  Unfortunately the resulting tangents just take over the thread.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 04:56:PM
Thanks for the reply Lithium. I am still troubled by the dna though. Is it known how Jodi got on with her sister?
It would not be the first time a girl protected her boyfriend.
How old was her sister. I only ask because I am assuming that the sister was more developed than Jodi, and the shirt may have been a little baggy on Jodi.
Did Jodi's sister marry the boyfriend? Are they still married.
It seems this case is full of lies and deciet from all parties.
On the balance of probability, I would suggest that Luke is innocent. Nothing convinces me of guilt, just another bungled operation by the[lazy] police.

her sister was 17 at the time jodi was 14.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:08:PM
I believe guilt too, what I do with a MOJ case is approach the case with the knowledge that this person has been convicted in a court of law, so there is something there.

Then go back to the start - the evidence used at trial, where it came from. How it was interpreted by the prosecution. Look at the prosecutions case, who was in charge?

Then look at the defence - their statements after the trial, the appeals, what their arguments are as to why LM is innocent and the polcie, the prosecution, the jury got it wrong - where they mis-led by the prosecution of were the defence right and it is the prosecutions who's interpretation of the evidence is wrong.

When you've done that - then what do you believe ... who does your head tell you is right, defence or prosecution.

For me this case always comes back to the prosecution and I'm struggling to find anything to point me to innocence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 05:08:PM
I believe Jodi and her sister were as close as any 2 sisters are, and didn't have any problems. Jodi was probably similar size to her older sister as she was quite tall for her age, you probably noticed nugnug mention she was taller than Luke, like this would somehow make her strong enough to fight him off if he were to attack her unexpectedly with a knife. Kelly and Jodi's sister never married and both went their seperate ways. Jodi's sister was a lesbian last I heard. Not that that matters, might not even be true. I'm the opposite, I think Luke probably is guilty. I do agree the investigation was a shambles but it doesn't mean Luke isn't guilty anyway, and none of the arguments from his supporters convince me enough to change my mind. Jodi's brother, her sisters boyfriend, her 2 cousins, are just some of the people they accuse and post 'evidence' against, and I find the circumstancial evidence against Luke to be more damning than any of the above. I accept he could be innocent though it's just not my opinion. Just like none of his supporters in here actually know for a fact that he's innocent. Alot of the 'evidence' that he's innocent has been greatly exagerated by the members on Luke's forum. Maybe not even deliberately, just that it's been mentioned so much over a long period of time. In reality most of it is so weak that Donald Findlay didn't even think it was worth mentioning as it could be so easily picked apart.

jodi was also a fair bit taler  than her sister.

her sister and kelly got maried they split up afterwords ive never heard anyhing about her being a lesbian where did you get that from.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 05:09:PM
Quote
Alot of the 'evidence' that he's innocent has been greatly exagerated by the members on Luke's forum.

It would be great to see examples of this.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 20, 2012, 05:10:PM
her sister was 17 at the time jodi was 14.
So I assume more developed. Sisters tend to squabble with each other. Perhaps the boyfriend was showing an unheathy interest in Jodi!
Did Jodi's sister supply the alibi for her boy friend?
I am still interested if the sister, and boyfriend are still together.
The shit could still hit the fan!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:15:PM
So I assume more developed. Sisters tend to squabble with each other. Perhaps the boyfriend was showing an unheathy interest in Jodi!
Did Jodi's sister supply the alibi for her boy friend?
I am still interested if the sister, and boyfriend are still together.
The shit could still hit the fan!

Buddy, that's all very baseless and so speculative.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 20, 2012, 05:18:PM
I believe Jodi and her sister were as close as any 2 sisters are, and didn't have any problems. Jodi was probably similar size to her older sister as she was quite tall for her age, you probably noticed nugnug mention she was taller than Luke, like this would somehow make her strong enough to fight him off if he were to attack her unexpectedly with a knife. Kelly and Jodi's sister never married and both went their seperate ways. Jodi's sister was a lesbian last I heard. Not that that matters, might not even be true. I'm the opposite, I think Luke probably is guilty. I do agree the investigation was a shambles but it doesn't mean Luke isn't guilty anyway, and none of the arguments from his supporters convince me enough to change my mind.  And I'm obviously not alone, this is a stance I share with every respected judge who rejected all of his appeals, yet people call me a trouble maker on here for maintaining this opinion? Jodi's brother, her sisters boyfriend, her 2 cousins, are just some of the people they accuse and post 'evidence' against, and I find the circumstancial evidence against Luke to be more damning than any of the above. I accept he could be innocent though it's just not my opinion. Just like none of his supporters in here actually know for a fact that he's innocent. Alot of the 'evidence' that he's innocent has been greatly exagerated by the members on Luke's forum. Maybe not even deliberately, just that it's been mentioned so much over a long period of time. In reality most of it is so weak that Donald Findlay didn't even think it was worth mentioning as it could be so easily picked apart.
I don't think you are a trouble maker, but are too rigid with your views.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 05:19:PM
Well to name afew off the top of my head, Corinne posted she had "groundbreaking news" about Kelly's past. Nothing ever came of it. Jodi's brothers 'serious mental illness!' is greatly exaggerated also. Apparently he has a 'very violent history', but actually has no criminal record. And again there is the DNA that doesn't actually point anywhere. Oh and Ferris being "ostracized" by the family and chased out of the area. When really his mother just moved in with a new partner in Ayrshire.

jodis brother pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Sandra lean outside her own home so yes he has got a record.

ferris admitted none of them were talking to ferris at the trial.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:21:PM
jodis brother pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Sandra lean outside her own home so yes he has got a record.


His sister was visciously murdered, you can understand him being ANGRY at the people trying to get her murderer out of jail.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 05:21:PM
Joe Jones is by all accounts a normal guy, a far cry from the derranged psycho and loose cannon he's been painted as on that forum. He is engaged and has a job which he wouldn't be allowed to have if he had a notable criminal record or mental illness. He delivers medication for pharmaceutical companies.

you keep makeing these pruduce nothing to back thjem up where is your evedence for any of this.

the brother has been sectioned sevral ok they does not make him abnormal

or necasrely violent.

i suspect you are just makeing all this up as you go along..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 05:22:PM
It pretty obvious your closer to the family/area than you make out. It seems you know a lot about Joe so tell me all about the drugs he was involved with mainly canabis at the time?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:22:PM
you keep makeing these pruduce nothing to back thjem up where is your evedence for any of this.

the brother has been sectioned sevral ok they does not make him abnormal

or necasrely violent.

i suspect you are just makeing all this up as you go along..

Proof that the brother has been sectioned? Are we really now sinking to the depths to sling mud at someone who's sister was murdered?  :'(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 05:23:PM
His sister was visciously murdered, you can understand him being ANGRY at the people trying to get her murderer out of jail.

yes but proves lithum was lying.

threating to kill a woman outside her own home is not something i find understandable.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 20, 2012, 05:23:PM
Buddy, that's all very baseless and so speculative.  :-\
No Mat just an assumption. Wrongly or rightly.
I consider mysellf the same as you Mat. On a learning curve, but find some things do not quite add up.
No offence to anyone, just asking questions. [perhaps poorly]
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:29:PM
I think somethnig to keep in mind is that Sandra L is a relentless woman - and the fact that she's so public with her 'findings' that often prove to be nothing (this may be more trun in the case of LM's mother)> she puts the families of the murder victim through a lot of hell and pain.

So the families are in their rights to HATE Sandra Lean and have STRONG emotions for her - that makes sense to me.

If someone killed my sister and was convicted  - then this Sandra Lean woman was in the press sprouting what I believed to be lies in order to get the killer out of jail.........God, she'd be my enemy.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:31:PM
That's nothing, her brother is the 'favourite' out of all the suspects on Luke's forum. They have no problem slinging mud at the family in every way possible. Right now the buzzing topic is weather or not the Jones family's calls to the police and times add up. How exciting, a true testament to how much evidence they really have to work with. Or maybe they really do have an easier time believing the brother killed Jodi then orchastrated a search so they could lead Luke to the body and frame him, instead of considering simply that boy she went to meet, the same boy who was known to carry knives, may actually have killed her.

Which one seems more likely to you? Most normal functioning members of society would agree the latter.

Exactly. (We really shouldn't agree so much, Chelsea will have a field day).
I don't read the forum though but I wouldn't be suprised if the forum slings mud at everyone APART from the actual person who has been convicted on quite solid evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 05:33:PM
I think somethnig to keep in mind is that Sandra L is a relentless woman - and the fact that she's so public with her 'findings' that often prove to be nothing (this may be more trun in the case of LM's mother)> she puts the families of the murder victim through a lot of hell and pain.

So the families are in their rights to HATE Sandra Lean and have STRONG emotions for her - that makes sense to me.

If someone killed my sister and was convicted  - then this Sandra Lean woman was in the press sprouting what I believed to be lies in order to get the killer out of jail.........God, she'd be my enemy.

oh so that justifys and threating to kill her does it.

weather its justified or not it is not exactly the actions of a peacefull man.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:34:PM
I'm sure he isn't a peaceful man. It must be hard to ever find true peace again after what he's been through. Lashing out at someone who was trying to get his sisters killer out of prison doesn't seem to me like the actions of someone guilty of the actual murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 05:34:PM
Is it true that Joe was in a hospital for mental illness?I think its is closed down now if Im correct?

Did Joe have mental health issues at the time?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 05:36:PM
I'm sure he isn't a peaceful man. It must be hard to ever find true peace again after what he's been through. Lashing out at someone who was trying to get his sisters killer out of prison doesn't seem to me like the actions of someone guilty of the actual murder.

nobody has said is on here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 05:36:PM
WAs Joe violent? are the stories about Samuri swords and other occasions(im sure you will know what im talking about real)
Ferris claimed in court he left the area because Joe was gonna batter him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:37:PM
nobody has said is on here.

What?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 05:40:PM
Will you answer any of my questions?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:41:PM
I always think it is interesting when a case stops just trying to prove that it wasn't the convicted person but it was one of these others : and then they give a list and explain why it was this person, or that person.


It kills most credibility.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 05:42:PM
Ok then here's what happened is it , Ferris witnessed Joe murder his sister. Joe threatened to batter someone who has the power to have him locked up. Instead of going to the police and having him locked up, he leaves the area and starts a new life in Ayrshire. Is that what you have an easier time believing gordo? Stop and think sometimes wha tyou're actually trying to convince yourself of, this is real life.

your the one saying that nobody else is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 05:44:PM
Quote
Ok then here's what happened is it , Ferris witnessed Joe murder his sister. Joe threatened to batter someone who has the power to have him locked up. Instead of going to the police and having him locked up, he leaves the area and starts a new life in Ayrshire. Is that what you have an easier time believing gordo? Stop and think sometimes wha tyou're actually trying to convince yourself of, this is real life

Instead of trying to workout what I believe maybe you could answer the question I have asked and let me see if I can form an opinion that you may well like.
If on the other hand your answer's may well fit with what I already believe will you give me the credit of atleast developing my opinion based on the information I have?

Quote
I always think it is interesting when a case stops just trying to prove that it wasn't the convicted person but it was one of these others : and then they give a list and explain why it was this person, or that person.

Its all about going over everything Mat, if that means that the topic of discussion names and individual are we able to discuss this person?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 05:48:PM
Thats the way the call logs state it. There was a call at 10:45 pm which is around 1 min after Judy finds out Jodi is not with Luke. There then goes on to follow more calls from Judy to the police letting them know that Jodi is missing.
If you can will you explain to me how this can happen?

If you would also answer the questions I have placed on previous post's It would be great as im off out soon.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 05:48:PM
I always think it is interesting when a case stops just trying to prove that it wasn't the convicted person but it was one of these others : and then they give a list and explain why it was this person, or that person.


It kills most credibility.

whos doing that your the only doing that stop puting words into other peoples mouths.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 20, 2012, 05:49:PM
there on  posts 1 page back.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Buddy on August 20, 2012, 05:49:PM
I'm butting out of this thread as it is getting too personal. I do not have that much interest.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 05:50:PM
whos doing that your the only doing that stop puting words into other peoples mouths.

Keep up. I was reffering to the post that mentions the material on the official website, nugnug.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 06:05:PM
What questions do you have gordo?

i have one in how many murder cases do websites get set up cliaming the convicted man is innocent i would say there were hundreds of such sites.

how many of those sight owners are threatned with death by a member of the victems family only one that i can think.

funny though the family of most victems seem to manage not to do it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 06:07:PM
i have one in how many murder cases do websites get set up cliaming the convicted man is innocent i would say there were hundreds of such sites.

how many of those sight owners are threatned with death by a member of the victems family only one that i can think.

funny though the family of most victems seem to manage not to do it.

I think the basic logic og your argument is flawed.   :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 06:11:PM
I think the basic logic og your argument is flawed.   :-\

in what way all im saying is most victems relatives do not react like that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 06:14:PM
in what way all im saying is most victems relatives do not react like that.

Flawed as in - just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. So I don't see how you can say 'most victims' when there is no logic or work behind the statement.

My neighbour is caleld Billy, he drives a blue volvo. I don't know any other Billy's out there that drive a blue volvo but......that doesn't mean there aren't any.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 09:59:PM
Can nugnug or Gordo or anyone else explain how Luke managed to describe the clothes Jodi was wearing on the night of the murder in a police interview afew days after the murder, if he hadn't seen her that night, she had changed since school, and her body was naked when he found her? Thanks.

(this was a police interview played at the trial for everyone to here, before you accuse me of making it up or ask for a source)

The "no DNA" thing is another aspect that's been greatly exagerated and blown out of proportion over time. nugnug, Jodi's DNA was on Luke, her DNA was on his trousers, but 'may have occurred through an innocent transfer'. The trial also heard "there was no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained" found on her body."

 It was only after Luke Mitchells appeals did people start hearing the "No DNA at all! not one shred!" thing.

Sandra why dont you edit the site and mention Jodi's DNA was found on Lukes trousers? What was she doing down there?  :-\ Wasn't she on her knees when she had her throat cut?

Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm

it was not a full dna match the dna was simlar.
as you very well know.

he might have been to describe her clothes by the fact he had seen her at school that day.

wernt the clothes near the body anyway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 10:19:PM
No, Jodi's full DNA match was on his trousers. Fact. Doesnt matter how long you say something, it won't make it true.

You know she changed after school though  :o :o, hence the big debate about the sisters t-shirt and the sperm stains??? "why would she change into a smelly shirt" you said arguing that it was clean when she put it on. So you already know she changed after school. You're dis-honest.


So Luke saw a naked dead body but managed to have a look around and take note of the clothes sprawled everywhere in dark woods?

it was not a full dna match fact.

i never said she changed.

i would sort someones girlfriends to be on there trousers anyway.


you seem to be geting desprate now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 10:21:PM
Nugnug.  :o
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 10:29:PM
::)

All anyone has to do is read my last post to see that you were adamant the 'shirt she changed into' was clean, making Kelly's DNA suspicious.

Now that you've outed yourself as dishonest, I will no longer respond to you, I'm happy to debate it with Gordo though.

i will let the reader judge who is being dishonest.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 10:37:PM
Excellent.

In other words you won't dig a deeper hole for yourself trying to worm you're way out of your lies.

as i said the reader can judge who the liar is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 10:38:PM
as i said the reader can judge who the liar is.

I won't use the word liar. But who was wrong and backtracked IMO?  :-\ You nugnug.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 10:41:PM
I won't use the word liar. But who was wrong and backtracked IMO?  :-\ You nugnug.

well the reader can read i actually not what you are claiming so they will be the best to judge who the liar is.

i dont think she did change her t shirt that day though i cant be sure of that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 10:43:PM
Well to confirm, do you believe she changed her shirt that day or no?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 10:44:PM
Well to confirm, do you believe she changed her shirt that day or no?

no i dont belive she did thats why i think the borrowed t shirt story is untrue.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 10:45:PM
no i dont belive she did thats why i think the borrowed t shirt story is untrue.

Okay so she had the same clothes on that she had at school that day then, yes?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 10:50:PM
No, Jodi's full DNA match was on his trousers. Fact. Doesnt matter how long you say something, it won't make it true.

You know she changed after school though  :o :o, hence the big debate about the sisters t-shirt and the sperm stains??? "why would she change into a smelly shirt" you said arguing that it was clean when she put it on. So you already know she changed after school. You're dis-honest.


So Luke saw a naked dead body but managed to have a look around and take note of the clothes sprawled everywhere in dark woods?

so you are basically saying Kellys dna being on jodis clothes is innocent but a partail match from
jodi on lukes clothes is supiocious.

do you know how daft that sounds.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 10:51:PM
Okay so she had the same clothes on that she had at school that day then, yes?

Nugnug?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2012, 10:52:PM
answer Mat's question nugnug.  :)

i will choose questions i respond to.

i already said several times already i do not think she changed her clothes.

what part of that statement did not understand why do you keep asking the same qustions over and over agian.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on August 20, 2012, 10:52:PM
Can members please avoid goading tactics.  Thanks.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 20, 2012, 10:56:PM
Nugnug, I was just trying to get your story straight. Because I thought that you believed she'd changed clothes - but if she didn't - then she was wearing at school that day the clothes that she wore when she was found?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 12:37:AM
The article certainly puts a slightly different slant on things when we hear that no traces of DNA were found on Luke, the problem I have is that the article stopped short of what the DNA was extacted from, what I mean is if Luke had blood on himself from Jodi then the forensic pathologist and the prosecution would have made more of this sample. It would certainly have looked far more sinister as oppossed to say a strand of hair or cellular extraction.
Is there anyway of knowing what the sample consisted of? were you at the trial lithium?

The partial DNA samples remain and have always been accepted by us as having existed but as to their use and whether they could ever have stood up in court as you have seen D.F basicly shot them down as was right.

I have missed something regarding Luke describing Jodi's clothes though as I don't see it anywhere? Jodi almost certainly had changed clothing, just how much should have been realised once the clothing had been brought together at the crime scene and was only mentioned by Judy that she had went up to change after school.
The problem is that the t-shirt was borrowed a number of days before and not simply the night before, would Jodi have worn a dirty t-shirt? well I suppose if the semen stains were microscopic or undetectable by the human eye but SL has told us that there were larger stains at the armpits of the t-shirt that were clearly visable. The t-shirt being a few days old(im sure this was stated by Janine at court that she had two of the same and one was worn lately but that she couldn't find the other for a certain number of days) then the t-shirt would have been more apparent in its state of unwash. We also have the  the pathologists at the crime scene stating that the t-shirt had a strong smell of detergent on it pointing to it having been washed recently.

Its a strong point for me personally that if the t-shirt had been washed then no full profile could have been extracted and I have had that verified to me by someone who works with DNA on a regular basis.

 We have a positive match to samples of DNA to SK then is it possible to conclude that every sample of semen on the clothes found at the murder scene were deposited by SK, or are we saying that more samples of semen were deposited during the murder? the problem with this is that there were samples of semen and or sperm heads found all over numerous items of clothing including the bra,shoes and outer garments. These samples then don't tie in with SK's sample alibi surely!

Is it reasonable to think that if semen exists and a full profile exists matched to an individual that all semen samples belong to that individual? I think its a reasonable course of thought.
If you feel its not then that would suggest that the crime was very much sexually motivated and the prosecution would have taken up that mantal, as fresh semen must have originated at the scene. This would make it harder for Luke being the murderer as well as obliterate the motive of the killing being that they had had an arguement,unless of course the sex was non concensual and by that then we have to add on vast amounts of time as well as explain again how someone can be intimate and not have DNA on themself.
In case's of rape or consensual   sex their is an increased chance that DNA from the perpetraitor is deposited on the victim and when we add murder into this then how can anyone explain away the lack of DNA of Lukes anywhere where it should have been. How do we also factor this into the time scale I keep going on about also.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:42:AM
it would be a pretty crap washing  powder if it left sperm on your clothes.

mind you such washing powders are about i think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:45:AM
The article certainly puts a slightly different slant on things when we hear that no traces of DNA were found on Luke, the problem I have is that the article stopped short of what the DNA was extacted from, what I mean is if Luke had blood on himself from Jodi then the forensic pathologist and the prosecution would have made more of this sample. It would certainly have looked far more sinister as oppossed to say a strand of hair or cellular extraction.
Is there anyway of knowing what the sample consisted of? were you at the trial lithium?

The partial DNA samples remain and have always been accepted by us as having existed but as to their use and whether they could ever have stood up in court as you have seen D.F basicly shot them down as was right.

I have missed something regarding Luke describing Jodi's clothes though as I don't see it anywhere? Jodi almost certainly had changed clothing, just how much should have been realised once the clothing had been brought together at the crime scene and was only mentioned by Judy that she had went up to change after school.
The problem is that the t-shirt was borrowed a number of days before and not simply the night before, would Jodi have worn a dirty t-shirt? well I suppose if the semen stains were microscopic or undetectable by the human eye but SL has told us that there were larger stains at the armpits of the t-shirt that were clearly visable. The t-shirt being a few days old(im sure this was stated by Janine at court that she had two of the same and one was worn lately but that she couldn't find the other for a certain number of days) then the t-shirt would have been more apparent in its state of unwash. We also have the  the pathologists at the crime scene stating that the t-shirt had a strong smell of detergent on it pointing to it having been washed recently.

Its a strong point for me personally that if the t-shirt had been washed then no full profile could have been extracted and I have had that verified to me by someone who works with DNA on a regular basis.

 We have a positive match to samples of DNA to SK then is it possible to conclude that every sample of semen on the clothes found at the murder scene were deposited by SK, or are we saying that more samples of semen were deposited during the murder? the problem with this is that there were samples of semen and or sperm heads found all over numerous items of clothing including the bra,shoes and outer garments. These samples then don't tie in with SK's sample alibi surely!

Is it reasonable to think that if semen exists and a full profile exists matched to an individual that all semen samples belong to that individual? I think its a reasonable course of thought.
If you feel its not then that would suggest that the crime was very much sexually motivated and the prosecution would have taken up that mantal, as fresh semen must have originated at the scene. This would make it harder for Luke being the murderer as well as obliterate the motive of the killing being that they had had an arguement,unless of course the sex was non concensual and by that then we have to add on vast amounts of time as well as explain again how someone can be intimate and not have DNA on themself.
In case's of rape or consensual   sex their is an increased chance that DNA from the perpetraitor is deposited on the victim and when we add murder into this then how can anyone explain away the lack of DNA of Lukes anywhere where it should have been. How do we also factor this into the time scale I keep going on about also.


well no trhe other sperm samples cant possibly tie in with his albi.

thry cant have all transfred there innocently and if it was jodis sister t shirt her dna should be on it as well but its fact that it is not so as far as i cant possbly be her t shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:46:AM
No problem. Nugnug's said enough. :) As does his choice to be silent all of a sudden.

Let's leave it to the guests.

whos being silent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:48:AM
Hi Gordo, Luke had Jodi's full DNA on his trousers, this is a fact that wasn't up for debate at the time, Findlay even took it upon himself to provide innocent explanations for it at the trial, as I demonstrated. So seeing things like this on the WAP page:
"Forensic evidence belonging to several other people was found at the scene and on the body, although none of Luke’s ever was." is a lie. Plain and simple.

Luke did describe what Jodi was wearing that night, in a police interview held only days after the murder, this was an interview that was played in court, you can ask Sandra about that. I wonder why she wouldn't have mentioned this before to her followers.  ::)

I do accept it's Kelly's semen, ( I don't accept his blood was found at the scene though this was never confirmed and I dont know why Sandra and Corinne are going around saying this, I believe the DNA "could be" blood. Although I believe it's his semen, I don't believe Kelly ejaculated at the murder scene or that he was there. His alibi is pretty much as strong as an alibi can be.

What do you make of nugnug now claiming he doesn't believe Jodi changed clothes from school? surprised?

so your saying a girfriends dna would not get on there boyfriends trouses innocently.


but other mens sperm would just innocently get on her t shirt.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:51:AM
So you're saying Kelly's DNA wouldn't get on his girlfriends shirt innocently?  ::)

It's not up for debate that it was Janine's shirt, Janine would have no reason to make this up. Accept it.

if it was his girlfriends shirt his girlfriends dna would be on it.

but its not.

not a traCE OF ANY FEMALE DNA ON IT EXEPT JODIS.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:54:AM
WELL THATS UP TO GORDO REALLY.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:58:AM
sorry hit the caps lock by acedent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 01:00:AM
Can you provide proof that none of Janines DNA was on the shirt please?

I've saw you use "not a trace" before when referring to DNA that linked Luke to Jodi and vice versa, and I've provided sources of proof that that was a lie.

you have not provided any sources for anything you are saying.
where the links to what you are quoting.


t
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 01:02:AM
No problem. Can you post proof none of Janines DNA was on the shirt please?

its not in the dna report.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 21, 2012, 01:09:AM
Lithium, your avatar, its anonymous isnt it? i have seen their stuff on scientology, do we have one here, in England?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 21, 2012, 01:13:AM
Have what, Anon members?

Anonymous is a shared-identity. It's a multiple-use name. Everyone and anyone can be Anonymous. You may also recognise it from the V for Vendetta movie. It's the Guy Fawkes mask.

Ha, she means the group that call themselves anonymous. They use that mask.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 21, 2012, 01:17:AM
I know who she means lol, it's the group I was referring to. Anyone wishing to take action regarding something anonymously can be Anonymous. It's not a group with membership where you join etc.

Ohhhh. I should join them. Give me an excuse to wear that mask again.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 21, 2012, 01:18:AM
I know who she means lol, it's the group I was referring to. Anyone wishing to take action regarding something anonymously can be Anonymous. It's not a group with membership where you join etc.


I thought it was!! ive seen Anon Australia etc. Oh well!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 07:43:AM
Its strange just what selective posting can do.

I slept on what you said about the DNA and none of Jodi's on Luke but it always sat rather uneasy with me. I then remembered that and confirmed by the articles what I knew.

In the press release once again they stop short in stating that the trousers that had Jodi's DNA on them were the ones Luke had worn that day. We knew about a pair of trousers that  were recovered from Lukes home after the 1st search that had been found with her DNA. I believe thats why the innocent tansfer defence was easily established and fought out by Findley. Like I said if it had been extracted from any suspicious material then it would have been jumped on more.

Theres also something rather strange about the 2nd report about him describing the clothing as I know he was asked to describe what she had on that day and until I find something to show you today sometime this will remain like this for me.

As for me believing Luke guilty you presume way too much and do not explain away anything that hold as the firmist points for me to Lukes innocence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 07:47:AM
I have addressed many questions to  you and that I can't help feeling your either swearving and or just unable to answer. I would love for you to go over the last3/4 posts I have made and give me your opinion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 08:26:AM
Quote
Luke had Jodi's full DNA on his trousers, this is a fact that wasn't up for debate at the time, Findlay even took it upon himself to provide innocent explanations for it at the trial, as I demonstrated. So seeing things like this on the WAP page:
"Forensic evidence belonging to several other people was found at the scene and on the body, although none of Luke’s ever was." is a lie. Plain and simple.

I wonder which part of this is a lie?

I didn't ask you if you believed that the semen was SK's or not, better and more qualified people than yourself have already confirmed that to me. I asked if you thought it reasonable when there are multiple samples of semen/spermheads present on the garments at a murder scene to infer that all these samples came from the 1 individual?
Is it possible that when all the samples were tested that those that came back as nonreportable were from another individual but those that were tested and the individual identified meant that only those sample's were his?

If possible can you give me your reasoning as to just how and why so many seperate samples exist on most if not all garments?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 11:25:AM
He also described the clothes Jodi was wearing the night she was killed.

That line it just seems rather cursory don't you think. I mean here we have an article which basicly describes the content of what had went on in the court that day but nothing in regards to how Lukes team put up a defence against what was said. If im honest Im not sure if I can relate the sentence to the police interview that was heard in court.
Do we hear Luke describe the clothes on tape? or is it just him giving the police his assertions as to why Jodi hadn't turned up? The article then goes on to state how Luke did not inform them that he had called Jodi's house, am I to believe that the jury were made to hear a tape that contained something that Luke didn't say!!!
The article is very unclear and to base some miraculous assumption that Luke had made a terrible mistake in describing something that he should not have been able to is weak.

If I give you an example of a police interview that could describe how Luke managed to pin point an item of clothing that Jodi had on that day.
When he was asked how Jodi normally wore her hair he stated that she sometimes left it down but on other occasions it was up. When prompted to describe how she wore it up he said that she sometimes used a scrunchy. He was further prompted to disclose what colour of scrunchy she used and he stated that he had noticed her wearing a red scrunchy. Inadvertantly describing an article of clothing Jodi wore that day.
Im not saying that this  is an explanation for what your inferring but It is a plausible explanation as to what the article is trying to say and until you come up with something concrete about what his description of the clothes were then this issue for me remains unclear from your point of view.

I would also have thought that the prosecution would have jumped all over such a claim but did they? is there a follow up article which defines how Findley defends against such claims,is there even anything in the press that shows that the prosecution made even the marginlist arguement on this point. I tend not to go along with these snippets in the press as they become very misleading as I have pointed out and any arguement based on them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 12:05:PM
Quote
"The High Court in Edinburgh heard no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained", was found on her body.

Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer"

It was even raised in court by Luke's defence:

"Donald Findlay QC, defending Luke Mitchell, suggested to Ms Ure that DNA could be found in a completely "sinister place but have a wholly innocent explanation" to which she agreed.
Mr Findlay said the court had heard in some detail of Jodi and Luke's relationship and added: "Boyfriend, girlfriend, being intimate with each other.
"The girl brutally done to death and a young man sitting in court here charged with her murder.
"Looking at that picture, erin all the DNA analyses you carried out one, and only one, bit of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers and that could be a pfectly innocent transfer."
Ms Ure replied: "Yes it could."

The more I read this article the more if reaffirms just how misleading these articles are.

"The High Court in Edinburgh heard no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained", was found on her body.

This part states that no DNA was found on the body! but before that it states that no DNA that could not be accounted for was found on the body!! why not just say it as it is that NO DNA of Lukes was found on the body. its confirmed by the next few lines that state

"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."
Ms Ure replied: "Yes it could.


Not only that but the trousers that it was found on were indeed the ones taken from the house that Luke hadn't worn in a few days prior to the murder. I can deduce that from the part directly quoted from Findlay " all the DNA analyses you carried out one, and only one, bit of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers"

It can be further confirmed as this sample was again if my memory is correct female bodily fliuds as attested to by Findlay again here "Boyfriend, girlfriend, being intimate with each other. and agreed toby the forensic witness.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 12:22:PM
Quote
Forensic evidence belonging to several other people was found at the scene and on the body, although none of Luke’s ever was."

I would gladly give my opinion if you point out which part of that statement contains the lie?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:33:PM
your very good at screaming liar lithium witch usually the sighn of somone who is lying themselves.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:37:PM
I'm not arguing that it could be innocent but my point was it's a lie for WAP to be running around saying there is absolutely no DNA evidence to link the 2. Don't you agree?
Thanks for your earlier replies which I will respond to when I get the chance to give them the thought and response that they warrant. What do you think of nugnug now claiming Jodi had the same clothes on all day btw

they have not lied they said none of lukes dna was found at the murder and none of it was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L 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?

Hypothetically, if you're investigating a brutal and violent murder with a bladed weapon, an attacker who apparently switches from "frenzied" to so calm as to be almost unconcerned about being caught, the potential that there was a sexual element or motivation to the attack, and a victim found in a place where the family claim she would only go with someone she knew, if someone crosses the radar with a mental illness which causes sudden violent outbursts, those outbursts sometimes involving bladed instruments, a sexual theme or element running through that illness, and that someone is related to the victim, should that, or should it not, be a matter for closer investigation?

The claims that I have "accused" everyone connected to Jodi's family is nonsense - I have never accused anyone, and never would. I have always stated that my concerns are with the manner in which the investigation was carried out, and anywhere glaring anomalies exist, I have done my best to highlight them, because they undermine the safety of Lue's conviction.

The DNA "from Jodi" on Luke's trousers, I will double check the DNA reports when I get home, and try to post tomorrow - I'm not prepared to comment from memory (although I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this).

Interestingly, a full DNA profile from blood was found on a T shirt taken from Luke Mitchell's home. The "summary report" regarding this full profile simply lists items of Luke's on which full profiles for blood were found. There were never used in evidence. Seems strange doesn't it? If full DNA profiles for blood were found on items of Luke's clothing, you'd have thought the prosecution would have been screaming it from the rooftops.  It took me several days to hunt down the samples from which these profiles were obtained (there are many, many pages of DNA evidence). That's when I realised just how misleading the "summary report" was - the DNA was Luke's own!

Luke describing Jodi's clothing "that night" - be careful when quoting from newspaper articles! Again, I will post the exact wording of both the question preceding the description, and Luke's exact words in response tomorrow. I'm sorry I can't do it today, but I had no way of knowing what had come up in discussion while my internet was down, so couldn't have known what papers would be needed.

As for Joseph threatening me, I understand why Jodi's family are upset by what I do, and I always have done. I have offered to meet with Judy, and I offered to show Joseph the DNA results the day he was at my door, because I believe Jodi's family have been horribly misled and manipulated which is disgusting - lying to a grieving family, convincing them of something the police had no evidence to support, and so on is unforgivable. Of course Jodi's family have to believe Luke is guilty - the alternative is unthinkable for them.

But that does not extend to accepting the family lying about events, as Judith has now been proven  to have done. She publicly accused me of lying about Joseph threatening me, claiming, instead, that he had "visited" me to talk to me about the website, and that no threat of any description had been made. What she and Joseph did not know was that I was not alone in the house that day, but had an independent  witness, who had been visiting me when Joseph arrived at the door,  standing directly behind the door, out of sight of Joseph, who heard every word. Joseph later admitted threatening me, yet Judy's accusation came after that admission.

The multiple semen samples on the various articles of clothing - none of them provided full profiles (obviously) but one of the biggest outstanding questions in this case is, if those samples were re-tested, would that still be the case? Similarly, the "no reportable results" samples - would they come back the same with more sensitive testing?

No matter whether you are in the "guilty" camp or the "innocent" camp, don't you think it's just too risky to have no confirmation, one way or the other, about all those DNA profiles remaining "unidentified?"

I have to go now - I will try to post at some point tomorrow.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:41:PM
nugnug you're an idiot you can think what you want and I'll never care about your opinion. I'm sure gordo doesn't think I'm lying. Gordo the quote you posted maybe not but are you really saying Luke's supporters have never claimed he had none of Jodi's DNA on him? "so how did he go home and wash her dna off him and his clothes in that time?!" I believe you argued yourself.  Btw there was 'partial DNA' that 'could be' Luke. Luke defenders are always mentioning how the body was left uncovered in the rain all night which could have washed DNA off. Again, can't have it both ways. There is no proof Kelly's blood is on the body, it 'could be' his blood. Kelly himself has never even heard any mention of his blood being on there by police. It's pathetic that Sandra has you all running around saying his blood was on there and it isn't anywhere near confirmed. Another example of 'evidence' being greatly exaggerated which I forgot about earlier is the "striking resemblance" between MK and Luke. They look nothing alike, trust me.

i find resorting to childish name calling is the sighn of someone who knows they are loseing the arguement

why should anybody trust you..

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 12:49:PM
well you must do or you wouldn't reply.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 01:02:PM
you said he dident have one witch makes you look like the one who is lying.

you said he had a job and a girlfriend and was perfectly normal.

though there's no reason a mentally ill man might not have those things.

you also said he does not have criminal record witch you could not possibly know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 01:03:PM
nugnug, I dedicated only the first sentence of my last post to you and it was just to tell you I don't care what you think. You've proved yet again you lack basic reading comprehension and I'd rather this was discussed in an adult manner so I'm now going to explain to you for the 3rd time I'm talking to Sandra and Gordo in this thread and I could do without your pointless posts that lack any substance or information. You have more posts than anyone on WAP yet not a single useful one, which leads me to believe you're someones alternate account.

you dont decide who can and cant post here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 01:06:PM
Gordo the quote you posted maybe not but are you really saying Luke's supporters have never claimed he had none of Jodi's DNA on him?
It was sentence you posted that I quoted from you when you were trying to say that we were lying in regards to there being no DNA of Jodi on Luke, I think you realise now that the sentence contained no lie!

"so how did he go home and wash her dna off him and his clothes in that time?!" I believe you argued yourself.

I don't argue this point remember I believe Luke to be innocent so there was no washing of DNA off Luke.! however I do pose the same question to yourself how do  you feel he was able to do that as this has to constitute part of the theory for those who believe him guilty, I only discuss this or add it to debate for your benefit only. Im wondering when the time comes when someone can explain this to me as in the last 5 years of being interested in the case no one has.

Btw there was 'partial DNA' that 'could be' Luke. Luke defenders are always mentioning how the body was left uncovered in the rain all night which could have washed DNA off. Again, can't have it both ways.

I wonder what would go down better in court, that Luke partially killed Jodi or simply that he did? The partial DNA sample arguement has no grounds as these samples could partially belong to you or I. Theres a great site online called idiots guide to DNA (thats not me trying to be insulting there actually is) and I have used it before, its worth a read.
The rain scenario is kinda neither here nor there as it possibly could have or it possibly may not have, can we have it both ways well,I suppose yes in that there were full profiles extracted after the rain as well as those that couldn't, shame for you guys that the only ones the rain did destroy were all Lukes. Is anyone a mathamatician and could maybe quantify the probablity of this happening?

Quote
Kelly himself has never even heard any mention of his blood being on there by police.

To be honest Kelly hadn't heard of any of the DNA of his found at the scene such was the way the investigation proceeded to insulate some and leave Luke open to everything.

It's pathetic that Sandra has you all running around saying his blood was on there and it isn't anywhere near confirmed. Another example of 'evidence' being greatly exaggerated which I forgot about earlier is the "striking resemblance" between MK and Luke. They look nothing alike, trust me.

I suppose Dr Lean has done all she could in respect to what she has done on this case. Lets face it the DNA records state that the sample alluded to here was labelled blood and who is she to contest this really when people we trust to do things properly don't but what if they have done everything properly and it is his blood.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 01:07:PM
I didn't tell you not to post. I told you I'd rather not read them. Remember what I said about reading comprehension? I refuse to believe you're actually this dim. Drop the act, whos fake-account are you?

Congratulations on another post which contains absolutely no substance.


well dont read them then simples
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 21, 2012, 01:19:PM
Oh look another  post without substance by nugnug.
Lithium, the way you speak to nugnug is very rude.
Surely you can make your points without being so offensive?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 01:23:PM
Can I ask why you think it's impossible? Are you basing it on the assumption that you think you know the killer would have to be covered in blood? Or that you know the time of death? He was witnessed arguing with Jodi on one end of the path, then later at the other end alone looking like he had been up to no good. He obviously had time to do it. These witnesses have no reason to lie. AB identified his picture and said she was as sure as anyone can possibly be that that was the same person she saw. I don't care if he looked different a year later and court and she was honest enough to say she couldn't recognise him by that point.

the witness were not showed a line up witch means the police knew they wouldent pick him out from one.

meaning the police knew they wernt credible witneses.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 21, 2012, 01:24:PM
I find nugnug offensive.
Why? Nugnug has posted on here for ages, what has he done to you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 01:27:PM
Not completely but I would go with the acting pathologist on this one as he is more qualified to make such a claim, he stated that there would be a fair amount of blood on the killer. Its not of course just that we have someone murdering someone in a woodland area,we have movement of the body as well as post mortem cuts and other strange things going on. We have the murderer putting himself in a position to have skins cells under his nails, his sweat on the body,clothes ect. We have other possiblities that he would have been scratched by the victim or damaged in some way and or by the shrubbery/trees in the imediate area. Im sure you can gauge just what im saying here that in a situation like was occurring at this point there are ample reasons why he should have a veriety of forensics placing him at the scene.

Is it possible to wash it off? all of it! well lets see he would also have to decontaminate everywhere he touched for instance( the police took apart the drainage system in his house), clean the carpets or floors in the house for instance you see what im getting at. Can he do all this ? even with the help of his mother it would be impossible to get rid of everything that may point to him having carried out this crime. There is a crime being discussed on this forum just now where there were microscopic bloodlets that led to the conviction, these must have existed in this case also as there was far more blood around as well as agitation of the body. So its not just what you can see that had to be washed off but everything else you can't.

So all in all I would sayit was impossible yes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 01:31:PM
Quote
missed this post. Joey Jones conducts a regular life and is a functioning member of society. He is engaged and he delivers prescriptions and medication for a pharmecutical company. This is all fact.
A job which holds a level of trust and responsibility, don't you agree?

I think the post wasn't missed just simply not relevant to the discussion. How J Jones conducts himself 9 years on has no relevance although Im pleased to see he has managed to get well na dbecome a piller of society.
I see hwoever your admittance to how he was 9 years before somehow alludes me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 01:35:PM
Quote
Can't have it both ways as I keep repeating.

LOL yeah you do and I keep contradicting you .

Jodi had no reportable results from samples under her nails. I just stated that the killer put himself in a position whereby he may well have been injured by the victim,  I used nails as an example.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 01:37:PM
missed this post. Joey Jones conducts a regular life and is a functioning member of society. He is engaged and he delivers prescriptions and medication for a pharmecutical company. This is all fact.
A job which holds a level of trust and responsibility, don't you agree?

What difference is it weather she recognised his picture or saw him in a line up? Did the police take the picture in a way to make Luke like the person she saw arguing with Jodi? how could they?

it wasnt a case of "hes the only one on there who matches the description" her words were "i'm as sure as i can possibly be thats the person I saw"

she was adamant.

A year later in court Luke looked completely different, much longer hair, a year of growing and puberty. She was being honest saying she couldn't recognise him. I wouldn't use that as a supporting argument at all.

i dont know what joe jones does so ive only really got your word for that.


showing someoneand useing a line are completly difrrent.

the proper procedure is to use a line up the police know that.

theres only one reason not to use one that is you know your alleged witnes wont be able to pick him out from one.

t
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 01:39:PM
Yet Jodi had no ones DNA under her finger nails. Can't have it both ways as I keep repeating.


"I see hwoever your admittance to how he was 9 years before somehow alludes me."

The point I'm making is, if he had this horrific history of mental illness and violent crime which WAP claims, he wouldn't have got the job. I know for a fact such a role requires CRB and background checks.


Funny you say "how he is 9 years later has no relevance to how he was at the time of the murder"

yet its ok for nugnug to mention he threatened Sandra Lean 9 years later???

Can't have it both ways!!!

well one i see know evidence for your claims.

and in 9 years a man can change dramatically.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 01:39:PM
Quote
Funny you say "how he is 9 years later has no relevance to how he was at the time of the murder"

yet its ok for nugnug to mention he threatened Sandra Lean 9 years later???

I thought we were talking about his mental state. I am comparing his mental state now 9 years later to what it was 9 years earlier. If someone has the personallity whereby he becomes violent which was 3 years ago if im correct. Do you know what his mental state was 3 years earlier?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 01:52:PM
I guess if you read my posts  they all contain questions, Im really looking for your opinion on what I have written as oppossed to more questions, but either way its fine.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 01:58:PM
Steph the good thing is  no matter who lithium is that the case remains in the public arena here. It gives me a good chance to go over everything again and believe it or not it actully has in the past given me even further insights into events by seeing other peoples perspectives. The perspectives have only helped to increase my resolve in Lukes innocence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:06:PM
Im just happy to be discussing the case, be it with you or John. I like John hes funny. So no problems here m8. BTW what age are you, just wondering.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:09:PM
Was that DNA incriminating though? Did it even belong to the case of murder in question here, Im sure you were aware Jodi and Luke were an item.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:14:PM
Jodi and luke were together a numbers of weeks prior to her death, would it be sensible for anyone to declare that no DNA would have been apparent between the two anywhere, or is it possible that when the statements about no DNA of Jodi on Luke that we  refers to the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 02:18:PM
It could be incriminating, it could be innocent. But it exists. Stephanie and others seem completely unaware of that.

but there is none of his dna on her clothes the day she was found  but plenty of other peoples.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:19:PM
How do you explain the lack of DNA, simply just all washed off?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:22:PM
How do YOU know it was janines t-shirt?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 02:24:PM
She was wearing her sisters shirt, that's not debatable as far as I'm concerned.

And can I see your sources please. Just to keep it fair.

its very debatable i think because her sisters dna isn't on it.

they dident live in the same house so when did she borrow it.

surely her sister would wash it before lending it to surely if it hadent been she would wash it before wearing it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:25:PM
Or maybe she was lying to protect her boyfriend who raped and murdered her young sister?
Why would you try and put those words in my mouth, thats quite insulting.

How did Janine know?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:28:PM
I can't really make it any simpler m8.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:30:PM
A question with a question...

Im asking quite simply how did Janine know it was her shirt?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 02:33:PM
well that's a good point gordo had she actually seen the shirt.

if she hadent she couldent possibly know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 02:35:PM
She recognised/remembered buying it/remembered Jodi borrowing it

but how did she know Jodi was wearing it on the night of the murder.

did she it next to the body.

thats the only way i can see that she could of known.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:36:PM
Quote
if your wife walked into the room right now holding a shirt asking if it was yours, how would you know?

I agree under those circumstance I would recognise my shirt.

She may well have recognised buying a similar shirt infact she bought two exactly the same. Jodi also had 6 plain black shirts removed after the crime. When you talk about recognising the shirt how did Janine do this exactly? or more to the point when.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 02:38:PM
ofcourse she seen the shirt.

Thats the boldest statement you have made so far, can you link me to anything corroborating that? I will save you the time as you will not find it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 02:42:PM
she couldent have seen it that night unless she had seen jodi.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 03:16:PM
I'm not saying Janine saw her alive on the day or night of her murder. I'm saying it was common knowledge and evidence at the trial what Jodi was wearing when she was killed. It was also known to the family. Do you think the police never asked the family everything about the clothing? and what she was wearing isn't up for debate as the clothing was found at the scene. What you should be asking yourself is how Luke managed to describe the clothing she had on when she died. I'm just waiting til Sandra gets the chance to post the relevant info when she gets home. 

Luke "may have seen the clothes sprawled around her when he found the body" according to nugnug afew pages ago. But now it's impossible that Janine done the same?

CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE!!!!



I'm off back out, I look forward to Sandra's information. Later.

at the trail yes but how could she know emeadatly that it was her t shirt.

she couldent have done unless she had seen jodi alive that day or she saw the t shirt by the body.

now im not sure when she decided it was her t shirt weather it was after her boyfriends sperm was found on it or before.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 21, 2012, 03:19:PM
I take it you didn't find anything then m8..

I will save you the effort really as Janine didn't actually see the t-shirt but she did identify  it by the label through an evidence bag. What im trying to emphasise is that in this case nothing is beyond reasonable doubt, even the t-shirt that Jodi was wearing which you claimed was uncontestable. Though it could be argued that any t-shirt was in the bag if you were being pedantic.
What Jodi was wearing when she was killed is what was found at the scene, though the family as you call it gave a completely differnt account of what Jodi was wearing when she left the house.

Do you think the police never asked the family everything about the clothing?

Can you be sure that they did? like I said they had Jodi wearing blue jeans and a blue hoodie and she was found in all black baggy jeans with a black hoodie with a large logo on it.

Luke "may have seen the clothes sprawled around her when he found the body" according to nugnug afew pages ago. But now it's impossible that Janine done the same?

It is impossible because Janine didn't go through the V to view the body.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 03:29:PM
oh yes sorry your right gordo she dident so she couldn't have seen the t shirt at the crime scene.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 21, 2012, 06:02:PM
How would Janine know it was her shirt?

She had the shirt described to her?
She described the shirt to the police - and they confirmed?
She saw the shirt?
She's seen the shirt since?
She gave the shirt to Jodi earlier - so why wouldn't it be?


Just some ideas.


Also, nugnug - are you posting from a phone?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 06:03:PM
no im not why do you ask.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 21, 2012, 06:06:PM
Because I really am trying to read your posts - but I don't know if it is just me sometimes I feel lost as to what you're saying of the point you're trying to make, I'm trying though.

I thought you were posting on a phone because of the language/grammar/typing you use.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 21, 2012, 06:27:PM
Because I really am trying to read your posts - but I don't know if it is just me sometimes I feel lost as to what you're saying of the point you're trying to make, I'm trying though.

I thought you were posting on a phone because of the language/grammar/typing you use.
Bit rude Mat! :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 21, 2012, 06:28:PM
I had a feeling it would come across as rude.  :-\


But I am desperate to be able to understand. I really do struggle with the posts though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 09:18:PM
its fine water of a ducks back to me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2012, 11:45:PM
you do seem very keen to defend the good name of stven kelly dont you lithum and that throwaway comment about his ex girlfriend being a lesbian.

hmm.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Eric on August 22, 2012, 08:02:AM
No, always keep one back for a rainy day  ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 10:32:AM
Well to name afew off the top of my head, Corinne posted she had "groundbreaking news" about Kelly's past. Nothing ever came of it. Jodi's brothers 'serious mental illness!' is greatly exaggerated also. Apparently he has a 'very violent history', but actually has no criminal record. And again there is the DNA that doesn't actually point anywhere. Oh and Ferris being "ostracized" by the family and chased out of the area. When really his mother just moved in with a new partner in Ayrshire.

Joseph Jones, due to his mental illness was taken to the hospital on more than one occassion, not the police station, that is public knowledge.  The police could have charged him, perhaps they did and the charges were dropped, or perhaps he does have a criminal record and the public are not aware of this, so it is wrong of you to claim that he has no criminal record, but quite frankly I don't see the point of giving him a criminal record which could have resulted in him being sent to prison.  He needed to be hospitalized and given appropriate treatment, as he was a danger to himself and others when he kicked off, not locked up in a prison cell.

Ferris was chased out of the area, he was threatened by Jodi's brother Joseph who said he "was going to batter him", according to his grandmother in court.  Ferris moved in with his girlfriend Staceys family in Ayrshire.  He was very vocal that he could never return to Dalkeith.  He was tracked down by the press, when they knocked on his door he shouted for the reporter to get away from the door or they would "get it".  Charming young man  ::) 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 10:54:AM
Joe Jones is by all accounts a normal guy, a far cry from the derranged psycho and loose cannon he's been painted as on that forum. He is engaged and has a job which he wouldn't be allowed to have if he had a notable criminal record or mental illness. He delivers medication for pharmaceutical companies.

There are guilty people who have murdered and upon release, walk straight into employment, which is all set up for them prior to release, as are there jobs available for people who have committed lesser crimes.   

The country is full of people with disability and mental illness who are in gainful employment.  Its all about matching the right job to the individual and if needed, providing support for them.

If the engagement is true, I am pleased to hear that he has found happiness and an understanding fiancee.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 12:02:PM
Can you blame them when their only suspect at the time was telling interviewing officers to go home and listen to this song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcUgsvpchms

I remember reading about this somewhere on the internet, (can't remember where), Luke supposedly asking the police if they had heard of the song. If he did say it, unless it was known what questions they were asking at that particular time in the interview, we won't know in what context he said it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 12:12:PM
I dont have an opinion on this case, im afraid. i havent really read anything about it.

It is a very intersting case Andrea, but there is so much reading to be done, although not as much as the Bamber case, that caseload is huge.  I continue to read up as much as I can but I have yet to find anything that would convince me that Mitchell was guilty.  Part of me wishes that he was guilty and is in the right place as then I wouldn't have to worry that a killer has yet to be apprehended. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 22, 2012, 12:38:PM
Sorry about the technical nature of this post - this is the nearest I can get to the confirmation Lithiam has requested - the following results are taen verbatim from the reports.

I can’t give the full reference numbers from these reports, so will identify them my partial references.

Forensic report **12/03 (undated) – “Biology joint report” P 26 of 39:

Boot (2) (left) Labelled “Taken from Luke Mitchell 1st July 2003”
Jeans    (Labelled as above)
Belt   (Labelled as above)
Sock (1)   (Labelled as above)
Sock (2) (Labelled as above

No blood was found on these five items.

Same report, P28 of 39

Trousers (1) labelled “*** Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith 4/7/03

White stain 305B, on the upper back left pocket flap was tested for a chemical found in saliva.... none was detected... 305B contained a sperm head and many nucleated cells, some of which had the microscopic appearance of a cell type found within the vagina.

Table of Results, ref **22/03 Appendix II, p4 of 16 – Stain 305B, match with Jodi Jones.

So, yes, a single DNA result, found on a pair of Luke’s trousers, was found to be a match with Jodi. However, this sample was found on a pair of trousers taken from Luke’s room 4 days after the murder – there was nothing to say when those trousers had last been worn, there was no blood or other forensic traces from Jodi on them, they were not considered to be connected with the crime scene in any way, and the cells, some of which “had the microscopic appearance of a cell type found in within the vagina” were never properly identified.

All of the clothing taken from Luke in the early hours of July 1st returned no results for DNA from Jodi.

Reference **22/03:

10 H Semen, labelled “i/s back L sleeve of piece of shirt (2) comprised 2 samples –" Each sample was processed in such a way as to separate any sperm from any cellular material  present."

This is how all of the samples labelled “semen” were treated before being analysed.

10G – Blood, labelled “o/s front piece of shirt (2).

Appendix II, Table of results ref **22/03 - 10G, Blood – match to S.Kelly (+Jodi Jones).

Those are the results, exactly as they appear in the forensic reports – 10G is a full male profile, with 8/20 markers for the minor contributor, named in this result as Jodi.

10G does not contain any description of samples being processed to separate sperm heads from cellular material, as 10G was not labelled (or considered to be) a sample containing semen or sperm heads - it was labelled as, and treated as, a bloodstain.

(I posted this already and then deleted it, because I had typed it out first in word and was copying and pasting it here, but the spacing was all wrong - instead of repositioning the various bits and pieces, I accidentally posted too soon.)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 12:44:PM
"I will stab with a big **** stick and watch your blood spill on the soil, I will watch as you wither and die." - Luke Mitchell

Is that your motto at the bottom of your posts ?

That was a cherry picked quote from a poem that Mitchell was suppose to have written according to a source within the prison who contacted the Daily Record.  I don't know if he penned it or not but I have heard or read of many innocent miscarriage of justice victims make threats to the people who were responsible for then being fitted up and sent to prison, destroying their and their families lives, therefore I don't see what the big deal is if indeed he did write it, as he has every reason to be angry.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 12:46:PM
yes hight of wrote a peom years later hardly beats dna does it i think that shows how desprate the guilty camp is,
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 01:00:PM
That incident was obviously after the murder. His little sister was murdered, someone has been locked up for it, Sandra is telling the world he didn't do it, without actually knowing. It is a very normal human reaction to go to her door and confront her about the hurt she is causing his family. Keep in mind this is a family totally convinced of Luke's guilt after weighing up all options.

I disagree, especially as you say "this is a family totally convinced of Luke's guilt after weighing up all options".  As you say, "someone has been locked up for it", so why wasn't her brother laughing his head off at Dr Lean saying Luke "didn't do it", instead of going to her home threatening her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 01:02:PM
I think that clears up the DNA found from Jodi on Lukes clothing. We knew about this from very early on and was discussed on the WAP forum. The type of material that Jodi's DNA was extracted from is the reason why this went no where in court. Without any traces of blood its impossible  to consider that these trouser were worn at the scene of a murder and then cleaned of any blood but then have Jodi's DNA present.

Quote
10G – Blood, labelled “o/s front piece of shirt (2).

Im not sure you can interpret this any other  way than this samply being blood. The fact that a full profile that is attributed to SK was taken from this sample and labelled blood while the other sample was only 8/20 makers and therefore of less importance in relation to the sample. I was wondering is the (2) here does it mean 2 samples of blood i.e sk's and Jodis?

Sry Sandra I see from the semen sample that it does indeed suggest that 2 samples exist and were tested. I have then to say that both samples have to be blood as Jodi's couldn't possibly have been anything else.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 01:07:PM
I disagree, especially as you say "this is a family totally convinced of Luke's guilt after weighing up all options".  As you say, "someone has been locked up for it", so why wasn't her brother laughing his head off at Dr Lean saying Luke "didn't do it", instead of going to her home threatening her.

well its rather strange as he wasn't being accused of anything at the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 01:13:PM
nugnug how would you feel if you had the role of the man of your house hold and someone was causing your mother the distress Sandra has caused Jodi's mother?

Joseph Jones did not have the role of the household, he was treated like a child, everyone pussyfooted round about him, walking on eggshells, so as not to upset him.  It is common knowledge his family feared him.  Alan Ovens was supposed to have been the man in the house, but he couldn't even be bothered to get off his lazy backside and go and search for her, leaving his 17 year old stepdaughter and her boyfriend, and the elderly grandmother to go out looking for her. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 01:32:PM
well there may have been other reasons he dident join the search party.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 01:57:PM
Janine said so. simple as that.

Or maybe she was lying to protect her boyfriend who raped and murdered her young sister?

That is a terrible thing to suggest!  I don't believe for one minute that she would have given him an alibi if she had thought that.  Jodi was not raped, why are you mentioning that?  Do you believe she was?

Janine hadn't a clue if it were her teeshirt or not, I think that much is pretty obvious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 02:06:PM
Do you know Steven kelly Lithium? Tell me more about the parka....

Did Steven Kelly have a parka?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 02:08:PM
The parka is a misnoma m8 its only exists in the mind of the prosecution.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 22, 2012, 02:11:PM
Transcript of Interview, 4th July 2003:

After discussing what Luke was wearing on Monday night at page 44, and then some discussion about whether or not Luke and Jodi wore school uniform (they didn’t).

At P45, after discussing who bought both Luke and Jodi’s clothes, the following discussion is recorded:

DC: Oh, right, OK. Was Jodi the same, did she buy her

LM: 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.

DC: Mm-mm and eh what else was she wearing on Monday?

LM: Eh, a black Deftones, it was like this, it had the zip, but it was black and it had Deftones written across the back, and there, and there

DC: Aye

LM: It had sort of, a sort of distorted sort of circley oval, it had sort of, it was like a yellowy orange

DC: Yeah

LM: Band sort of thing.

DC: anything else that you can, that strikes oot or...

LM: I can’t remember the top, I mean she had her hoody zipped up most of the time so..

DC: Oh, right, aye

LM: She had her sort of navy blue DCs on- DC trainers

DC: Right

ADS: When was this, sorry?

LM: This was Monday.

DC: Monday

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.

At page 114, same transcript

DC: Right, OK, what clothes were you wearing on Monday evening?
(LM describes his clothes)

DC: What clothes was Jodi wearing?

LM: Eh, I only saw the ones she was wearing at school were blue cords

At page 135, same transcript:

DC... and what clothes were you wearing that night?
(LM describes his clothes again)

DC: Yeah the same as you had been wearing at school, eh?

LM: Yeah

DC: Eh, and what was Jodi wearing

LM: Well, at school, she was wearing, I’m sure it was the blue cords she borrowed off her sister, I’m sure, with her black Deftones hoody, zip up hoody like this in black, Deftones across the back... and there, and there...

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 02:17:PM
I've just found out who nugnug is. :)

He said he wasn't impressed with how I outed Chelsea so quickly for using fake pics.

He'l be impressed by this though.

Should I expose him?

Does anyone really care who he is?  I don't.  I'm supposed to be nugnug as well as many others, and he has been accused of being so many others too.  We are who we are, just anonymous posters on an internet forum.  People have outed people before claiming they are such and such, post pictures of a person etc but when all is said and done, it still isnt a proven fact they are who the outer says they are.  It's all pretty pointless, as it would make no difference if nugnug is Tom Cruise, or Roch is Ricky Hatton, we are all still entitled to an opinion and will offer it and join in on debates.  Nugnug has been around for years, I can't imagine the threat of being outed, or actually being outed would stop him from posting his opinions on miscarriage of justice cases.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 22, 2012, 02:26:PM
A final qute from the transcript of July 4th, which I find quite telling:

CM: Why was I not told at the house that the house was gonna be searched, why was it left til I was up here - that was a bit of a shock.

ADS: Well, we were provided with a warrant, do you just want to conclude this and then we'll answer

DC: aye

ADS: address any concerns Mrs Mitchell's got

DC: We'll do that, aye. Eh, we'll just, I'll switch the tapes off

ADS: So that's eh

DC: in case they stop again

ADS: 1652

DC: 1652. The time is 1652 ours on Friday the 4th of july, this is DC SQ concluding the interview with Lue Mitchell that took place in Dalkeith Police Station.

What' no answer on tape as to why they waited until they'd got Luke and Corinne out of the house and at the station bfore telling them it was going to be searched? No denial on tape that they'd done so?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 02:26:PM
please expose if you want.

i might expose myself in a little now thats something you really dont want to see.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 02:31:PM
So Sandra the fact that Luke was describing the clothes Jodi wore  at school that day and they happened to be the same clothes Jodi wore at the time of her murder then somehow that morphed itself into him having knowledge of what she had on that night. This really is clutching at straws. Its clear what Luke was saying and I will apologise that he did inadvertantly describe the clothes Jodi wore when she was killed.

I feel however the problem here was simply the Daily Records article and I can't really blame the poster lithium for clutching at straws on this one, just goes to show you what they say about the press. Shame you had to take the time out of an already busy day to address this issue but thx.

This does however pose a problem and also confirms that Jodi going up and changing before going out is wrong(another wrong). I hadn't actually realised that it was possible she hadn't changed anything at all. I also see where the police got the idea that Jodi swapped clothes with her sister but If Luke knew that certain items of clothing that Jodi had on were indeed her sisters and he named them ie the jeans why not also name the t-shirt, at that stage he could not have known that any forensics would have been garnered from that item so he wasn't implacating himself or anyone else by doing so.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 02:34:PM
well if she had clean clothes on in the morning she wouldn't needed. have to have changed.

it could well be that she dident have time to change.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 02:36:PM
Does anyone really care who he is?  I don't.  I'm supposed to be nugnug as well as many others, and he has been accused of being so many others too.  We are who we are, just anonymous posters on an internet forum.  People have outed people before claiming they are such and such, post pictures of a person etc but when all is said and done, it still isnt a proven fact they are who the outer says they are.  It's all pretty pointless, as it would make no difference if nugnug is Tom Cruise, or Roch is Ricky Hatton, we are all still entitled to an opinion and will offer it and join in on debates.  Nugnug has been around for years, I can't imagine the threat of being outed, or actually being outed would stop him from posting his opinions on miscarriage of justice cases.


Well said, OnceSaid!  I couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 02:39:PM
Quote
well if she had clean clothes on in the morning she wouldn't have to have changed.

NOW!! thats what I call  a perfectly thought out piece of reasoning nugnug. It puts the idea that her wearing a t-shirt the whole day to school and at night going to visit her boyfriend that was dirty with visable semen stains on into context.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 02:44:PM
well i think most dont change there clothes more than once a day unless they have a reason to.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 02:49:PM
In my experience also nugnug with my kids much about the weekend is preparing for them for the Monday morning and going to school. My wifes always washing throughout the week but the clothes are all ironed and ready for the kids going to school on the Monday. My daughter is in high school and she's always telling her mother what she wants to wear on the Monday so that if there any reason for everything not being ready the atleast the things she wants to wear are. I know this sounds mundane to most folk reading this but unfortunetly thats family life.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 02:51:PM
Quote
Sandra you're so transparent. :-\

The police officers words being riddled with "eh"' and "oh" to give the impression they are confused, and typing the officers parts in slang in an attempt to make them look like unprofessional idiots. I'm sure Luke has some "umm"s and pauses in there too. Little things like this are my problem with you.

There none so blind eh!!

I would go back to whoever is feeding you with information and tell them that as this is stated here in black and white and if the have the ability to refute what was written to do so.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 02:59:PM
Sandra why don't you upload the funeral day interview which you have a copy of and let everyone come to their own opinion? Selective reporting again.
Do you mean the one Luke did with Sky?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 03:02:PM
anybody can find it anyway if they want to look why dont you upload it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 03:04:PM
Quote
Sandra why don't you upload the funeral day interview which you have a copy of and let everyone come to their own opinion? Selective reporting again.

 It apears on various sites online. Im even sure youtube had it at one point. IF thats being selective then remember SL is only on this forum to address the insurmountable questions you seem to have and could not possible type and upload everything for the main website on here simply to satisfy you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 03:05:PM
Why don't you give your opinion on what SL has written. Why don't you argue your case with reasoned points instead of just more questions!!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 03:11:PM
Were selectively reporting remember so why don't you use your those vast computer skills I saw you boasting about yesterday and find it. Oh and another question I see.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 03:18:PM
you really seem to be clutching at straws now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 22, 2012, 03:21:PM
Sandra you're so transparent. :-\

The police officers words being riddled with "eh"' and "oh" to give the impression they are confused, and typing the officers parts in slang in an attempt to make them look like unprofessional idiots. I'm sure Luke has some "umm"s and pauses in there too. Little things like this are my problem with you.

Thanks for the information though.

You know what, Lithium - I can't win, can I? I have posted the transcript exactly as it appears - if I hadn't done so, you could have claimed I was being "selective" - now you accuse me of trying to make the officers look like unprofessional idiots.

Read the transcripts - Luke's "eh's" are in there as well.

Quote
Isn't Corinne aware smoking at 14 is illegal, smoking cannabis is illegal at any age, as is dealing it

What, are you saying Jodi's family wasn't a law abiding family either?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 03:26:PM

Quote
Every person changes clothes after school, she would have had her shirt and tie on under her hoodie for a start.

Your right of course Sandra you can't win, but he couldn't have read what you wrote or he wouldn't have come away with this rubbish.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 22, 2012, 03:33:PM
No, Lithium, of course I didn't. I knew you were setting me up from the start. Thank you, though, or allowing me another opportunity to get more of the TRUTH about this case out in the public domain  :)

By the way, I also know why you're here, but we'll just keep that between us, ok?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 03:34:PM
No, Lithium, of course I didn't. I knew you were setting me up from the start. Thank you, though, or allowing me another opportunity to get more of the TRUTH about this case out in the public domain  :)

By the way, I also know why you're here, but we'll just keep that between us, ok?

Oh not you as well.  :-\ Everyone seems to be playing this game on there this week.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 03:36:PM
Thing is you don't have an opinion or one that you have yet to back up. I understand you feel Luke is guilty but you simply put forward no reason for that. We however over the last few days have provided not only our personal opinion but a lot of stuff backed up by hard evidence and it would be easy to conclude from that why and how we feel Luke is innocent.

I think what Sandra and Corrine were really meaning was that their family lifes meant that they weren't in the sights of the police or known to them, in contrast to the Jones. Is there anything like a law abiding family/person? I myself am guilty of speeding on many occasions in the past for instance.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 03:38:PM
I think I will conclude discussion here on this case for now. It was obvious that another agenda was in place from the start, too many fundamental mistakes, similar to what occurred when the last application was submitted.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 22, 2012, 03:38:PM
defending Corinnes lies with an irrelevant dig at Jodi's family. Class act, Sandra.

A perfect example of my last post, Lithium! It's not irrelevant, and it's not a dig! Two fourteen year old kids were "breaking the law" by smoking cigarettes and cannabis. A member of Jodi's family was known to be dealing large amounts of cannabis, Luke shared some of his with his friends! Members of Jodi's extended family were known to be dealing cannabis.

If smoking cigarettes and cannabis, or dealing cannabis, are relevant to this case, then it is relevant to all of those who were doing so.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 22, 2012, 03:40:PM
Oh not you as well.  :-\ Everyone seems to be playing this game on there this week.  :-\

No, sorry, Mat, I wasn't playing guess the poster - that should have been a private message to Lithium. I apologise.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 03:48:PM
A perfect example of my last post, Lithium! It's not irrelevant, and it's not a dig! Two fourteen year old kids were "breaking the law" by smoking cigarettes and cannabis. A member of Jodi's family was known to be dealing large amounts of cannabis, Luke shared some of his with his friends! Members of Jodi's extended family were known to be dealing cannabis.

If smoking cigarettes and cannabis, or dealing cannabis, are relevant to this case, then it is relevant to all of those who were doing so.

well it has to be.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 04:33:PM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcasm (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcasm)

Here I have done the work for you. Read it and decide for yourself. Then maybe your could give me your opinion of what it was but I suspect I will receive another question.

Are you Mr Dobbie?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 04:38:PM
I think you will find that has already been online m8 on  a forum similar to this one, you think im really bothered. I am gordon graham, everyone knows that that should.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 04:43:PM
Like I said I don't care what you post relating to me post away. It was an attempt to stop you asking questions and getting us to do the work for you. The ironic thing is that if you read the definition on sarcasm you would see that the post about your computer skills was not sacastic but the post on its definition was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 04:47:PM
You have provided no proof that he is guilty.

The work you want us to do for you seems to be answer question after question but receive no  reply or opinion on the answer. That and troll the internet looking out things you feel we should.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 04:50:PM
Can't someone just believe Luke is guilty?

I must say that must be frustrating as here we have a public forum that anyone can join and it seems your on your lonesome in regards to the guilty argument.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 04:51:PM
Can't someone just believe Luke is guilty?

I must say that must be frustrating as here we have a public forum that anyone can join and it seems your on your lonesome in regards to the guilty argument.


 >:(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 04:53:PM
I read that you had quit discussion on this topic mat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 04:55:PM
Quote
Everyone in the area knows he did it. Everyone relevant to the case knows he did it.

This must be torture for you then as I happen to know people in the area that don't. There are many people relevant to the case including a pathologist who believe that Luke is innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 04:56:PM
I read that you had quit discussion on this topic mat.

I was noticing that not all posts were being honest. So it was hard to debate against ever changing facts. I haven't quit - but I don't see the point in getting stuck in. Plus I've been busy elsewhere on the board.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 05:03:PM
Then why discuss it? I feel you are an intellegent lad and therefore surely if you believe that Luke is guilty but lets say you were interested in why some feel he is innocent then simply reading the various forums would allow you to form a reason as to why we feel that way.

There may of course be another reason for your input, I don't know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 05:06:PM
Everyone in the area knows he did it. Everyone relevant to the case knows he did it.

Then you are from the area  and close to the family am I correct?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 05:08:PM
Quote
So no one should comment when they see people posting things they disagree with? One quick example being Luke having none of Jodi's DNA on him. Do you want the thread to be one-sided or fair?

If you had read the WAP forum you will have seen this discussed so how then could we make the statement that no DNA from Jodi was found on Luke, unless of course we were talking about the case and relevant DNA that is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 05:17:PM
No

Dont you think the family heard everything you've read and more? Do you think they dont have a mind of their own?

Sorry m8 you have lost me here not sure what the no refers to and why would I think the family wouldn't have read everything, of course they have we have spoken with them on forums over the years, and to add I believe that everyone has a mind of their own.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 05:22:PM
What theory are you talking about?

LOL ok m8 what you really want me to do is say something online that may leave me open to criminal proceedings? or maybe you hoping that I reveal something that may be detrimental to the SCCRC application or resulting police investigation if Luke is found innocent? or are you trying to guage which way future discussion might go? c'mon m8 I might have came to in a shower of rain but it wasn't last night.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 05:34:PM
Everyone in the area knows he did it. Everyone relevant to the case knows he did it.

I was wondering why you told a blatant lie here? I take it the NO was a no to you being from the area or knowing the family! so why the lie?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 05:37:PM
OK m8 goodnight.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 06:05:PM

Keep in mind Ferris was one of the first to say "it was Luke" and he even handed a knife of Lukes in to police, maybe he did want to help with the investigation as much as he could nd point them in the right direction without implicating himself.  He could still face charges to this day for his dishonesty  which would explain his "leave me alone" comments to people tracking him down.

and of course the word of a self confesed drug dealer means everything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 06:06:PM
and of course the word of a self confesed drug dealer means everything.

Not solely. But added to the rest of the evidence it counts for something.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 06:15:PM
When it comes to MOJ cases - there is always the chance that the person in jail is just screaming to get out when really they aren't a MOJ but an actual murderer.  The LM case is one of the only cases I have come across where I am shocked that there are followers of the murderer, shocked that people can actually find ways in convincing themselves that LM is innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 06:27:PM
I've not heard that before. Whilst he was supposedly sat at home - he was using his mobile phone to call the talking clock?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 06:50:PM
I've not heard that before. Whilst he was supposedly sat at home - he was using his mobile phone to call the talking clock?
Sandra said in an earlier post, that evidence was produced in court, that shows Luke often used to call the speaking clock from home.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 07:05:PM
Yea from home. so why, this time, did he use his mobile?
The way I understood it was, he would often call the speaking clock, from his mobile whilst in the house.  This sounded odd to me but apparently they could pinpoint the call from the mast records.  I don't believe that any records could have pinpointed where calls from the mobile were made.  Maybe to within a mile or so but no more accurate than that.  I stand to be corrected.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 07:24:PM
So there's absolutely no proof he's ever called it from his mobile while being inside his house then ...
I agree.  I'm sure that Sandra suggested otherwise earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 07:29:PM
i would gues someone might call the speaking clock becouse they wanted to know the right time because they clock or watch is wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 07:33:PM
i would gues someone might call the speaking clock becouse they wanted to know the right time because they clock or watch is wrong.
Yes, I think it has been suggested that the kitchen clock was unreliable but when he called the speaking clock from his mobile, how can it be proved that he did so from within the house?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 07:36:PM
im not sure they could probably track the phone signal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 07:49:PM
Yet  Luke said he took 6 steps to the left and saw feet, and after another step recognised it as Jodi's body.



Jodi left to meet Luke at 4:50pm and told her mum they'd be 'mucking about' in the area.
Luke lived 15 minutes away at the other side of the path Jodi was murdered on.
Mitchell and a girl matching Jodi's description were identified at Jodi's side of the path approx 4:55pm.

Luke phoned the Jones household looking for her. He was setting his defense already, he knew she was dead.

He claims he was at home making and eating dinner til 17.45, why didn't he meet Jodi? Why didn't Shane see Luke at home when apparently Luke cooked his dinner for him.

Shane said in court that he was viewing porn at 16.53 to 17.15 when his mum came home, he then went downstairs and sat with her, he didn't see Luke even though Corinne claims they were all eating dinner like one big happy family and that she witnessed Luke call Jodi's house at 17.30 and again at 17.40? why were these calls made from his mobile phone, why did a young teenager waste phone credit when he was at home? Shane wasn't online at this time, he was eating dinner with Luke wasn't he? so the landline was free.

 The areas in bold are  blatant inaccuries or you call them lies.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 07:52:PM
im not sure they could probably track the phone signal.
They can decipher which mast the call went through, therefor they can trace it to a certain area but just how accurately they can pinpoint it, is the question.  Did he make that call from in the house or from half a mile down the road?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 07:55:PM
When we talk about the calls from his mobile whether they occur in the house or outside the arguement is the same.

The fact is there are records from Lukes call logs just how many times he had done this over period of months and they were numerous, are you suggesting at these times also he was murdering someone?

The reason for Luke doing it has never been given as it was just something he was in the habbit of doing, why? who knows as the phone itself would have a clockon it so like I said from the house or outside is the same arguement.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 07:59:PM
Neil its as you say there is a mast at both ends in question Easthouses/Newbattle and at the time which mast took up the signal depending on which area they were in . The police failed to get the information on which mast took the signal so the could not pin point the area Luke made any of the calls from.

The area could have been as you say could have been up to miles apart in certain areas of the country but in this area the signal could have been located to a much smaller area if they retrieved this information.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 08:00:PM
When we talk about the calls from his mobile whether they occur in the house or outside the arguement is the same.

The fact is there are records from Lukes call logs just how many times he had done this over period of months and they were numerous, are you suggesting at these times also he was murdering someone?

The reason for Luke doing it has never been given as it was just something he was in the habbit of doing, why? who knows as the phone itself would have a clockon it so like I said from the house or outside is the same arguement.
Thanks Gordo,  in that case I don't see the relevance of the phone call.  I thought that it had been brought up in order to prove that he was at home when the call was made.  On the previous occasions that he called the speaking clock, was he calling from home or outside of the house?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 08:10:PM
Thats the thing about mobiles Neil there not designed to locate where every call was made from. Well 9 years ago anyway. If Luke had stated and I cant remember if he did that he made numerous phone calls to the speaking clock from the house there was no way to prove it. The fact that he had made a call from the mobile to the speaking clock is what some are calling suspicous and if it had been the 1st time it had happened I would have agreed.
The call to the speaking clock Luke made was at a time that the landline was busy with the internet contrary to what lithium says.

His brother never saw him or heard him at home making these calls though.

I must admit if he had heard him it would make for a great defence of insanity as most people tend not to have conversations with the speaking clock.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 08:15:PM
Thats the thing about mobiles Neil there not designed to locate where every call was made from. Well 9 years ago anyway. If Luke had stated and I cant remember if he did that he made numerous phone calls to the speaking clock from the house there was no way to prove it. The fact that he had made a call from the mobile to the speaking clock is what some are calling suspicous and if it had been the 1st time it had happened I would have agreed.
The call to the speaking clock Luke made was at a time that the landline was busy with the internet contrary to what lithium says.

His brother never saw him or heard him at home making these calls though.

I must admit if he had heard him it would make for a great defence of insanity as most people tend not to have conversations with the speaking clock.
Thanks Gordo,  I was being a bit thick there!  Yes of course, the prosecution used the phone call to place Luke outside of the house.  I must admit, on the face of it it does look a bit dodgy, him calling the speaking clock from home but like most evidence in this case, it can be explained away.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 08:19:PM
There are always strange things people have the habit of doing, there unexplainable and I understand when there taken within the context of a murder investigation then they become serious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 22, 2012, 08:38:PM
There are always strange things people have the habit of doing, there unexplainable and I understand when there taken within the context of a murder investigation then they become serious.
I quite agree.  A lot is made of Shane's statement and how his account of that day changed.  I think that Sandra explained this really well on here the other day.  What did you do last Monday between 4 and 6?
What were you wearing?  What did you have for tea?  Where was your brother?  Etc etc
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 08:55:PM
I agree also but I do understand that it might be unusual to not know if someone was in the house except it has happened to me on more than one occasion.

The way shane was grilled in court I personally feel led to a lot of this. Prior to court he was not allowed to change his initial statement although it was his right to do so. He was threatened with perjury if he did.
The method of questioning also led to a false claim I believe and one that became fundamental to the destruction of the alibi.

If we put the alibi in context with the case and I might be way off here as im not too into the legality of things but I believe that it was the defence that made the plea of alibi and incrimination. Its the job of the prosecution to break down the alibi by producing some evidence or witness that can destroy it. This didn't happen then and even now no one has came forward to say they saw Luke out the house during the time of the alibi. The AB sighting is what it is but her lack of identification of him in court whether right or wrong could not be considered as a witness breaking the alibi. She identified him from a picture earlier in the year but its what happens in court that counts.
The prosecution then has only one option and that is to discredit the people who are giving the alibi, this was done fair and square and professionally by the prosecution. They used a lot of things to do this including the porn with Shane and the tattooist with Corrine and both were correct, the defence then dropped the alibi.

This however is nowhere near the end of the trial and the trial then begins to try and prove beyond reasonable doubt that he killed Jodi. This again was not achieved as many of that jury found him innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:02:PM
Quote
If he did have a history of using this often, but it was always when he was away from home, then it would be safe to assume he wasnt at home when he used it at this instance. That's what we are getting at by mentioning the talking clock. Not that it's suspicious in its self.

Assuming he used his mobile to call the premium rate number because he wasn't in his house is a very reasonable conclusion to come to no matter how you try and paint it, it's the most obvious explanation, admit it.

I agree with you WOW!! if he did have a history of only using the mobile phone outside of the house then this usage would most likely be outside the house, how ever you can't say that and Luke can't prove that

Assuming he used his mobile to call the premium rate number because he wasn't in his house is a very reasonable conclusion to come to no matter how you try and paint it, it's the most obvious explanation, admit it.

Why should this be the only conclusion? the phone would also have a clock on it as would the house. His need to call the clock is the obvious explanation and that explanation is that he was in the habbit of doing so, where ,why and how were up to him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: bob on August 22, 2012, 09:07:PM
The reason for Luke doing it has never been given as it was just something he was in the habbit of doing, why? who knows as the phone itself would have a clockon it so like I said from the house or outside is the same arguement.
Perhaps it was his standard behaviour when he needed some kind of alibi for something? Can't see any other reason for calling the speaking clock from a phone that has a clock on it, unless you wanted to prove you were on the phone at a particular time for some reason?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:10:PM
I agree bob but there were numerous times that he had done this so unless he had planned this for a very long time then he is responsible for a lot of murders.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:13:PM
What you have to remember is that he called the clock only 4 mins after Jodi had left the house. He couldn't even have been with her or close to her at this time. So what good would it have been at this time. If he was really cute wouldn't he have done it after the murder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:16:PM
I think you failing to understand this m8. If Luke had grown a new head and she could not have identified him in court then that is not an identification. Its not me saying this its the law, its what happens during the trial that matters.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:18:PM
Lets look at another example. The initial statements of the search party all corroborated Lukes testimony but these statement were changed at the time they went to court so it was the changes that were presented to the jury at the trial and the ones that count.

Its only us later on that are asking wh ythey changed them.

Like you said we can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 09:19:PM
It's a common occurence that if a witness is going to be pointed out in court, the defence will 'advise' that they change their look - nothing illegal - but not moral.

Also, when she said she saw him he wasn't exactly dressed for court, hadn't straightened his hair or smartened himself up like he had in court.  :-\

For whatever reason he has changed his appearance enough that she wasn't sure.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:20:PM
Yeah I know, but it doesnt change the fact she believes she saw him on the day of the murder. She identified the 14 year old she saw when she was presented with a picture of him at 14 years old. Not recognising him at 16 years old is understandable don't you agree?

M8 honestly what your saying here is irrelevant. The identifictaion by photo does not even come into it when she didn't identify him in court, Sorry no matter what you or I say that is never going to change.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:21:PM
It does however bring the testimony of a certain couple into context though mat wouldn't you agree as they did identify him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 09:24:PM
It does however bring the testimony of a certain couple into context though mat wouldn't you agree as they did identify him.

Depends on the distance that they saw him, doesn't it? If 'certain couple' saw him closer than this lady, or saw him at a different angle, saw more of his face. The 'certain couple' may have felt more able to confirm and I.D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:25:PM
I know her identification no longer stands for anything in the court of law because she couldnt recognise him. I'm aware of that. But I still believe her original sighting was Luke and I've explained why. 

If that wasn't Luke and Jodi she saw at the path, who are these people? where are they? why were they never found? why didn't they come forward?

I'm happy to accept it was Luke and Jodi.

Then you must also be happy to accept that another two independant witnesses who knew Jodi saw her at 5:05pm contrary to the sighting of AB. She was seen being follow by a stocky man that could never have been Luke who has never came forward or identified.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:27:PM
and you're not completely right, although she couldn't identify him in the dock, her early sighting still played it's part in the evidence against him. So it did still matter.

Legally it should never have been admitted.

The other couple saw him in roughly the same circumstances as AB did. In a car travelling and through the rear view mirror, incidently both described different clothes , hair ect. wonder which one was right?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:30:PM
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4483217/Killer-Mitchells-600k-bid-to-clear-his-name.html

"KILLER Luke Mitchell’s bid to clear his name has cost almost £600,000, The Scottish Sun can reveal.
The 24-year-old was caged in 2005 for slaughtering 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi Jones.

Figures show he has been granted £571,383 in legal aid for his trial and appeals — and the bill is likely to soar even further as he continues his campaign to persuade judges he is innocent.

Last month his mum Corinne handed a 300-page dossier to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which included claims a Mitchell lookalike may have confused eyewitnesses."





See this here is another example of picking and choosing and trying to have it both ways, I've saw Corinne on the WAP forum questioning witness sighting legitimacy, but now Mitchell camp are now happy to accept that they did see someone, it just may have been Mark Kane? (Who doesn't look like Luke Mitchell, by the way)

Way out of context again, this is about the possiblity that someone like Luke exists and known to the police while he was within the perameters to have been questioned and if so iliminated. Its all about the failure of the police and not simply to say that it was MK seen at the path with Jodi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:33:PM
tsk tsk. That person was traced a week later!

And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it !
FFS! you really have to reasearch more about this crime and stop reading papers. The man did indeed go to the police and say that the man was seen during the reconstruction. The papers ran with it but were wrong(unbelievable I know) as after the police had interviewed him he was on holiday in America at the time of the murder, so no he was never identified.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:35:PM
Quote
And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it !

Now you have my attention as how the hell would you know that and seriously have you went to the police about this?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:38:PM
I've actually never read about him coming forward in a paper. Can you post a news link of that?

You seem to know more about this crime than I do so find it yourself. It was the witness who saw the man he thought was the stocky man at the reconstruction who was proven to be wrong. It was front page news at the time in some papers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:43:PM
the stocky guy isn't relevant. Have WAP decided weather it was Joey or Kelly yet?

Joey wasn't stocky at time of murder, he was tall and average build. Kelly would have been described as overweight.

Nope but you go ahead blaming Ferris all you want as you won't get me saying anything that could compromise myslef or anything to do with the case at this point. Its what your after aint it why? if your so certain about things. What is we know that worries you so much m8?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:44:PM
Stocky man was never front page news.

Here's Kelly and Joey

(http://i.imgur.com/eLRH0.png)

So it is, have you permission to use their images?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:47:PM
Why do you think your personal opinion is of any importance to me or could have any effect on proceedings lol who are you???? I'm not accusing Ferris of murder.

Well that twice you have asked me for it and tried to lead  me to give it, so i recon it must be inportant to you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:49:PM
mark my words.

I have marked your words and you will find them throughout this thread. There mainly just correcting the lies you have spouted.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:50:PM
Well lets keep the debate to things that won't incriminate me, as in accusing someone publicly of a murder is pretty serious, wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 09:58:PM
2 days after the murder Luke told Jodis mum he never bothered calling to see where she was as he assumed she had been grounded. But he had spoken to Judy's partner who told him "she's on her way to meet you" So can you explain this?

There is no proof what so ever in what was said during the phone call. The fact is she never turned up and he wasn't waiting any longer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 10:00:PM
Quote
quote a post where I've asked you to name a murderer. I asked if the WAP forum have decided between Kelly and Joey yet being Stocky Man. No mention of murder here.

If you rememebr earlier you asked me for my theory as to what happened to Jodi, you asked if it was kelly because his DNA was there/ or Joe because hes mental that sort of crap. Now how could I have given you a theory without implacation? good try m8.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: curious on August 22, 2012, 10:10:PM
Legally it should never have been admitted.

The other couple saw him in roughly the same circumstances as AB did. In a car travelling and through the rear view mirror, incidently both described different clothes , hair ect. wonder which one was right?

You are partially wrong on this point gordo30.  Both driver and passenger saw him through the front windscreen as they approached him and the driver got a second glance in the rear view mirror after they passed him.

they described him as having near shoulder length hair, a dark green bomber jacket with orange lining, a black t-shirt with white writing on it just as mitchell wore that afternoon.

in court they described seeing him standing by an old wooden gate just yards from the end of the footpath where jodi had her throat cut just minutes earlier.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 10:13:PM
You are partially wrong on this point gordo30.  Both driver and passenger saw him through the front windscreen as they approached him and the driver got a second glance in the rear view mirror after they passed him.

they described him as having near shoulder length hair, a dark green bomber jacket with orange lining, a black t-shirt with white writing on it just as mitchell wore that afternoon.

in court they described seeing him standing by an old wooden gate just yards from the end of the footpath where jodi had her throat cut just minutes earlier.

he dident have shoulder lenth hair hed collour lenth hair as the pic of him shows.

so it couldent have been him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 10:13:PM
 Yeah but the description don't match that of AB.

I was just outlining the circumstances as you seem to agree with me that both sightings included the rear view mirror, I belevie they happen to see someone from the windscreen F&W that is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: curious on August 22, 2012, 10:14:PM
Way out of context again, this is about the possiblity that someone like Luke exists and known to the police while he was within the perameters to have been questioned and if so iliminated. Its all about the failure of the police and not simply to say that it was MK seen at the path with Jodi.

mark kane was miles away at the time of the attack. this was all checked out by lothian and borders finest.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 10:17:PM
Yeah but the description don't match that of AB.

I was just outlining the circumstances as you seem to agree with me that both sightings included the rear view mirror, I belevie they happen to see someone from the windscreen F&W that is.

so they could not of both seen the same person then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: curious on August 22, 2012, 10:17:PM
he dident have shoulder lenth hair hed collour lenth hair as the pic of him shows.

so it couldent have been him.
oh look.......mitchell with shoulder length hair just weeks after the murder.

(http://i.imgur.com/8lDVS.jpg)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: curious on August 22, 2012, 10:19:PM
heres a better one.....

(http://i.imgur.com/vaAoD.png)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 10:20:PM
mark kane was miles away at the time of the attack. this was all checked out by lothian and borders finest.

That post was not about whether MK did anything but more about what the police didn't do. I must admit L&B finest didn't do much but I would be interested to see where you got the information that he was miles away from BB. OH! did you ever get to meet F&W m8?

So those weeks go by m8, reminds me I need another hair cut, sry mean shave.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 10:21:PM
oh look.......mitchell with shoulder length hair just weeks after the murder.

(http://i.imgur.com/8lDVS.jpg)

thats not shoulder length hair.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 22, 2012, 10:23:PM
thats not shoulder length hair.

It reaches to his shoulders.  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: curious on August 22, 2012, 10:24:PM
thats not shoulder length hair.

so where do you think his shoulders start??  at his navel??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: curious on August 22, 2012, 10:27:PM
since you seem to be struggling to get the most basic photos here is a bit of a help...guess who??

(http://i.imgur.com/HxRnH.jpg)

Steven Kelly
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 10:28:PM
shoulder length hair covers your shoulder i thought any berk knew that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 10:32:PM
Quote
Fleming and Walsh's statements are so far removed from "descriptions" of Luke, it is surprising that they were ever actually used as witnesses. Both said, in their initial statements, that the youth had dark hair, both said they didn't see his face, one had him wearing jeans - definitely, categorically not baggies, because she would have noticed that, their descriptions of his jacket differed from each other, and neither could say what he was wearing under the jacket, although they weren't sure if the jacket was zipped up or open. By the time it got to court, one stated she would never forget his eyes (which, according to her statements, she had never seen), they described a black t shirt with writing on it (which neither had mentioned in their statements), and, at one point, one of them was pulled up in court for using the exact phrase the other had given in evidence the day before - a phrase which had never appeared in any of their statements (the obvious point being that they were discussing their evidence).

Help me here BB as why did everything change? from this to this.
Quote
they described him as having near shoulder length hair, a dark green bomber jacket with orange lining, a black t-shirt with white writing on it just as mitchell wore that afternoon.
Why didn't they go to the police and why did they lie?

Who was looking for photo's?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: curious on August 22, 2012, 10:33:PM
shoulder length hair covers your shoulder i thought any berk knew that.
shoulder length hair is any hair which as a minimum can touch the shoulders. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 22, 2012, 10:34:PM
Listen guys its all interpretation isn't it and If you want my opinion I would describe his hair as shoulder length to.

I must admit though I could never describe it as being dark.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 11:23:PM
i dont see how it could possbly be described as dark.

i also dont see how both ab and Flemming and walsh could be descibeing the same person.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 11:31:PM
Stocky man was never front page news.

Here's Kelly and Joey

(http://i.imgur.com/eLRH0.png)

Do you know if that is a male or a female behind Kelly? 

Another question I would like to ask you is this.  Why do you target Dr Lean in particular?  Mat done the same thing as you and went straight at her when he started posting on this thread.  She puts her neck on the block getting the information of Lukes case out into the public domain and I think she should be praised for that. 

Don't you realise that as well as legal persons who worked pro bono on this case over the years, there are organisations that also promote Lukes innocence?  Mojo Scotland for instance, which is partly government funded, publicly support Luke Mitchell as having suffered a miscarriage of justice.  They don't host his official site or any moj sites for that matter, but they do support him publicly on Mojo facebook and their Mojo website as well as all their Moj literature, and that organisation is entirely seperate from WAP or Dr Lean.  Have you given them a hard time for promoting Luke as a miscarriage of justice victim and highlighting his case, as you do Dr Lean? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: curious on August 22, 2012, 11:43:PM
sandra lean posts what she picks out to suit herself.  she has been caught out on many occasions posting rubbish.

as for moj scotland they will host every tom dick and harry just to get their grubby paws on grant money.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 11:50:PM
sandra lean posts what she picks out to suit herself.  she has been caught out on many occasions posting rubbish.

as for moj scotland they will host every tom dick and harry just to get their grubby paws on grant money.

I think if you care to research them you will find that any government funding is specifically for clients who have been released.  There will be no financial benefit to Mojo Scotland for hosting any tom dick and harry who is currently in prison.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 22, 2012, 11:51:PM
shoulder lengh hair.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=shoulder+length+hair&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Hff&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=I2I1UN_ZEcKk0AXclYDwBQ&ved=0CFIQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=653

collar length hair.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=collar+length+hair&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=c1K&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsfd&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=iWI1UIKSNfOU0QWG2YDoBQ&ved=0CG0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=653
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 11:52:PM
That's a male. And no one is targeting Sandra, i wasn't even aware she had an account here when I began posting.

Thanks for your reply.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 22, 2012, 11:56:PM
shoulder lengh hair.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=shoulder+length+hair&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Hff&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=I2I1UN_ZEcKk0AXclYDwBQ&ved=0CFIQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=653

Your a riot nugnug.  That link is all females  ::)

I would describe Luke's hair at the time as being collar length but there will be men, especially shaven men or follicly challenged males who would probably describe it as shoulder length.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 12:00:AM
Your a riot nugnug.  That link is all females  ::)

I would describe Luke's hair at the time as being collar length but there will be men, especially shaven men or follicly challenged males who would probably describe it as shoulder length.

yes but the witness wernt men so they know perfectly well what shoulder length meant.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 12:05:AM
no i am not going to stop his hair is not shoulder lentgh and its also not dark.

and also there description is nothing like the other witness description.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 12:07:AM
this i got for mens collar lengh.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mens+collar+length+hair&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=SZ0&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=vWU1UIW5DMfP0QXT9oHgBQ&ved=0CFcQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=653

looks very much like lukes does it not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: andrea on August 23, 2012, 12:13:AM
Geoff Boycott! Does he actually have hair? There was a pic of him amongst the others in the link.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 12:16:AM
it will say so on the pic if you click on it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 23, 2012, 12:25:AM
nugnug, shoulder length hair is any hair that reaches the shoulder. Google "Male shoulder length hair" it will give you these pics:

(http://cs1.fashionising.com/media/hair-trends/mens-shoulder-length-straight-hair.jpg)

(http://www.menshairstyles.net/d/79771-1/Men+layered+shoulder-length+haircut+with+long+bangs.PNG)

(http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes//healthandbeauty/men/201008033959/male-celebrity/hairstyles/2010/0-9-890/johnny-hair--z.jpg)

(http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a05/rj/rd/style-medium_length-hair-men-800x800.jpg)





OnceSaid I find it funny you want to know if that's a male or not, another potential suspect i take it?  ::)

Very funny, not.  :P  I don't mean to be insulting to whoever it is, but I wasn't sure if this was a male or female. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 23, 2012, 12:27:AM
yes but the witness wernt men so they know perfectly well what shoulder length meant.

Fair comment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 23, 2012, 06:23:AM
AB said in her statements she could only identify the youth again from his clothing, because she didn't see his face. She was shown photos of clothing, and the jacket and trousers she picked out were not the same as the ones she'd seen the youth wearing - she stated in court they were "the nearest from the pictures I was shown," pointing out that she had told the policemen that at the time.

She said initially the youth had thick, messy hair, sticking up in a clump at the back. She couldn't tell what length it was, because the collar of the jacket was up at the back.

So how did she identify Luke from that picture? His hair was different (and she didn't know what length the youth's hair was anyway), the clothes in the picture were different - vastly different- from what she'd described, and the age was wrong - she'd described a youth "late teens to early 20s"

F&W did not "both see him through the front windscreen according to their statements. One saw him side on, looking at the pavement, through the front windscreen. The other was driving past, level with him, when her attention was apparently drawn to him, she saw him for a fleeting second through the passenger window, and then in the rear-view as she was driving away. Both initially described him as having dark hair. Both said they did not see his face (although one changed this in court to say he had flicked his hair off his face, and she had a leeting glimpse of the side of his face, and one eye. One said she could only recognise him again through his clothing. Luke Mitchell was wearing a suit in court - how could someone who had not seen his face, and described very different clothes (which also changed over time) describe someone in a suit as the same person?

Both said in court the attention of the driver had been drawn to him by the passenger saying he looked as if he'd been "up to no good." Neither one ever said those words, in any statement, prior to trial. The second to give evidence was not allowed in court when the first was giving her evidence, so how did she come to use exactly the same phrase, which neither had ever used before, unless they were discussing their evidence?

MK was not "checked out" by the police at the time - they didn't even trace him until three years later. He was not "miles away" at the time, he was living at Newbattle Abbey college, and, by his own account, he was in Newbattle that evening. His claim to be in Haddows at 10pm in no way pinpoints where he was at 5.15pm that evening.

Luke phoning the speaking clock - the mobile records show a large number of calls to the speaking clock. I have never claimed he made these calls from any particular place, as I simply don't know. However, the ones prior to 8.30am on schooldays would, presumably, have to be made from home, as he didn't leave for school until 8.30am. The ones between 4.15pm and 5pm are less certain, but, as his habit was to return from school and cook the dinner for his mum coming in, it seems likely that these were made from the house as well. There are a number of witnesses who attested to the fact that Luke cooked the dinner most nights, not just Corinne and Shane.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 23, 2012, 06:31:AM
Two independent witnesses, one who knew Jodi, described a stocky man following her down the main Easthouses Road just after 5pm on June 30th. Police appealed for him to come forward. A week later, at the reconstruction, one of the witnesses thought he saw the man again, hi-fiving one of his mates.

The man "identified" came forward very quickly- he had literally just returned to the area that day. He was checked out, and his whereabouts at the time of the murder verified, so he was ruled out. Which left "Stocky Man" still unaccounted for.

To this day, he has never been traced. Both witnesses described him as following "closely" behind Jodi. Nobody's saying he's a murderer - he might have seen something or someone, but, as he never came forward, we'll probably never know. And, since he's never been traced, and none of the witnesses saw where he went, no-one can possibly say "He didn't turn onto the path, he went straight past it," unless, of course, they are stocky man, or they know him!

It is absolutely impossible to keep up with this rate of misinformation correction, and, frankly, having done it before on WAP, I'm not prepared to do it again. Any readers who would like to see the alternative to what Lithium and Buffalo Bill have posted, can check out WAP. At least our inormation comes from official papers, not local gossip and tabloids.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on August 23, 2012, 06:38:AM
Just before I go,
Quote
Yet  Luke said he took 6 steps to the left and saw feet, and after another step recognised it as Jodi's body.

Luke, Steven Kelly, Alice Walker and 4 police officers all described exactly the same route they took to get to the body from the V. That is exactly the same - so were they all lying?

Kelly recognised the body as Jodi from approximately one pace closer than Luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 12:44:PM
what hasnt been mentioned is the other 2 witness who also saw the youth flemming and saw and said it defantly was not luke.
what were there names agian sandra do you know i will go and find them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 23, 2012, 02:42:PM
It is absolutely impossible to keep up with this rate of misinformation correction, and, frankly, having done it before on WAP, I'm not prepared to do it again. Any readers who would like to see the alternative to what Lithium and Buffalo Bill have posted, can check out WAP. At least our inormation comes from official papers, not local gossip and tabloids.


These people have little else to do, so they copy and paste from the DR comments page etc and pass it off as fact.  They obviously have no interest on reading the information provided from official documentation.  By targetting this thread, what they have done is make people question why inaccurate information and miselading information is being posted by them.

If they were convinced that the right person was in prison, why would anyone come onto fourms to try and convince people that he is guilty, when he was found guilty years ago?  It makes no sense.  I genuinely believe that they are not convinced that the right person is in prison, or they know for a fact that the right person is not in prison.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 02:53:PM
well they cant be or they wouldn't bother.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 23, 2012, 03:26:PM
It is absolutely impossible to keep up with this rate of misinformation correction, and, frankly, having done it before on WAP, I'm not prepared to do it again. Any readers who would like to see the alternative to what Lithium and Buffalo Bill have posted, can check out WAP. At least our inormation comes from official papers, not local gossip and tabloids.


These people have little else to do, so they copy and paste from the DR comments page etc and pass it off as fact.  They obviously have no interest on reading the information provided from official documentation.  By targetting this thread, what they have done is make people question why inaccurate information and miselading information is being posted by them.

If they were convinced that the right person was in prison, why would anyone come onto fourms to try and convince people that he is guilty, when he was found guilty years ago?  It makes no sense.  I genuinely believe that they are not convinced that the right person is in prison, or they know for a fact that the right person is not in prison.


I understand what your saying here m8 but I do feel that there are genuine people out there who believe Luke is guilty, they use sites like this to try and understand why others feel he is innocent. I welcome their discussion and input as I also wonder why they feel he is guilty. I think your bang on about those who decide to argue their point based on innaccuracies as we spend a lot of time correcting them only to be accused of selectively doing so.

The problem I also have is this reasoning about us not having a thread of evidence for his innocence, there is nothing for his guilt either, thats not me saying this its the judge. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone and as the judge said that anyone piece of it could not have convicted him but together their weight gave the jury enough to decide on, that jury couldn't decide on it as some found him innocent.

The innacuracies is so numerous that the case becomes unrecognisable i. we have
Chinese garden being a local take away= when it was a secluded area that the kids used.

Shane had dinner with his mother= when it has always been stated by everyone that he took his upstairs,Corrine went outside and Luke was in the living room.

Luke left the house at 5:45= Luke always said he left the house just after dinner and slightly after Shane did He put that at around 5:30.

The calls from Luke to Jodi's house were witnessed by Corrine= When Luke always maintained that he made the 1st call when he left the house and the second as he walked up Newbattle road. Corrine has never claimed that she saw him make these calls.

And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it != Im really starting to worry about this bit of info as it has always been acknowledged that stocky man was never traced and if someone is withholding info then that becomes serious. I think that because of the matter of fact way it was stated.

 and after another step recognised it as Jodi's body. = He never maintained it was Jodi just that it looked like a mannequin.

Thats just a few but when people are arguing their point based on them its easy to see why they may feel he is guilty, shame really.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 03:33:PM
and also the fact that somone from the area should know exactly what the Chinese garden was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on August 23, 2012, 04:43:PM
I understand what your saying here m8 but I do feel that there are genuine people out there who believe Luke is guilty, they use sites like this to try and understand why others feel he is innocent. But why do they come to a Jeremy Bamber forum, or quote from the Daily Record comments page?  Why not go to Luke Mitchells official site, do the research then fire away with questions?  There have been links continually posted linking them to the wap forum, for people to read but yet they don't seem to take any notice of them.  It is very frustrating indeed.  I don't expect everyone to think that Luke is innocent, but I do expect people to read up on the facts first, its the least they could do.    I welcome their discussion and input as I also wonder why they feel he is guilty. I also welcome discussion from people who believe he is guilty as I too wonder why they feel this way, but on this thread firstly there was Lamberton posting just for the sake of it, as he does, then there are others who have posted as if they are experts on the case, when they haven't even done their research.   I think your bang on about those who decide to argue their point based on innaccuracies as we spend a lot of time correcting them only to be accused of selectively doing so. There is a misinformation thread on the wap forum and quite frankly Sandra Lean could be in their 24/7 if she had to correct all the misinformation that is posted elsewhere on forums and the tabloids.  I just cant understand for the life of me, why people cant look at the facts of the case, then make their minds up.  Peoples minds seem to be closed that he could potentially be innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones.

The problem I also have is this reasoning about us not having a thread of evidence for his innocence, there is nothing for his guilt either, thats not me saying this its the judge. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone and as the judge said that anyone piece of it could not have convicted him but together their weight gave the jury enough to decide on, that jury couldn't decide on it as some found him innocent. It is only by a stroke of luck or a stroke of genuis whichever way one looks at it, that certain other individuals are not sitting where Luke Mitchell is right now, IMO.

The innacuracies is so numerous that the case becomes unrecognisable i. we have
Chinese garden being a local take away= when it was a secluded area that the kids used.

Shane had dinner with his mother= when it has always been stated by everyone that he took his upstairs,Corrine went outside and Luke was in the living room.

Luke left the house at 5:45= Luke always said he left the house just after dinner and slightly after Shane did He put that at around 5:30.

The calls from Luke to Jodi's house were witnessed by Corrine= When Luke always maintained that he made the 1st call when he left the house and the second as he walked up Newbattle road. Corrine has never claimed that she saw him make these calls.

And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it != Im really starting to worry about this bit of info as it has always been acknowledged that stocky man was never traced and if someone is withholding info then that becomes serious. I think that because of the matter of fact way it was stated.

 and after another step recognised it as Jodi's body. = He never maintained it was Jodi just that it looked like a mannequin.

Thats just a few but when people are arguing their point based on them its easy to see why they may feel he is guilty, shame really.
All these innacuracies that you have written in bold, I have read before.  The information was being posted by a very aggressive contributer.  I will try and find the link, especially what they had to say about stocky man.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 05:46:PM
i think theres a fair few people who are really desprate for this conviction not to be overturned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 08:16:PM
i think you have just proved my point.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 08:17:PM
"the person the eye witnesses saw couldnt have been luke, their description didn't match Luke at all!"

"The person the eye witnesses saw may have been Mark Kane, he bears a striking resemblance to Luke!"

 ::)

Which one is it?

i dont im nothing to do with appeal i dont even know what mark kane looks like.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 08:21:PM
No one who lives in the real world thinks for a second that conviction will ever be overturned. I'll put good money on that if anyone is willing to take that bet. Luke will be lucky to walk out the gate in 10 years.

He was found guilty in a court of law based on 20 chapters of evidence.

The burden of proof isn't on us to prove him guilty any more, surely you understand the burden of proof is on his supporters who are trying to convince everyone he's innocent?
Too bad they can't, because proof doesn't exist. You don't know he's innocent, Gordo and nugnug don't have a clue weather he's innocent, Sandra Lean doesn't have the slightest clue weather he's innocent. I have read the other site and I still haven't saw any solid evidence from Mitchells supporters to change my mind or to even warrant a miscarriage of justice claim.
I've investigated all your so called evidence, I watched the frontline doc, and the big reveal was some completely irrelevant jake ball who has become caught up in this case because his crook mate was trying to sell a story for 50k. (The essay about killing a girl in the woods never existed, surprise surprise)
Even after it was confirmed he had nothing to do with it and had been cleared, you are now saying "ok then he didnt kill jodi, but he might have been the person witnesses seen instead of Luke!" after saying all this time that the eye witnesses were lying. It's ridiculous. It would be laughable if it wasnt such a serious matter. As for Sandra Lean spending 24 hours a day correcting misinformation, I believe she is one of the worst for posting misinformation, and I had to correct her words from the rough justice video "there was no DNA on luke linking him to the crime and no DNA on Jodi linking Luke to the crime", even Findlay had to explain the DNA away on Luke's trousers by saying it could be innocent. It very much existed.
The WAP forum has built circumstancial cases against every male close to Jodi and still none of it changes anything about Luke. Instead of doing that, start posting reasons why Luke is innocent, instead of trying to find ways other people are guilty. You can't.



"It is only by a stroke of luck or a stroke of genuis whichever way one looks at it, that certain other individuals are not sitting where Luke Mitchell is right now, IMO."


No, these people you are talking about all had alibis that checked out, no ones alibi dramatically fell apart like Luke's did.



nugnug, no convictions getting over turned. So many legal teams have failed, most of the reasons Lukes supporters post, his lawyers dont even find it worth while mentioning, because they live in the real world. They know there is no way to prove Luke innocent so they appeal on technicalities.

Mitchells supporters (all 5 of them that is) creep me out, they remind me of a cult.

Stop trying to be controversial and go and spend your time backing another MOJ case which actually has a leg to stand on.

you seem to be just ranting now do you think anyones going to take that seriously i mean people on here are more intellgent than that.

why do you think you can tell other people whatt they can and cant talk about.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 08:23:PM
if your so convinvced the conviction will stand why do you care.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 08:26:PM
it must of done or you wouldn't be here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 08:33:PM
i dont really care i dident even start the thread.

but while its here i am going to speak.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 23, 2012, 09:29:PM
I really don't care what you have to say about this case lithium, its plain to see you have based your opinion on factual inaccuracies and even although we show you where you have gone wrong you still can even form an opinion or put up an arguement for or against our posts.

The last few days and it seems more so now you have basicly resorted to insults, so your more intelligent than  any of Lukes supporters! what a stupid thing to say. When one of those people has a PHD!! just another thing your wrong about that I have just factually made you look silly.

Its strange how someone so intelligent can't even put forward a reasoned debate that can't include insults or put forward an opinion based on the evidence you feel makes him guilty, simple saying he was found guilty so he must be guilty parrot fashion just won't cut it m8, its a safe place to be but MoJ's do happen or do you feel thats wrong to?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 23, 2012, 09:41:PM
"there was no DNA on luke linking him to the crime and no DNA on Jodi linking Luke to the crime

I thought you were intelligent? where did the DNA on Lukes trouser's become part of the crime? It was discounted very easily and It could have been used equally by the defence to show that out of every forensic test carried out that only one sample tested was Jodi's and that was found on Lukes trouser's that he didn't wear that day in school or after. He could not get every other piece of DNA off the trousers and leave that piece there. It was also female bodily fluids,are you now saying that during this crime the both had sex also? that wouldn't bode well with the prosecution case that they had fell out over another girl now would it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 09:54:PM
well what hes saying doesnt even fit in with the official version of events let alone the real one.

it does not even fit in with what the tabliod press said so where hes getting it from im not sure i can only assume hes making it up.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2012, 09:59:PM
i dont know who you think your going to impress here mate.

but what your saying does not in with any version of events.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 23, 2012, 10:01:PM
LOL my point is that it was a supid thing to say and something you could not prove. However what ever age you seek to advance yourself and do something like a doctorate shows that you have ability to do so as oppossed to knowing some people who have which points you out as , well a nothing!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on August 23, 2012, 10:08:PM
What about me?I don't go around making statements I can't possibly back up. Im guessing it aint psycology your studying at uni m8.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on September 19, 2012, 09:47:PM
AB said in her statements she could only identify the youth again from his clothing, because she didn't see his face. She was shown photos of clothing, and the jacket and trousers she picked out were not the same as the ones she'd seen the youth wearing - she stated in court they were "the nearest from the pictures I was shown," pointing out that she had told the policemen that at the time.

She said initially the youth had thick, messy hair, sticking up in a clump at the back. She couldn't tell what length it was, because the collar of the jacket was up at the back.

So how did she identify Luke from that picture? His hair was different (and she didn't know what length the youth's hair was anyway), the clothes in the picture were different - vastly different- from what she'd described, and the age was wrong - she'd described a youth "late teens to early 20s"

F&W did not "both see him through the front windscreen according to their statements. One saw him side on, looking at the pavement, through the front windscreen. The other was driving past, level with him, when her attention was apparently drawn to him, she saw him for a fleeting second through the passenger window, and then in the rear-view as she was driving away. Both initially described him as having dark hair. Both said they did not see his face (although one changed this in court to say he had flicked his hair off his face, and she had a leeting glimpse of the side of his face, and one eye. One said she could only recognise him again through his clothing. Luke Mitchell was wearing a suit in court - how could someone who had not seen his face, and described very different clothes (which also changed over time) describe someone in a suit as the same person?

Both said in court the attention of the driver had been drawn to him by the passenger saying he looked as if he'd been "up to no good." Neither one ever said those words, in any statement, prior to trial. The second to give evidence was not allowed in court when the first was giving her evidence, so how did she come to use exactly the same phrase, which neither had ever used before, unless they were discussing their evidence?

This has just registered with me that both Fleming and Walsh had never mentioned this prior to the trial that the male they saw looked as if he'd been "up to no good".  Findlay should have been all over these 2, but yet again he failed miserably to challenge crown witnesses testimony. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 19, 2012, 09:49:PM
are thankyou for that oncesaid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on September 19, 2012, 09:54:PM
Two independent witnesses, one who knew Jodi, described a stocky man following her down the main Easthouses Road just after 5pm on June 30th. Police appealed for him to come forward. A week later, at the reconstruction, one of the witnesses thought he saw the man again, hi-fiving one of his mates.

The man "identified" came forward very quickly- he had literally just returned to the area that day. He was checked out, and his whereabouts at the time of the murder verified, so he was ruled out. Which left "Stocky Man" still unaccounted for.

To this day, he has never been traced. Both witnesses described him as following "closely" behind Jodi. Nobody's saying he's a murderer - he might have seen something or someone, but, as he never came forward, we'll probably never know. And, since he's never been traced, and none of the witnesses saw where he went, no-one can possibly say "He didn't turn onto the path, he went straight past it," unless, of course, they are stocky man, or they know him!

It is absolutely impossible to keep up with this rate of misinformation correction, and, frankly, having done it before on WAP, I'm not prepared to do it again. Any readers who would like to see the alternative to what Lithium and Buffalo Bill have posted, can check out WAP. At least our inormation comes from official papers, not local gossip and tabloids.

Sandra, can you tell me what description of clothing did these 2 witnesses give for Jodi?

What was their description of stocky man's clothing?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on September 19, 2012, 10:38:PM
I have just noticed that Bufallo Bill has now changed his name to Curious  ::)

Changing usernames won't change the fact that there is inaccurate information and deliberate misleading information being posted on this thread by trolls.

Luke Mitchell is in prison, convicted of the murder of Jodi Jones.  Why do people feel the need to spread lies and misinformation about this case?  It makes no sense to me that people who think he is guilty would waste their time on an internet forum posting nonsense about the case, rather than debating the case and giving their views as to why they believe Luke Mitchell to be guilty as charged.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 19, 2012, 11:02:PM
because they don't actually think he is guilty hence the need to make things up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on September 20, 2012, 11:33:PM
 curious
Full Member

 
Posts: 49

   Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003


You are partially wrong on this point gordo30.  Both driver and passenger saw him through the front windscreen as they approached him and the driver got a second glance in the rear view mirror after they passed him.

they described him as having near shoulder length hair, a dark green bomber jacket with orange lining, a black t-shirt with white writing on it just as mitchell wore that afternoon.

in court they described seeing him standing by an old wooden gate just yards from the end of the footpath where jodi had her throat cut just minutes earlier.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 10:11:PM by buffalo bill »

Curious/Buffalo Bill your lies and deciet are not welcome on this thread. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 21, 2012, 02:04:PM
its allready been established that curios is john so we can safely ignore anything he says.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on September 21, 2012, 02:25:PM
Hi nugnug  curious is banned :) 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 21, 2012, 02:26:PM
i dont know you would have to ask the mods.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on September 21, 2012, 02:29:PM
i dont know you would have to ask the mods.

Yes he is.... ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 21, 2012, 05:32:PM
i thought he would be.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on September 21, 2012, 08:09:PM
Yes he is.... ;)

Hi Patti, does that mean he can't post under Buffalo Bill either?

Hope not, as I can't be doing with all his nonsense.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on September 22, 2012, 01:10:PM
Hi Patti, does that mean he can't post under Buffalo Bill either?

Hope not, as I can't be doing with all his nonsense.

He can't post under his Buffallo Bill username.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on September 22, 2012, 01:21:PM
My grandmother (long since dead) was picked up and held by Buffalow Bill when he came to England in the 1890's with his Wild West show. She was a little girl then about 4 or 5.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on September 22, 2012, 01:24:PM
My grandmother (long since dead) was picked up and held by Buffalow Bill when he came to England in the 1890's with his Wild West show. She was a little girl then about 4 or 5.
Goodness Lugg, that's a claim to fame. :o :o ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on September 22, 2012, 01:41:PM
Hi Lugg I assume that is not the same Buffalo Bill that has been posting on the forum :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jane on September 22, 2012, 01:44:PM
Hello lugg, nor I presume, the same Buffalo Bill that the female detective was searching for in "Silence of the Lambs"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jane on September 22, 2012, 01:51:PM
Sorry, how rude of me. I should have said "Lugg" not "lugg".
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on September 22, 2012, 03:07:PM
Hi april  I am sure Mrs/Mr Lugg will forgive you. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 24, 2012, 02:35:PM
Facebook group.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/You-ARE-LUKE-Mitchell/286160341427261
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Beanie on September 30, 2012, 01:42:AM
I hope Simon is free to come home to you soon Stephanie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 02, 2012, 07:47:PM
campion asked (on another thread)

Quote
I am very interested in this case. Do you have information as to what length of questioning Stephen Kelly underwent regarding his DNA profile and the victim. Also the other cases that You have looked into ?

On September 17th 2003, 11 weeks after the murder, SK gave a statement about a number of points he'd been asked to "clarify" - one of these was the "borrowed T shirt." There are three very short paragraphs in the statement relating to this - he says his girlfriend told him one of her black t shirts is missing, he describes the t-shirt(s) and concludes that Jodi must have been wearing "the other one" because his girlfriend can't find it, and then adds that when he gets undressed at the grandmother's house (where his girlfriend lives), their clothes just get dropped on the floor and "mixed up together."

To our knowledge, that's it - all there is.What's interesting, though, is neither he nor his girlfriend (Jodi's sister) has ever mentioned two identical t shirts until this point - when the sister handed over the t-shirt she was "wearing" that night, from memory, a week or so after the murder,  she did not say to the police, I have two of these - they're identical, but I can't find the other one. She simply did not mention a second t shirt. This is quite important because the morning after the murder, the grandmother started doing the whole extended family's washing - the other t shirt could have been returned, as other items had been, to the mother's house.

Again, to our knowledge, the DNA results were back around July 16th, just a couple of weeks after the murder, but these statements do not appear until 11 weeks after the murder, and both the sister and the boyfriend come up with the same story about identical t shirts which neither has mentioned previously. Presumably, because both the sister an the boyfriend mention their clothes being dropped on the floor "mixed up together," they had been told about the DNA and were "offering" (or had been offered) an "innocent explanation.

Also, Jodi's mother mentions buying identical t-shirts - one for each daughter, but it hasn't been possible to determine whether the description of those t-shirts is the same as the sister/boyfriend description. If it is, then either there are 4 identical t-shirts, in which case it would be impossible to  claim that the one worn by Jodi that night was her sister's, or the two identical t shirts did not both belong to the sister - the girls had one each. That, though, would demolish the "innocent explanation" for the boyfriend's DNA on the t shirt Jodi was wearing.

Other cases I have looked into - to be honest, over the years, I have looked into dozens - I couldn't even hazard a guess at how many. Cases I have become actively involved in amount to probably between 12 and 15, with occasional input or reports into maybe another 20 or so. There's a distinction between writing about cases, and being actively involved in the processes of a case, and of course, sometimes there's also an overlap, and I end up doing both!

Here's the link to the chapter on Luke again, for anyone who didn't see it on the other thread:

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/no-smoke/

Please bear in mind, though, that we've found so much more in the five years since the book came out that this chapter is really just the starting point!

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: campion on October 02, 2012, 08:01:PM
 Yes, I fully understand, after five years an enormous amount of work is undertaken with MOJ's. If the T-Shirt explanation is plausible, then how is that explanation plausible when considered against the other item of clothing with Stephen Kelly's DNA profile on. ( I do not wish to cheapen your work with suggestive overtones that could be judged by others in a derogatory way ) I find it easier to write so avoiding offence to others, as I am finding out this was an horrific attack.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 02, 2012, 08:22:PM
It was suggested at trial that the DNA was transferred by "rainwater diffusion." If Jodi was fully dressed, and was soaked in the rain, that might be a plausible explanation, although it would have to be one heck of a soaking to have carried right through the t shirt and the underwear, to be present on the inside of the underwear.

But there was a light shower in the late afternoon - around 5 o'clock, and a couple of threats of rainfall (delightfully referred to here in Scotland as "spitting") throughout the evening, and then a heavier fall round about 9 o'clock, so there was no rain which could account for such a soaking. (The heaviest rainfall, from memory, was much later, at around 3am).

The periods in between the "spittings" were bright and sunny - I was sitting out on the porch reading that evening, and was only forced indoors by the sudden shower around 9pm.

The rainwater diffusion cannot stand up if the rainfall at 9pm or 3am were the cause - the items were found several feet apart from each other and the body, and the murder was claimed to have taken place at 5.15pm.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 02, 2012, 09:51:PM
im no expert but i would rain would have washed the sperm away not transferred it
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: campion on October 03, 2012, 09:51:AM
 Sandra, With such a definitive piece of DNA, I am surprised he wasn't helping more with inquiries, didn't Luke's Defence team raise this as an issue with the Investigating Officers, I just don't buy the fact that a teenager would wear the previously worn T-Shirt of her Sister...... the other explanation is nothing short of ridiculous, when compared to the micro-fibre evidence used to convict Simon Hall. Why wasn't Kelly arrested ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2012, 07:19:PM
Luke didn't have a "defence team" until 7 months later - he wasn't charged with anything, and was released on August 14th after the Section 14 "interview" without charge - there's no legal aid for being a "suspect" (except initial advice and assistance) - Luke's legal team would only be paid for coming out to represent him/advise him when the police descended to interrogate him.

The statements about the identical t shirts did not come into existence until almost 5 weeks after Luke was last interrogated - even if his legal team had been allowed into the interview (which they were not), they wouldn't have known anything about SK's DNA on the t shirt.

Why wasn't he investigated more closely? I have no idea - Luke was the prime suspect from the minute the body was found, although the police insist it was 2 days later. I guess, by the time this info got to them, all their eggss were in the one basket, gunning for Luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2012, 08:34:PM
yes indeed why wasnt he investigated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2012, 08:43:PM
because he had an alibi, from jodi's own sister no less

an albi from your girlfriend does not really mean much especially if its been properly investigated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2012, 08:44:PM
you really dont have anything solid to focus on at all so you cling to things like small mistakes in the familys statements and dna on her sisters shirt

says alot about your case


and is that stephanie in her picture

maybe i will call u after all

 ;D

dna is hardly a small thing. especially when its sperm.

and especially when its all over a murder victim's clothes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2012, 09:04:PM
havent lost your charm have you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 04, 2012, 09:47:PM
because he had an alibi, from jodi's own sister no less

Anyone can give someone an alibi, doesn't make it true though.  As for Jodi's sister giving Kelly an alibi, only she will know whether she told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  I am not convinced that Kelly had an airtight alibi, but that doesn't mean that I think he murdered JJ's.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 04, 2012, 09:53:PM
another pointless post with no substance from nugnug what else is new

pots and kettles come to mind  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 05, 2012, 02:36:PM
Anyone can give someone an alibi, doesn't make it true though.  As for Jodi's sister giving Kelly an alibi, only she will know whether she told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  I am not convinced that Kelly had an airtight alibi, but that doesn't mean that I think he murdered JJ's.

im not convinced he did ethere.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 05, 2012, 02:55:PM
LOL this will poddle lithiums noddle but I also don't feel SK murdered JJ either. I just feel he doesn't really understand what our side of things is here.

Hows uni m8? I saw you on FF the other day, how strange it is that this case should turn up almost everywhere.

OH BTW didn't one of the early statements from the family (you know those statements when everything is fresh in the mind) say that Janine was in the house at some point close to Jodi coming home from school and no sign of Mr Kelly.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 05, 2012, 04:27:PM
are so where would mr kelly have been then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 06, 2012, 03:30:PM
ive considred the innocent transfer theory but i dont think it really holds water if it did nearly all murder victems would have sperm on them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: campion on October 07, 2012, 05:10:PM
  Sandra, At what stage did Luke speak to a legal representative, and as a minor was a solicitor present at his Police Interviews ? I am unclear from your earlier post.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on October 07, 2012, 05:54:PM
Luke didn't have a "defence team" until 7 months later - he wasn't charged with anything, and was released on August 14th after the Section 14 "interview" without charge - there's no legal aid for being a "suspect" (except initial advice and assistance) - Luke's legal team would only be paid for coming out to represent him/advise him when the police descended to interrogate him.

The statements about the identical t shirts did not come into existence until almost 5 weeks after Luke was last interrogated - even if his legal team had been allowed into the interview (which they were not), they wouldn't have known anything about SK's DNA on the t shirt.

Why wasn't he investigated more closely? I have no idea - Luke was the prime suspect from the minute the body was found, although the police insist it was 2 days later. I guess, by the time this info got to them, all their eggs were in the one basket, gunning for Luke.
Again unfortunately that is typical of the police. They get a suspect and concentrate entirely up on him instead of looking for anyone else. Pretty stupid really. Most of them are very lacking in the intelligence department.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on October 07, 2012, 06:02:PM
  Sandra, At what stage did Luke speak to a legal representative, and as a minor was a solicitor present at his Police Interviews ? I am unclear from your earlier post.
Being a minor he was entitled to an appropriate adult as well as a solicitor. The trouble is that they give the person arrested a form where you tick boxes and sign it at the end. The police will not advice the person if the person does not know what "Do you require a legal representative?" means and therefore the confused minor will often tick the "No" box. Police will try and get away with many things if they are allowed to. You will often find some of the biggest crooks in the police force, as the Jersey childrens homes scandal proves.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 07, 2012, 08:23:PM
at that time you were not entitled to a solicitor in scotland.

there was a socail worker presnt who stood aside and did nothing while the police were bullying luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: campion on October 08, 2012, 12:16:PM
 What are a minors rights under the Human Rights Act, as to being questioned in relation to charges involving Murder ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 08, 2012, 12:31:PM
under the human rights act he had a right to legal representation presnt but at that time scotland was not complying with the act.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: campion on October 08, 2012, 06:01:PM
 nugnug, I am struggling a bit with all this, I can't see how a prosecution can take place, that appears from what your saying , in total breach of any rules and safeguards. It brings into question why this wasn't raised by his defence when compared to the treatment of for instance Abu Hamza, why wasn't any of this challenged ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 08, 2012, 06:05:PM
until recently scotland just ignored the human rights act.

a ruling was made in the 80s every country in europe complied with it except scotland

hes defence lawyer was donald findlay that tory pillar of the establishment not one to go on about human rights laws or criticise the scottish legal system.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 12, 2012, 10:04:PM
LOL this will poddle lithiums noddle but I also don't feel SK murdered JJ either. I just feel he doesn't really understand what our side of things is here.

Hows uni m8? I saw you on FF the other day, how strange it is that this case should turn up almost everywhere.

OH BTW didn't one of the early statements from the family (you know those statements when everything is fresh in the mind) say that Janine was in the house at some point close to Jodi coming home from school and no sign of Mr Kelly.

and no sign of JoJ either, but I'm sure that Lithium will put that down to another "small mistake".
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 12, 2012, 10:28:PM
are yes no sighn of ethere of them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 05:35:PM
nobody could get there albi straght could they and one of them just happened to get his sperm on the victems clothes and his name wasnt luke mitchell was it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 05:40:PM
well is it doesnt matter i will repeat it agian.

steven kellys sperm was on the victim's clothes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 05:42:PM
was it Joe or Steven, make your mind up please.

i dident say who it was i am just stateing the facts im sorry if you dont like them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 05:43:PM
and still you saying that doesn't change anything.  :)

Innocent transfer. Case closed.

no if that was true then sperm would be found on every murder victem.

the inocent transfer theory does not hold water as far as i am concerned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 05:48:PM
lol, unless every single murder victim was wearing their sisters shirt, and the sperm conveniently happened to be her sisters boyfriends, then no.

Don't be silly.

Where do you live nugnug are you in Edinburgh?

theres absolutely no evidence that it was her t shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 05:52:PM
how do you her story will never change.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2012, 05:56:PM
Your point?

My point is that you you are claiming that it is a fact that Kelly had an alibi, as well as everyone else, except Luke.

What I am saying is that his alibi is questionable due to a Jones family member giving a statement which did not include Kelly with Janine in the house, therefore it is possible that he didnt have a rock solid alibi. 

When you first started posting on this thread, you quoted a post from the wap forum.  Part of your quote included information and facts about peoples alibis......

Quote that you posted from the WAP forum.....UPDATE: The alibi for a further potential suspect, who had serious mental health issues, and whose illness had escalated in the weeks  prior to Jodi’s death, was given by other family members. However, the two people who provided that alibi were out for part of the evening (so could not confirm the alibi that this person was “at home.” On their return, they confirmed that he was “at home” although they also confirmed that they did no actually see him there until much later in the evenng, after it had been confirmed that Jodi was missing. The claim that he was at home the whole evening was based on a claim that, on returning from the earlier outing, this person had called out from another room. However, the initial statement from one of these family members stated that this person was not at home prior to the outing, but Jodi’s sister was. This was later explained as “a mistake.”
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2012, 06:06:PM
Ah yes so they both killed Jodi for no apparent reason, Joe stood there and watched as his sisters boyfriend murdered his youngest sister. Or was it vice versa?

It definitely had nothing to do with her knife carrying boyfriend who she had walked the path to meet, the same one who couldn't get his alibi straight and was spotted on both sides of the path by independent witnesses.


I know which one I find easier to believe.

Lithium, none of your scenarios are believable IMO.

LM was not spotted on both sides of the path, however 3 witnesses place him exactly where he said he was near his home.

Luke was spotted at the Easthouses end of the path?  You cant have it both ways, was he spotted at Easthouses end of the path or did she walk the path to meet him at Newbattle?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2012, 06:13:PM
No matter how many times you repeat that, it will never matter. Haha.

Lets get this right Lithium.  Are you saying that "it will never matter" that the sperm and blood of an identified male found at the crime scene, also unidentified spermheads, hair, saliva, etc on the clothes and naked body of JJ, that did not belong to Luke Mitchell, should be ignored? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 06:14:PM
no he wasnt you made that up.

who is supposed to have spotted them arguing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2012, 06:21:PM
They aren't my scenarios though are they. He was spotted arguing with her at Easthouses end, then later spotted alone at Newbattle end.

What happened on the path then. Who else would she climb the wall with or what reason would she have to go over, if she was headed straight for Luke's alone like you suggest.

Spotted by whom?  Do you mean the person who could not pick Luke Mitchell out in the dock?  The same person that could not describe the clothing that Jodi was wearing and who failed to see the females face?  This same witness described a male, but was not the description of Luke, so I'm not suprised that she failed to identify the guy in the dock as the person she claims to have seen with a female at Easthouses, entrance to the path.

There is no evidence that Jodi went over the v in the wall, on her own or with anyone else, so I will reserve judgement on how she got behind the wall.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 06:23:PM
she never said she saw luke mitchell she said she a girl who might of been jodi talking to a man dressed in a fishing jacket.

and there was nothing about them arguing as i recall.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2012, 06:29:PM
Janine said so herself. This will never change.

What reason has she for lying in the investigation of her sisters murder?

I don't believe she was lying about the t-shirt.  She had at least 6 black t-shirts, it would be very easy to lose track of which one was which.  She wasn't even aware that a t-shirt or any other article of clothing was amiss. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2012, 06:35:PM
and still you saying that doesn't change anything.  :)

Innocent transfer. Case closed.

Innocent young man in prison.  Case ongoing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2012, 06:41:PM
They aren't my scenarios though are they. He was spotted arguing with her at Easthouses end, then later spotted alone at Newbattle end.

What happened on the path then. Who else would she climb the wall with or what reason would she have to go over, if she was headed straight for Luke's alone like you suggest.

They are, you wrote them.

I didn't suggest anything.  I quoted direct from your post.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 13, 2012, 06:44:PM
lol, unless every single murder victim was wearing their sisters shirt, and the sperm conveniently happened to be her sisters boyfriends, then no.

Don't be silly.

Where do you live nugnug are you in Edinburgh?

Forget about sisters, and boyfriends and then read nugnugs post again.  He is being far from silly.  Think about it  ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 13, 2012, 06:55:PM
if its that easy for sperm to transfer we all walking around with sperm on us.

every murder victem in the country would have sperm on them but they do not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 16, 2012, 10:11:PM
I made nothing up.

Any explanation as to why you would be connected to images for John Braes Gardiner Lamberton?

http://www.yasni.co.uk/john+braes+gardiner+lamberton/check+people
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on October 17, 2012, 11:44:AM
Any explanation as to why you would be connected to images for John Braes Gardiner Lamberton?

http://www.yasni.co.uk/john+braes+gardiner+lamberton/check+people
haha.........well spotted!  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 17, 2012, 07:26:PM
i dont belive that lithum is john i think i know who he is but i am not going to say at this time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 17, 2012, 09:58:PM
i dont belive that lithum is john i think i know who is but i am not going to say at this time.

That was not my point but I'll wait to see what explanation Lithium gives  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on October 18, 2012, 10:20:PM
Wow, OnceSaid embarrassed herself. That website works by giving image results for the persons name.
John Lamberton has been typed numerous times in this thread i'm posting in, so ofcourse my avi would appear.
How else would you suggest that my avatar, which is a picture that only appears on this website, would show in search results for a term that has been typed in this thread? If you click the picture of my avatar on that site, it will direct you to this very thread as the source. Genius.

If you really want to play this game, let me know. xxxx xxxx. I can do far more than just use a website that googles keywords.  :) I've told all of you this before though. Do you know what that mask symbolizes btw?


Old people really should learn how to internet better.  ::)



Fu Manchu.?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 18, 2012, 10:22:PM
Wow, OnceSaid embarrassed herself. That website works by giving image results for the persons name.
John Lamberton has been typed numerous times in this thread i'm posting in, so ofcourse my avi would appear.
How else would you suggest that my avatar, which is a picture that only appears on this website, would show in search results for a term that has been typed in this thread? If you click the picture of my avatar on that site, it will direct you to this very thread as the source. Genius.

If you really want to play this game, let me know. xxxx xxxx. I can do far more than just use a website that googles keywords.  :) I've told all of you this before though. Do you know what that mask symbolizes btw?


Old people really should learn how to internet better.  ::)

Lol I'm not that old!  Embarassed myself for asking you a question?  I don't think so.  On that link his name is not even spelled properly. 

No ideas about the mask, but had a couple of ideas about the username but can't quite make the link as to why you would want to use that name.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 10:33:PM
The avatar is quite symbolic BTW and in terms of this case can only be attributed to a very few individuals. I also know what you mean oncesaid in that JL's full name is very rarely used online and so there is no way that he should be linked to JL's full name. These anomolies do exsist online of course and I for one would be very disappoined that he should have anything to do with the sed person.

I wonder how you feel Lithium in what is about to happen in the case you state is closed? i believe everyone will have to account for themselves all over again when the commision review the case in detail.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 10:59:PM
yeah but not to Lambertons full name you didn't!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:01:PM
Well its not that important anyway as im sure you wouldn't want to be associated to him anyway now would ya?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:02:PM
I thought you said the case was closed though!! If thats the case then why would the announcement that it will be fully reviewed come very soon?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:03:PM
So what other logical assumption do you have???

If I were Lamberton, and the link between the name and my avatar isn't this thread (which isnt up for debate considering the website will tell you this when u click for the source of the picture, not sure why im repeating this) , then what other mysterious reason would his full name link to a picture that was taken and posted only on this website?

 :-\

I really don't care.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:09:PM
There is a big connection and unless you are one of thoses who is connected to it then it shouldn't matter that i know. As for the Lamberton thing I never brought it up but I do understand why people would be concerned about the connection and bring it up, wouldn't you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:16:PM
~How can you say there is no connection? that mask was originally about failure or epic fail as in guy fawkes and is used online as an anonymous representaion of what  can go on between those online and various establishment organisations.It has a very prescribed connection in this case and im pleased that it was something you simply came up with.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:20:PM
Why Steph? In what does Simon case have to do with scottish justice?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:22:PM
does FreeSimonHall even know what she's replying to right now? I'm sure even Gordo agrees your response to his message was irrelevant and unrelated to what he was trying to say, am I right Gordo

I think Steph knows exactly what shes repling to in that she has been involved with this case and numerous others to be able to make an informed judgement,  have you lithium?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 18, 2012, 11:24:PM
I was googling John Gardner Braes Lamberton  and the link came up with the 5 avatars and I was curious as to why your avatar would be linked to Lamberton and his yasni thing.   
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:24:PM
I saw you reference FF earlier, it wasn't me you saw posting, but I had a look and couldn't see any Luke thread? I'd be curious to read it if there was one?

Of course there wasn't one(as you would expect on that site) but It was you who made a reply when other posters made refference to this case. I was just highlighting that even in an enviroment that isn't influenced by what is said on sites likes these that many people still believe what we believe.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:26:PM
Plz do Steph it would be good to see.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 18, 2012, 11:38:PM
As for how I feel about the review, I'm confident nothing will come of it. Another Luke Mitchell appeal/loophole being exhausted, what else is new?

How can you be so confident?  Only the people involved in putting forward the application to the SCCRC knows what grounds there are, what evidence is available to them etc
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 18, 2012, 11:50:PM
Im not really sure what that post actually defines, its been apparent that someone has been feeding you with information from the outset and you came on here with a predetermined aim that might not have been your own but that you have been sucked into. If you have this ability then why not post up something from my account on that site that only I would know or have received? I bet you don't go down that line as i have never deleted anything from that site.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 19, 2012, 12:05:AM
That does not appear in my inbox , so for some reason you have managed to hack into Corrines, very well done but i do wonder what you and those like you involved with this case have to worry about to go to these extremes? Why not meet me and we can work this all out,I will travel and save you the expense.

Go on do something from my in box and really impress me!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 19, 2012, 12:11:AM
Tey my inbox plz!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 19, 2012, 12:16:AM
You sure you want that mate? how about that message from Corinne in which she offers her scenario of what happened and who was involved?

You want that?

Do you want that? do you want to bring people into this that may well not want to be and who, well lets be honest I don't want to have to explain to them why certain individuals were brought into this and how further investigations may bring unwanted attention down upon them. I think you might as well go ahead and reveal all now .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2012, 12:32:AM
i know your trying hard to sound scary but its really not working.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2012, 12:38:AM
Sure you do pal. Come out with it then what are you scared of? This isn't the Luke Mitchell forum you don't have to conceal your true opinions to Private Messages.

well i am pretty sure that you are one of the sperm donors.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2012, 06:07:PM
lithium may i draw your attention to this.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/welcome-to-wrongly-accused-persons-forum/site-information-and-notice-of-new-content/

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2012, 06:58:PM
now all the twats are gone maybe this case can be disccused sensibly
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 26, 2012, 04:58:PM
i havent heard anything about it i will now go and have a look for it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 27, 2012, 01:08:AM
Did everyone hear about a teenage girl being attacked and raped by a man with a local accent in woods in Dalkeith earlier this week? have the police caught anyone for it?

Saw it on the news  :(  They were looking for a guy in his 20's, wearing a grey hoody, but haven't heard whether they have caught him or not. 

This link gives a few details

The attacker was described as being white, in his early 20s, of chubby build and 5ft 8in tall.

He was wearing a grey zip-up top with the hood up, and dark jeans. He spoke with a local accent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-20080752
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on October 27, 2012, 01:25:AM
With regards to the recent attack of the 18 year old Det Insp Mackay said: "I want to reassure people that crimes of this nature are extremely rare in Midlothian, and that we are devoting our full resources towards identifying the man responsible.

What about the rape in August of the young girl in her home, who had just returned from a night out in Dalkeith?  The suspect is in his mid 20s, tanned, with a muscular build and short dark hair.

He has a number of tattoos, including one on his left arm of an animal with distinctive red eyes. He was wearing dark-coloured jeans and a short-sleeved top.

Police want to hear from anyone who saw someone acting suspiciously in Newmills Road, Gibraltar Road or Allan Terrace between midnight and 2am on Sunday, or saw a lone female walking just after midnight in the area.

Mr Gray said: "We know that the victim struggled with the suspect and he may have visible injuries to his face as a result.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 02:05:PM
What I find strange about the quote in my signature is him saying he will watch his victims blood spill on the 'soil', what a strange thing to say. Just where is this fantasy taking place? Remind any one else of a certain murder scene?

Sticks too? almost as if he's describing a wooded area.

Wasn't blood found on branches and sticks near Jodi?

you seem very keen to mention that of course it distracts nicely from the sperm and blood found at the crime scene.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 05:29:PM
   its already been posted several times.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 05:34:PM
depends what yo call a reliable source.


ive posted my source up to readers to decide weather its reliable or not.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jo on November 03, 2012, 05:40:PM
I don't know if either of these are any use (if they work)-:
http://www.roughjusticetv.co.uk/rjlukefilm.htm
http://www.roughjusticetv.co.uk/scotsjusticefilm.htm
They're from the rough justice website.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 05:45:PM
funny a while ago we put this question to the owner of the blood he denied it and threatned to sue but so far he has never got around to it.

he said the matter was with his solicitor but funnly enough this solicitor hasnt sent out any letters yet.

this was roughly 2 years ago.

i think ill post the conversation up in a little while.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 03, 2012, 05:48:PM
It would be an offence in Scotland to post copies of the reports on the internet (as has been explained several dozen times.)

However, the reports exist, and the information referred to by nugnug is in them. They were seen by Haroon Siddiq of the Guardian Newspaper, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/02/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-appeal -  you'll notice this article quotes Luke's defence team at the time, and also information from the reports themselves.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 05:51:PM
and if the gaurdion isnt an independant source i dont know what is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 03, 2012, 05:52:PM
sorry, cross posted. Just for clarity, from the above article:

The reports also show, the new defence team says, that a blood sample found on her produced a full DNA match with a named individual and a second full DNA profile, for an unknown male, was retrieved from a condom found near the body.

Is the Guardian, quoting information directly from the reports, and from Luke's legal team independent and reliable enough?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 03, 2012, 05:54:PM
Sorry, did it again  ::)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 06:03:PM
thanks sandra l

funny a while ago we put this question to the owner of the blood he denied it and threatned to sue but so far he has never got around to it.

he said the matter was with his solicitor but funnly enough this solicitor hasnt sent out any letters yet.

this was roughly 2 years ago.

i think ill post the conversation up in a little while.


what question you idiot. And how's any of this funny you little weirdo.

seems the blood evidence has got you really rattled i wonder why.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on November 03, 2012, 06:08:PM
I've got one better than that the red forum John I think says I am Steph Hall with a proxy account and a bare faced liar in the same thread I am Jackie Preece and have been since I joined the forum in April.  They also state Jackie Preece is Simonbennet she must have many accounts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on November 03, 2012, 06:10:PM
Glad that amuses you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 06:30:PM
nugnug thinks I'm Steven Kelly by the way. Hilarious. Why are you so concerned about working out who I am? What does it matter? I'm text on a screen to you.

i merly wondered why you were so bothered that there was blood found at the crime scene blood belonging to a named person.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 03, 2012, 07:07:PM
Lithium said (regarding blood/DNA)
Quote
... there are no reliable sources reporting blood. You know that.
I posted the Guardian article, and, in particular, this:
Quote
The reports also show, the new defence team says, that a blood sample found on her produced a full DNA match with a named individual and a second full DNA profile, for an unknown male, was retrieved from a condom found near the body.
Lithium at first ignored this direct proof that his previous quote was mistaken, posting, instead,
Quote
was it the same convo where it was established that the person in questions footprints weren't those found at the scene and it couldn't be him unless he was having a tommy tank up a tree?

Herein lies a problem – according to the official records, NO footprints/bootprints/shoeprints were properly recovered from the scene. A number of prints were noted, but casts were not taken of all of them, and none of them was ever identified. That is NONE.
Also, Lithium has changed the person at the centre of the discussion – the person whose DNA was found in the mixed DNA blood sample is Steven Kelly,  Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend. The condom, belonging to the person having what Lithium amusingly refers to as a “tommy tank” was directly linked by a full DNA profile, to James Falconer. All of this information is in the public domain.
James Falconer’s footwear was never checked against what footprints there were, as he wasn’t found until three years later, and couldn’t remember what he was wearing on the night of the murder, three years earlier. Steven Kelly’s footwear was taken for “elimination” purposes because... he was walking about the murder scene at the time the body was found, because he was one of the three searchers who went over the wall that night. There has never been any suggestion that Kelly was masturbating outside that evening (or any other time, to my knowledge)  - Lithium is clearly confusing the different individuals in this case.
Lithium then comes back, in response to the blood/DNA quote from the Guardian with this
Quote
2 different people then, which one was it? plus the condom had nothing to do with the murder and you know it

no female dna on it, and reports from yourself that he'd have to have "walked over jodi's body" to leave the condom there aren't very honest.

Two different people – yes, agreed – one whose full DNA profile was extracted from a mixed profile in blood, one whose DNA was found in a discarded condom nearby – they are not the same person. I don’t understand the question “Which one was it?”
We have no idea of the condom had anything to do with the murder – it wasn’t investigated properly. Reports that he’d have to have “walked over Jodi’s body” not being honest? Sorry, but that was the information James Falconer gave in his statements to the police three years later – he walked, by his own admission, a specified distanced behind the wall, which would, had his estimate of that distance been accurate, have taken him past the body. Also, please don’t misquote me – I have only ever said that he would have to have stepped over the body – twice – once on the way down, the other on the way back.
Lithium’s last post requires some careful attention to detail.
Quote
It's reporting like this that I have an issue with.
Me too, considering what Lithium comes away with next:

Quote
Jodi's body in a 6ft x 4ft space at the very most, in a wooded area behind a wall.
What? You asked nugnug earlier for a source for his post – may we please have a source for this outlandish claim?
Quote
You're saying JaF couldn't have walked to the spot where the condom was found from his house without stepping over that exact area where the body was laying? That's just stupid.
Nope, never said any such thing. Once behind the wall, from the big gap at the Easthouses end, if Falconer had walked the distance and direction he told police three years later he did, he could not have missed Jodi’s body – he would have to have passed it, and that’s giving the absolute benefit of the doubt.  Because of the description he gave of the pathway he took, then his own statement means he would, almost literally, have had to step over the body. It’s not rocket science – this is what Falconer, himself, told police.
  I’m suspecting you’ve either never been behind the wall, and seen the lay of the land – a 6ft x  4ft space is utterly ludicrous, as anyone who has been over that wall will tell you.  Falconer walked along Lady Path before even getting to Roan’s Dyke path – no-one, even Falconer himself, is including this in the distance he walked that night

Quote
Just because Luke found the body and identified it so quickly in the darkness, doesn't mean it was so visable for anyone else in the area.
Really? So why did AW, SK, Luke, and a minimum of 4 police officers all describe being able to see a similar thing, in the woodland, sometime around 11.30pm that evening, when it was dark? According to Falconer, he’d been there much earlier in the evening – while it was still daylight.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 07:35:PM
so how can blood be explianed by a borrowed t shirt i wonder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 08:36:PM
are you saying the guardian made it all up then.

we gave you an independent source.

how does a borrowed t shirt explain the presence of blood exactly.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on November 03, 2012, 10:28:PM
Lithium, for all your bravado and IT savvy, I think you need to watch your step on here. Not that you wouldn't hack the forum if you were banned.  But I think people are getting sick of your arrogance.  Reign it in... or you are banned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 03, 2012, 10:30:PM
I agree Roch....Please give me a night off guys, it would be much appreciated. It's been a long day, stay mindful of what you say....thank you.  :D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 03, 2012, 10:31:PM
What have I ever done to you or any one on the bamber forum roch?

Lithium.........See me!  8)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on November 03, 2012, 10:33:PM
What have I ever done to you or any one on the bamber forum roch?

I'm not sure how to take that.  Are you denying that you've used any hacking skills on this forum? Also, any chance of an explanation behind your stance on the LM case? Not a demand... but a request.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 03, 2012, 10:34:PM
Patti xxxx'd out "fresh cuts/scratches" why?

It didn't say that, please don't ask me to repeat it.... :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 03, 2012, 10:37:PM
Lithium, for all your bravado and IT savvy, I think you need to watch your step on here. Not that you wouldn't hack the forum if you were banned.  But I think people are getting sick of your arrogance.  Reign it in... or you are banned.

he doeesnt have any i.t skills rouch just a pathetic attempt to scare people.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 03, 2012, 10:52:PM
And who am I trying to scare? You took it there first by trying to work out who I am and accusing me of being Steven Kelly. Mods, do you not want me posting on here? I'll leave no bother if that's the case just say the word.

I don't mind you discussing the case.... :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on November 03, 2012, 10:59:PM
And who am I trying to scare? You took it there first by trying to work out who I am and accusing me of being Steven Kelly. Mods, do you not want me posting on here? I'll leave no bother if that's the case just say the word.

I don't mind you discussing the case.... :)

Please continue Lithium..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:00:AM
are i am sorry to hear that lithium a while back was it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 04, 2012, 12:06:AM
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? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:08:AM
there is no forensic evedence linking luke to the murder but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 04, 2012, 12:10:AM
there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.

do you man the condom that was found 50 yards away? That could have been anyone's that used that area for sex....it does not mean that person killed Jodi????
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:11:AM
yes but found plenty of forenic evedence linking other people to the crime.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 04, 2012, 12:12:AM
It is widely accepted that when a person is murdered it is by someone who is known to them. 

I have briefly looked at this case and I wonder why the Luke's brothers evidence was taken into consideration. Because he was watching porn it does not mean he was alone in the house.

The other fact I want to bring up is the fact that Luke found the body.  He was familiar with the area so it would be natural that he would he have looked and gone through the hole in the wall, he must have known it was there.  Dogs naturally seek these things out....Or maybe the dog had been there before?

Is there any forensic evidence that links Luke to the murder?

It wasn't just the porn, there was a number of inconsistencies that lead me to believe Luke wasn't at home.

We may never know if there was forensic evidence linking Luke as the crime scene wasn't properly preserved and the body was exposed to the elements all night. This is an issue that Luke's supporters will use while also using the "no dna linking him" thing. Picking and choosing again.
Why do you think Luke was not at home?  :-\ :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:13:AM
there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.

do you man the condom that was found 50 yards away? That could have been anyone's that used that area for sex....it does not mean that person killed Jodi????

not just the condom there was sperm and blood found one her clothes that didn't belong to luke.

ill post the full dna report for you.

there is sperm from a named man and an unnamed man.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 04, 2012, 12:14:AM
there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.

do you man the condom that was found 50 yards away? That could have been anyone's that used that area for sex....it does not mean that person killed Jodi????

not just the condom there was sperm and blood found one her clothes that didn't belong to luke.

So who's DNA was that nugnug?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:16:AM
the there are many dna sampels there 2 seprate lots of sperm one of the sperm donners also managed to leave some of there blood there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 04, 2012, 12:21:AM
The person who left the condom was traced, weather his excuse true or false, the condom definitely wasn't involved in the murder.


It wasn't just the porn, there was a number of inconsistencies that lead me to believe Luke wasn't at home.

At a time when Luke was supposed to be at home burning a chicken pie that he served to his brother and mum, his brother was upstairs viewing porn, and has no recollection of Luke making his dinner that night, or even hearing or seeing him atall. (that is until mum had a word in his ear, and he soon changed his statement)

At a time when Luke was supposed to be at home, he's making calls from his pay and go mobile, instead of using the landline, his mobile records show he was phoning the premium rate "speaking clock", what teenager would waste afew quid of his mobile credit when his house would no doubt have numerous sources of time?


His brother doesn't hear Luke making these calls.  ::)

had the home not got a clock? Why would he do that, surely television, microwave, clocks in the home, computers would have given him the time......did he offer an explanation as to why he phoned the speaking clock?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 04, 2012, 12:23:AM
the there are many dna sampels there 2 seprate lots of sperm one of the sperm donners also managed to leave some of there blood there.

Sound odd that there were two separate DNA samples taken from her clothing....we must remember that DNA does not identify blood.....Have they traced the DNA nugnug?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 04, 2012, 12:26:AM
I plan to make a post highlighting all the various genuine reasons I believe Luke is guilty, as I fear I'm just coming off as a troll on here. I will post it soon. I am not some mindless sheep who just backs every conviction, I am open minded and don't come to any decision without investigating it, but I have heard nothing from his support that would make me believe differently when weighing it up against my various reasons. There was 20 pages of 'various reasons' it was Luke, weather L&B botched the investigation or not.

Please do Litium, I would be interested in listening to both sides....I respect alternative points of view, it helps to build up a conclusion.... :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on November 04, 2012, 12:32:AM
One of the things nug is talking about is sperm on Jodi's shirt. This was investigated by L&B and deemed irrelevant when they discovered Jodi was actually wearing her sisters shirt, the girlfriend of who's sperm it was. The same sister who was the sperm-donor's alibi. Would you protect your kid sisters murderer?

So had the shirt been washed, prior to Jodi wearing it? was that investigated? How old was her sister...Sorry for all the questions. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:35:AM
One of the things nug is talking about is sperm on Jodi's shirt. This was investigated by L&B and deemed irrelevant when they discovered Jodi was actually wearing her sisters shirt, the girlfriend of who's sperm it was. The same sister who was the sperm-donor's alibi. Would you protect your kid sisters murderer?




funny she made no mention of t shirt being hers till her boyfriends sperm was found on it.

and his sperm isn't the only sperm there.

there also sperm found in her trainer belonging to someone else.

that dident transfer from the t shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:38:AM
It was minor traces of sperm which tells me iit has to have been some sort of innocent transfer such as contact from dirty washing or dirty hands. If he ejaculated there and then at the scene, there would be a far more substantial amount of sperm, obviously.

and did his blood innocently transfer as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:40:AM
One of the things nug is talking about is sperm on Jodi's shirt. This was investigated by L&B and deemed irrelevant when they discovered Jodi was actually wearing her sisters shirt, the girlfriend of who's sperm it was. The same sister who was the sperm-donor's alibi. Would you protect your kid sisters murderer?




funny she made no mention of t shirt being hers till her boyfriends sperm was found on it.



Her sister had just been murdered in the most brutal way. I can forgive her for not concentrating on things such as the t-shirt. Janine isn't allowed to forget a shirt, but it's alright when Shane completely forgets seeing and hearing a human being serve him dinner?


Besides, she would have no reason to mention the shirt was hers until the sperm was found on it. Sisters share clothes all the time, this wouldn't be relevant until the sperm discovery. Quickly explained. End of.

its just rather funny she only remembered this when being told her boyfriends sperm was on it then she  i find the timeing rather funny.

they dident live in the same house so how would jodi of had a chance to take one of her t shirts without her knowing it.

wouldent jodi have washed this t shirt before she put it on the t shirt smelled of washing powder when it was found
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on November 04, 2012, 12:46:AM
So was Kelly ejaculating at the murder scene or was he bleeding? the 2 would contradict each other. And Kelly was involved in the search party, ask Luke if he noticed any fresh xxxxx on Kelly's face that night. As for Falconer, you're forgetting I've seen most of your 'theories' you shared in private messages, none of you even believe he had any part in it, so why drag a mans name through the mud? I personally don't care what he was doing in the woods with the condom.

(take all the legal action you want about the PMs by the way, I welcome it, this isn't my first rodeo and I have all the proof at the ready that I broke no laws if it were to come to it, and I seem to remember gordo requesting I posted one of them)

I think you are forgetting about this? ;)

Copyright © 2009-2012 Wrongly Accused Person. All Rights Reserved.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:46:AM
the fact is hes blood is there how it got is a matter of opinion but its a fact it is there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:49:AM
It was minor traces of sperm which tells me iit has to have been some sort of innocent transfer such as contact from dirty washing or dirty hands. If he ejaculated there and then at the scene, there would be a far more substantial amount of sperm, obviously.

and did his blood innocently transfer as well.


Must have done. He certainly wasn't bleeding on the day or night of the muder so it must have been from a previous time if it was there. He was involved in the search party, ask Luke if he was bleedng.

Explain how he could be ejaculating and bleeding at the same time, was he raping Jodi (although there was no sign of sexual attack) or was he bleeding from a violent struggle???

All your "evidence" contradicts each other, much like when you accuse various people. Rules each other out. Can't have it all ways. All these far fetched theories but you won't consider it might have been Jodi's drug dealing, knife carrying boyfriend who she went out to meet that afternoon? Why not?


a mans sperm and blood on a dead body is hardly a far fetched theory.

how could of cleaned his own dna of and left other peoples on there.

i wont consider it because i believe its impossible.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 12:57:AM
Who said he cleaned any of his own DNA off? the fact his DNA wasn't on Jodi, even though they were in contact at school that day, but Kelly's dna was present, only proves more that the source of the DNA must have been the shirt she chaned into before going to meet Luke! simple!

well im going to post the dna report in a minute its already up here but ill post it again.

so your saying absence of dna means your guilty but its presence means your innocent.


luke was forensically examined that night his hair fingernails were dirty meaning he hadn't cleaned himself up.


so if hes a killer how does he get rid of all traces of  jodi without even having a wash.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 01:02:AM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/other-suspects/suspects-and-dna/

here this is for you patti
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 01:02:AM
well bed time night lithum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on November 04, 2012, 01:14:AM
Luke had been out playing with mates all night, you know that, so why mention his nails being dirty to support him being innocent?

He could easily have showered. It's not debatable that he went back out and played on a tree swing in the woods with mates. Ofcourse he'd be dirty. That's the best you have?  ???


On the subject of him being out with his mates, there is another issue bothering me. I'll add that to my list I'm about to compile.

Because part of the prosecutions case was that Luke went home and "forensically cleaned" himself, including burning his clothes ( although there was no evidence of this ), but when examined later that evening in police custody he was described as grubby, with greasy hair? Not exactly freshly scrubbed and showered was it. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on November 04, 2012, 01:20:AM
It is widely accepted that when a person is murdered it is by someone who is known to them. 

I have briefly looked at this case and I wonder why the Luke's brothers evidence was taken into consideration. Because he was watching porn it does not mean he was alone in the house.

The other fact I want to bring up is the fact that Luke found the body.  He was familiar with the area so it would be natural that he would he have looked and gone through the hole in the wall, he must have known it was there.  Dogs naturally seek these things out....Or maybe the dog had been there before?

Is there any forensic evidence that links Luke to the murder?

It wasn't just the porn, there was a number of inconsistencies that lead me to believe Luke wasn't at home.

We may never know if there was forensic evidence linking Luke as the crime scene wasn't properly preserved and the body was exposed to the elements all night. This is an issue that Luke's supporters will use while also using the "no dna linking him" thing. Picking and choosing again.

12 new replies but I'm going to post this anyway, apologies if it is going over old ground.

You are of course correct that "the crime scene wasn't properly preserved and the body was exposed to the elements all night" but can you please explain how Luke could have possibly removed all traces of himself and that of his clothing from JJ's naked body, her items of clothing and the whole of the crime scene area, when hairs, saliva, sperm/spermheads, and blood belonging to others remained? 

IMO nature could not have removed every single trace of LM from her body, clothing, crime scene, (due to being left unprotected for hours in the rain), whilst leaving traces of others. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on November 04, 2012, 01:30:AM
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?

Witnesses told the police in their first statements that the dog which was an alsation, was sniffing and pulling Luke towards the wall, getting excited, on its hind legs at the wall air sniffing etc.  The dog was obviously reacting to something, that something I think was blood.

The witnesses changed their stories.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on November 04, 2012, 01:39:AM
there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.

do you man the condom that was found 50 yards away? That could have been anyone's that used that area for sex....it does not mean that person killed Jodi????

The condom which was found hours after the murder, leaking fresh semen was eventually linked to its owner, (3 years later).  He was not in the woods for sex.  According to him, he was in the woods alone, to masterbate, something he claims that he done regularly. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on November 04, 2012, 01:44:AM
I plan to make a post highlighting all the various genuine reasons I believe Luke is guilty, as I fear I'm just coming off as a troll on here. I will post it soon. I am not some mindless sheep who just backs every conviction, I am open minded and don't come to any decision without investigating it, but I have heard nothing from his support that would make me believe differently when weighing it up against my various reasons. There was 20 pages of 'various reasons' it was Luke, weather L&B botched the investigation or not.

Please do, as I am genuinely interested why you feel so strongly of his guilt.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on November 04, 2012, 01:50:AM
I understand, but you cant look like you've not washed for a week when you did but a few hours ago, and the greasy hair? Chip fat?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on November 04, 2012, 02:00:AM
Sorry for wasting your time in tinychat suzie, but me forwarding the document I received could possibly open me up to legal action.

Who's to say he shampood his hair anyway? This was a grungy 14 year old kid who kept bottles of urine stashed all over his bedroom.

The hood of his missing parka jacket would have sufficiently covered his hair during the murder.

You're damn right it could ;). Not planning on making the same mistake twice no?

If he was to clean himself after committing this murder would he not have washed his hair? Stands to reason.
The urine was after and you know it :)

What missing parka?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 04, 2012, 10:24:AM
I’d like to make a couple of things clear before answering some of lithium’s points. Firstly, the prosecution case which was used to convict Luke is entirely dependent on speculation, innuendo and exaggeration – that’s not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of some of the best legal minds in Scotland. When we convict people of terrible crimes, I, for one, want to be as sure as it’s possible to be that the right person has been convicted, and that the evidence supports this, otherwise we risk having the real perpetrator still at large, and able to strike again.

Secondly, everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Luke was never afforded that right – from the minute the police officer left Judy’s home under the impression that Jodi had left, from her own home, with Luke at around 5.30 that evening, he was under suspicion. It’s too easy for everything to take a sinister slant when a person is already being viewed with suspicion.
The police called Luke, and Luke only, just after the search party found the body. They appeared completely unaware that there was a search party, believing Luke to be alone. Because they were unable to find the path, a few calls were made back and forth to “guide them in.” Even that led to two sinister inferences – one from the first cop at the scene, who reported that he thought Jodi and Luke had had “a wee falling out” and that was why Luke was “galloping about” at the back of the school. All of the evidence shows that, immediately before the boy was found, all 4 searchers were walking, as a group, down the path, and immediately afterwards, they all waited at the V for the police – there was no-one “galloping” anywhere. BUT, this same situation later led SIO Dobbie to remark (on why Luke had become the source of suspicion), that Luke had “led his officers a merry dance” between the report of Jodi being reported missing, and the first two cops finding the search party.

Without accusing the family of anything at all, the following questions leap out – and this is from before Jodi’s body was found:

(1) Why were the police told that Jodi had left, “with Luke” at 5.30pm that evening? Was this just a mistake on behalf of the police officer who wrote it in his notebook, and then proceeded as if it were true?

(2) Even if it was a mistake, why were the police not told that other members of jodi’s family were out searching? Although Judy claims repeatedly in her statements that she told the police the others were out searching, her claims do not square with the other evidence (at one point, she claims to have told the police that her mother, AW is out looking, but, according to other statements and phone logs, AW had not yet left her own house.  Judy then says she somehow learned that SK and Janine were out searching but, according to all of the phone logs, she hadn’t actually spoken to anyone since her last call to AW, in which no mention was made of Janine and Kelly going searching... and so on.)

(3) Why was Luke’s the only name and phone number given to the police? AW had her phone with her, Janine had hers, but their numbers weren’t given to the police. Kelly claims not to have ha his phone with him, but the operator who originally logged the 999 call he says he made from Janine’s phone, logged a different incoming number – one that was neither Luke’s, JaJ’s or AW’s.

As I said, my concern in this case, as in all of the others I have been involved in, is that the evidence is just not good enough to support the conviction. Because the police were looking at Luke with suspicion from the off (and that based on information coming, apparently, from judy herself), that suspicion appears to have negatively coloured their interpretations of everything from that point onwards.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2012, 10:26:AM
Trust me there was nothing illegal about me receiving a zip file from an anonymous source. (that I didn't even ask for.) The person who sent me it obviously wanted me to expose the information for them. I wouldn't rule it out being one of WAP's members who sent it to me, hoping I would put certain information out there that they aren't allowed to themselves, about Joey for example.

I didn't distribute the information til the owner of said information (gordo) requested that I did. If WAP want to come after me for it that's fine, I've never touched their site. I have everything I need at the ready to confirm this.

well what happened will nodoubt be proved when legal action is pursued.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 04, 2012, 10:41:AM

 
Quote
With his alibi falling apart, along with the use of the mobile phone during the times, I am happy to accept he wasn't at home when he said he was, what reason would he have to lie? Where was he?

That was the prosecution case. His alibi was only “falling apart” because of the horrendous manner in which Shane was questioned. The police officer taking his statements set about a deliberate course of confusing the issue, refusing to accept genuine responses, and inferring dishonesty and inaccuracy from every word Shane said. He did not say, originally, that he did not see Luke in the house, or that he (Shane) thought he was alone (the thinking he was alone bit was a piece of theatrics from Turnbull, the prosecutor, at trial). He said, quite honestly, that he couldn’t remember any detail about what was, until Jodi’s body was found, a perfectly ordinary Monday evening. You have said it’s understandable that Janine wouldn’t be concentrating on t shirts or whatever, in the circumstances – why would Shane, in the same circumstances, be concentrating on what he’d had for dinner or what time he came in from work – he had no way of knowing what was going to transpire later that night.

A call was made, from Shane’s mobile to the house landline at (from memory) about 4 15pm. It was answered by someone – it’s in the phone logs. Corinne was still at work, and there were only the three of them in the house, so by deduction, this call must have been answered by Luke. The landline was engaged at the time Luke called the speaking clock (pre broadband days, Shane was on the internet.)

Cell site analysis would have shown Luke’s phone travelling from west to east and back again at the critical times, if, indeed, he had done so – it could very easily have been proven that Luke was out of the house, at that time, if he really was. Why was that analysis never obtained? Police guidelines were absolutely clear about this at the time – if the case was going to rely on such technology, then the reports should be obtained as evidence. Could it be that it was too risky to the prosecution case – if the reports came back showing the phone did not travel anywhere, then they could not claim he was out of the house. Attempts by the defence to obtain cell site analysis were blocked by the Legal aid Board on the grounds of expense.

Phone logs showed that Luke regularly phoned the speaking clock from home– it was just something he did – so you see, there are other innocent explanations for why he phoned the speaking clock, not just the one sinister one claimed by the prosecution.

Your last line “What reason would he have to lie? Where was he?” demonstrates exactly the type of suspicion colouring interpretation that I’m talking about. There is no proof that he “lied,” only a suggestion which is not backed up with evidence. The “he was using his mobile phone to phone the speaking clock, so he must have been out of the house,” explanation is only speculation, especially as there are logs showing he regularly phoned the speaking clock, from his home.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 04, 2012, 11:08:AM
Quote
The sightings:
 
A Brysons sighting is consistent with where Jodi would have been roughly since her time of leaving house, had Luke went to meet her. This time also ties in with the pair being behind the wall, when a passing cyclist heard a "strangling" sound. Luke was also spotted on the opposite side of the path, alone, looking like he was "up to no good", at a time which would tie in with both the original sighting, and the sound heard by the cyclist.

The time of Jodi leaving the house was changed twice – from 5.30pm to just after 5pm, and then from 5pm to 4.50pm. The time of the Bryson sighting was changed from between 5.15pm and 5.30pm to 4.49 – 4.54pm. That’s a lot of time changes to make something “consistent” don’t you think? The cyclist did not, initially, say a “strangling” sound – that was developed over a number of statements – initially he said “a sound, like branches moving” – this was somewhere around 5.15pm.

You say Luke was “spotted” at the other end, but both witnesses who made this claim (a) originally claimed it was around 6pm, opposite the entrance to the Abbey, which is exactly where other witnesses positively identified Luke at that time. Both of these witnesses change their accounts, both the time of their “sighting” and the place, putting the youth nearer the end of Roan’s Dyke path.  They did not say he was looking “like he was up to no good” until trial, when both witnesses used exactly the same phrase. Neither witness knew Luke, neither saw the youth's face, one said she could only describe him again from his hair and clothing.

Quote
This sighting at the other end was when Luke phoned Jodi's house asking where she was, he was putting his plan into place, Jodi's mums partner informed him that she had already left to meet him. He said "Ok cool". What reason would Bryson have to lie about her sighting? and If not Luke and Jodi, who was this young local couple who matched Luke and Jodi's description, never identified, never to come forward?

Now the logic is beginning to falter. Luke first called Jodi’s house at 5.30pm, but couldn’t get through. By the reasoning you suggest here, Jodi was murdered at 5.15pm, her body stripped and mutilated thereafter, yet by 5.30pm, Luke’s standing around, in full view, on the main road, making a call to her landline? How did he get cleaned up?  Or are you talking about the 5.38 call, which did connect – the one where Alan Ovens said Jodi had left – there is nothing, anywhere, to prove he said she had left “to meet” Luke. I guess that gave him a whole 8 minutes extra to clean up – it still doesn’t explain why he’d be standing around, in full public view, just yards from where he’d committed the most brutal murder, does it? You say “he was putting his plan into place” – wasn’t it a bit late for that, if he had, in fact, been the killer? And what plan, exactly, was he putting into place? I’ll phone her house to alert them that she’s not with me, and stand around right next to where her body is, so that I can lead them to the body later tonight? Pretty crap plan, if you ask me!
 
Quote
Bryson also described the male as wearing what could be the green parka jacket that Luke had been known to wear, but disappeared at the time of the murder, later replaced by his mother. Luke's own friends and school teacher confirm he owned such a parker before the murder, again, what reason would a school teacher have to lie?

We’re beginning to stray rather far from the facts now. Bryson refused, point blank, to identify the jacket as a parka, or to confirm that the jacket “could be” one. She stuck to her guns that it was a “fishing” jacket, and insisted in court that the picture she’d picked out wasn’t the same as the jacket she’d seen, it was only the nearest likeness from the photos the police showed her  (and the one she picked still wasn’t a parka!)

There is nothing, anywhere, to prove Luke owned or wore a parka before the murder. Photos of Luke in a parka, after the murder, appeared all over the newspapers, so it’s not surprising people could say, 15 months later, that they had seen him in a parka – they had! Only, it was after the murder, not before. There is no evidence of a parka being disposed of. “What reason would a school teacher have to lie?” There’s your sinister inference again – why couldn’t the teacher just have been mistaken?

Also, and far more importantly, why were the police telling Luke, in august 2003, that they had “dozens” of sightings of him that night in a green army shirt? Why were they telling him lots of people had described him “to a T” in this shirt? Why were the police absolutely convinced, in August 2003, that Luke Mitchell had been wearing a green army shirt that night which had since disappeared? And why did that belief change – where did all the witnesses and their descriptions go? Can you imagine the court case – 20 witnesses say he was wearing a green army shirt, 20 say he was wearing a parka, 20 say he was wearing a green bomber with an orange lining.... The whole “he was wearing an article of clothing, witnessed by a number of people; that article of clothing has disappeared – we believe, disposed of  - and replaced by another” story was going to be a central feature of this case, no matter what article of clothing they used. They had to drop the green army shirt story when they discovered that they (the police) actually had the shirt in their possession – kinda difficult to claim Luke had disposed of it by giving it to L&B! And so, months later, the green army shirt turns into a parka jacket, all of the green army shirt witnesses disappear, and a whole new batch of parka witnesses emerges.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 04, 2012, 11:33:AM
Quote
Bryson identified a picture of Luke near the time of the murder as "as sure as she could be" it was who she saw, Luke had aged, grown his hair, and looked very different in court at a later date, and Bryson couldn't identify him in the dock, this does not rule out the fact she was sure the person she saw was a 14 year old Luke Mitchell.

Experts in eyewitness identification have already commented that the manner in which this witness was shown pictures was heavily biased, so much so that it would have been surprising if she hadn’t picked out the picture of Luke (which does not actually prove that Luke was the person she saw that evening.) The picture she picked out did not match the description she gave police.

Quote
She also said the girls hair was in a ponytail, a hair scrunchie was present when the body of Jodi was discovered.

 No, she didn’t. She said, in a later statement, that the girl’s hair had a kink or a wave in it, which could have been where she had worn it in a pony tail – that’s a very different thing. She also failed to notice the huge orange Deftones logo on the back of the hoodie, describing it as plain blue. She failed, too, to notice the black baggy jeans, describing them as “bootcut jeans, lighter than the sweatshirt.” And finally, she failed to disclose the close connection between the Jones family and the Bryson family.

I don’t believe Andrina Bryson was dishonest – I believe she was genuinely trying to help, and was horribly manipulated by investigating officers who needed her to say specific things in specific ways. Because of the close connection between the two families, that wouldn’t have been very difficult to achieve – we already know about communications between the two families in the very first days.
 
Quote
Luke told his mum before going back out with his mates, ( his chance to get dirty again) - "if Jodi turns up, tell her where to find me" (im paraphrasing), but when asked by his mates if jodi was coming out, Luke informed them that she wouldn't be. Why was he adamant she wouldn't show, when Jodi's mums partner informed him that she was on her way to see him?

Back to the facts again. There is nothing to suggest, far less prove, that Luke went back to his house before “going out to meet his mates.” In fact, Lithium’s own theory makes that impossible – if Luke was standing on the Newbattle Road at  5.38pm, calling Jodi’s home (actually, the witnesses try to claim this is between 20 and quarter to six), and is positively identified by people who knew him, standing on the same road, further down at the entrance to the abbey between ten to six and six o’clock, where’s the time for him to go home, get cleaned up, and go back out “to get dirty again?”

The claim about being asked by his mates if Jodi was coming out, and Luke saying she wouldn’t be is the word of one, and only one, witness, whose story changed repeatedly. Not only did the other two witnesses not say this happened, they were adamant that it did not – Nobody asked where Jodi was, nobody said Jodi wasn’t coming out – there are two people’s statements to this effect, both supportive of Luke , both consistent throughout, yet the one story which changed to suit the prosecution line was the one used as “evidence.”
 
Quote
Luke went home that night and never bothered phoning Jodi to see why she never showed up earlier, not as much as a good night text. Why wasn't he worried? It was when Jodi's mum texted Luke telling her to come home that Luke phoned her saying he hadn't seen her all night. Luke decided he would head over and meet them, he took a torch, and his pet dog.

Why didn’t Jodi’s mum worry when she found out Jodi wasn’t where she was supposed to be, 40 minutes after she was supposed to be there? Why didn’t AO ask Luke where he was, since, according to the family, he should have met Jodi at the Easthouses end, just 2 mins, 40 seconds from her house? Why didn’t Judy phone Luke back at any point to ask if Jodi had arrived? Why did she leave it until 40 minutes after Jodi’s curfew, and then send a text, rather than phoning Luke’s phone? I think the only explanation is that nobody was “worried” in the early part of the evening, perhaps because Jodi was a little free spirit who did things as the mood took her, and everyone was just thinking “That’s Jodi, probably met someone, gone off with them, forgotten all about the time....”

Quote
What was the torch for, surely he didn't already suspect they would be searching for a dead body?

Seriously, Lithium? It was 11 o’clock at night, Luke was 14 years old, he was going up an unlit path in the dark. The arrangement was that Luke would look for Jodi on the path – if he didn’t find her, he’d make his way to Judy’s house. There is no evidence that any arrangement was made for Luke to meet with the search trio – none of the search trio’s phones were in contact with Luke’s that night, either by call or by text. Which leaves only Judy to pass on the information that the others were out – something she does not claim to have done. Perhaps he took the torch so that he could see where he was going in the darkness – or is that too ridiculous a supposition?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 04, 2012, 11:58:AM
Quote
Finding the body:


   
Luke claims his partly trained tracker dog lead him to the body. If this was the case, why didn't the dog alert him on the way up the path? He would have had to have passed the body when heading up to meet with Jodi's Gran, sister, and sister's bf, Steven Kelly. The dog never smelled the blood on the way up, which would make it inconsistent for the dog to suddenly decide to find it on the way back down.

The dog was not tracking on the way up. Luke was on his own, he wanted to get up the path as quickly as possible – if the dog had pulled over to the wall, he would have pulled her away – at that stage, he was only looking for Jodi on the path.

Quote
Luke climbing the wall and heading directly to the left where the body was, would suggest prior knowledge. He never found it on the way up because he would look more innocent if the family were with him when he found it. He needed witnesses there. All of his actions are consistant with a plan to appear innocent.

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.

Now, this plan. He needed witnesses, would have looked more innocent if the family were with him when he found her.  Why? He’d called the family home within minutes of the murder, almost from the murder scene itself, according to your earlier theory. He couldn’t have known that they wouldn’t mount an immediate search party (as they did later that evening.) Why then wait 6 hours, having apparently successfully distanced himself from the murder by cleaning up, heading out to get dirty again, as per your theory, and then lead the family to the body anyway? That makes no sense – as you, yourself claim, leading the family directly to the body could be used to imply prior knowledge – why would he take such a risk, especially having gone to such lengths to “cover his tracks” as you suggested earlier?
 
Quote
Luke described in a calm manner to police how he found the body, and also accurately described the clothes Jodi was wearing, even though she changed clothes after school and he had apparently not seen her before the murder, and her body was stripped naked with clothes scattered around in dark woods. The description of the clothes prove to me he did see Jodi since school/before the murder, again consistent with the Bryson sighting, again undermining his alibi of being at home.
 
Any innocent explanation for how he managed to describe what Jodi was wearing when she had her throat cut? The court heard the police tape of him accurately doing so

That’s very naughty, Lithium – I sincerely hope, if you’re a family member, this is not what you were told by investigating officers. Luke did not describe any clothing at the murder scene – none of the three people who went over the wall did. Luke was asked to describe what Jodi had been wearing to school that day – he did so, to the best of his recollection, but that was a description of what she’ been wearing at school, not what clothing had been found beside the body.

Also, there is no reliable evidence to say what Jodi was wearing to school that day – one witness has her in a white shirt, another in a black shirt, and so on. Jodi may have changed her shirt for a T shirt, but worn the same trousers/hoodie as she’d worn to school , she may have changed both t shirt and hoodie, but still worn the same trousers, etc, etc, – we simply don’t know. Judy couldn’t confirm what Jodi was wearing either when she came in from school or when she left (I know, as a mum of two girls, I probably couldn’t either.)

The use of this misinformation to attempt to create a tenuous support for Luke being out of the house just doesn’t cut it, really.  Luke didn’t describe the clothing as you claim here, so that’s a no go straight away.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on November 04, 2012, 06:37:PM
The “he was using his mobile phone to phone the speaking clock, so he must have been out of the house,” explanation is only speculation, especially as there are logs showing he regularly phoned the speaking clock, from his home.

Here's the thing though, the logs you're talking about show he showing he regularly used the speaking clock from the landline, this time he used his mobile. Why? Logs show he regularly used the speaking clock from his house phone, what was dfiferent this time? If anything this adds more weight to him not being at home. It's not the fact he supposedly phoned the clock from the house, I know he was in the habit of doing that, it's the fact he used his mobile credit this time, when we are supposed to believe a landline is available, and logs show he would normally use the landline.

That’s very naughty, Lithium – I sincerely hope, if you’re a family member, this is not what you were told by investigating officers. Luke did not describe any clothing at the murder scene – none of the three people who went over the wall did. Luke was asked to describe what Jodi had been wearing to school that day – he did so, to the best of his recollection, but that was a description of what she’ been wearing at school, not what clothing had been found beside the body.



oh dear

" (10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school; (13) "

Source - http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html

Jodi trial hears audio recording
The Jodi Jones murder trial has heard her boyfriend tell detectives there were four explanations as to why she had not met him on the night she died.

Luke Mitchell spoke in a relaxed manner to police during a taped interview four days after his girlfriend's murder.

Judge Lord Nimmo Smith told the jury to listen not only to what was said, but also to the way it was said.

An audio tape recording was played to the jury at the High Court in Edinburgh on Tuesday.

On the tape, Luke Mitchell explains in a calm, relaxed voice how he had arranged to meet Jodi.

Different explanations

However, when she failed to turn up he said he thought she had either been cheeky to her mum, forgotten, had to go somewhere else or something had come up at the house.

Luke did not tell detectives at the time that he knew she had left home because he had phoned her house and was told she had already left to meet him.

Earlier, the court heard how Luke liked horror films and occasionally read porn magazines.

He also described the clothes Jodi was wearing the night she was killed.


Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4116337.stm



So who's lying here, you or my 2 different sources? This was a police interviewed played in court by the way, you weren't there.

The last time I raised this question, nugnug tried to argue that Jodi never even changed clothes since school that day.  :-\

I'll go over the rest of your reply soon, I'm not even half way through my list of reasons.
Were you there Lithium, I mean in court?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on November 05, 2012, 10:56:PM
Would rather not say. Why did Sandra leave after being caught lying about Luke describing the clothes Jodi wore while being murdered? Didn't expect that unlike her I don't post anything without a confirmed source that confirms it as fact? a police interview played in a full court room, the voice of Luke Mitchell describing the clothes. Can't get a better source than that.
Explain how Luke Mitchell, who hadn't seen Jodi since school that day, described what she was wearing when she was killed, when she chaned clothes after school into her sisters shirt etc.

Sandra I've explained why I think he's guilty, can you explain why you think Luke is innocent?

Lithium, Sandra L has already covered this in August. She hasnt been "caught lying" or left anywhere, and has discussed this issue several times on this thread.

28Other high profile cases / Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Message by sandra L on August 22, 2012, 02:11:PM »

Transcript of Interview, 4th July 2003:

After discussing what Luke was wearing on Monday night at page 44, and then some discussion about whether or not Luke and Jodi wore school uniform (they didn’t).

At P45, after discussing who bought both Luke and Jodi’s clothes, the following discussion is recorded:

DC: Oh, right, OK. Was Jodi the same, did she buy her

LM: 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.

DC: Mm-mm and eh what else was she wearing on Monday?

LM: Eh, a black Deftones, it was like this, it had the zip, but it was black and it had Deftones written across the back, and there, and there

DC: Aye

LM: It had sort of, a sort of distorted sort of circley oval, it had sort of, it was like a yellowy orange

DC: Yeah

LM: Band sort of thing.

DC: anything else that you can, that strikes oot or...

LM: I can’t remember the top, I mean she had her hoody zipped up most of the time so..

DC: Oh, right, aye

LM: She had her sort of navy blue DCs on- DC trainers

DC: Right

ADS: When was this, sorry?

LM: This was Monday.

DC: Monday

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.

At page 114, same transcript

DC: Right, OK, what clothes were you wearing on Monday evening?
(LM describes his clothes)

DC: What clothes was Jodi wearing?

LM: Eh, I only saw the ones she was wearing at school were blue cords

At page 135, same transcript:

DC... and what clothes were you wearing that night?
(LM describes his clothes again)

DC: Yeah the same as you had been wearing at school, eh?

LM: Yeah

DC: Eh, and what was Jodi wearing

LM: Well, at school, she was wearing, I’m sure it was the blue cords she borrowed off her sister, I’m sure, with her black Deftones hoody, zip up hoody like this in black, Deftones across the back... and there, and there...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on November 05, 2012, 11:51:PM
Lets have some self regulation?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Roch on November 05, 2012, 11:57:PM
Read the last 2 pages and tell me everything wasn't going fine until Stephanie chimed in.

I'm turning in for the night soon. I hope there's no carnage when I log in tomorrow.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 06, 2012, 08:49:AM
Good morning, I don't have a lot of time, as I'm working today, but I'll try to answer outstanding points.

Firstly, thanks to Oncesaid for posting the transcript - I had intended to do so last night, but didn't get home until late, and got caught up in other things.

Secondly, Lithium, I'm happy to discuss the case when I have time  - just because I don't respond immediately doesn't mean I have "left" or I am hiding, it just means I'm busy.

So let's take care of the "lies."

Luke did not phone the speaking clock from his landline previously, he called it from his mobile. That is a fact, verified by the phone logs. May I ask where you got the erroneous information that he called from the landline, as you have mistakenly posted that here as a fact when it is not. (Notice I'm not in any way calling you a liar, just pointing out an error which can be verified by the phone logs.)

You were also mistaken about Luke's description of Jodi's clothes, as Oncesaid has kindly demonstrated - Luke explained, several times, that he did not see Jodi after school, and was describing the clothes she wore that afternoon. If that description matches some of the clothes that Jodi was wearing when she was murdered, then a simple explanation is that Jodi didn’t change all of her clothes before leaving (Luke doesn’t describe what Jodi was wearing under her hoodie), or, alternatively, Jodi didn’t change her clothes at all – remember, we only have Judy’s say-so that Jodi changed anything, and Judy couldn’t remember what Jodi was wearing when she came in from school or when she left.

Your two “reliable sources” appear to be a media article and the appeal decision. I’ll leave the media article to one side for now – we are all aware of how easily inaccuracies creep into those, and deal with the appeal decision.

Quote
oh dear

" (10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school; (13) "

Oh dear, indeed! He described a scrunchy that Jodi sometimes wore in her hair – he did not say he saw it that night. However, the body had been touched by AW, potentially moving Jodi’s head, and also by the first officers at the scene, before photographs were taken, so how can anyone say what was “readily visible” before the body was moved? The bit about naming the tree is just nonsense, and you’ll note this document is only prepared to go as far as “implied” he had seen her later than at school – it’s all smoke and mirrors. By the way, if you are quite insistent that this document is accurate and reliable, perhaps you can explain why the judges are quite sure that the search trio of AW, SK, and JaJ left from JUDY’s house that evening? All of the evidence says they left from AW’s – if, in fact, they left from Judy’s then there are a whole new series of questions to be answered.

You seem quite keen to brand me a liar, Lithium, in big, bold, capital letters (it’s known in some circles as raising your font  :) ) yet each of your claims about me being dishonest have been systematically dismantled by the available evidence. I’m sorry if you don’t like that evidence, or wish it wasn’t true, but those are the facts of the matter. Your approach is quite aggressive, in my opinion – fair enough, if that’s the way you generally communicate, but, to be honest, it irks me a little when I’m doing my best to answer a whole deluge of questions, and you make demands rather than requests.

Your last quote about “honest reporting.” You speak about 20 “chapters” of evidence (makes it sound like a veritable tome) but don’t tell us what that evidence is. Witness statements are “evidence” – yes, of course they are. When they are discredited, they are unreliable evidence, and cause convictions to be overturned.

Bryson did not identify Luke in court. Normally, prior statements are not allowed to be considered as evidence unless they are adopted on the stand. Bryson did not adopt her identification on the stand, yet, in this instance, her previous statement was allowed to become evidence. That’s called changing the rules. You raised the point about the legitimacy of evidence – I’d be interested in your thoughts on the legitimacy of this rule change. So, no eyewitness identification, as defined in law, at the Easthouses end. Also, she refused to identify a parka, or agree that the jacket was like a parka, in her evidence at trial.

Fleming and Walsh were ripped apart on the stand – all of their original statements, every one of them, said they did not see the youth’s face, and could only identify him again by his hair and clothing. Luke Mitchell was wearing a suit in court. One of them said she was identifying him in the dock because of his eyes – she would never forget those eyes, she said – eyes she had never previously seen! They admitted making their “identification” from a picture in the Daily Record, weeks after the murder. May I have your thoughts on the legitimacy of an eyewitness identification made from newspaper photographs of the “prime suspect?” You might want to refer to the work done by Tim Valentine and others to check out how this sort of thing stands legitimately. So, no reliable identification at the Newbattle end either.

Cell site analysis, which would have proven conclusively if Luke’s phone had travelled from west to east and back again (showing that he was out of the house) was never obtained by the police. The Legal Aid board blocked an attempt by the defence to obtain it. Why? Were they afraid that it would destroy their case, by supporting Luke’s alibi that he was at home the whole time? It’s an awfully convenient “oversight” by the police, and a completely inexplicable decision by the Legal Aid Board.
Remember, the defence request for a second opinion on the forensic reports was also never completed.

Just because this evidence wasn’t obtained didn’t mean it didn’t exist. How can we be sure any decisions, made in the absence of this information, are safe or correct?

There was no forensic evidence of any description - no DNA, no fibres, hairs, fingerprints, shoeprints, identified as Luke’s found on the body, clothing, or at the scene. No weapon. If I were claiming that the absence of DNA evidence alone is the reason this conviction is unsafe, I’d be somewhat misguided – for what it’s worth, I don’t do stupid! But that’s not what I’m claiming at all – you misrepresent me again, Lithium.

So where is the evidence that Luke killed Jodi? There is none. You can make any song and dance you like about circumstantial evidence, but what does it “prove” in this case? The answer is nothing – it does not, and can not, prove that Luke killed Jodi. If you can, Lithium, please list the “evidence” you believe proves that Luke killed Jodi, and also why you think it proves it.

It is not a lie that evidence pointing to other people was ignored, as I have demonstrated several times in the past. It is not a lie that witnesses were pressured – there are statements to that effect which I cannot post for legal reasons, but, if you are patient, this will be verified soon enough. So, once again, Lithium, you are mistaken. I did not lie, I have not been dishonest in any way.

I have to go now, and will be away until fairly late this evening, then I’m working early tomorrow, so it might be a few days before I have time to post again.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on November 06, 2012, 09:26:AM
Very logical and well thought out Sandra. Lithium appears to me to be someone who was personally involved with the victim in some way. Otherwise how can we explain his vitriolic answers to you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 06, 2012, 02:58:PM
Its most probable that your right Lugg and once whoever it is thats writing Lithiums 20 page assessment and he see's fit to post it I assume it will pretty much follow the prosecutions case. Its hard when all the evidence is weighted together and we have to break each and every point down one by one as when your stabbing in the dark you will hit something atleast once.
The fact the Jodi had left to meet Luke is one point of relevance, we don't deny that to be the case but the way its construed can make it more sinister than was intended.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 08, 2012, 08:54:PM
Very logical and well thought out Sandra. Lithium appears to me to be someone who was personally involved with the victim in some way. Otherwise how can we explain his vitriolic answers to you?

oh your certainly right there lugg.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 14, 2012, 02:50:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/press-articles-readers-comments/let-me-take-a-lie-detector-test/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 12:14:PM
how would you know she hadent been unless of course your the person who put it there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 12:34:PM
i read it very clearly its a complete lie kelly never denied that his sperm was on the bra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 12:38:PM
While I'm online, Sandra why don't you be more honest about the 'semen on the bra' claim?

I can't stay for long, so here's the truth;

The semen on found on the bra being Kelly's was nothing more than an uncorroborated suggestion by Luke's old defence team, nothing has ever indicated that this semen was Kelly's, there is absolutely no proof, tests, or anything else showing that the DNA from semen on the bra is Steven Kelly's. am I lying Sandra? Yet nugnug and so many more on Lukes site are stating it as fact, through no fault of their own, but due to selective and dishonest reporting by Lean.

its a fact he has never denied the police have never denied ethere they said that it transferred innocently.


your really trying to wish that sperm away arnt you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 15, 2012, 02:12:PM
Off the top of my head it was an integral part of the prosecutions case or at the very least the investigation teams, that semen could have been explained through the innocent transfer of rain on the clothes that night. Why would they need to have established this possiblity if indeed there was no connection to an identified sample?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 02:14:PM
exactly you cant have bothe ways theres no sperm but it transferred innocently.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 06:28:PM
I know he hasn't denied his sperm being present, but ask Sandra where the "it was Kellys semen on Jodi's bra" theory originally came from. There is nothing in the evidence stating the DNA on the bra is his at all.

Another one of those pieces of 'evidence' that doesn't actually start as 'evidence' but becomes fact in the eyes of the defence?

Nice to see you around, Lithium.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 06:36:PM
its a fact steven kelly has never denied the police have never denied it ether.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 06:42:PM
You mean never denied it PUBLICLY?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 06:47:PM
no i mean never denied it.

they claimed it transferred innocently witch means they admit it is there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on November 15, 2012, 07:38:PM
I know he hasn't denied his sperm being present, but ask Sandra where the "it was Kellys semen on Jodi's bra" theory originally came from. There is nothing in the evidence stating the DNA on the bra is his at all.

Lithium could you provide a source please?

You continually call Sandra Lean a liar, knowing that the law is against her to post certain evidence/documents etc publicly.  She provides what she can, within the law, so that the public can make an informed decision themselves as to whether Luke Mitchell could be innocent of this crime.  This woman has put everything into this case, (and others), for truth and justice. Why would you or anyone else want to have a go at her for that? 

To my knowledge she has no family that has been a miscarriage of justice victim, but yet she does what she does to help people who have had their lives torn apart due to the system getting it wrong.  I think I can speak on behalf of many people that we need people like Sandra Lean.  The abuse that she has had to endure over the years by certain people for supporting moj victims and their families has been disgusting, the least she deserves is respect, IMO, and not being called a liar.

My take on it was that it was a full DNA match for Kelly on the teeshirt, I am unsure what the result was for the semen on the bra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 07:58:PM
your really trying to wish that particular fact arnt you but it wont work.

people can see the gaurdion artificial.

the proscution admits there they just dispute how it got there hence the borrowed t shirt claim.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on November 15, 2012, 09:56:PM
Sorry once said but please do tell me how I can provide a source for nothing ? Sandra's the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on her not I. If she posts proof Kelly's sperm was on the bra, I'll be proved wrong. Can only laugh at your praise of Sandra, I've never really disrespected her. She disrespects the victims family regularly, incest jokes etc...
That is a very serious accusation Lithium. Could you please provide a link to such jokes made by Sandra L please?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 10:15:PM
of course he cant he made it up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 10:30:PM
IF he does, I hope you two will be among the first to condemn the comments and the poster?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 10:32:PM
well it depends what he is supposed to have said.

if it was said in a private message that's fair enough.

but as usal he is yet to prove anything other than the fact his an idiot.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 10:35:PM
well it depends what he is supposed to have said.

if it was said in a private message that's fair enough.

Do you mean SHE? Sorry, I thought that the comments were relating to Sandra L?

And the second part of your post - are you saying that if Sandra L has made incest jokes regarding the members of the family - that's okay as long as it is in a private message?

I am just checking, I don't want to put words into your mouth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 10:39:PM
mat and lith trying to divert from the subject again because they havent got an argument.

all they have is character assassination.

proves how desprate lithums getting.

sandra has made no public posts saying anything of the sort.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 10:54:PM
Oh, no - I'm not trying to divert from the case. I think that the semen evidence we're talknig about is GREATLY relevant to the case and almost make or break? So it's important to understand where that evidence originated and both the defence and prosecution's stance on said evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 10:56:PM
are so you do admit it exists now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 10:58:PM
Errr.. I never said it didn't?

You're failing to follow again, Nugnug... (God, I've missed you!)

The area of the evidence, how it got there etc etc is what's been disputed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:00:PM
everyone can so you did you pratt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 11:00:PM
everyone can so you did you pratt.

What??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:13:PM
then how would you know she said it then.

and youve got no right to talk about honesty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:18:PM
Doesn't matter, ask her. I'd like to see her deny it.

And I'm not denying the semen, I accept it's there and I also have an easier time accepting the more believable explanation of innocent transfer than the alternative. What I'm saying is the semen on the bra is't identified as Kelly's. Sandra doesn't even know where that information originally came from. It was actually just suggested by Luke's previous lawyers.

well it certanly does matter if you accusing her of something like that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 11:20:PM
I don't know who Lithium is... but in the past he's been called a liar and then backed it up. So I would  not jump too quickly to call him a liar again purely because I've never seen him say anything that he hasn't been prepared or capable of backing up.

If Sandra was to say that she hadn't said what he says she has - my stomach tells me he'd prove it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:22:PM
I don't know who Lithium is... but in the past he's been called a liar and then backed it up. So I would  not jump too quickly to call him a liar again purely because I've never seen him say anything that he hasn't been prepared or capable of backing up.

If Sandra was to say that she hadn't said what he says she has - my stomach tells me he'd prove it.

i dont recall him ever backing anything up.

and a feeling in your stomache just wont do.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 11:24:PM
Really? Because that simply isn't true nugnug. He once claimed to have been given access to some database with private messages didn't he? That someone had past them on to him? He was ripped to pieces for that by you lot........then he posted some extracts.

Could this be where he has seen the words of Sandra Lean?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:28:PM
why dont you prove it now
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 11:28:PM
why dont you prove it now

Nug...aren't you a fan of Sandra Lean? Why would you press someone to release something that would make her look terrible?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 15, 2012, 11:29:PM
It could well possibly be but it would show his moral ineptitude should he continue to use these private messages and thoughts as a stick to beat people with. I wonder how you would feel mat should your pm's be available to all? I suppose that would depend on the type of person you were but you do seem to endorse these types of action. I wonder did you take a look at the pm sent by your mentor to the person he thought was Jodi's mum!! I wonder what your view on that would be?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 11:31:PM
It could well possibly be but it would show his moral ineptitude should he continue to use these private messages and thoughts as a stick to beat people with. I wonder how you would feel mat should your pm's be available to all? I suppose that would depend on the type of person you were but you do seem to endorse these types action. I wonder did you take a look at the pm sent by your mentor to the person he thought was Jodi's mum!! I wonder what your view on that woud be?

My Pm's have been leaked on this forum before - also I've been accused of saying thnigs VIA PM that I have never said - ever.
I am not condoning anything - however - I agree that if people in power are up to no good and make disgusting comments about people they should be willing to back it up.
That is why I never say anything in a PM that I wouldn't say in public.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:31:PM
its also totally illegal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 11:34:PM
its also totally illegal.
Well no, it isn't.
It isn't illegal for Lithium though. He says he didn't hack - he was past the information from someone.

It's the same as Wikileaks, it isn't illegal for them to show what they have been sent, nugs.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 15, 2012, 11:36:PM
The mentor bit was not directed at you but someone is pushing your buttons for sure. What you know about anything regarding anyone will have been contained within those pm's or zip file.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:36:PM
Well no, it isn't.
It isn't illegal for Lithium though. He says he didn't hack - he was past the information from someone.

It's the same as Wikileaks, it isn't illegal for them to show what they have been sent, nugs.

yes if they can prove thats how they got it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:38:PM
im not talking about anyone's private messages, didnt even care enough about them to read them when someone sent me the zip file containing them. I'm still pretty sure it was one of your own, hoping i'd leak information for you. And who's my mentor gordo?

well the truth will be established about that shortly.

may i ask why you havent leaked the information then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on November 15, 2012, 11:40:PM
yes if they can prove thats how they got it.

I was in the tinychat room when a random name entered and pasted the download link to the zip file Lithium is talking about. Anyone could have done that, anyone could have clicked on it and read all of the information inside....and anyone could leak any of it at any moment.  :-\ I wouldn't be happy if it was my PM's but then again I wouldn't have said anythnig that could be used against me and I certainly wouldn't be insulting people from Luke or Jodi's family.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2012, 11:40:PM
Don't worry, I can. I've honestly never touched your website. Why are you so aggressive nugnug? Mat has a point I could have easily posted all of those messages and didn't out of decency, only did it reluctantly when Gordo goaded me, and deleted it soon after.

i think we are going around in circules ill leave it for now im sure we both have beeter things to do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 15, 2012, 11:41:PM
We know how you got them and from whom, of course nothing illegal occurred but it is what you do with the information you have now, simply using it as some big stick that holds no relevance within the case in question is pretty low.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 16, 2012, 12:33:AM
well we will have to wait and see.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on November 16, 2012, 12:50:AM
I'm still waiting to see these jokes that Sandra L was supposed to have said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 16, 2012, 07:34:AM
Lugg what ever was contained in those personal messages should remain personal,theres no way to tell in just what context things were written  without the relevant series of pm's or the public material they may have related to. The fact that many were jocular suggest's that things may have been said without much thought or due process a right all of us have under the circumstance's.

Just like nugnug knows im SK? youre right though, ill drop it. so... what's the latest with the SCCRC then? I heard "the box" was underwhelming...

Not like this at all.

The SCCRC has accepted the case for review so It is a wait and see what they come up with, Its hard to know just what route they will take but were sure that they will be thorough in their investigations.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on November 16, 2012, 09:33:AM
Lugg what ever was contained in those personal messages should remain personal,theres no way to tell in just what context things were written  without the relevant series of pm's or the public material they may have related to. The fact that many were jocular suggest's that things may have been said without much thought or due process a right all of us have under the circumstance's.

Not like this at all.

The SCCRC has accepted the case for review so It is a wait and see what they come up with, Its hard to know just what route they will take but were sure that they will be thorough in thier investigations.
Well in my estimation Lithium should not have posted the accusation on open forum. I shall report it to the moderators.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 16, 2012, 12:00:PM
Well of course your right he shouldn't have but Lithium was no more than a tool (no insult intended) here to further someones objective in discrediting the source of any of these pm's. This does however mean that he should have been smart and realised that as with the 1st pm he put up that it had been photoshopped to look like it had came from Steph's email only and of course that wasn't the case. There is something fishy about the jokes also but I will let him proceed with whichever route he may take, just don't leave yourself open.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on November 21, 2012, 06:28:PM
No you don't. You were all very quick to just happily accept my explanation that someone sent me them. Great detectives you lot are! Did you know the word 'gullible' doesn't appear in the dictionary?

I'm no one's tool, and no one "sent me" to do or disrupt anything.
But you still made an accusation with no proof. In my book that is termed "libel".
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 21, 2012, 06:32:PM
i woulden delve to deeply into the subject of whats been said in private pms and emails anyway.

i mean you never know whos been reading yours ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on November 21, 2012, 06:34:PM
i mean you never know whos been reading yours ;)

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ew1gULgE1qayg59o2_250.gif)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 21, 2012, 06:39:PM
your rather pathetic attempts to bully people into to forgetting abouthi arnt t going to work you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on November 21, 2012, 06:39:PM
I have proof, even Gordo and nugnug know I'm probably telling the truth, Gordo's even telling you to stop encouraging me to post it, and trying to defend Sandra.
In that case, if you are not prepared to prove your accusation you must withdraw it, or it becomes no more than libel. If that was me that you accused I would have instructed a solicitor to investigate you and send you a letter of warning. But then that is up to Dr. Sandra Lean?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on November 21, 2012, 06:43:PM
I won't withdraw it, sorry. I don't care if you, Lugg, don't believe me. Sandra knows.
It isn't a matter of believing or disbelieving you. I'm just pointing out to you what the law says about libel and that you are running the risk of a summons by Dr. Lean.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 21, 2012, 08:57:PM
Quote
Quote from: Anonymous on Today at 06:36 PM

    I have proof, even Gordo and nugnug know I'm probably telling the truth, Gordo's even telling you to stop encouraging me to post it, and trying to defend Sandra.

On the contrary I am wanting you to post it as I know there is something wrong with it!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on November 21, 2012, 09:01:PM
But you still made an accusation with no proof. In my book that is termed "libel".
That is indeed the problem with messing around with pm's, how do you prove whos they are in this world of computer generated options and such!! Why is he deleting his post's it kinda makes it confusing?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 21, 2012, 10:57:PM
if anybody managed to copy and save those posts please pm me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on November 22, 2012, 12:40:AM
nugnug is hilarious
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 22, 2012, 12:43:AM
thankyou
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: beaufoy on January 08, 2013, 08:02:AM
A final qute from the transcript of July 4th, which I find quite telling:

CM: Why was I not told at the house that the house was gonna be searched, why was it left til I was up here - that was a bit of a shock.

ADS: Well, we were provided with a warrant, do you just want to conclude this and then we'll answer

DC: aye

ADS: address any concerns Mrs Mitchell's got

DC: We'll do that, aye. Eh, we'll just, I'll switch the tapes off

ADS: So that's eh

DC: in case they stop again

ADS: 1652

DC: 1652. The time is 1652 ours on Friday the 4th of july, this is DC SQ concluding the interview with Lue Mitchell that took place in Dalkeith Police Station.

What' no answer on tape as to why they waited until they'd got Luke and Corinne out of the house and at the station bfore telling them it was going to be searched? No denial on tape that they'd done so?

The police quite often use eye eerr yea ect when they fill in the gaps after falsifying the interview tape
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 09, 2013, 02:58:PM
it is very disturbing the way the police did that mind you no more than the rest of there behavior in the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 12, 2013, 09:05:PM
Updates can be read here http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg9923146/#msg9923146
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 12, 2013, 10:55:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/lukes-polygraph-test-video-footage/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 13, 2013, 12:43:AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261396/Killers-YouTube-video-bars-Convicted-murderer-protests-innocence-girlfriends-death-online-clip.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 13, 2013, 09:06:AM
Thanks, nugnug and Oncesaid. It took more than 6 months to negotiate permission to release this footage - the first time footage of a lie detector test inside a UK prison has ever been allowed to be released.

As I've said so many times, we're not claiming that passing the polygraph is what proves Luke's innocence  - it merely backs up all of the other evidence that shows Luke did not commit, and could not have committed, this terrible murder.

And to all of those who say it's unreliable, and easy to beat, ask yourselves, why are probation services relying on it to decide whether sex offenders are safe to be released, or to remain at liberty after release? And why is it being trialled in poice investigations? Seems to me they want it both ways - it's "reliable" when it indicates guilt, but not when it indicates innocence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on January 13, 2013, 09:16:AM
Morning sandraL  excellent post I share your sentiments with regard to the polygraph test.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on January 13, 2013, 04:42:PM
Thanks, nugnug and Oncesaid. It took more than 6 months to negotiate permission to release this footage - the first time footage of a lie detector test inside a UK prison has ever been allowed to be released.

As I've said so many times, we're not claiming that passing the polygraph is what proves Luke's innocence  - it merely backs up all of the other evidence that shows Luke did not commit, and could not have committed, this terrible murder.

And to all of those who say it's unreliable, and easy to beat, ask yourselves, why are probation services relying on it to decide whether sex offenders are safe to be released, or to remain at liberty after release? And why is it being trialled in poice investigations? Seems to me they want it both ways - it's "reliable" when it indicates guilt, but not when it indicates innocence.

Whether is is reliable or not isn't the question. The question is how do you expect a lie detector to help your case? Luke was convicted on evidence in court - it's that evidence you need to attack and until you do that in an open and honest way you can have a million lie detectors posted on the internet and nothing will happen.

I'll join others in smelling a rat as to how independant the 'expert' with the lie detector is.
"‘I’m certain of the test result. It’s absolute. I can’t believe Luke Mitchell was convicted on the evidence that was available.’"

But still there is a 4 percent chance (Higher or lower depending on who you ask) that the test is wrong, and when it is going up against a guy that murdered his girlfriend, lied about it and contiues to lie about it - you're not going up against the mind of a normal person.

but good luck, you've got yourself some publicity if nothing else.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 13, 2013, 04:49:PM
the expert was totaly independant he was hired by nationol newspaper as we have stated many times before.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 13, 2013, 05:40:PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9798724/Schoolgirls-killer-becomes-first-British-prisoner-to-post-video-to-Youtube-in-attempt-to-prove-innocence.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 13, 2013, 06:26:PM
Mat said
Quote
Whether is is reliable or not isn't the question. The question is how do you expect a lie detector to help your case? Luke was convicted on evidence in court - it's that evidence you need to attack and until you do that in an open and honest way you can have a million lie detectors posted on the internet and nothing will happen.

I agree with most of what you say here, Mat - the lie detector test/result changes nothing in legal terms. But it doesn't mean nothing will happen - there are a number of factors involved in fighting wrongful convictions - just take a look at how many high profile Miscarriages of Justice took literally years to get the convictions overturned, often because the courts simply refused to allow the information, which would attack the prosecution evidence, to be heard. Maintaining a high public profile for cases claiming wrongful conviction, putting as much information as possible into the public domain, trying to build public support, etc, are all factors in the process.

I've had people contact me as a result of articles/forum discussions/documentaries, etc who have said, themselves, that had it not been for the fact of those public discussions, they would probably not have tried to do anything with the information they had. I've also had messages from fence-sitters (their own description), and even from those who have changed their opinion from guilt to innocence as a result of having had access to more information. So it's not entirely accurate to say "nothing" will happen.

Attacking the evidence in an open and honest way is what I have been trying to do, against some particularly difficult obstacles, for almost 10 years. In Scotland, it is an offence to post many of the documents I have had access to - the most I can do is quote from them (and even that can be risky). It does, of course, leave me open to accusations that people are just having to "take my word for it" - there's not a great deal I can do about that. But I have called the SIO a liar, publicly, several times, and demonstrated from his own statements exactly how and why he is a liar. I have quoted directly from statements, pointing out many, many anomalies in accounts - none of those whose statements I have quoted have ever stated that what I have quoted is untrue, etc, etc.

Luke, and others like him, are where they are because other people were dishonest. It would serve no-one if people like me tried to fight that dishonesty with further dishonesty - it would be stupid and pointless. Although some people might find it hard to believe, I do, actually, have a real life, and I wouldn't waste a minute of it (a) fighting for someone I thought might be guilty, or (b) undermining my own hard work by making public information I knew to be untrue.

Is there any evidence you believe I have not attacked in an open and honest way? I'll do my best, within the restrictions I face, to address this, if you can give me concrete examples.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on January 13, 2013, 07:10:PM
the expert was totaly independant he was hired by nationol newspaper as we have stated many times before.

We?

Mat said
I agree with most of what you say here, Mat - the lie detector test/result changes nothing in legal terms. But it doesn't mean nothing will happen - there are a number of factors involved in fighting wrongful convictions - just take a look at how many high profile Miscarriages of Justice took literally years to get the convictions overturned, often because the courts simply refused to allow the information, which would attack the prosecution evidence, to be heard. Maintaining a high public profile for cases claiming wrongful conviction, putting as much information as possible into the public domain, trying to build public support, etc, are all factors in the process.

I've had people contact me as a result of articles/forum discussions/documentaries, etc who have said, themselves, that had it not been for the fact of those public discussions, they would probably not have tried to do anything with the information they had. I've also had messages from fence-sitters (their own description), and even from those who have changed their opinion from guilt to innocence as a result of having had access to more information. So it's not entirely accurate to say "nothing" will happen.

Attacking the evidence in an open and honest way is what I have been trying to do, against some particularly difficult obstacles, for almost 10 years. In Scotland, it is an offence to post many of the documents I have had access to - the most I can do is quote from them (and even that can be risky). It does, of course, leave me open to accusations that people are just having to "take my word for it" - there's not a great deal I can do about that. But I have called the SIO a liar, publicly, several times, and demonstrated from his own statements exactly how and why he is a liar. I have quoted directly from statements, pointing out many, many anomalies in accounts - none of those whose statements I have quoted have ever stated that what I have quoted is untrue, etc, etc.

Luke, and others like him, are where they are because other people were dishonest. It would serve no-one if people like me tried to fight that dishonesty with further dishonesty - it would be stupid and pointless. Although some people might find it hard to believe, I do, actually, have a real life, and I wouldn't waste a minute of it (a) fighting for someone I thought might be guilty, or (b) undermining my own hard work by making public information I knew to be untrue.

Is there any evidence you believe I have not attacked in an open and honest way? I'll do my best, within the restrictions I face, to address this, if you can give me concrete examples.

Thanks for the reply. Glad we actually agree on some points.  I don't particularly find MOJ websites always open and honest or the best source to get information from, I find them biased - the Luke Mitchell website is no different, nor the Bamber, Hall etc.

I beleive the LM case to be crucial for you, Sandra. After the AP case I don't tihnk that you can afford another MOJ that turns out to be actually guilty so I respect that you're going to great means to prove LM's innocence, I just don't agree with your opinion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 13, 2013, 07:17:PM
why would they lie you cant lie somebody out of prison.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on January 13, 2013, 07:20:PM
why would they lie you cant lie somebody out of prison.

I'm just wondering why you said 'we'?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 13, 2013, 07:28:PM
by we i meant me sandra and other posters on this i would of thought that was obvious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on January 13, 2013, 07:29:PM
by we i meant me sandra and other posters on this i would of thought that was obvious.


I figured that you meant Sandra and yourself, I just didn't realise that you were involved in the whole process.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 13, 2013, 07:41:PM
im not involved in the whole processes  the appeals and the official stuff im not involved in i just post on forums.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 15, 2013, 09:58:AM
Mat said
Quote
I beleive the LM case to be crucial for you, Sandra. After the AP case I don't tihnk that you can afford another MOJ that turns out to be actually guilty so I respect that you're going to great means to prove LM's innocence, I just don't agree with your opinion

Every case I'm involved in is "crucial" to me, in the sense that, if an innocent person is in prison for a crime they didn't commit, then the real perpetrator is out here walking amongst us. I don't need or want the approval of anyone else for what I do  I do it because, for me, it's the right thing to do.

Adrian Prout turned out to be guilty but the evidence on which he was convicted was not sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had killed Kate. Without the lie detector test, he would, almost certainly, never have been found out.

I have stated before, and will state again, I would rather take the chance of occasionally getting it wrong, than sit back and do nothing while our justice system obtains more and more questionable convictions.

Regarding nugnug, the use of "we" refers to posters/supporters of Luke's innocence, nothing more. I have never worked with nugnug on any case, or in any other situation - he is a long time poster on Luke's forum, as well as others, but I have never met him, and do not know him personally. I am, however, pleased to have him on board as a supporter - he has been a valuable contributor to our many debates and dicussions.

Thanks to FreeSimonHall for posting the forthone link.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 15, 2013, 03:08:PM
Well done to Terry Mullins, but it is scandalous that his expert opinion is being questioned by some, and that because Luke closed his eyes throughout the test that he has been accused by some of cheating the polygraph.  Is this the best that people can come up with?  Had he been instructed to keep his eyes open no doubt there would have been something said about that too.  He can't win with some people but what they seem to forget whilst bitching about his eyes being open is that there was no evidence linking him to the murder of Jodi and he is using any means possible to back this up to help prove his innocence, and why shouldnt he?. 

Whilst the papers are running with stories about whether the video should be on youtube or not, and online forums discuss the reliability of lie detectors, people seem to be forgetting that there were no witnesses nor forensic evidence to link him in anyway to this murder.

I can't help but feel that people who are criticising him feel that he and others who are protesting their innocence should just do their time and make no effort to prove their innocence, incase it rocks the boat, or offends someone.  Of course it would be a much different story if it was one of their own.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 15, 2013, 03:09:PM
Updates can be found here http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/13845/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 15, 2013, 03:20:PM
thanks oncesaid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 15, 2013, 03:50:PM
Oncesaid said
Quote
I can't help but feel that people who are criticising him feel that he and others who are protesting their innocence should just do their time and make no effort to prove their innocence, incase it rocks the boat, or offends someone.  Of course it would be a much different story if it was one of their own.

I've said to so many people - either critics, or those who think I'm mad and should just "walk away and get on with my own life" - what would YOU want ME to do if this was your son?

The most common answer is, "But it's not my son, is it? My son would never be in that position."

So many people just can't seem to grasp how easily wrongful convictions are obtained. I agree, also, with Oncesaid, that there's this perception of people protesting their innocence "offending" people - why on earth should that be so? If there are outstanding questions about any case, then surely it is in everyone's interests that the case be properly reviewed? Or are these people happy to take the risk that the real perpetrator is still walking free amongst us, rather than face the unpalatable fact that our justice system sometimes gets it wrong?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 17, 2013, 02:11:PM
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1783648
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 17, 2013, 05:15:PM
facebook group.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/You-ARE-LUKE-Mitchell/286160341427261
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 17, 2013, 10:56:PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-21060864
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 17, 2013, 11:02:PM
see the rent a gob politicians are at it again.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 18, 2013, 12:27:PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21060845
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on January 18, 2013, 03:16:PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21060845

He didn't answer the question did he. Chicken.  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 18, 2013, 04:15:PM
i dont think he could answer i dont think he knew the answer/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on January 18, 2013, 04:40:PM
i dont think he could answer i dont think he knew the answer/

He knew, bet he wouldn't take the test put it that way.
Needs to man up :P
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 18, 2013, 05:49:PM
i think thats what a lot of politicians are worried about if these tests catch on they might be asked to take them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Suzie on January 18, 2013, 08:00:PM
i think thats what a lot of politicians are worried about if these tests catch on they might be asked to take them.

Now, I'd vote for that :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 18, 2013, 11:23:PM
see the rent a gob politicians are at it again.

Aren't they just and they are using a victims family to get themselves publicity for their parties.

I hope they dig a hole so big that they all fall in  >:(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 18, 2013, 11:37:PM
i think thats what a lot of politicians are worried about if these tests catch on they might be asked to take them.

They have caught on as they are using them on whether to allow serious sex offenders to continue living on the outside or take them back to prison, based on their results.

They are either reliable or they aren't and I think its about time they hammered it out, one way or another.

I can't help but think that the politicians are muddying the waters, and no doubt this will drag on in the media for several weeks, in an attempt to get away from the fact that Luke and his mother actually passed the test. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 18, 2013, 11:52:PM
but they cant get away from it how ever hard they try.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 19, 2013, 12:16:AM
but they cant get away from it how ever hard they try.

Now the politicians have stuck their nebs in no doubt we will hear of weird and wonderful stories as to how the polygraphs are not reliable, if your names Mitchell. The whole thing is pathetic but it is pretty obvious what their motives are. ::)

All this hoo ha about it upsetting the victims family is a load of nonsense IMO.  Lukes photo and stories have been in the media for nearly 10 years.  They have the choice not to read or watch what is being said.  They are using the family and their pain to score points IMO. 

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 19, 2013, 12:27:AM
well there going to have a problem because if they say the tests then anyone who has been refused parole on the strength of one may well have grounds to sue.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 19, 2013, 09:28:AM
Here's John Lamont, MSP, Tory Chief Whip, refusing to answer the questions his own comments have raised. Strange he's become so reticent about the subject, after being so vocal, isn't it?

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/your-chance-to-shape-the-future-justice-system/politicians-and-communication/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 19, 2013, 10:32:AM
Mr Lamont seems to think the "risk" of wrongful conviction is just one of those things we have to put up with... unfortunate, but happens in every system.

I wonder if he'd feel the same if it was him, or someone he loved, who was wrongly convicted?

Seems he can't make his mind up about polygraphs either - he's quite insistent that polygraph tsting be rolled out for "serious offenders"... but only, it seems, if it shows them to be guilty.  People who pass the test are not to be taken into consideration at all, apparently
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 19, 2013, 03:00:PM
well hes shown himself to be a rather cyncal liar really.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 19, 2013, 09:57:PM
Here's John Lamont, MSP, Tory Chief Whip, refusing to answer the questions his own comments have raised. Strange he's become so reticent about the subject, after being so vocal, isn't it?

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/your-chance-to-shape-the-future-justice-system/politicians-and-communication/

Mr Lamont seems to think the "risk" of wrongful conviction is just one of those things we have to put up with... unfortunate, but happens in every system.

I wonder if he'd feel the same if it was him, or someone he loved, who was wrongly convicted?

Seems he can't make his mind up about polygraphs either - he's quite insistent that polygraph tsting be rolled out for "serious offenders"... but only, it seems, if it shows them to be guilty.  People who pass the test are not to be taken into consideration at all, apparently

He has, amongst others things made himself look like a complete and utter prat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 19, 2013, 10:08:PM
well i dare say its not the last email he is going to get about this matter.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 20, 2013, 10:54:PM
intresting little artical in the mail on sunday.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media/?sa=item;in=161
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 21, 2013, 07:05:PM
i know this isnt strictly relvant but im going to put it here anyway.

http://listverse.com/2013/01/17/10-unexpected-things-that-dogs-can-smell/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on January 21, 2013, 07:12:PM
Hi nugs  very interesting I had heard of two or three of them but not the rest.  Very clever animals dogs ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 21, 2013, 11:05:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/MGalleryItem.php?id=162
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 26, 2013, 11:34:PM
heres corrines test as well.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/corinne-mitchells-polygraph-test-video-footage/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 27, 2013, 01:52:PM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/MGalleryItem.php?id=165

Sunday post articall.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on January 27, 2013, 02:39:PM
You know.....from experience of my own German Shepherd (is this what Luke had)? I can fully believe that the dog may not have picked up on Jodi's  scent on the way up the path,but did so on the way back. My shepherd is often too excited on her way out for a walk to notice anything,just pulls me along in the direction of the fields.However,on the way back when she is a little tired and by now has slowed down,she has the time to notice more,if that makes sense? Also,wouldn't the direction the wind was blowing have an impact? I understand that Luke's dog was not a trained sniffer dog?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 27, 2013, 06:47:PM
it wasn't a trained sniffer the dog i believe it was a trained tracker though i dont know weather it had been fully trained.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on January 28, 2013, 10:16:AM
it wasn't a trained sniffer the dog i believe it was a trained tracker though i dont know weather it had been fully trained.
Sorry Nugs,I had meant a tracker dog.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 28, 2013, 10:27:AM
it was in the processes of being trianed i think i dont know how far the trianing had got.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 29, 2013, 06:13:PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UbHl3oCCClI
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 30, 2013, 12:40:AM
it was in the processes of being trianed i think i dont know how far the trianing had got.

I have read that she was still going through her tracker training.  When the dog was put through the ropes by the experts, they agreed that she had been partially trained and could track and find specific items set out in the test.  The dog passed their test, just like Luke and Corrine did with the polygraphs.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on January 30, 2013, 12:43:AM
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/MGalleryItem.php?id=165

Sunday post articall.

It was really good to see another paper cover this story.  Thanks for the link.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 30, 2013, 03:08:PM
your welcome i thought it was good as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on February 02, 2013, 10:57:AM
I've just watched the video on you tube of Luke Mitchell passing the polygraph test.  This is a chat about the test taken. It might have been shown on here before, so I apologise for that in advance.   I was shocked to learn that the test its self took so long...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfn4dyqh9WU
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 03, 2013, 03:12:PM


"an absolutely striking resemblance" ?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 03, 2013, 09:42:PM
Can we get Sandra hooked up to that lie detector? an "absolutely striking" resemblance, ha.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 03, 2013, 10:55:PM
Yes, Lithium, you can get Sandra Lean hooked up to that lie detector test. Anywhere, any time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 03, 2013, 11:18:PM

"an absolutely striking resemblance" ?



why have you removed the picture.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 03, 2013, 11:26:PM
Roth removed it

I'd like to know also...

and who asked him to, and why?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 03, 2013, 11:32:PM
Yes, Lithium, you can get Sandra Lean hooked up to that lie detector test. Anywhere, any time.

What if one of the questions were "have you ever accused the Jones family of incest"?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 03, 2013, 11:59:PM
if you dont believe lie detectors work why are you asking her to take one
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 04, 2013, 12:08:AM
I asked the moderators to remove the picture for legal reasons.

I will happily take a polygraph - I believe your original question for the polygraph was would I answer a question about the "striking resemblance" and I said I would. You have introduced a new question, so , yes, Lithium, bring it on... I will take a polygraph about my involvement in the Luke Mitchell case, and any questions relevant to that invlovement.

So, your move ... unless you want me to pay for the test as well??? Oh, no, of course not - then you'd say it was unreliable because the results would be "biased" because I'd paid for it myself.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 12:13:AM
What legal reasons?

I know you don't believe an image of MK from a public domain such as Youtube is your intellectual property?!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 12:15:AM
Here's the boy who bore an "absolutely striking resemblance" to Luke...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h9_tbE69d4

Playing snooker at 2:33 - 2:38

There are no legal reasons that restrict me from posting this public video.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 12:16:AM
luke and corrine passed one and you said they were still lying anyway so you clearly dont belive they work.

so if you dont belive they work why are you asking someone to take one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 12:17:AM
How can you bear an absolutely striking resemblance to someone without sharing one single physical feature?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 12:23:AM
so if you want someone to take a lie detctor you must belive they work.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 12:25:AM
How can you bear an absolutely striking resemblance to someone without sharing one single physical feature?

i thought there was a definite similarity.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 12:25:AM
I don't want anyone to take a lie detector. I asked Sandra (who obviously believes they work) if she would take one regarding accusing Jodi's family of incest. Which she has avoided answering in the past.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 12:27:AM
i thought there was a definite similarity.

there's a big difference between similarity and "absolutely striking"

not even from a distance or "fleeting glance" would the 2 be mistaken

we have a gangly pale College student with a short bowl cut with blonde highlights, and a short (we're never done hearing about how he couldn't have attacked Jodi as he was much shorter than her) 14 year old boy with dark greasy shoulder length hair.

Not to mention there is not one similar feature on their faces. 2 completely different looking people, different age, size, dress sense.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 12:28:AM
we chalenged you to provide proof of this and yourefused to do so why was that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 12:28:AM
we chalenged you to provide proof of this and yourefused to do so why was that.

No, you did.

If Sandra denies it, I'll be happy to prove her a liar.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 12:29:AM
I don't want anyone to take a lie detector. I asked Sandra (who obviously believes they work) if she would take one regarding accusing Jodi's family of incest. Which she has avoided answering in the past.

we repeatedly challenged you to provide proof of this witch you cliamed you had and you refused to do so why is that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 12:31:AM
No, you did.

If Sandra denies it, I'll be happy to prove her a liar.

why cant you do that now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 12:35:AM
Who's "we"? only you challenged me

even Gordo was telling me not to expose her


there would be no point in me doing it right now as I wouldn't be proving anyone a liar, as she hasn't publicly confirmed nor denied it...

If she denies in here that she ever accused the Jones family of incest, I will expose her as a liar.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 12:38:AM
well not everybody has time to deny allegations as quickly as you choose to make them up im afraid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on February 04, 2013, 12:39:AM
I think that everyone knows SL will never publicly deny it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 12:40:AM
well not everybody has time to deny allegations as quickly as you choose to make them up im afraid.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 12:42:AM
well i think most people can understand what im saying.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on February 04, 2013, 09:04:AM
Who's "we"? only you challenged me

even Gordo was telling me not to expose her


there would be no point in me doing it right now as I wouldn't be proving anyone a liar, as she hasn't publicly confirmed nor denied it...

If she denies in here that she ever accused the Jones family of racism, I will expose her as a liar.
I thought you said she accused the family of incest?
Quote from: Lithium
I don't want anyone to take a lie detector. I asked Sandra (who obviously believes they work) if she would take one regarding accusing Jodi's family of incest. Which she has avoided answering in the past.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2013, 11:39:AM
well hes makeing up as he goes along i think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 04:38:PM
lol, nice try nugnug. My phone autocorrects certain words sometimes. 'Racism' was obviously not the intended word as everyone involved in the case is white.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on February 08, 2013, 05:25:PM
"The public would have been prevented from knowing the identity of a killer such as Luke Mitchell had the plans to extend the bar on the identification of an accused from under 16 to under 18 been in place at the time of his conviction".

I don't think there was many a person in Scotland and beyond who hadn't heard of Luke Mitchell before his conviction.
 
Personally, I don't think anyone should be named until after the trial regardless of age.  How are the powers that be going to implement this?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-proposal-to-let-young-killers-remain-anonymous.20151891
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 08, 2013, 08:20:PM
i doubt very much weather they would of got a conviction without the media coverage and i think the police knew that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: jim ignatowski on February 08, 2013, 10:45:PM
"The public would have been prevented from knowing the identity of a killer such as Luke Mitchell had the plans to extend the bar on the identification of an accused from under 16 to under 18 been in place at the time of his conviction".

I don't think there was many a person in Scotland and beyond who hadn't heard of Luke Mitchell before his conviction.
 
Personally, I don't think anyone should be named until after the trial regardless of age.  How are the powers that be going to implement this?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-proposal-to-let-young-killers-remain-anonymous.20151891
I'm sorry but I can't agree with that at all
For example, quite often the publication of a Defendant's name following him/her being charged with an offence prompts other, additional witnesses to come forward.
Say that in a serious rape case, a person is charged with a single offence of rape but, in fact, he is a serial rapist, the naming him as the alleged rapist in that one case often prompts other females who have been raped to come forward
If your proposal was implemented, that situation couldn't arise !
jim
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 08, 2013, 10:51:PM
what there talking about is the law in England and wales anyway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on February 10, 2013, 09:17:AM
what there talking about is the law in England and wales anyway.

So the content of the article is pointless and is misleading its Scottish readers.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 10, 2013, 09:49:AM
well yes a bit alll there talking about is comeing in to line with the rest of uk theres nothing radical about this step.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 04:52:PM
(http://i.imgur.com/dEZQUPL.gif)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 04:57:PM
very clever whats the meaning exactly or is it just an abstract post.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 05:13:PM
How's things nug?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 05:17:PM
fine here mate.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 05:22:PM
Very quiet, no?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on March 30, 2013, 05:23:PM
Hi nugs  is it my eyes or is somebody throwing coconuts across the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on March 30, 2013, 05:24:PM
Hi nugs  is it my eyes or is somebody throwing coconuts across the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D

LOL....................Best laugh of the day. Come live with me!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 05:26:PM
it's a tumbleweed silly  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jane on March 30, 2013, 05:28:PM
Hi nugs  is it my eyes or is somebody throwing coconuts across the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D



Susan dear, I thought it was hippopotamos poo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on March 30, 2013, 05:33:PM
Patti on my way with me barrel of best Yorkshire Bitter.  You will see coconuts after drinking that ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 05:38:PM
What did the release of the lie detector vids achieve nug?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on March 30, 2013, 05:50:PM
Hi nugs  is it my eyes or is somebody throwing coconuts across the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's tumbleweed. Frequently seen in ghost towns. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on March 30, 2013, 05:51:PM
Patti on my way with me barrel of best Yorkshire Bitter.  You will see coconuts after drinking that ;D ;D ;D

I was just telling Maggie that I am on my own tonight with no wine.  My son has gone off with my car and wont be back till tomorrow. Again! I must put my foot down with that young man. 

I have no wine... :'( :'( :'(  I am contemplating the long walk to the shop and back...but, now you are sending me a barrel...you've saved the day... ;) :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on March 30, 2013, 06:28:PM
Hi Lugg

how disappointing thought they were a lovely bunch of coconuts ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on March 30, 2013, 06:32:PM
Patti the last barrel I sent you never got past Glasgow so start walking girl.  Borrow Maggie's boots they were made for walking ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on March 30, 2013, 06:38:PM
Patti the last barrel I sent you never got past Glasgow so start walking girl.  Borrow Maggie's boots they were made for walking ;D

And the floppy rhubarb?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on March 30, 2013, 06:42:PM
Patti it is meant to be stiff not floppy ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on March 30, 2013, 06:47:PM
And the floppy rhubarb?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
OY!!  I have NO rhubarb, it's Mary Ellen who has the rhubarb...if you don't mind ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on March 30, 2013, 07:02:PM
Patti it is meant to be stiff not floppy ;D ;D ;D

Oh LOL.................the stiffer the better for chopping up  :D :D :D :D :D
OY!!  I have NO rhubarb, it's Mary Ellen who has the rhubarb...if you don't mind ;D ;D ;D

Who is Mary Ellen? and why was she stood with stiff rhubarb in her hand at a train station....Sorry maggie, I'm laughing like a hyena crossed with a cheetah here.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on March 30, 2013, 07:09:PM
Patti lookout and Maggie tell the story of Mary Ellen who walks up and down Lime Street selling her rhubarb but we know it is not her rhubarb she is trying to sell but they are too innocent to see that. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 07:54:PM
I will have a PhD in Computing Science in afew months, should I be pretentious enough to insist on being referred to as Doctor?  ::)


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 08:20:PM
i seriosly doubt that you have no cuputer  skills that i can see.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 08:24:PM
And why would anyone care what you think? You can't even spell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 08:27:PM
charming as ever arnt you lithem.

maybe you should study people skills while your at it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 08:31:PM
I have much better people skills than you shut-ins.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 08:37:PM
Now answer me what was the point in releasing those test videos? Just to antagonise? For a camp that swears you hate the media, you don't half utilize it. Like when papers printed Luke's letter to Sandra. He's still guilty in the eyes of the law, a prisoner charged with murder, what the hell was Sandra thinking releasing a letter of him talking about the victim?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 08:53:PM
well luke gained a hell of lot of new supporters over a hundered more members to his facebook page.

and a fair few new people have showed an intrest in the case.

sorry i dident reply emedatly i do sometimes have other things to do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 08:56:PM
I have much better people skills than you shut-ins.

maybe you should try using then on the internet.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 08:56:PM
Do you want to discuss this case or not?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 08:57:PM
Have you read the SCCRC application?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 08:59:PM
no i havent thats nothing to do with me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:02:PM
I heard most of it consists of the poor police work from L&B. This doesn't warrant a re-trial at all. Completely irrelevant. Why doesn't Sandra understand it wasn't the police who convicted Luke, but the courts?

Another fault I'd pick based on what I heard is focusing on MK, and lying about an absolutely striking resemblance.

You want a retrial on the grounds of a new suspect, who's long been ruled out?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 09:05:PM
you couldn't possibly know what was in it unless your a member of the sccrc.

and if you are you shouldent be posting here.

and nobody would of told you what was in it well nobody who really knew.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:12:PM
You don't believe I've read it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 09:15:PM
of course you havent.

it would highly illgal you had.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:16:PM
I also heard another point raised was the confusion that the police thought Jodi left with Luke that afternoon.

Again, totally irrelevant, the police didn't find Luke guilty. The jury did, and they were well aware Jodi did not leave the house with Luke.

No point in that being in there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:16:PM

it would highly you had.


wanna try that again?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 09:19:PM
I also heard another point raised was the confusion that the police thought Jodi left with Luke that afternoon.

Again, totally irrelevant, the police didn't find Luka guilty. The jury did, and they were well aware Jodi did not leave the house with Luke.

No point in that being in there.

youve been reading the other forum haven't you.

if think your confusing posts on the other forum with the sccrc application.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:20:PM
How would you know if you haven't read the SCCRC?

That issue about leaving with Luke is definitely in the SCCRC application, I'm not surprised you don't believe it.

Luke was found guilty by a jury who had the correct information that they did not leave Jodi's house together.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 09:22:PM
well the fact there not put online gives me a clue.

t
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:23:PM
What's that got to do with anything?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 09:27:PM
only lawyers are aloud to read them the general public arnt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on March 30, 2013, 09:28:PM
Which year are you two on about. Here is the 2008 appeal document, its a long one and could take days to digest.   :(

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC_28.html&query=luke+and+mitchell&method=boolean

It also contains the submissions.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:29:PM
Oops, nobody told me the general public weren't supposed to read it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 09:34:PM
Which year are you two on about. Here is the 2008 appeal document, its a long one and could take days to digest.   :(

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC_28.html&query=luke+and+mitchell&method=boolean

It also contains the submissions.

no they from the last appeal hes talking the current crcc submissions you confidential legal paper witch is shown to to nobody.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on March 30, 2013, 09:41:PM
no they from the last appeal hes talking the current crcc submissions you confidential legal paper witch is shown to to nobody.

What year Nugs...I have 2010? Is that any good?  :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on March 30, 2013, 09:43:PM
2011?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:44:PM
Patti, it's pending.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 09:45:PM
i really dont know patti.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2013, 09:47:PM
if you think its going to fail lithum why are you bothered.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on March 30, 2013, 09:48:PM
I'm not bothered. I have a date coming over in 12 mins, you enjoy your night Steven. ta ta.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Caroline R on March 31, 2013, 12:37:AM
(http://i.imgur.com/dEZQUPL.gif)

Ha, ha!! Love the tumble weed!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 03, 2013, 03:03:PM
now reached 173 all thanks to you lithium.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 03, 2013, 03:29:PM
sorry nugnug must have missed something what have you reached 173 in thanks to Lithium.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 09, 2013, 11:40:AM
up to 172 now.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/You-ARE-LUKE-Mitchell/286160341427261
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on April 10, 2013, 12:44:PM
This is a message from Dr Sandra Lean, on behalf of Luke's campaign team. Please share this... we know several young people were put under enormous pressure, and we want them to know that they would not be in any trouble, or blamed in any way, if they were to come forward now and tell about their experiences:
 
To the young person who made up a story about hearing Luke say something - the young person who got caught up in all the hype, and got carried away with it all... you're a grown up now, and you know that what you did was wrong. I believe you were far too young and vulnerable to have been put in that position, and that your statement should never have been accepted as "evidence" - I don't believe you thought it would either. I know you made it up, that's not in question. What I'm asking you now is, will you do the right thing, and contact Luke's team, and tell the truth now? It can't sit easy on your conscience, and I know no-one will blame you - you were just a kid, too. Anything you say will be kept completely confidential. Will you do the right thing... for yourself, for Luke, and for Jodi?

http://www.facebook.com/pages/You-ARE-LUKE-Mitchell/286160341427261
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 10, 2013, 01:19:PM
i belive some of them may well have allready done so.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on April 21, 2013, 02:31:PM
This is a message from Dr Sandra Lean

(http://i.imgur.com/llxGA1C.gif)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on May 01, 2013, 04:05:PM
Can we not accuse members of being someone else please and can we keep to the thread subject.  Thank you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2013, 04:35:PM
Posts deleted.!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2013, 04:39:PM
That should have read PM's deleted.
It matters not that Mat called me senile.!!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on May 01, 2013, 04:47:PM
That should have read PM's deleted.
It matters not that Mat called me senile.!!!

Hi lookout

I did not read any pots, I deleted the lot of them and not singled anyone out. The thread has been trimmed back to its debating mode.  If you all wish to carry on sniping at each other be my guest, because all it is doing is lowering the tone of this forum and the name in which this thread is dedicated to. If now onf you like then tough!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2013, 04:54:PM
Hi lookout

I did not read any pots, I deleted the lot of them and not singled anyone out. The thread has been trimmed back to its debating mode.  If you all wish to carry on sniping at each other be my guest, because all it is doing is lowering the tone of this forum and the name in which this thread is dedicated to. If now onf you like then tough!


Pity you didn't know the truth,Patti.

I'm finished on here.!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 01, 2013, 05:03:PM
Don't go Lookout!

I'll be going after 'Mat' via legal channels very soon - you don't want to miss that do you?  ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Again?  ::) I can't wait! What a pair of time wasters you both are. You need to both grow up and stop accusing people of rubbish.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on May 01, 2013, 05:20:PM

Pity you didn't know the truth,Patti.

I'm finished on here.!
Lookout, please don't go, you're a valued member of this forum and we need you......and you can't go on my birthday pleeeeeease ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dxx
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on May 01, 2013, 05:25:PM
Happy  birthday Maggie!

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jane on May 01, 2013, 05:28:PM
Hey lookout, you're a much too big a person to be worried by a little irritant. xxx
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 01, 2013, 05:28:PM
lookout please stick around im sure things can be sorted out.

happy birthday maggie by the way.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on May 01, 2013, 05:32:PM
Happy  birthday Maggie!
Thank you ngb. ;D ;D
Thank you
Thank you nugs  ;D ;D

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on May 01, 2013, 05:42:PM
Happy Birthday to Maggie I know I have said it already but I have my public duties to perform as well as my private ones ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on May 01, 2013, 05:44:PM
Happy Birthday to Maggie I know I have said it already but I have my public duties to perform as well as my private ones ;D ;D ;D
Thank you susie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dxx
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Naughty Nun on May 01, 2013, 06:16:PM
Happy Birthday Maggie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODNLUysdik
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on May 01, 2013, 07:42:PM
Lookout, please don't go, you're a valued member of this forum and we need you......and you can't go on my birthday pleeeeeease ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dxx

Happy Birthday Maggie, enjoy your meal and evening. I don't think Lookout will leave, she's only gone to wash the pots......xxxx  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on May 01, 2013, 08:56:PM
Happy Birthday Maggie, enjoy your meal and evening. I don't think Lookout will leave, she's only gone to wash the pots......xxxx  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Finished my tea,,,and washed the pots. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.
 So now while I'm here,I'd like to wish Maggie a very Happy Birthday,,,and hope you enjoyed your evening out. xxxxxxxxxxx. Patricia.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on May 02, 2013, 01:53:AM
Happy Birthday Maggie xxx
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: OnceSaid on May 03, 2013, 08:04:PM
Lookout, please don't go, you're a valued member of this forum and we need you......and you can't go on my birthday pleeeeeease ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dxx

Happy Birthday (belated) hope you had a great day  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 19, 2013, 06:36:PM
getting there slowly but surely.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/You-ARE-LUKE-Mitchell/286160341427261
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2013, 04:39:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/luke-mitchells-mum-suffers-stroke/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2013, 04:40:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/detective-questions-polices-handling-jodis-murder/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2013, 11:58:AM
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4980926/Top-cops-blast-at-Jodi-Jones-probe-ten-years-on.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 12:16:AM
Corinne deciding to tell the papers that she had a stroke a few years ago is not a development, nor is asking Roy Ramm to regurgitate his views from a 5 year old documentary. I take it this desperate attempt to get old news back in the media means all's quiet on the western front?

Incidentally, did you hear about a rape and murder over the weekend in a field in Loanhead, 10 mins or so from where Jodi was killed? Saw the blue police tent up but can't find any news reports.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 30, 2013, 12:29:AM
your the one who seems to geting really desperate now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 12:31:AM
your the one who seems to geting really desperate now.

What are you talking about I haven't posted in over 2 months.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 30, 2013, 12:34:AM
so why bother now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 12:35:AM
Thought I'd tell you about the apparent rape and murder that happened in a field less than 10 minutes from where Jodi was killed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 30, 2013, 12:38:AM
your always saying things like this.

how come its newspapers.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 12:39:AM
When have I ever said anything like this?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 30, 2013, 12:43:AM
well if it true you must of done it.

becouse else knows about it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 12:47:AM
The tent is there for everyone to see. The field just at Straiton, feel free to see for yourself. I'm hearing somebody was raped and murdered but can't find any news. Thought maybe one of your lot would know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 12:53:AM
There's been police everywhere all weekend, you really should be on top of these things rather than putting out stories about Corinne having a stroke years ago.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 12:57:AM
I've only now realised it's the 10 year anniversary of Jodi's murder. I assure you the timing of my return is completely coincidental. RIP Jodi Jones.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on June 30, 2013, 03:08:PM
Lithium are you by your change of name hinting that you are now a doctor?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 30, 2013, 03:17:PM
Hi Lugg  Lithium has now got a PhD in Computer Science.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 30, 2013, 03:31:PM
Lugg bet you thought your were going to get some free medical advice off Lithium ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 05:32:PM
lol I'm no doctor, just mocking the pretentiousness of Sandra Lean.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 30, 2013, 05:36:PM
Lithium you are a bad boy as you told me two months ago that when you came back to the forum you would be Dr. Lithium but then again you told me loads of other stuff which would be you just being pretentious ;D ;D ;D ;D naughty step for you. ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on June 30, 2013, 05:43:PM
I did graduate but still, no doctor.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 30, 2013, 05:46:PM
Lithium everything you tell me from now on I will take with a bucket of salt ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on June 30, 2013, 06:04:PM
Its taken you a while susan!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 30, 2013, 06:12:PM
Hi Gordo30 yes I am slow on the uptake and taken in by all the dashing young men on the forum especially when they are into potholing ;D  but alas that could be another yarn ;D ;D ;D Nice to see you back on the forum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on June 30, 2013, 06:14:PM
Thx but I have never been away.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on June 30, 2013, 06:24:PM
Gordo30  you must have been hiding from little old susan ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on June 30, 2013, 07:57:PM
Lugg bet you thought your were going to get some free medical advice off Lithium ;D ;D ;D ;D
How did you guess Susan? I was going to ask his opinion on my athletes foot. ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on June 30, 2013, 07:58:PM
Lithium everything you tell me from now on I will take with a bucket of salt ;D ;D ;D ;D
Bet that will suck your mouth in? ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lugg on June 30, 2013, 07:59:PM
I did graduate but still, no doctor.
Congratulations Lithium. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 01, 2013, 03:06:PM
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/latest-news/family-to-mark-jodi-jones-anniversary-1-2983581
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 15, 2013, 04:08:PM
up to 197 now.

thank you very much lithium it is appreciated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2013, 09:11:PM
up to 197 now.

thank you very much lithium it is appreciated.

What?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 16, 2013, 12:11:PM
i just said thankyou for all your support it has been much appreciated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on July 16, 2013, 12:29:PM
Hi nugnug  has Lithium been supporting you.  I don't follow the Jodi Jones case but always thought you and him had different views.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 16, 2013, 12:51:PM
oh yes hes been a great help.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on July 16, 2013, 01:26:PM
nugnug that is good to hear glad Lithium is being helpful to you ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on July 17, 2013, 11:20:PM
Don't ever tell lies about me again Steven. And if the "197" you're referring to is the number of likes on the Luke Mitchell facebook page then let me tell you, that's embarrassingly low for a 2 year old page. Seriously.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2013, 11:50:PM
yes but it was 65 till you came along.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2013, 02:05:AM
Cool story bro.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 11, 2013, 07:27:PM
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/miscarriage-justice-experts-interview-luke-mitchell-jail/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on August 12, 2013, 01:20:PM
Oh that's good he'll have Sandra on his side, the woman who wrote a chapter on how innocent Simon Hall is.

(http://i.imgur.com/wYSJIv4.gif)

Not forgetting Adrian Prout. When will Lean stop declaring people innocent when it's just her opinion and she doesn't have a clue whether they are or aren't? I'm not offended by Corinne's campaign as at least there is a possibility she might actually know for a fact her son is innocent if she was him at the time of murder. Sandra Lean does not know. She's defended 2/2 confirmed killers now without a second thought for the victims' families. Who's next?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on August 12, 2013, 01:28:PM
Oh that's good he'll have Sandra on his side, the woman who wrote a chapter on how innocent Simon Hall is.

(http://i.imgur.com/wYSJIv4.gif)

Not forgetting Adrian Prout. When will Lean stop declaring people innocent when it's just her opinion and she doesn't have a clue whether they are or aren't? I'm not offended by Corinne's campaign as at least there is a possibility she might actually know for a fact her son is innocent if she was him at the time of murder. Sandra Lean does not know. She's defended 2/2 confirmed killers now without a second thought for the victims' families. Who's next?
Hi Lithium, I can't see what's so funny when the relatives of these murder victims have to live with their deaths every day. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on August 12, 2013, 01:33:PM
I'm laughing at Lean, I know exactly what the victim's family has to deal with every day. I'll leave the mocking of the Jones family to Lean and co, ie incest jokes at best, murder accusations at worst.

Not to mention nugnug who has for years now dedicated the troll account "witchfinder" to joke about this murder on various sites.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 12, 2013, 01:33:PM
sandra will be glad to see her favrite stalking weirdo is back.

i heard she has becoume very fond of you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on August 12, 2013, 01:39:PM
I'm the weirdo?

Not sure you know what stalking is either.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 12, 2013, 01:41:PM
i think you meet most peoples definition of both words.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on August 12, 2013, 01:50:PM
Couldn't be happier you shut-ins find me weird. Would hate for you to find me relatable. Luckily most functioning members of society would agree supporting murderers is what's really weird. They also find me funny and interesting.  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 12, 2013, 01:56:PM
i very much doubt that if it was true you wouldent need to say it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on August 12, 2013, 01:58:PM
 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: paris on August 13, 2013, 12:56:AM
Couldn't be happier you shut-ins find me weird. Would hate for you to find me relatable. Luckily most functioning members of society would agree supporting murderers is what's really weird. They also find me funny and interesting.  ;D

It is undoubtedly true some murderers do pretend to be innocent and bleat on about being a victim of an moj..and behave in extraordinary ways to gain attention..(which is quite a big..huge give away..) but don't assume in ignorance that every one convicted of a crime or murder is fact 'guilty' our justice system has historically been sentencing innocent people for decades..there will always be those who are in denial of murder (IDOMS) In prison terms.. if you found yourself.. or loved one in that situation who then got fitted up, you would be singing a very different song..in light of the 'Simon Hall' revelation plse do not let this scum bag undermine the true victims of a miscarriage of justice.. she did'nt even know the bloke prior to his conviction..she was just neieve and dumb enough to be sucked in by his bs..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 13, 2013, 01:02:AM
oh he knows that very well paris in fact he knows it better than most people.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: paris on August 13, 2013, 01:44:AM
oh he knows that very well paris in fact he knows it better than most people.

Oh okay nugs..was'nt sure dont even know him..but must admit he's had been laughing all day with his laughing captions.. btw good to hear from you xx
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Caroline R on August 13, 2013, 03:05:AM
Couldn't be happier you shut-ins find me weird. Would hate for you to find me relatable. Luckily most functioning members of society would agree supporting murderers is what's really weird. They also find me funny and interesting.  ;D

I think the point is that no one here supports murderers - just injustice!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on August 13, 2013, 12:16:PM
I wasn't talking about this place, I meant nugnug and his cronies.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 13, 2013, 12:26:PM
i think the fact you can only try and smear luke suporters shows how weak the case angianst luke is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 20, 2013, 01:34:PM
I wasn't talking about this place, I meant nugnug and his cronies.

by implication you have to be.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: boheme on August 20, 2013, 01:45:PM
Couldn't be happier you shut-ins find me weird. Would hate for you to find me relatable. Luckily most functioning members of society would agree supporting murderers is what's really weird. They also find me funny and interesting.  ;D

Pseudo doctorate needs to tell people that others find him funny and interesting ? You sound like a real twat ....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 20, 2013, 04:00:PM
Pseudo doctorate needs to tell people that others find him funny and interesting ? You sound like a real twat ....
;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on August 21, 2013, 10:12:PM
Pseudo doctorate

Hey leave Sandra out of this.  >:(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: jon on September 08, 2013, 05:25:PM
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/jodi-jones-murder-to-be-re-examined-1-3082016
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on September 08, 2013, 06:22:PM
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/jodi-jones-murder-to-be-re-examined-1-3082016

Thanks for that Jon...I know our Nugs will be happy about this.  :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 08, 2013, 06:29:PM
Thanks, Jon - it's been a very busy day since the Scottish Mail on Sunday broke the story this morning - they don't put the stuff online, although they do allow us to copy it onto the internet later in the day - the original story is available at http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/jodi-jones-murder-case-reopened-mos-08-09-2013/

It's been more than 10 years since Jodi was murdered. Such a shame it has taken so long to get the forenic data properly examined.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on September 08, 2013, 08:19:PM
Congratulations Sandra.  Whatever the outcome of this fresh examination, you have done wonderfully well to get to this point.  I will be watching on with great interest.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on September 08, 2013, 10:53:PM
Thanks for that Jon...I know our Nugs will be happy about this.  :) :) :) :)

nugnug's reaction after reading today's Mail:

(http://i.imgur.com/FgUwWke.jpg)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on September 08, 2013, 10:54:PM
Why does the article say that they did use a tent at the murder scene Sandra?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 09, 2013, 05:48:AM
It's a mistake in the Mail on Sunday article, Lithium, as is the wrong description of Jodi's clothing. We only have so much influence over what actually goes out - editors often alter the final story, regardless of what the original might have said.

The main message of the article is correct, though; the forensics will finally be retested, which is, I believe, a very significant development.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: grahameb on September 09, 2013, 08:15:AM
It's a mistake in the Mail on Sunday article, Lithium, as is the wrong description of Jodi's clothing. We only have so much influence over what actually goes out - editors often alter the final story, regardless of what the original might have said.

The main message of the article is correct, though; the forensics will finally be retested, which is, I believe, a very significant development.
I wrote an article for the Arab News once. I made the mistake of saying to the editor, "Please make it more readable and correct any mistakes". She completely trashed my article by her editing erm "skills".
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 09, 2013, 10:59:AM
The original article for the Mail on Sunday was written by Bob Smyth, who has always been extremely accurate and careful to get his facts right. This time, however, it was used only as the "basis" for the larger article, and that's where the inaccuracies crept in - the other reporter does not have the indepth knowlege of the case that Bob does.

Still, I guess it could have been a whole lot worse - unlike your experience, Grahame, at least they didn't trash the whole thing!

Today has been interesting - the story has been picked up by just about every paper - the sun, record, express, mail, times, scotsman, herald, the bbc have been on - once again, it seems tides are turning in terms of what's considered "interesting" and "newsworthy" in the case. All good!!

I was surprised by a comment in the Record attributed to Jodi's brother, who, it is claimed, said, "This is an unwelcome development." Why should that be? If the family are certain the right person is in prison for Jodi's murder, then surely they believe these tests will prove that their certainty is well founded?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on September 09, 2013, 11:47:AM
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/jodi-jones-murder-to-be-re-examined-1-3082016
Wow,this is excellent news! I really do feel that someone else was responsible for Jodi's murder and hopefully the new DNA tests will prove this and bring her real killer to justice.

I don't understand why Jodi's family are 'devastated' at news of the testing. Surely they would want to be certain that the right person was behind bars?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 09, 2013, 11:55:AM
Indeed, Tyler - in fact, I've had a number of people commenting that this is "all the wrong way round" - Luke, his family and his supporters are all "delighted," but Jodi's family are "horrified" and "appalled."

That just doesn't make any sense. Jodi's brother came to my house som time ago, screaming at me that Luke's DNA was all over Jodi's body. I told him he had been misinformed, and offered to show him the DNA results, but he responded by threatening me!

Here's the perfect opportunity to resolve the matter once and for all. Please don't get me wrong, I understand that it must be awful for the family to have the case keep coming back to the appeal courts etc, over and over again - they can't have any closure as long as this is the case. But these tests could, potentially, give them that closure, even if, as we confidently believe, they come back identifying someone other than Luke as the perpetrator. I don't understand what's horrifying, appalling or unwelcome about that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on September 09, 2013, 06:22:PM
So, if the DNA is matched to Luke, will that mean he's responsible for the murder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on September 09, 2013, 06:27:PM
Indeed, Tyler - in fact, I've had a number of people commenting that this is "all the wrong way round" - Luke, his family and his supporters are all "delighted," but Jodi's family are "horrified" and "appalled."

That just doesn't make any sense. Jodi's brother came to my house som time ago, screaming at me that Luke's DNA was all over Jodi's body. I told him he had been misinformed, and offered to show him the DNA results, but he responded by threatening me!

Here's the perfect opportunity to resolve the matter once and for all. Please don't get me wrong, I understand that it must be awful for the family to have the case keep coming back to the appeal courts etc, over and over again - they can't have any closure as long as this is the case. But these tests could, potentially, give them that closure, even if, as we confidently believe, they come back identifying someone other than Luke as the perpetrator. I don't understand what's horrifying, appalling or unwelcome about that.

Can you tell us how long this is likely to take?   :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on September 11, 2013, 02:22:PM
Sorry to have to do this but I will not join that mans site..

So Jodi's clothes and the rope which was used to bind her are to be retested using more modern techniques.

Lets look at this.  Mitchell's DNA was never found on Jodi or her clothing yet he was her boyfriend and had been with her earlier on the day on which she was murdered.  The strange factor in all of this is that Mitchell's DNA should have been on Jodi and/or her clothing.

Finding his DNA now will not advance the case one iota.  Finding his DNA on the rope however will be game over!


What rope John!!!!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 12, 2013, 10:11:PM
theres no rope she was bound with her own clothes.

if anyone says theres a rope involved there etere lying or there the real killer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on September 12, 2013, 11:46:PM
Nobody takes any notice of his opinions and judgement anyway! He helped campaign for SH didn't he? And look what happened there! When LM is proved innocent he may need to consider taking up a new hobby/interest as deciding which cases are MOJ's doesn't appear to be his strong point! 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 13, 2013, 12:07:AM
im starting to wonder if hes actully the killer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 03, 2013, 09:53:PM
Has there been any results yet??????
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on October 03, 2013, 10:14:PM
Where has our lovely nugnug got to? He will be able to tell us.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 03, 2013, 10:18:PM
Where has our lovely nugnug got to? He will be able to tell us.

He is so sweet Tyler....I love him to bits.. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on October 03, 2013, 10:29:PM
Ah Patti..so do I
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 03, 2013, 10:44:PM
Ah Patti..so do I

Just been reading about the caravans that have been torched, owned by Luke's mother days after it was revealed that the DNA was looked in to.....40 thousand pounds worth of damage and this is not the first time the caravans have been targeted....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on October 04, 2013, 12:08:AM
Blimey that's terrible. Someone doesn't want the truth to come out me thinks!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 04, 2013, 12:09:AM
Hi, sorry I didn't answer this question earlier. We have absolutely no idea when the test results will be available, or even how long the testing will take.

We haven't been told exactly what is to be tested ... or why. As you can imagine, it's horribly frustrating - on the one hand, we were delighted to be told there was to be new testing, but in its own way, that's become a form of slow torture, as we try to work out what may or may not be included.

I know which recommendations were made for forensic testing and re-testing (e.g. all of the semen deposits and sperm heads which came back "no reportable results," or which were simply not tested at all), and I'd hope those are, at the very least, the things being tested. There are others - mixed samples which one report stated formed a basis for the suggestion that a number of samples may have all originated from one person - that person was not Luke, so you can imagine how keen we are for those to be retested.

The local hostility towards those of us who have supported Luke's campaign over the years has been horrifying, but does seem to have calmed down massively in the last couple of years - the positive articles in the Scottish Mail on Sunday, in particular, have been very helpful in that respect. We are, however, still wary, as there are still pockets of extreme resistance and aggression towards the suggestion that Luke Mitchell may not only be innocent, but that more and more evidence is emerging to prove that to be so.

It's all, unfortunately for now, a waiting game - I will, of course, update whenever there are developments (within the constrictions enforced by the review process). Thanks again to everyone who has discussed the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2013, 03:02:PM
Blimey that's terrible. Someone doesn't want the truth to come out me thinks!

oh your certainly right there tyler a few people dont.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 07, 2014, 03:04:PM
heres the latest.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on January 07, 2014, 04:48:PM
Thanks Nugnug, I guess the fact that it's all gone a bit quiet with Luke's case, is a good sign?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 07, 2014, 05:48:PM
im not sure ethere way really.

i knows theres a lot of things happening that cant discussed publicly at the moment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 07, 2014, 10:53:PM
There's a lot going on behind the scenes, as nugnug says, and a great deal of it we can't discuss. Hopefully, there will be some news soon, or at least some subjects we can open up for discussion. Thanks to everyone who is still showing interest in Luke's predicament
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 09, 2014, 06:01:PM
hopefully some discussion will start agian soon.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on January 09, 2014, 08:25:PM
hopefully some discussion will start agian soon.
Yes, I look forward to that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 15, 2014, 03:57:PM
for anyone who thinks luke phoning the speaking clock was suspicious have a look at this.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tories-call-speaking-clock-number-2957055
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 03, 2014, 11:45:PM
hopefully some discussion will start agian soon.

(http://i.imgur.com/EEnsHV8.png)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2014, 12:56:AM
well thankyou for restrating it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 06:00:PM
I have never heard of this case before. Will be watching this thread for updates.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2014, 06:16:PM
hopefully there will be some updates soon.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 07:27:PM
I just read the website links and actually I did recognise some bits of the case - but I was not aware of everything behind it. It seems against everything I learnt when studying law. That a person should only be convicted of murder if proven. This case was never proven . Again character assassination seemed to be used and with holding evidence and sloppy handling of the crime scene - and this was 2003! It is really sad that things do not seem to have changed from the times of JBs case. I really hope that todays forensics can help in this case and the right culprit  is found. It is also sad that these reviews take so long.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 07:40:PM
Jansus: What University did you attend to obtain your Law degree ?

The jury are directed to return a verdict on one thing only "beyond reasonable doubt"

I do hope that you are not representing clients
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 04, 2014, 07:46:PM
I just read the website links and actually I did recognise some bits of the case - but I was not aware of everything behind it. It seems against everything I learnt when studying law. That a person should only be convicted of murder if proven. This case was never proven . Again character assassination seemed to be used and with holding evidence and sloppy handling of the crime scene - and this was 2003! It is really sad that things do not seem to have changed from the times of JBs case. I really hope that todays forensics can help in this case and the right culprit  is found. It is also sad that these reviews take so long.

oh its was totall farce from start to finish.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on February 04, 2014, 07:51:PM
Hello Maggie May did you study law as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 07:59:PM
I do believe that Luke Mitchell is entirely not guilty having studied then considered the actual case before I opt to make my opinions public. This is why I have sent several  letters to Alex Salmond and his cohorts in an attempt to persuade them to do their bloody job and represent the people who elected them.

The Scottish equivalent of "The Sun" routinely attack Luke Mitchell a teenage boy, which in itself are grounds for a valid complaint to the regulatory authority governing the media. The Scottish press routinely turn on their own people, they are people with no morals and no conscience. 

The only people who will ever make a realistic difference are the people of this country with a genuine passion dictated by their inner conscience for those who are persecuted by the state who claims to represent them in their name.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 08:00:PM
ok - slap on the wrist accepted. it was a long time ago and only at A level  :-[

It was just what we were taught by our barrister teacher. Perhaps she was more moral than most.

I always admit my mistake so yes good job I am not representing others .

I have been involved in a bank charges case though that got to the high court. So not all stupid
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 08:01:PM
Hello Maggie May did you study law as well.

Hi Susan,

Yes, I did study Law, obtaining a masters, then moved onto various other disciplines.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 08:07:PM
Janus: I do believe that it's always fair to be open and honest. however, being a considerate soul, your five minutes on the naughty step are over. It would be far more productive for all concerned if people were honest. We are dealing with the British State V M.O.J v Tossers who claim to represent them and don't. So Janus, please do accept my recommendation and apply sincerity.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on February 04, 2014, 08:07:PM
Maggie May did you study Scottish Law or English Law?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 08:09:PM
from what I have read - beyond reasonable doubt - does not apply either.

Do you think as the scene was left open to the elements that any forensics may be challenged on that basis?

Or if the tests are clear enough to identify another person/persons that would be sufficient?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 08:13:PM
Hi Susan,

I initially studied English Law as I do originate from London. When I progressed I had the options of Scottish/ French/ Spanish and even the liberal Sweish  law. I opted for Scottish, having a Scottish Father. Are you a law graduate Susan ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 08:14:PM
Janus: I do believe that it's always fair to be open and honest. however, being a considerate soul, your five minutes on the naughty step are over. It would be far more productive for all concerned if people were honest. We are dealing with the British State V M.O.J v Tossers who claim to represent them and don't. So Janus, please do accept my recommendation and apply sincerity.

thank you- I am a bit sensitive at the moment as potentially entering into a HR legal   nightmare with an employee - having only just completed a Management buy out - so feeling a bit fragile  :(

However I have to console myself that the stress is nothing compared to those who are suffering from a miscarriage  and a life  behind bars. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 08:15:PM
Janus: Did you ever watch Taggart ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on February 04, 2014, 08:19:PM
Maggie May  are you having a laugh a Law Student no I am a pole dancer.  The only aspect of the Law I know is to keep on the right side of it.  You must be very clever to have a Masters and Scottish Law is so different than English.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on February 04, 2014, 08:21:PM
Sorry  not Janus but Susan and I love Taggart and watch all the repeats ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 08:22:PM
Janus: Did you ever watch Taggart ?

law and order Uk is more my bag I am afraid
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 08:24:PM
Maggie May  are you having a laugh a Law Student no I am a pole dancer.  The only aspect of the Law I know is to keep on the right side of it.  You must be very clever to have a Masters and Scottish Law is so different than English.

OMG susan - don't let Adam know about the pole dancing otherwise he will hijack this thread with false scenarios as well.  ;D

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on February 04, 2014, 08:26:PM
janus  hush hush wont tell ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 08:30:PM
Maggie May  are you having a laugh a Law Student no I am a pole dancer.  The only aspect of the Law I know is to keep on the right side of it.  You must be very clever to have a Masters and Scottish Law is so different than English.

They are rather quite distinct Susan. Separate Laws from very different proclamations. Why do you feel the need to pole dance Susan ? I assume you pole dance in the nude, which is most degrading  to women. Surely their must be another option available to you Susan?

I'm quite relieved that Special Constable Caroline has not appeared to dictate what we can and can not say.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 08:32:PM
law and order Uk is more my bag I am afraid

The scheme more like
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 08:33:PM
They are rather quite distinct Susan. Separate Laws from very different proclamations. Why do you feel the need to pole dance Susan ? I assume you pole dance in the nude, which is most degrading  to women. Surely their must be another option available to you Susan?

I'm quite relieved that Special Constable Caroline has not appeared to dictate what we can and can not say.

Womens aid are also always available Susan if you want to talk.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on February 04, 2014, 08:35:PM
I am winding you up Maggie May I work in Poundland.  Now off to the gym.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 08:41:PM
That was quite cruel Susan. The prospect of Susan being sexually violated was quite distressing to me. Do poundland pay you a good wage ? OR does everyone on Jeremy Bamber Forum indulge in lies. Well Susan, I can now offer you a probationary period of three months as my P.A
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 08:51:PM
Jansus are you ok yah ? Ya gone awfully awfully quiet Jansus

sorry don't understand your comment , What is the Scheme?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 09:02:PM
The Scheme is a documentary about a Glasgae housing estate where u live in one of em  tenenants

sorry your grammar deteriorated a bit there - or is that text speak?

Not me - other end of the country .

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 04, 2014, 09:04:PM
and according to the fellows at the University you are forced to share toiletries in the back gardens. I would lodge a complaint to my Member of Parliament if I and my husband Davies were ever in such a horrendous situation. There must surely be laws protecting you against such utter violations

think we need to get back to the thread. Especially as you last few posts make absolutely no sense to me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 09:06:PM
You really do need to catch up Janus. Now, lets get back to the topic
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: MaggieMay on February 04, 2014, 09:11:PM
The Scheme is a valid documentary made by the award winning filmmaker who compares your predicament to the other channel five documentary named "Benefits Street"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Caroline on February 05, 2014, 02:40:AM
They are rather quite distinct Susan. Separate Laws from very different proclamations. Why do you feel the need to pole dance Susan ? I assume you pole dance in the nude, which is most degrading  to women. Surely their must be another option available to you Susan?

I'm quite relieved that Special Constable Caroline has not appeared to dictate what we can and can not say.

Idiot!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on February 05, 2014, 07:19:AM
Idiot!
Never a good idea to rise to the bait, it only encourages him!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 05, 2014, 05:05:PM
maybe we will get back on topic now though actully i dont hold out much hope.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 05, 2014, 05:16:PM
yes - I had a question about wondering how good the forensic evidence would be as it appears the body was not covered? Or is it just they had some evidence of other DNA , but it was just not made clear in court that it existed?

Do you think there was a particular reason that the boyfriend was targeted as the murderer even though there were obviously other people in the vicinity during the period of time in question - or was he just an easy target?

A cover up because the evidence was not protected from the elements?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 05, 2014, 05:19:PM
to be honest im undecided as to why they picked luke.

though the body was left out for a long time in the rain there were still dna profiles found on the clothes there actually several different dna profiles one was linked to the victems sisters boyfriend. the others are as yet unknown but none of them match luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 05, 2014, 07:34:PM
to be honest im undecided as to why they picked luke.

though the body was left out for a long time in the rain there were still dna profiles found on the clothes there actually several different dna profiles one was linked to the victems sisters boyfriend. the others are as yet unknown but none of them match luke.

thank you NugNug. Seems like they had to make him appear as a "monster" to get a conviction - and say his perfectly innocent phone calls were part of the plan. Ring any bells with another case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 05, 2014, 08:27:PM
yes i certainly think there's a parallel.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 06, 2014, 12:34:PM
The Scheme isn't in Glasgow.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 06, 2014, 12:38:PM
to be honest im undecided as to why they picked luke.

Maybe due to the fact Luke and his family couldn't quite agree on where he was and what he was doing at the time of the murder. Did anyone elses alibi fall to pieces in such a shambolic way?

thank you NugNug. Seems like they had to make him appear as a "monster" to get a conviction - and say his perfectly innocent phone calls were part of the plan. Ring any bells with another case?

It wasn't the police who convicted him though was it, it was a jury of his peers, even after having one of the most high profile lawyers in Scotland defend him.

In an era of Pay-and-go mobile phones, it's highly unlikely a teenager would call a premium rate phone number to find out the time if he was indeed at home surrounded by clocks. I don't believe there is any 'innocent' explanation for that. Common sense dictates he was not at home was paying premium rate for the exact time as he had to get his story straight.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 06, 2014, 12:49:PM
Speaking of Donald Findlay...

Quote from: Sandra Lean
I haven't been able to watch the whole program yet, but Tobin was jailed in 1994, and served 9 years before coming back to Scotland - that would be... 2003, then?

It was Peter Tobin! case closed.

 ::)

Cringe worthy stuff.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 06, 2014, 02:07:PM
Maybe due to the fact Luke and his family couldn't quite agree on where he was and what he was doing at the time of the murder. Did anyone elses alibi fall to pieces in such a shambolic way?

It wasn't the police who convicted him though was it, it was a jury of his peers, even after having one of the most high profile lawyers in Scotland defend him.

In an era of Pay-and-go mobile phones, it's highly unlikely a teenager would call a premium rate phone number to find out the time if he was indeed at home surrounded by clocks. I don't believe there is any 'innocent' explanation for that. Common sense dictates he was not at home was paying premium rate for the exact time as he had to get his story straight.


did anyone elses albi fall to pieces well yes just about that is of course the people who had albis.

at the end of the day its wasnt lukees sperm that was found at the scene.


as this artical will show theres nothing starnge about phoning the speaking clock.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tories-call-speaking-clock-number-2957055
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 06, 2014, 04:02:PM
as this artical will show theres nothing starnge about phoning the speaking clock.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tories-call-speaking-clock-number-2957055

Nowhere in this article does it mention people phoning the speaking clock while at home, which is what was unusual about Luke's calls to it. If anything your article confirms my point, the Tories wanted to avoid paying the premium rate costs so why would a teenager with a pay and go mobile want to waste his credit on it if there were other clocks available?

"as this artical will show theres nothing starnge about phoning the speaking clock."

If there's nothing strange about it, it wouldn't be a news article.  ???

Luke phoning the speaking clock at a time he claimed to be at home is terribly damning and there's nothing you can do to make the fact go away.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 06, 2014, 04:09:PM
he wasnt paying the bill his mum was
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 06, 2014, 05:30:PM
Maybe due to the fact Luke and his family couldn't quite agree on where he was and what he was doing at the time of the murder. Did anyone elses alibi fall to pieces in such a shambolic way?

It wasn't the police who convicted him though was it, it was a jury of his peers, even after having one of the most high profile lawyers in Scotland defend him.

In an era of Pay-and-go mobile phones, it's highly unlikely a teenager would call a premium rate phone number to find out the time if he was indeed at home surrounded by clocks. I don't believe there is any 'innocent' explanation for that. Common sense dictates he was not at home was paying premium rate for the exact time as he had to get his story straight.



Ok - but I am assuming the police suspected him quite quickly so what do they think he did with his clothes and shoes? He would have presumably be covered in blood? As far as you know what forensics were there to link him to the attack ? Genuine questions as I admitted I am not all together familiar with the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on February 06, 2014, 05:31:PM
Nowhere in this article does it mention people phoning the speaking clock while at home, which is what was unusual about Luke's calls to it. If anything your article confirms my point, the Tories wanted to avoid paying the premium rate costs so why would a teenager with a pay and go mobile want to waste his credit on it if there were other clocks available?

"as this artical will show theres nothing starnge about phoning the speaking clock."

If there's nothing strange about it, it wouldn't be a news article.  ???

Luke phoning the speaking clock at a time he claimed to be at home is terribly damning and there's nothing you can do to make the fact go away.
Nice to see you back Doctor.  I wonder if there was any evidence of Luke having phoned the speaking clock on other occasions. Perhaps it was something he often did!?!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 06, 2014, 05:32:PM
theres abslutly no forensic evedence to link him to the vrime scene.

but plenty to link other people to it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 06, 2014, 05:33:PM
Nice to see you back Doctor.  I wonder if there was any evidence of Luke having phoned the speaking clock on other occasions. Perhaps it was something he often did!?!

acording to his mum he phoned it all the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on February 06, 2014, 05:37:PM


Ok - but I am assuming the police suspected him quite quickly so what do they think he did with his clothes and shoes? He would have presumably be covered in blood? As far as you know what forensics were there to link him to the attack ? Genuine questions as I admitted I am not all together familiar with the case.
There was a suggestion that the clothes were burnt in the Mitchell's garden.  Neighbours spoke of odd burning smells. No evidence was recovered, to confirm this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 06, 2014, 05:43:PM
the log burner was taken examid and no forensic evedence was found.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 06, 2014, 05:46:PM
There was a suggestion that the clothes were burnt in the Mitchell's garden.  Neighbours spoke of odd burning smells. No evidence was recovered, to confirm this.

well there would have been evidence to support this I would have thought - bound to be some remains. So no proof there then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on February 06, 2014, 05:52:PM
acording to his mum he phoned it all the time.
Were they able to prove this?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 06, 2014, 05:56:PM
if i raccal corectly what corrine said i think she did have proof but the defence did not bring it up.

dont take that as gospel though my memory maybe wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on February 06, 2014, 07:52:PM
well there would have been evidence to support this I would have thought - bound to be some remains. So no proof there then.
There would have been plenty of time to dispose of any incriminating evidence.

On a more general note, I'm not sure that many mothers would lie, in order to get their child off of a murder charge, if they thought there was a chance that they were indeed, guilty.  Well, I know that my mother wouldn't anyway!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 06, 2014, 07:57:PM
its more or less imposable to clean up all forensic traces of a crime.

if you look at the time line you will see luke had 45 at most to comit the murder and clean himself up.

http://wiki.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/index.php?title=Luke_Mitchell_-_Timeline
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 06, 2014, 09:22:PM
There would have been plenty of time to dispose of any incriminating evidence.

On a more general note, I'm not sure that many mothers would lie, in order to get their child off of a murder charge, if they thought there was a chance that they were indeed, guilty.  Well, I know that my mother wouldn't anyway!

Yes I have just been reading up some more and it was a month before he was arrested - so in theory he could have hidden the clothes and then destroyed them - and I did not read what his answer was to the missing "parka" coat. However the witness evidence of seeing them together - and ID by photo only, does not seem that secure. As a mother I agree I would not lie for my son whether I thought he was innocent or not. I was always bought up to believe that one lie would take you deeper into another .Which it quite often does.

Reading the replies to the appeals I think the forensics are his biggest hope and I really hope that with more modern technology they can get a definitive answer.

I cant quite understand the families apparent reaction to this , if there is any doubt at all surely it is best to know the truth?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 06, 2014, 09:49:PM
his house was searched a faie while before he was arrested.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 06, 2014, 11:21:PM

I cant quite understand the families apparent reaction to this , if there is any doubt at all surely it is best to know the truth?

There isn't any doubt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 07, 2014, 05:38:PM
There isn't any doubt.

So why has it been agreed that the forensic evidence will be re-examined?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 07, 2014, 07:17:PM
the sccrc has ordered it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 07, 2014, 08:27:PM
The telephone logs demonstrated that Luke regulary called the speaking clock - from memory, there were something like 17 calls to the speaking clock in the months prior to the murder. Also, the majority of those calls were in roughly similar timescales - in the hour before leaving for school, and between 4pm and 5pm after school. The family all maintained that the clock in the kitchen was unreliable, and other appliances with electrical clocks would not be accurate because they were turned off at the sockets at night.

The family was allocated a Family Liaison Officer  (later referred to by Donald Findlay as a "Vixen in the Henhouse" on the morning of July 1st (Jodi's body was found just before midnight between June 30th and July 1st, and Luke and Corinne had been in the police station until 7am on the morning of the 1st. The Liaison officer was a permanent fixture from the afternoon of July 1st to the raid on the mornin of July 4th, therefore, there was no opportunity for anyone to have disposed of anything. The ashes from the logburner were stll in the burner on July 4th - had the "real" ashes been disposed of between July 1st and July 4th, another fi would have to have been lit, in order to create "replacement" ashes - L&B police themselves admit this did not happen.

There was no time for the ashes to be removed prior to July 1st - according to neighbours, the fire was still burning at 10pm, and Corinne was on her way to the police station by midnight - the ashes would have been too hot to remove, and no ashes were found in the family's wheely bin, so the suggestion is that Corinne somehow removed hot ashes from the burner sometime after 10pm, left her home in order to dispose of them, then returned and set another fire (in order to create "replacement"" ashes) - a fire which was not witnessed by neighbours, all in time to be ready to leave in response to a call from the police, the time of which she could not have known or predicted in advance!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 07, 2014, 08:35:PM
Jansus said
Quote
Yes I have just been reading up some more and it was a month before he was arrested - so in theory he could have hidden the clothes and then destroyed them - and I did not read what his answer was to the missing "parka" coat.

From the point at which the FLO was assigned to the family on July 1st, every member of Luke's family was under total surveillance, not only by police, but also by the media who followed their every move.There was no  opportunity to "return" somewhere after the night of June 30th in order to retrieve hidden clothing/weapons for disposal. Furthermore, pror to the allocation of the FLO, Luke and his mother were in Dalkeith Police Station from just ater midnight to 7am, thereafter,, they were escorted home, where the media had camped out outside their home.

The answer to the missing parka was then, and has been for almost 11 years, there was no "missing" parka - Luke didn't own a parka prior to the murder, although a flood of media photographs of him wearing one from the day after he was detained for questioning on August 14th 2003 almost certainly caused confusion amongst witnesses who were asked if they had seen him wearing a parka! The question  - was that before or after the murder - is a difficult one to address when the media has been flooded with pictures of Luke in a Parka at exactly the same time as high profile coverage of his detention for questioning about Jodi's murder.

I can confirm that there is not a single statement in existence which refers to Luke wearing a parkka jacket prior to those pictures appearing in the media.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 07, 2014, 09:57:PM
thank you for your replies.

I sincerely hope that there is enough Forensic evidence to help with this case as unlike the previous poster I would say this not a case of "no doubt"  more like " very serious doubt"




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 07, 2014, 11:05:PM
I think one of the saddest points about this case is that there was enough evidence to create far more than reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case in the case papers, from before the start of the trial.

So much of it, we did not know about until literally years afterwards (in Scotland, the accused/convicted person has no right to see his/her own case papers, and it is an offence for those papers to be shared with a third party. Further, if a third party should somehow obtain access to case papers, it is also an offence for that person to make those papers public, so you can have some idea of how difficult this case has been to highlight over the years!)

So, for example:

a number of male DNA profiles on the body, the clothing, and the crime scene. These are not just any old common or garden DNA samples, they are from semen and sperm heads - none of them Luke's

Saliva stains, blood and hair on the body, the clothing and the crime scene, all unidentified, none even attempted to be be claimed as "partial" matches to Luke

A number of males close to the investigation (not Luke or any of his family members) who either had no alibi for the pertinent time scale, or whose original lack of alibi was remedied by later testimony from other people close to the investigation, some with apparently vested interests in supplying such testimony

No time of death, nor any reliable evidence to support the "claimed" time of death, other than the contention of the SIO that this was the time.

The crime scene was bleached before sniffer dogs were brought in

The search area for the sniffer dogs was restricted to the areas leading towards where Luke Mitchell lived, to the exclusion of a number of areas which, it could be argued, should have been considered significant to the investigation - not that it mattered, since the scene had been bleached anyway!

The family search trio's account of their movements that evening, and their claimed reasons for going straight to the path to look for Jodi do not stand up to scrutiny - according to phone logs, etc, when compared to statements from the search trio and other members of Jodi's family, the search trio arrived at the start of the path before they actually set out to search, and, by their own admissions, they headed for an area they would not have expected Jodi to be that evening, having been told explicitly that she was expected to be in the opposite direction entirely, and an area which they tried to claim jodi was not allowed to use, and would not have used alone. (At the time they made these claims, they were of the opinion that Jodi had not been with Luke that night, so they had no reason to believe that, had she been on the path with someone, that someone was Luke Mitchell.

There are so many elements of "evidence" which were never used by the defence - it is really shocking when you see how much information never makes it before a jury - not just in this case, but in so many others as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 07, 2014, 11:16:PM
reference your comments about the accused not being allowed access to court papers- that's incredible . I never knew that . So how can that be in line with human rights laws?

It seems that a right to a fair trial is almost impossible under the current circumstances. Makes me really angry . I wish now I had not been such a coward and carried on studying law.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 07, 2014, 11:30:PM
this far from the only case where this has happend its much more common than people think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 08, 2014, 12:04:AM
The case papers in Scotland are deemed to belong to the solicitor - I have no idea how on earth that is supposed to be compliant with the European Convention. One solicitor tried to explain to me that, as the Scottish Legal Aid Board paid the defence solicitors, the papers really belong to the SLAB, and the individual solicitors take care of them on the SLABs behalf.

Here's where logic, common sense and the justice system part company - when I said this must surely create a two tier system, since those who paid for their defence privately would, by this reasoning, have ownership of their own papers, well... actually... no! They wouldn't have access to their papers either - they would still "belong" to the solicitors!  The SLAB payment/ownership argument was bull, but they were obviously so used to trotting it out as an "explanation" that they'd missed the obvious flaw in their own argument!

Mind you, Scotland has been thumbing her nose at the European Convention for years (even though she signed up independently from England and Wales) - the Cadder ruling, finally forcing Scotland to take action over interrogations without legal advice or representation (even though Scotland had been warned for something like 12 years that this practice would have to stop) caused the tantrum of all tantrums amongst certain factions of the Scottish Justice System.

Incidentally, Luke was interrogated for a total of 19 hours, over three separate interviews, without legal advice or assistance - he was 14 for the first two, and just three weeks after this 15th brthday for the third.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on February 08, 2014, 12:09:AM
The case papers in Scotland are deemed to belong to the solicitor - I have no idea how on earth that is supposed to be compliant with the European Convention. One solicitor tried to explain to me that, as the Scottish Legal Aid Board paid the defence solicitors, the papers really belong to the SLAB, and the individual solicitors take care of them on the SLABs behalf.

Here's where logic, common sense and the justice system part company - when I said this must surely create a two tier system, since those who paid for their defence privately would, by this reasoning, have ownership of their own papers, well... actually... no! They wouldn't have access to their papers either - they would still "belong" to the solicitors!  The SLAB payment/ownership argument was bull, but they were obviously so used to trotting it out as an "explanation" that they'd missed the obvious flaw in their own argument!

Mind you, Scotland has been thumbing her nose at the European Convention for years (even though she signed up independently from England and Wales) - the Cadder ruling, finally forcing Scotland to take action over interrogations without legal advice or representation (even though Scotland had been warned for something like 12 years that this practice would have to stop) caused the tantrum of all tantrums amongst certain factions of the Scottish Justice System.

Incidentally, Luke was interrogated for a total of 19 hours, over three separate interviews, without legal advice or assistance - he was 14 for the first two, and just three weeks after this 15th brthday for the third.
[/glow]Absolutely disgraceful Police brutality, for which they were rightfully admonished.  Great to see you back here Sandra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 08, 2014, 10:42:AM
Thanks Neil, I've not been online so often recently due to a number of factors, but I do try to keep updated when I can.

Thanks to Jansus for his/her interest in Luke's case, and the others for their input. Hopefully, there will be some news from the SCCRC soon - the case has now been with them 19 months. We did say we were prepared to give them more than the usual 9 months, because the application was so complex, and we wanted it throughly reviewed, so we have no complaint about the length of time it's taken, just the original complaint that it never should have been necessary in the first place!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 08, 2014, 12:51:PM
I agree that although it must be frustrating time wise , if you get definitive answers then the wait would be worthwhile.

I will try and get my head round these differences in Scotland , but to interview someone of 14 without proper legal representation and withhold what might be crucial evidence  seems archaic to me - and definitely against human rights . We are supposed to be a civilised country aren't we?

I am still struck with the method of  trial by personality when the factual evidence is not there . there may be some possible witness  evidence in this case ( but that does not look that reliable to me)  that may have been used in this case , but the main thing was to try and portray him as an evil monster to justify his conviction. The same as JB and also Amanda Knox ( not commenting on her guilt or innocence in this comment)  and also Sion Jenkins.

The fact is that someone may not be a nice person , they may have really bad personality  flaws or in fact not be "morally socially acceptable"  but that does not make them a murderer.


That surely is where "beyond reasonable doubt" comes in.

Did Lukes friends stick with him through all of this?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 08, 2014, 02:26:PM
i find that character destruction. is only used when they have no real evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 08, 2014, 04:07:PM
Jansus, the police have already been condemned for their handling of Luke, but again I would ask you to keep in mind that it was not the police who found him guilty. He had his day in court with more than capable legal representation awarded to him. This is where Sandra's SCCRC submission fails also, focusing on what the police done wrong (and other 'suspects', including Jodi's own brother), rather than any evidence of any kind of unfair trial taking place.

Quote from: Sandra
The family search trio's account of their movements that evening, and their claimed reasons for going straight to the path to look for Jodi do not stand up to scrutiny - according to phone logs, etc, when compared to statements from the search trio and other members of Jodi's family, the search trio arrived at the start of the path before they actually set out to search, and, by their own admissions, they headed for an area they would not have expected Jodi to be that evening, having been told explicitly that she was expected to be in the opposite direction entirely, and an area which they tried to claim jodi was not allowed to use, and would not have used alone. (At the time they made these claims, they were of the opinion that Jodi had not been with Luke that night, so they had no reason to believe that, had she been on the path with someone, that someone was Luke Mitchell.

There are so many elements of "evidence" which were never used by the defence

Care to explain what exactly this paragraph is "evidence" of in your opinion?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 08, 2014, 04:11:PM
none of the other suspects have been cleared of anything you cant be cleared of something if you were never investigated in the first place.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 08, 2014, 09:41:PM
Appreciate your comments . But there are a lot of people who have "had their day in court" that have later been found innocent. I think sometimes the court system is a battle of egos and personal ambition. after all their job is to win , whether of not they believe the person they represent client is guilty.

But we do still have one of the best justice systems in the world (IMO)  but there are always some that will fall through the net.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on February 08, 2014, 10:33:PM
What evidence convinces Jodi's family of Luke's guilt? What was suggested that the motive was for Jodi's murder? Personally, I believe that there were two perps and I also believe that advances in forensic science will eventually clear Luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 08, 2014, 10:54:PM
Jansus, the police have already been condemned for their handling of Luke, but again I would ask you to keep in mind that it was not the police who found him guilty. He had his day in court with more than capable legal representation awarded to him. This is where Sandra's SCCRC submission fails also, focusing on what the police done wrong (and other 'suspects', including Jodi's own brother), rather than any evidence of any kind of unfair trial taking place.

Sorry, Lithium, nice try, but the contents of the submission to the SCCRC have never been publicly released, so you can't legitimately make this claim. Also, as we have seen in so many MoJ cases in the past, it is because the police handled the case so poorly in the first place that the evidence before the jury was so tainted - the juries, of course, did not know that, and convicted in good faith that the information before them was a fair and accurate representation of the facts of the case and not - as was later proven in so many cases - the result of botched, maniplulated and fabricated police manoeverings.

Quote
Care to explain what exactly this paragraph is "evidence" of in your opinion?

This question was asked with reference to a paragraph I wrote about the search trio members of Jodi's family, whose accounts of their movements that evening clearly and demonstrably were incorrect, when compared with other, tangible factors (e.g. telephone logs, knowledge of undisclosed information, and so on).  The point I was making was that the police could have (some would say should have) been far more rigorous in their investigation of these inconsistencies and anomalies, if for no other reason than to avoid the inevitable consequence of people like me coming along and asking for feasible, reliable explanations - without them, there is, whether people like it or not, reasonable doubt regarding the safety of the conviction.

If the search trio could not possibly have left at the time they say they did, if their reasons for going to the very place where Jodi's body lay make no sense whatsoever (especially when, at that point, no-one except the murderer knew (a) that Jodi was dead and (b) where her body was), if their various explanations do not properly tie up with other, verified evidence, and if some of them changed their evidence in order to provide alibis for others who would not otherwise have had alibis, then I believe all of that should have been questioned, and questioned, and questioned, until reasonable answers were obtained. It is evidence of the fact - and it is a fact - that the investigation into the murder of Jodi Jones was flawed, biased, unprofessional and shoddy.

I am not accusing anyone of anything - no, actually, that is not correct. I am making a couple of accusations - firstly, the investigating officers did not do their jobs properly, and secondly, the defence did not make proper use of that fact at trial, in robustly cross-examining those whose evidence was inconsistent and inaccurate.

Jansus, you make a good point about trial by personality- Luke's trial started 17 months after the murder - the publicity throughout (except a brief period when Luke "could not be named for legal reasons") was relentless and hugely prejudicial. Then the trial was held locally -it's difficult to see how jurors could not have been infuenced by the "monster" portrayal.

It was made very, very difficult for Luke's friends to stand by him - we have accounts of the most horrendous intimidation of very vulnerable young people, including accounts of parents being told within the first week that LuKe would be arrested "within the week" and that they should keep their children away from Luke because he was "dangerous." Others reported being asked what they thought would happen to their kids if they were seen to be supportive of that "evil little b*****d" - you can imagine, in such a small area, the impact of such intimidation tactics.

However, there were a few notable exceptions, parents and kids, who remained loyal to Luke throughout, and I know he is eternally grateful to them. Others have since come back recently - as adults now, they realise the extent to which they were manipulated, and want to tell the truth of their experiences back in 2003.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 08, 2014, 11:05:PM
Apologies, Tyler, cross posted!

According to Jodi's mother and brother, the police have absolutely convinced them that "strands" of Luke's DNA were "all over her." According to the brother, they "weren't allowed" to link all the partial profiles together to make one full profile (that would match Luke), but they "knew" that all the partials were definitely from Luke's profile.

I find that desperately sad - I offered to sit down with both Jodi's mother and brother and show them the DNA results, and explain to them why what they claimed the police had told them was incorrect. (For example, male partial profiles containing markers which are not in Luke's profile cannot possibly be parts of his full profile - that's just one example of very many.)

Both refused to meet with me, claiming I was only presenting selected "bits" of information, even though my offer had been to show them the entire set of DNA results.

The "motive" suggested by police is not consitent in any way with what Jodi's family believed to be the case. According to the police, Jodi had found out that Luke was seeing another girl, and was planning to "confront" him with it. Yet, according to her mum, Jodi was grounded that afternoon, and was ungrounded, on a whim, by her mother at 4.30pm. She was "chuffed"  and left "happily" to meet Luke. According to the judge, Jodi left "joyfully" to meet Luke that afternoon - hardy the sort of emotional state one would expect from a girl who had written in her diary "I think I would die if we broke up."

There are DNA pofiles from more than one male in the crime scene records - the problem is the paperwork was such a shambles that it was very difficult to properly identify the significance of various results. I thin you could be correct, though, and that there may have been more than one attacker.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on February 09, 2014, 04:01:AM
Thank you Dr Lean. The 'motive' is not really plausible then. It appears to be more of a sexually motivated crime imo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 09, 2014, 11:22:AM
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.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 09, 2014, 12:50:PM
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?


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 09, 2014, 12:54:PM
the officail time is between 450 and 545.

though actully the patholigist couldent give a time of death.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 09, 2014, 01:03:PM
bit like JB then. Although I would have thought with todays forensic ability it would have not have been that difficult.

So a time then when there could have been quite a few people about? Or was it a really secluded area?.

I know I have put these on another thread - but these words from Amanda Knox do resonate with me

They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side. They only have their slanders against me, their personal opinions about me. They want you to think I’m a monster because it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster’s defence as deception"




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 09, 2014, 01:16:PM
because the police hadent made any attempt to cover the body the patholgist said it was not in good enough condition to get a time of death.

he also said that he thought the body had been moved at that one of the reasons he couldn't give a time.

its actually harder to get an acrute time of death than people think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 09, 2014, 01:25:PM
The area where Jodi was murdered is directly behind a large High School with some 900 pupils in 2003. There was a concert taking place in the school that evening, so it is likely that there were even more people around than normal (there were after school clubs, etc, running in the school premises, and it was a "Community High School" which meant that evening classes for adults were also run from the premises.)

Within 15 minutes either side of the claimed time of death (TOD was claimed to be 5.15pm, so the timeframe I'm talking about here is from 5pm to 5.30pm) there are something like 12 people who are known to have been either on the path, or in the woodland strip, all within yards of where Jodi was murdered. Some were dog walkers, some were cyclists, some were kids playing in the woodland strip, some were relatives of Jodi, whose motorbike was propped, riderless, against the wall at the V point where it was claimed Jodi climbed through from the path side to the woodland side (the relatives were unable to say where they were at that precise time - 5.15pm, the actual claimed time of the murder, but somehow, that ended up being OK). Not one of them saw or heard anything.

One witness did report a very loud scream, but that was later in the evening, around 8pm.

Although the claim, by the time the case came to court, was that Jodi was "not allowed" to use the path because it was "too secluded," the evidence supports the fact that there was no restriction on Jodi using the path - she, and her friends, and her siblings and relatives had all used the path over the years - her own grandmother said so on the stand. Also, it was June 30th - in this part of Scotland it is still daylight at 10.30pm at that time of year, so "badly lit" at 5pm in the evening wouldn't have been a concern - in fact, Jodi's curfew was 10pm - she could have come back up the path to go home, and "badly lit"  would still not have been a concern.

Jodi's cousins were known to hang around in the woodland strip behind the wall - they had a "gang hut" within a few feet of where Jodi's body was found, so "too dangerous" would not have been an issue either. Incidentally, no-one could give the police any real reason for Jodi's mother's claims that Jodi was not allowed to use the path "alone,"  and Jodi's sister admitted on the stand that her mother "knew perfectly well" that Jodi used the path.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 09, 2014, 01:27:PM
Sorry, nugnug, cross posted.

It's true, the pathologist was unable to ascertain (or even hazard a guess) at time of death, but interestingly, the doctor who was brought to the scene at 2am to pronounce death also made no effort to preserve evidence which may have been helpful (e.g. body temperature).

Stomach contents recovered at post mortem were never identified, other than the vague description of "brown liquid."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 09, 2014, 01:28:PM
there are some photos of the path floating about ill just go and have a look for them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 09, 2014, 01:34:PM
So in theory - there was a perpetrator - probably with blood on them and in a  heightened distressed state who left the scene - but no-one saw him or them. Thank you for the information about the light - I was wondering about that .

So either they were able to make a quick get away - or left through the woods? Or there was more than one person and they covered for each  other?

Does not sound like an  in anger attack by a 14 year old does it. 

This sounds either like someone who has done it before and become more and more brazen - or possibly a group attack that got out of hand . IMO
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 09, 2014, 01:56:PM
here we are.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media/?sa=album;in=4
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 09, 2014, 02:00:PM
Sandra L

Have just been reading through past articles and I am full of admiration for your tenacity in this case. It must be really hard when probably a whole community is against you to carry on the fight for so long. Also just read about the fact that the defence had some reports that were not presented in court because of funding the expert witnesses. So wrong on many levels.

Also saw some video of the wall etc - which gives a clearer picture of the scene.

Was there evidence on her that she had maybe been physically dragged through the gap in the wall?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 09, 2014, 02:04:PM
here we are.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media/?sa=album;in=4

thank you for the link
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 09, 2014, 03:24:PM
Thank you jansus - my tenacity was not entirely down to altruism, however - my girls were around the same age as Jodi when she was murdered, and my concern then, as now, was with the possibility that a vicious murderer was allowed to go free amongst us. That an innocent boy should be pursued in place of the real attacker made it all the more disgusting to me.

Thanks nugnug for posting the link.

Regards the evidence of Jodi going over the wall, there was never any evidence recovered to suggest she had gone over the wall, either willingly, or having been dragged there. However, the fact that Jodi's clothing was left out all night in the rain may have had some bearing on that, and also the fact that Luke, Steven Kelly, Alice Walker and at least six police officers went through the V break, potentially contaminating evidence of Jodi having been there too.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 09, 2014, 11:19:PM
Sorry, Lithium, nice try, but the contents of the submission to the SCCRC have never been publicly released, so you can't legitimately make this claim.

Are you denying you mentioned Jodi's brother as another potential suspect in your SCCRC submission?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 09, 2014, 11:41:PM
you may want to spread wild rumours about whos a suspect and who isn't but im sure sandra doesn't.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 09, 2014, 11:46:PM
you may want to spread wild rumours about whos a suspect and who isn't but im sure sandra doesn't.

she named enough in the scrcc submission.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 09, 2014, 11:50:PM
the sccrc submission has never bee made public no will it be and  you seem to forget that your on a moj forum where posters know these sort of things.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 09, 2014, 11:53:PM
I've seen it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 09, 2014, 11:56:PM
and how you have seen a confidential legal document exactly.

you couldent have done so legally.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on February 10, 2014, 12:00:AM
Oh, ok then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 10, 2014, 10:39:AM
Jansus said
Quote
Also just read about the fact that the defence had some reports that were not presented in court because of funding the expert witnesses. So wrong on many levels.

For a number of years, we could not understand why the defence had not mounted a robust attack on the basis of forensic evidence (or lack therof.)  We were offered some vague mumblings about "not being too hard" on various witnesses, so as not to "put the jury offside", which seemed to us, at the time, absolutely ridiculous. I couldn't think of a case in which a jury was more likely to have been "put offside," given the nature and duration of media coverage, the locality of the trial etc.

Anyway, it came to our attention that there had been an opportunity to have the forensics tested for the defence, but Legal Aid had been refused and (bizarrely) the legal team were allegedly saying Luke's mother had refused to pay for the tests.

You can imagine our confusion. If a case is being funded by legal aid, then the accused or his family cannot pay for anything independently, otherwise, they are deemed to be able to afford their own defence and should not be entitled to legal aid payments. Further, I knew for absolute certain that no-one in Luke's family had ever been asked to pay for tests - they would have done so without a moment's hesitation, had they been asked. It took another 4 plus years for us to get to the truth - that the legal team claimed SLAB had refused funding, whereas SLAB insisted that the legal team had failed to complete the application. From the case papers, the latter appears to be the case, in that communication from the legal team to the SLAB appears to suddenly and abruptly come to an end, but given that the file at the SLAB offices has since been "lost" we may never know.

It is an absolute disgrace, in a country where so many people are entirely dependent on state funded and provided legal representation, that this sort of thing can happen. From what we have been able to glean from the case papers, it appears Luke's own defence team were dishonest and misleading not only to him and his family, but to others, in what can only be seen as an attempt to discredit Luke and his family in order to cover up for failings within the defence team.

For Lithium's benefit, I will point out here that I have made no direct accusation - I am doing what judges encourage every juror at the end of every trial to do - to come to common sense conclusions (or, in this case, possibilities), based on the evidence before them, without resorting to outright speculation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on February 10, 2014, 11:43:AM
I was reading the following old news article and was completely stunned! It just about sums up everything that is so very wrong with this case  >:(


    http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-1-959390
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 10, 2014, 12:25:PM
dobbis lying his arse of there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 11, 2014, 07:39:PM
of course the role of sky news has yet to be investigated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on February 11, 2014, 08:02:PM
of course the role of sky news has yet to be investigated.

what did sky news do?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 11, 2014, 08:08:PM
well  i say there role its just what i belive.

the turned up at lukes house on the day of jodis funruel and asked for an interview ive luke had been told not to atend jodis funruel but i have allway wondered how sky news knew luke would be avialeble.

i also wonder why it was so important to them that the interview happened that day.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 23, 2014, 10:20:AM
Another great article by Bob Smyth about the case.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict

Nearly 10 years after the trial, the FBI profile was finally obtained following a freedom of information application in the USA... but most of the details were blanked out.

We know the profile was never depended on at trial (I know they're not allowed as evidence, but they'd have found a way of letting the world and his brother know if the profile had, in any way, implicated Luke), but what wasn't known until just a few years ago, is that the defence tried to get the profile from the prosecution, and were blocked, just like they never got the funding to have the DNA tested for the defence, or the cell site analysis carried out to ascertain whether or not Luke left his own home at the material time!

The DNA testing's an odd one - the defence team and the Legal Aid board blamed each other - the defence said funding was refused, the Legal Aid Board said the deffence never completed the application. The file was then "lost" (how very convenient) so we never did get to the bottom of it!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 23, 2014, 11:28:AM
Quote
The murder is currently unsolved. However, inquiries have polarised on building a circumstantial case against a prime suspect.

This quote, from the Express article, is the exact wording of the initial enquiry from Lothian and Borders Police to the FBI - an outright admission that they were not "investigating" anything, they were constructing a case against Luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 26, 2014, 11:19:AM
now why am inot shocked by this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 26, 2014, 11:30:AM
When you think of the cost of obtaining this report (two senior officers flown to the states for 5 days, plus the FBI's charges), it is outrageous that they then refused to hand it over to the defence, telling them, instead, they'd have to apply directly to the FBI for it.

Bearing in mind that it's all paid for by tax payers' money - prosecution and defence - the simple act of refusing the defence a copy meant the tax payer also had to foot the bill for the defence team being sent on a wild goose chase because the FBI could not release the profile to the defence un-redacted, because the defence team was not the FBI's client.

But even that's not the worst of it. The prosecution's refusal to release the profile to the defence was (presumably - I've never actually seen a written reason) because it could not undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence case (the criteria on which the decision to disclose is supposed to be based) because it is inadmissable in British courts. Rewind - all of that expense, and they knew, from the outset, it could never be used as evidence?

Who sanctioned that expense? And in what ways could it possibly be justified?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 26, 2014, 12:03:PM
so basscally they are now admiting they dident bother to investigate anything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 26, 2014, 12:45:PM
so basscally they are now admiting they dident bother to investigate anything.

That's the thing, nugnug - when they worded their request to the FBI the way they did, they were admitting, outright, that they had nothing, and that they weren't "investigating" anything, they were just looking to construct a circumstantial case. However you look at it, they were openly admitting that they hadn't a clue what happened to Jodi but, since they needed someone to be held accountable, they were going to build a "model" of what could have happened, according to their own theory, and based on not a shred of concrete evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 26, 2014, 09:33:PM
well now its officail that the police had no intention of properly investigating the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 15, 2014, 01:19:AM
Jodi Jones killer Luke Mitchell demands right to study Satanic textbooks in prison due to his 'religious beliefs'

MITCHELL, who is serving life in Shotts prison, has requested a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where human sacrifice and murder are not only tolerated but encouraged.

(http://i.imgur.com/HTkLhCq.jpg)

Luke Mitchell is serving life for the murder of Jodi in June 2003
JODI Jones’s killer Luke Mitchell has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in jail because of his “religious beliefs”.

Mitchell wants six books including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, claiming it’s his human right to have access to the occult materials.

Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.

He made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison where he is serving life for the murder of Jodi in June 2003.

It is officially under consideration by the Scottish Prison Service, who can ban prisoners from receiving books that don’t come from an approved list of suppliers.

Three of the requested texts are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the American founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, he promotes human sacrifice and discusses the conditions in which someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice.

LaVey states: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

One of the other titles, Satan Speaks!, has a foreword by goth rocker Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of Jodi.

(http://i.imgur.com/CWhBvqH.jpg)

Mitchell wants access to The Satanic Bible 
Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence.

One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a
serious interest in the subject.

“Some people think he is playing a game and is trying to cause mischief. He’s still fighting his conviction. How can surrounding yourself with Satanic materials make a good impression? People are surprised.”

Mitchell was only 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.

Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home a few hours after she had set off to meet Mitchell. Her hands were tied behind her back, her throat had been slashed and there were cuts to her face, breast and abdomen.

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted that he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. It also emerged he had a demonic tattoo done while under investigation for Jodi’s murder.

Prosecutors revealed his school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

Murdered teenager Jodi Jones 
Elizabeth Rudman, a criminologist with over 20 years’ experience, said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point.

“My problem is that the rituals involved in these materials are really anti-social and they elicit deeds that are against the law, such as human sacrifice.

“This person was convicted for murder. My first question would be: what is he going to plan now?

“It is possible Mitchell has given up completely. On the other hand, it can also be an indication of guilt.

“He has been in prison for so long, his hope of getting an appeal has been completely quashed, so now he may be showing his true convictions.”

The Scottish Prison Service said: “Any request by a prisoner for materials on the grounds of religious practice would be considered carefully and risk-assessed by our chaplaincy team.”

Sources said Mitchell would not be given any materials that could incite violence or anti-social behaviour.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 15, 2014, 01:23:AM
What a Grade A xxxx this guy is. 10 years on and he's still not grown out of this "phase".
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 15, 2014, 01:24:AM
she asked to read a book so what.

at the end of the day he asked to take a lie detecter and passed all the the case are shit scared to do so.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 15, 2014, 01:24:AM
Doesn't suprise me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 15, 2014, 01:27:AM
good ob the sccrc wont be intrested in that.

they will be more concerned about the sperm andthe blood.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 15, 2014, 01:35:AM
good ob the sccrc wont be intrested in that.

That's all you have to say about it?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 15, 2014, 01:38:AM
she asked to read a book so what.

at the end of the day he asked to take a lie detecter and passed all the the case are shit scared to do so.

If I was an innocent person who experienced something in my life as traumatic as finding my girlfriends mutilated body, I doubt I'd ever have any interest in reading about death, murder and human sacrifice.
Time to cut the denial that he's deeply into that sort of stuff. I'm also aware of the artwork he requested not long ago.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 15, 2014, 01:42:AM
youve never expernced it have you so you know sod all bout how it feels.

you clearly dont have a clue what that books about anyway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 15, 2014, 01:46:AM
youve never expernced it have you so you know sod all bout how it feels.

you clearly dont have a clue what that books about anyway.

I do actually. I'm pretty well read.

You clearly don't have a clue about what I have or haven't experienced.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 15, 2014, 01:46:AM
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/82333.The_Satanic_Bible

here it is

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/82333.The_Satanic_Bible#other_reviews
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 15, 2014, 01:47:AM
Ok????
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 15, 2014, 01:49:AM
Has he done anything useful with his time? Get fit and healthy? Learn any trades or skills? Education?

No?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 15, 2014, 01:51:AM
i dont know and i dont really give a shit.

im more concerned with the actull case like the sccec will be i hope
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 15, 2014, 06:54:AM
If I was an innocent person who experienced something in my life as traumatic as finding my girlfriends mutilated body, I doubt I'd ever have any interest in reading about death, murder and human sacrifice.
Time to cut the denial that he's deeply into that sort of stuff. I'm also aware of the artwork he requested not long ago.
It could work the other way round of course. Perhaps he wants to try and understand why this happened to Jodi. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: jayjay on May 15, 2014, 07:53:AM
It could be many reasons but none indicating his guilt! how does anyone know how they would feel or react to being sentenced for a crime they didnt commit?

Would we sit in our cells all day doing nothing? giving up? we dont know cos thankfully we havent had to face this
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 16, 2014, 01:19:PM
thats right none of us could possbly know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 19, 2014, 09:22:PM
thanks for bringing this thread back to the top agian lithum we are all very pleased to have your support your a star.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 19, 2014, 10:03:PM
I very much look forward to hearing the latest instalment of this case, whenever that may be!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2014, 04:53:PM
so am i.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 24, 2014, 04:53:PM
Eee. Not looking good nuggsy is it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2014, 05:12:PM
looking pretty good to me but we will see

the retesting of the clothes is bound to be interesting.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 25, 2014, 11:10:PM
Eee. Not looking good nuggsy is it?

I'm wondering why you feel this mate?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 26, 2014, 04:37:PM
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more. 

Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi.  He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed.  He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house.  This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.

Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi.  Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 26, 2014, 04:47:PM
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more. 

Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi.  He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed.  He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house.  This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.

Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi.  Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.

A good summing up of the case in general and those involved, good post John.

I'm wondering why you feel this mate?


Just an educated opinion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 26, 2014, 11:06:PM
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more. 

Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi.  He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed.  He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house.  This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.

Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi.  Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.
I would take those press reports with a massive pinch of salt.

Was/could Shane have been certain that Luke was not in the house at the given time?

John, what are your thoughts about the lie detector tests that both Luke and his mother passed?
I, myself have always been quite sceptical about such tests, but the fact that they both passed causes me to wonder a little.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 12:45:AM
its a a good job sccrc are are only intrested in the facts of the case like the sperm and blood on the vody that does noy belong  to to luke mitchel.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 12:47:AM
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more. 

Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi.  He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed.  He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house.  This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.

Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi.  Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.

shrs exp;ained it several times as you very well know
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 01:03:AM
A good summing up of the case in general and those involved, good post John.

Just an educated opinion.

do you you have a cleue what that books actullly about mat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 01:21:AM
do you you have a cleue what that books actullly about mat.


Book?? I'm talking about the SCCRC. What book are you talking about, the one Lithium mentioned Luke has?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 01:25:AM
how could you possbly have a clue what sccrc are going to do dp.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 01:40:AM
how could you possbly have a clue what sccrc are going to do dp.

I don't know what they are going to do, but I do know it's not looking good and like I said an educated opinion.

As for the book, of course I know what it's about or else I wouldn't of made a comment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 02:14:AM

Book?? I'm talking about the SCCRC. What book are you talking about, the one Lithium mentioned Luke has?

you havent got a clur whats benn submited ti the sccrc.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 02:15:AM
you havent got a clur whats benn submited ti the sccrc.

What?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 02:18:AM
I don't know what they are going to do, but I do know it's not looking good and like I said an educated opinion.

As for the book, of course I know what it's about or else I wouldn't of made a comment.

ok tell us what the books about the books about then mat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 02:18:AM
ok tell us what the books about the books about then mat.

What??  :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 02:21:AM
If you mean tell you what the Satanic Bible is about  - then it isn't too hard to work out for yourself, Nuggsy. Or you can simply google it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 02:22:AM
you said you knew what there book was about dident you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 02:23:AM
But back to the case, Nugnug - do you think it's strange that SL names LM's brother as a suspect in the SCCRC submission?

What do you think she's trying to do there?


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 02:23:AM
If you mean tell you what the Satanic Bible is about  - then it isn't too hard to work out for yourself, Nuggsy. Or you can simply google it.

ok tell us whats its about then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 02:24:AM
But back to the case, Nugnug - do you think it's strange that SL names LM's brother as a suspect in the SCCRC submission?

What do you think she's trying to do there?

she hasnt your just making shit up as usaul
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 02:25:AM
ok tell us whats its about then.

Think of the 10 commandments......and then reverse them.

she hasnt your just making shit up as usaul

Feel free to ask her, nugnug.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 02:27:AM
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more. 

Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi.  He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed.  He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house.  This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.

Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi.  Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.

why is the granny robber being allowed to post her again.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 02:29:AM
Think of the 10 commandments......and then reverse them.

Feel free to ask her, nugnug.  :)

im asking where is your source,

or are you just making shit up as usaul.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 02:32:AM
im asking where is your source,

or are you just making shit up as usaul.

You haven't once asked me for my source. Like I've said. An educated guess. You can choose to not believe it, but that doesn't make it any less true. You could always ask SL to come here and deny it? Or you can as her personally.

But whether you believe it or not - it's the truth. The submissions to the SCCRC name LM's brother as a potential suspect.

From now on I won't be replying to any of your posts that aren't spelt properly or at least use punctuation, it's not difficult and I'm tired of trying to work out what you're trying to say.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 02:35:AM
You haven't once asked me for my source. Like I've said. An educated guess. You can choose to not believe it, but that doesn't make it any less true. You could always ask SL to come here and deny it? Or you can as her personally.

But whether you believe it or not - it's the truth. The submissions to the SCCRC name LM's brother as a potential suspect.

From now on I won't be replying to any of your posts that aren't spelt properly or at least use punctuation, it's not difficult and I'm tired of trying to work out what you're trying to say.

im asking for your source now why are you afriad to give it,

nobody who was telling the truth would be.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 27, 2014, 04:04:AM
I would take those press reports with a massive pinch of salt.

Was/could Shane have been certain that Luke was not in the house at the given time?

John, what are your thoughts about the lie detector tests that both Luke and his mother passed?
I, myself have always been quite sceptical about such tests, but the fact that they both passed causes me to wonder a little.

Shane was absolutely positive he wasn't in the house as he was looking at porn in his bedroom and was listening for anyone coming into the house. It wasn't a big house by any means so it would not have been very difficult to hear someone come in and start messing around in the kitchen as Luke claimed he did.

Bottom line is he has no alibi and was identified by two witnesses near the murder scene. Some minutes later he was seen again by several others further up the road.  The chances of two almost identical youths wearing the exact same clothes being on the same stretch of road at almost the same time is incredibly small.

Mitchell was a troubled child by all accounts who was left to run wild and do more or less whatever he wanted. He was a heavy user of cannabis and had all the paraphernalia in his bedroom for weighing and bagging the drug for resale to other schoolchildren.  The slaying of Jodi wasn't by any means the first time he had threatened a young girl with a hunting knife.

The polygraph test or lie detector is merely a gimmick fit only for daytime TV programmes.  It has no relevance and no legal status. 

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 27, 2014, 04:37:AM
But back to the case, Nugnug - do you think it's strange that SL names LM's brother as a suspect in the SCCRC submission?

What do you think she's trying to do there?

Older brother Shane also changed his story in relation to his whereabouts before arriving home on the afternoon that Jodi was murdered.  In court he testified that his memory was impaired due to drug use.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 09:20:AM
where did you read that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 09:32:AM
Shane was absolutely positive he wasn't in the house as he was looking at porn in his bedroom and was listening for anyone coming into the house. It wasn't a big house by any means so it would not have been very difficult to hear someone come in and start messing around in the kitchen as Luke claimed he did.

Bottom line is he has no alibi and was identified by two witnesses near the murder scene. Some minutes later he was seen again by several others further up the road.  The chances of two almost identical youths wearing the exact same clothes being on the same stretch of road at almost the same time is incredibly small.

Mitchell was a troubled child by all accounts who was left to run wild and do more or less whatever he wanted. He was a heavy user of cannabis and had all the paraphernalia in his bedroom for weighing and bagging the drug for resale to other schoolchildren.  The slaying of Jodi wasn't by any means the first time he had threatened a young girl with a hunting knife.

The polygraph test or lie detector is merely a gimmick fit only for daytime TV programmes.  It has no relevance and no legal status.

luke certanly has an albi its not the best albi but its an albi if your innocent you cant choose your albi,

at the end of the day luke had the balls to take the test nobody else invloved in the case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 05:00:PM
Just an educated opinion.

Educated by who! this man John?

I already told him that luke was accompanied by an individual after school and walked with this person to the top of Newbattle road. when this individual was asked in what direction luke was heading he stated that it was towards lukes house. In yet this man is so out of touch with everything going on and even that which has passed he seems to think it better to roll out the same shit to get himself back in the limelight.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 05:16:PM
I don't really understand your guys point of view. In one instance this wholehearted stance that Luke committed this crime but then the fact that Shane was put forward seems to have played into your hands that something aint right. Is it possible that the two are wrong as you obviously can't concern yourselve's with the fact that one point negates the other.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 05:25:PM
I would take those press reports with a massive pinch of salt.

Was/could Shane have been certain that Luke was not in the house at the given time?

John, what are your thoughts about the lie detector tests that both Luke and his mother passed?
I, myself have always been quite sceptical about such tests, but the fact that they both passed causes me to wonder a little.
I'm not even sure how relevant these tests are now in respect of the case, i do however wonder If johns reasoning regarding the DNA testing should somehow come out as a negative to Lukes innocence? do you believe in DNA testing john?
I am willing to lay everything on the line here regarding it as If any of Lukes DNA is found I am willing to do a john and change my point of view.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 05:32:PM
But back to the case, Nugnug - do you think it's strange that SL names LM's brother as a suspect in the SCCRC submission?

What do you think she's trying to do there?

I have had it confirmed that in no way was Shane named as a potential suspect in the application and in no way could anyone know what was in the application so the onus is on you to provide the source or back up your claims in anyway you can otherwise your showing yourself up a bit here.

That is of course unless that this info came from the same person the believed jodi was tied up by a rope!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 27, 2014, 05:47:PM
I have had it confirmed that in no way was Shane named as a potential suspect in the application and in no way could anyone know what was in the application so the onus is on you to provide the source or back up your claims in anyway you can otherwise your showing yourself up a bit here.

That is of course unless that this info came from the same person the believed jodi was tied up by a rope!!
I suspect that Mat has seen the application, or at least he has been in conversation with someone that has.  I don't believe he would express such views unless he was absolutely certain, it's just not his style.

When are we likely to hear any details, officially, about the application?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 05:49:PM
Neil there is no way he could have seen the application and only two people new what was in it, they are either clutching at straws or simply lying and im willing to stand by that all the way.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 05:52:PM
and gordo would know.

unlike the rest of us he actually knows the applicant.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 27, 2014, 06:13:PM
Neil there is no way he could have seen the application and only two people new what was in it, they are either clutching at straws or simply lying and im willing to stand by that all the way.
Thanks for that Gordo, I would be very interested to read Mats response to that.

I have previously been left with the impression that Mat has 'contacts' at the CCRC. 

Is the application now complete and if so, has it been presented to the CCRC? Or does it not work quite like that?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:19:PM
The application has been complete and submitted to the SCCRC a different body to the CCRC for some time, well over a year. Its at a stage where were hoping the DNA testing should be very close to completion and thats why this type of thing becomes rather frustrating. These things can take a very long time once the review is even complete to finally get the findings and reactions to fruition that people should realise the damage their doing in making these types of posts
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 06:22:PM
I suspect that Mat has seen the application, or at least he has been in conversation with someone that has.  I don't believe he would express such views unless he was absolutely certain, it's just not his style.

When are we likely to hear any details, officially, about the application?

Thank - you Neil. I guess I am just guessing correctly.... Again??  :P

Neil there is no way he could have seen the application and only two people new what was in it, they are either clutching at straws or simply lying and im willing to stand by that all the way.

I wouldn't try and put words into peoples mouth, Gordo. I didn't say once that I've seen the application - but I've spoken to two seperate people who have. Both of which have said that Shane Mitchell is talked about as a potential alternate suspect. Both these people aren't connected to each other yet have said the same thing - and no I won't be naming either of them.

But in time we'll see who was right, I suggest you go back and check with your sources.



Is the application now complete and if so, has it been presented to the CCRC? Or does it not work quite like that?

Yeah, the SCCRC have it and have sent parts of it out for further tests.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 06:24:PM
In fact now I think about it. Lithium has also seen the documents (he proved via PM how and that he was VERY aware of what was happening.

And he also claimed that Shane was named in the documents.

So that's three people, not connected and that have never spoken or are even aware of each other that all say the same thing...... and that's good enough for me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 06:25:PM
there not publicly avialeble documents.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 06:26:PM
there not publicly avialeble documents.

Obviously.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 27, 2014, 06:28:PM
The application has been complete and submitted to the SCCRC a different body to the CCRC for some time, well over a year. Its at a stage where were hoping the DNA testing should be very close to completion and thats why this type of thing becomes rather frustrating. These things can take a very long time once the review is even complete to finally get the findings and reactions to fruition that people should realise the damage their doing in making these types of posts
Thats vey interesting, thanks Gordo.  I guess it's encouraging for Luke that the SCCRC have invested in the re-examination of the DNA evidence.  Who funds the DNA testing? (Sorry about all the questions!)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:31:PM
I can understand how lithium might know or suspect how and what may or may not be in the application as he was most probably part of the further investigation. I am saying that i have spoken just in the last few mins one of two people who were involved with the application and they have denied that shane was involved. They were quite shocked even at the possiblity that Shane was even considered.

I myself would not come out with such things unless i could back them up so I guess i am willing to see just how things pan out, i certainly won't be saying i told you so.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:33:PM
Thats vey interesting, thanks Gordo.  I guess it's encouraging for Luke that the SCCRC have invested in the re-examination of the DNA evidence.  Who funds the DNA testing? (Sorry about all the questions!)

The funding is part of the sccrc's remit and they will chose to do so if the initial findings are right and if by doing such tests then they could complete the review to their own standards and remit then they will undertake to do so. Its a government funded institution
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:35:PM
I am wondering how this fits with your believe that Luke mitchell is guilty though mat? It can't be both Luke and shane can it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 06:38:PM
I am wondering how this fits with your believe that Luke mitchell is guilty though mat? It can't be both Luke and shane can it?

No, I don't think Shane is guilty. I think Luke is guilty. I don't think Shane is an actual viable suspect - but he did have a strange alibi and if you can cause some doubt around Luke's conviction... then you're doing well. Which is what the attempt is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:42:PM
OK the best thing for me at this stage is to put an official complaint into the sccrc that somehow they have someone willing to leak sensitive information out to the public domain. I feel that if this issue is correct about Shane then they will have to act on any complaint issued.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 06:44:PM
OK the best thing for me at this stage is to put an official complaint into the sccrc that somehow they have someone willing to leak sensitive information out to the public domain. I feel that if this issue is correct about Shane then they will have to act on any complaint issued.

I don't think it would be fair to say it was the SCCRC that leaked the information. If people talk about it on Facebook/Emails/PM's on other forums they can't be too sure who they are involving.

But good luck.

I guess that you being willing to complain it has 'leaked' is confirmation that what people are saying is actually true?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 27, 2014, 06:46:PM
OK the best thing for me at this stage is to put an official complaint into the sccrc that somehow they have someone willing to leak sensitive information out to the public domain. I feel that if this issue is correct about Shane then they will have to act on any complaint issued.
I would guess that it's almost impossible to keep a lid on everything, when so many people are involved in the procedure.  In this day and age, with the internet and all, word can literally spread in seconds.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:46:PM
Im trying now mate. Its just if the information is right it either came from one of two people or internally. If it is right then even internally they will have to deal with it if the information is correct.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:49:PM
Its simply a way to determine if you are correct or not. the person i have spoke to can only go so far in telling me its incorrect so in some respect this will be done for guys like yourself. How do you prove something is not in something unless you have a copy yourself that your willing to let me see, this of course is not possible.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 06:51:PM
Gordo, just asking. Are you listed as a contributer to any part of the submissions?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:52:PM
Why would that concern you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 06:53:PM
i wonder i should contact shane mitchell and ask if he wants to take legal action.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 06:56:PM
I think there are more subtle way nugnug.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 06:58:PM
Gordo, just asking. Are you listed as a contributer to any part of the submissions?

well if you had really seen them you would know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 07:07:PM
Nunug he has already said that he hasn't seen them but through the power of the internet he has either spoken to someone who has which any any case makes for a case of leaking sensitive information or he has managed to somehow workout what is in the application from what has been said online,something that is open to his or another person interpretation which can be quite damaging and frequently wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 07:18:PM
Why would that concern you?

Was just a question.


well if you had really seen them you would know.

I am tried of repeating myself, I have not seen them. Certainly am smart enough to ensure I don't say anything that hasn't been said elsewhere on the internet (even in this topic if you check back.)  :)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 07:22:PM
OK Mat thats why I'm suddenly less concerned as like i said it would be all about another person interpretation and thats open to manipulation.

It would be unwise for me to say that Shanes name does not come up in the application as he plays a very big part in the initial trial and so would certainly play a part in its review, so I am willing to leave it at that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 27, 2014, 07:27:PM
OK Mat thats why I'm suddenly less concerned as like i said it would be all about another person interpretation and thats open to manipulation.

It would be unwise for me to say that Shanes name does not come up in the application as he plays a very big part in the initial trial and so would certainly play a part in its review, so I am willing to leave it at that.

I think for best it's both sides to leave it there, agreed. Certainly don't see this as an argument with you, a debate though is always good.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 07:39:PM
Oh yeah for sure mate thats whats been missing in this case for the last 2 years or so, mainly because of the application as its hard to know just what to say that won't  compromise the review.

I must say you praised johns post a summary  review in his post but there were so many inaccuracies that do not play to our side that its impossible to use that as an argument to any debate.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 27, 2014, 08:35:PM
well for start we know shane was on the internet so has actully got a cast iron albi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 27, 2014, 08:51:PM
LOL nugnug Its been worked out that the brother was named, so not so much as a problem bro
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 28, 2014, 12:40:AM
Oh yeah for sure mate thats whats been missing in this case for the last 2 years or so, mainly because of the application as its hard to know just what to say that won't  compromise the review.

I must say you praised johns post a summary  review in his post but there were so many inaccuracies that do not play to our side that its impossible to use that as an argument to any debate.

You would like to think there were inaccuracies but the truth is that even today Mitchell's advocates haven't been able to prove otherwise. Mitchell had no alibi and two independent witnesses placed him near the murder scene when he claimed to be in a house with his brother...end off

As far as Mitchell's DNA is concerned it should have been found on Jodi because he was with her earlier that day but forensics failed to find it.  Maybe they will do better next time?

Not that will prove anything we don't already know ie he had Means, Motive and Opportunity.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 28, 2014, 12:45:AM
those witness i asume you mean Fleming and  walsh to described a young man in his late teens or early 20s with dark hair now anyone whos seen a picture of luke mithell knows he hasn't got dark hair.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 28, 2014, 11:50:AM
Quote
As far as Mitchell's DNA is concerned it should have been found on Jodi because he was with her earlier that day but forensics failed to find it.  Maybe they will do better next time?

If I shake your hand John then there is  possibly a chance that my DNA will and could be found on your hand (skin cells, sweat), If you shake another persons hand afterwards then the chance of my DNA is very slim indeed as the other person's DNA contaminates mine. Jodi and Luke were together only a short time throughout that day and had no class together, They were in contact with 100's of pupils that day!! chance of Lukes DNA to be found from earlier meetings is zero or end of..

We know all about these independent witnesses john, these were the ones the judge told off for collusion if i am not mistaken, these are the ones who didn't want to come forward to the police with the information they had but had to have been forced by a person in their office. These were the ones who couldn't get anything right i.e the time they left, how they knew about Luke having seen him in a paper even before any photo's appeared.

We know no DNA of Lukes will be found as it would have been found the 1st time, it's the DNA that is there that wasn't properly tested that will hold the real clues.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 28, 2014, 11:52:AM
and they both got lukes appearence completly wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 28, 2014, 04:21:PM
If Luke was responsible, I would have thought it inconceivable that he wouldn't leave some trace of his DNA.

Therefor, if the tests show no DNA belonging to Luke, does that strongly suggest that he was not responsible?

Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, as I'm sure we all agree.

How rigorously were other suspects investigated?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 28, 2014, 04:48:PM
well its allready been established that there are other dna profiles on the body how they got there is a matter of dispute.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 09:59:AM
and they both got lukes appearence completly wrong.

They most certainly did not get his description and the clothes he was wearing wrong and considering neither of them knew him their description of the youth they saw standing by the side of the road was remarkably accurate.  Neither witnesses ever wanted to get involved in this murder case and as we all now know it was a colleague of one of them who reported their sighting to the police.  Consequently neither had any hidden agenda and told it as they saw it. It wasn't their fault that Scotland's best known and most controversial advocate tried to demolish them in the witness box.

As an aside, there is no reason whatsoever for a youth to have been standing where Luke Mitchell was spotted.  I know the exact spot by a field gate extremely well, the location is very rural with few passers-by, nobody lurks there unless they are up to no good.

(http://i.imgur.com/JmxzBux.jpg?2-Luke_Mitchell-Jodi_Jones) 

Coincidentally, the location where Mitchell was seen was on Mitchell's route home across the corner of a field and a wood.  A hop over the gate would have taken him home without ever having been seen on any public road until he reached his estate.

(http://i.imgur.com/bBomDrN.jpg?2-Luke_Mitchell-Jodi_Jones)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 10:42:AM
they got his aperance totaly ill go and find the link.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 10:48:AM
What Luke Mitchell looked like when he was seen by two witnesses.

Now anyone reading this will ask themselves this question.  What are the chances of two teenagers who look almost identical and wearing the exact same clothes being seen at this remote spot?

Million to one?

(http://i.imgur.com/pJS9oyJ.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/hJzNmQT.jpg?1)(http://i.imgur.com/xl7NcmN.gif?1)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 10:56:AM
What Luke Mitchell looked like when he was seen by two witnesses.

Now anyone reading this will ask themselves this question.  What are the chances of two teenagers who look almost identical and wearing the exact same clothes being seen at this remote spot?

Million to one?

(http://i.imgur.com/pJS9oyJ.jpg?1)

(http://i.imgur.com/hJzNmQT.jpg?1)(http://i.imgur.com/xl7NcmN.gif?1)

anyone who lives there or goes there knows itts not a remote spot.

what are chances being dressed the same or simlar well very likely.

but thenill get there interview up in a litle and will see what they described.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 11:07:AM
Since Sandra Lean always disputed where the wooden gate was and just in case anyone can't locate it, here is the original photo and beneath it what it now looks like with a metal gate.

(http://i.imgur.com/VB1z41n.jpg?1)

Google image of the old wooden gate shown collapsed in 2009.

(http://i.imgur.com/CTFY4ZY.jpg?1)

What the site looked like on my visit in November 2011.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 11:19:AM
if it was a remote spot they wouldent of been driving down there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 29, 2014, 12:10:PM
Were the Police able to recover the green bomber jacket?

I seem to remember there being a suggestion that clothes were burnt in the Mitchell garden.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 12:14:PM
i dont think they needed to find it he was wearing it when they questioned him.

the that log burner was examed and no evedence was ever found the that clothes had burnt in it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 29, 2014, 12:16:PM
If Luke was responsible, I would have thought it inconceivable that he wouldn't leave some trace of his DNA.

Therefor, if the tests show no DNA belonging to Luke, does that strongly suggest that he was not responsible?

Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, as I'm sure we all agree.

How rigorously were other suspects investigated?
John, can I ask you for your thoughts on my post, from the other day?

I've obviously noted your posts regarding the eyewitnesses.  Are you able to point me in the direction of any statements/testimony from those witnesses?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 29, 2014, 12:20:PM
i dont think they needed to find it he was wearing it when they questioned him.

the that log burner was examed and no evedence was ever found the that clothes had burnt in it.
Thanks for that Nugnug.  Has it been alleged that he destroyed the original coat, and was in possession of a replacement by the time the Police came calling?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 01:06:PM
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fuk_news%2Fscotland%2Fedinburgh_and_east%2F7232548.stm&ei=_CCHU-etIMjZPKiygfgO&usg=AFQjCNG9tlzbxDSnhoGLOuev3xnEEqNRMQ&sig2=CDMe9Gh6DyY7DD36BGChfA

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fuk_news%2Fscotland%2F4063025.stm&ei=_CCHU-etIMjZPKiygfgO&usg=AFQjCNHXfrwdV5A-1zJX7Z2h3T7rJSwxkw&sig2=5cMy07bzi23aJNkITLPQpg

heres the 2 witness statements ill see if i can get more.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 01:15:PM
John, can I ask you for your thoughts on my post, from the other day?

I've obviously noted your posts regarding the eyewitnesses.  Are you able to point me in the direction of any statements/testimony from those witnesses?

To be honest Neil I don't think you will get a reply as john beliefs in what he wrote are based so strongly on his own minds correlation of events that he can't disern between right and wrong let alone what happened that night.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 01:20:PM
Thanks for that Nugnug.  Has it been alleged that he destroyed the original coat, and was in possession of a replacement by the time the Police came calling?

The coat thing is something of an enigma, it was used to explain how Luke managed to get from the murder scene to where ever he was going without anyone seeing him covered in blood, It doesn't however even under that scenario explain why he had no DNA on him or found at the crime scene. It does however imply that he should have.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 01:35:PM
Quote
Coincidentally, the location where Mitchell was seen was on Mitchell's route home across the corner of a field and a wood.  A hop over the gate would have taken him home without ever having been seen on any public road until he reached his estate.


I already anwered this john as we have a witness that accompanied Luke 2/3rds of the way down Newbattle road, you can see where the youth broke from luke to go to his house, its even on that picture.So your assumption and route that Luke took is way off.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 01:42:PM

I already anwered this john as we have a witness that accompanied Luke 2/3rds of the way down Newbattle road, you can see where the youth broke from Luke to go to his house, its even on that picture.So your assumption and route that Luke took is way off.

Even if there was such a youth and I have my doubts since he failed to come forward despite appeals, the trip home from school was hours before the murder.  You would think at this stage that you would get even the basics right Gordon.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 01:50:PM
If Luke was responsible, I would have thought it inconceivable that he wouldn't leave some trace of his DNA.

Therefore, if the tests show no DNA belonging to Luke, does that strongly suggest that he was not responsible?

Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, as I'm sure we all agree.

How rigorously were other suspects investigated?

The forensics failed to find any forensic link between Luke and Jodi yet they were together earlier.  At the very least there should have been hair from Luke on Jodi and vice versa.

That said however the crime scene was not protected overnight and Jodi's body lay out in the rain.  Little wonder incriminating evidence was lost.

Jodi was attacked from behind, hit with a stick and then her throat was slit, she would have bled out towards the front while her attacker stood back until she was unconscious.  Some blood was found on the nearby wall where she stumbled after the initial assault.  Something which is not widely known but such was the viciousness of the assault that her throat was almost severed. Her attacker also took sadistic pleasure in cutting her eyelids.

To answer your question therefore, no, it doesn't suggest that he was responsible.  A common myth which has been promoted is that Jodis attacked would have been covered in blood, there is no evidence to suggest this.

A little memento which Mitchell carved after Jodi's murder.

The Finest Day I Ever Had Was When tomorrow Never Came   
JJ 1989 - 2003


(http://i.imgur.com/XlBQ1Nk.jpg?1)


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 01:54:PM
It was you who had shown the route Luke would have taken from school not me John, i was replying to that and not the fact that the murder happened just over 1 HOUR after school. There very much was one youth John and he did come forward, he was interviewed by the police and processed in the correct manner, the problem you have is that dose'nt fit with your need for luke to have not gone home even although the prosecution and defence and well everyone in general accepts it he wasn't needed at trial.

Oh and basic!! you still think Jodi was tied up by a rope john??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 01:58:PM
The forensics failed to find any forensic link between Luke and Jodi yet they were together earlier.  At the very least there should have been hair from Luke on Jodi and vice versa.

That said however the crime scene was not protected overnight and Jodi's body lay out in the rain.  Little wonder incriminating evidence was lost.

Jodi was attacked from behind, hit with a stick and then her throat was slit, she would have bled out towards the front while her attacker stood back until she was unconscious.  Some blood was found on the nearby wall where she stumbled after the initial assault.  Something which is not widely known but such was the viciousness of the assault that her throat was almost severed. Her attacker also took sadistic pleasure in cutting her eyelids.

To answer your question therefore, no, it doesn't suggest that he was responsible.  A common myth which has been promoted is that Jodis attacked would have been covered in blood, there is no evidence to suggest this.

Its strange then that even if what happened was as you have listed then that blood would have sprayed in other directions and onto other things like branches and such, Jodi was moved some distance where the post mortem mutilations occurred  and that as well even performing something like the eyelid cuts would leave DNA traces, for gods sake your first post about the two of them being together at school for a short time confirms this, how then could he have done what he done in that space of time and have NO DNA at all on him or on her??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 02:07:PM
Its strange then that even if what happened was as you have listed then that blood would have sprayed in other directions and onto other things like branches and such, Jodi was moved some distance where the post mortem mutilations occurred  and that as well even performing something like the eyelid cuts would leave DNA traces, for gods sake your first post about the two of them being together at school for a short time confirms this, how then could he have done what he done in that space of time and have NO DNA at all on him or on her??

Now lets see...

What time did the murder take place?  Oh yes, 5.15pm according to the prosecution.

What time was Mitchell taken into police custody and forensically examined?  After midnight.

Thus plenty of time to go larking around in the woods, get rid of evidence and later have a wash.  Strange isn't it that his mother couldn't get him to wash and change his clothes until that particular night?

They never did find that hunting knife did they Gordo?  You know the one mummy claims to have hidden from him because it was so dangerous.  Remember that other young girl Gordo, you know the one whom Mitchell threatened with a knife a matter of weeks before he did it for real to Jodi?  Talk about coincidence!

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 02:12:PM
yes but when the police interviewed him he hadent had a wash.

his nails were dirty as is confirmed by the police themselves.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:13:PM
Ok that is one explanation for no DNA on Luke , I must admit I am having kittens here wondering what your explanation is about no DNA on Jodi or the crime scene, in fact lets take into account no DNA on anything Luke would have touched,door handles,carpets and almost everywhere in his house including the sanitation system all revealed nothing incriminating.

Yes the Murder was 5:15 so about 1 hr and 10 mins after school.

Was it a hunting knife that killed Jodi john?

Not so strange that she couldn't get a teenage boy to wash, he never did wash as per forensic examination of luke and the whole sanitation system of the house.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 02:15:PM
and also luke was seen by 3 boys at 545 t the end of his street wich give him 30 minutes to have cleaned himself up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:18:PM
Quote
Remember that other young girl Gordo, you know the one whom Mitchell threatened with a knife a matter of weeks before he did it for real to Jodi?  Talk about coincidence!

There are many coincidences john in life, I remember a girl again who came forward after he was found guilty! she didn't think it that strange a scenario at the time of the alleged incident to not even tell her father let a lone the corps teacher.

I wonder if you can tell me was there ever a knife linking Luke to this murder, if so then please link me to it and if not then look again because another one appeared not so long ago, this one even had luke initials on it lol
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 02:19:PM
and also luke was seen by 3 boys at 545 t the end of his street wich give him 30 minutes to have cleaned himself up.

Are you both conveniently forgetting that he was home for hours after his woods escapade?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:20:PM
Hew as home for just over an hour john plz can you be more specific when debating this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 02:21:PM

I wonder if you can tell me was there ever a knife linking Luke to this murder, if so then please link me to it and if not then look again because another one appeared not so long ago, this one even had luke initials on it lol

Mitchell had so many of them but then you know this.  You also know that no murder weapon was ever found.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:23:PM
Strange then, I could also talk about the steak knife in his kitchen, you know the one the police ever took!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 02:25:PM
Hew as home for just over an hour john plz can you be more specific when debating this.

He got home at 9pm and went out searching at almost 11pm...ergo hours.

Lets face it, his big brother initially lied to give him an alibi but when threatened with a charge of perjury he soon changed his mind.  Luke Mitchell was nowhere to be seen at the very moment  Jodi Jones was being murdered and all the waffle in the world won't change that fact.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 02:26:PM
Mitchell had so many of them but then you know this.  You also know that no murder weapon was ever found.

how mant other boys have exactly the same amounts of knives i bet its a fair few.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:27:PM
It was after 9pm and the first message from Judy was at 10:35 pm and he was ready to go out not long after that so lets say 1 hr 30 mins later
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:28:PM
Damn I'm fooked nugnug as i actually bought a knife today, one of those types similar to a swiss army knife, not sure why i bought it and not really sure when i will need it but I did take me back abit.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 02:31:PM
It was after 9pm and the first message from Judy was at 10:35 pm and he was ready to go out not long after that so lets say 1 hr 30 mins later

Not forgetting that he took the German Shepherd for a walk at 10.30pm, just enough time to get dirty again after washing off all that pesky DNA!!

Its Mitchell who's fooked. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:35:PM
I'm still waiting though John on your explanation as to why no DNA at all regarding this crime was every found on Jodi or lukes house? He could of done a million normal things that can be twisted to suit your agenda mate.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 02:41:PM
I'm still waiting though John on your explanation as to why no DNA at all regarding this crime was every found on Jodi or lukes house? He could of done a million normal things that can be twisted to suit your agenda mate.

Best ask the fat lady at Lothian & Borders.  And when you eventually work out who the youth was that Walsh and Fleming saw do get in touch!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:44:PM
Quote
Lets face it, his big brother initially lied to give him an alibi but when threatened with a charge of perjury he soon changed his mind.  Luke Mitchell was nowhere to be seen at the very moment  Jodi Jones was being murdered and all the waffle in the world won't change that fact.

Lets face it the brother wasn't allowed to change his statement hours after giving the initial one because of a threat of being charged with perjury,

Luke was nowhere to be seen because he was not in the line of site by his brother during the time from him coming home and luke leaving, a time difference of about 40 mins.


Jodi may well have at that time been in the process of being murdered but one witness in particular refutes this claim.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:46:PM
Best ask the fat lady at Lothian & Borders.  And when you eventually work out who the youth was that Walsh and Fleming saw do get in touch!

I don't really care who the youth was that Fleming & Walsh seen!! was he part of the crime? I don't know, I do know it wasn't Luke Mitchell though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 02:47:PM
OH!! I don't think i will ever be getting in touch john unless through this type of medium.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 02:56:PM
I don't really care who the youth was that Fleming & Walsh seen!! was he part of the crime? I don't know, I do know it wasn't Luke Mitchell though.

theres no reason to think the youth who ever he was had anything to do with the crime.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 03:01:PM
Of course there aint mate, If anyone had did what happened to Jodi they were not in the frame of mind to just be standing at a broken old fence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 03:07:PM
well it would be a rather stupid thing for any killer to do stand by a fence so drivers could see them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 03:09:PM
Of course there aint mate, If anyone had did what happened to Jodi they were not in the frame of mind to just be standing at a broken old fence.

It wasn't a broken fence or gate in 2003 but never mind, Mitchell was rightly found guilty on the evidence and nothing has been found since to change that decision.  You would think that after Prout and Hall that dear Sandra would have got it by now.  :)

Killers tell tales!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 03:22:PM
Fence/gate my assessment still applies.

I wonder after the Prout/Hall scenario are you now saying that miscarriages of in justice do not exist? or is it only murderers that applies to John? Because the way I see it you had means , motive and opportunity in your case also.

I must hope that when you talk of evidence in this case you do so with the utmost of scrutiny on your part as there was none at all. OK the prosecution had a story! they had a lot of little stories to back up the big one!! but evidence c'mon mate that's crazy.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 03:35:PM
fence and gate well thats pure pedantry the same logic still applys the lad standing to wasnt luke mitchell and had nothing to do with the murder anyway he was just a lad standing by a fence or gate or whatever you want to call it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 29, 2014, 03:38:PM
Very interesting reading chaps.

The two things that don't add up for me are;

1). None of Luke's DNA on Jodi

2). Corinnes testimony.  I find it hard to believe that she would cover for her son, if she thought that he was responsible for such a heinous crime.

However, I'm off now to look for the testimony from the girl who alleged that Luke threatened her days before the murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 03:46:PM
you find the trail reporting she didint give evedence at the trial you will probely find it in the daily record if you have a look.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on May 29, 2014, 03:50:PM
you find the trail reporting she didint give evedence at the trial you will probely find it in the daily record if you have a look.
Cheers Nugnug.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 03:57:PM
Quote
2). Corinnes testimony.  I find it hard to believe that she would cover for her son, if she thought that he was responsible for such a heinous crime.

This has never made sense to me either as if we look at johns scenario Luke never went home, we know he never washed up and cleaned himself after a murder at his own house as per forensic's and was waiting at 5:50 on a wall where he was spotted by boys on bikes.
He then mucked about till just after 9 pm and went home, he then received a text and acted on that text within minuets and there are calls/texts to lukes mobile afterwards that clearly show that Corrine had no idea what was going on, these text's call attempts have been retrieved.
If your son/daughter was calling you and trying to explain something so unreal how could you react to that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 08:35:PM
You might be surprised what some mothers will do to protect their sons.  If I recall there was a lot of talk about Luke and his mother and some might find these comments from the Herald somewhat worrying.


It is abundantly clear that things were dreadfully amiss in the Mitchell household: there appears, from the evidence in court, beneath the well maintained, affluent surface, to have been a spiritual and psychological squalor which manifested itself in violence, pornography, underage sex, drug-taking, lack of cleanliness and an unusual physical intimacy between son and mother. The trial appeared to expose them as people adrift, cut off from normal emotional and behavioural frameworks.

www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/why-did-luke-mitchell-kill-his-mother-holds-a-clue-1.64902


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 08:38:PM
Very interesting reading chaps.

The two things that don't add up for me are;

1). None of Luke's DNA on Jodi

2). Corinnes testimony.  I find it hard to believe that she would cover for her son, if she thought that he was responsible for such a heinous crime.

However, I'm off now to look for the testimony from the girl who alleged that Luke threatened her days before the murder.

1. It rained on the body overnight Neil washing off most of the evidence.  The numpties at Lothian and Borders Police didn't even erect a forensic tent to protect the scene.  The SOCO who attended the scene initially was so fat she couldn't get over the wall to inspect the body so it was left until morning.

2. See above post re mother and son relationship.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 08:40:PM
You might be surprised what some mothers will do to protect their sons.  If I recall there was a lot of talk about Luke and his mother and some might find these comments from the Herald somewhat worrying.


It is abundantly clear that things were dreadfully amiss in the Mitchell household: there appears, from the evidence in court, beneath the well maintained, affluent surface, to have been a spiritual and psychological squalor which manifested itself in violence, pornography, underage sex, drug-taking, lack of cleanliness and an unusual physical intimacy between son and mother. The trial appeared to expose them as people adrift, cut off from normal emotional and behavioural frameworks.

www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/why-did-luke-mitchell-kill-his-mother-holds-a-clue-1.64902

i think the fact they had to resort t such sick and baseless smears shows how weak the case agianst luke was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 08:41:PM
1. It rained on the body overnight Neil washing off most of the evidence.

2. See above post re mother and son relationship.

the rain dident wash everything off it traces of other peoples dna on there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 08:43:PM
the rain dident wash everything off it traces of other peoples dna on there.

That's right, it just washed Luke Mitchell's off.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 08:44:PM
i think thats more less impossble.

rain cant selectivly wash off dna.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 08:58:PM
Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg458#msg458

JAMES MATTHEWS:   I suppose the difficulty is from 5 p.m. to whenever Jodie was found, that's a long time to fill and to account for, especially if you lose track of time.  The question I suppose for detectives, for people who look at that is could anybody account for every minute in that sort of period?  Can you, can you account for every minute?

LUKE:   No.  Well the police seem to expect people to, as you say, pin down every minute of their life, to expect us to know when we do small insignificant things like doing the dishes, expect us to have a time for that, it isn’t possible to keep a pin of every minute that you do something.

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.


(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/jodijonestrial/8skyPA_350x250.jpg)

Sky News interview. Corinne Mitchell supports son Luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on May 29, 2014, 09:06:PM
James Matthews from Sky News interviewed Luke Mitchell on the day of Jodi's funeral.

He adds...

Professor Paul Ekman is the world authority on the analysis of facial expression. He is an adviser to the FBI and CIA. In the course of the Jodi Jones murder inquiry, he became a consultant to Lothian & Borders Police.

Edinburgh-based detectives flew to San Fransisco to show my interview to Professor Ekman. He spent hours viewing the tape frame by frame, analysing the miniscule muscle movements on Mitchell's face. In the end, he supported police suspicions about Jodi's boyfriend.

According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg18108#msg18108
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 10:14:PM
Then some years later as that same professor was used as a consultant on a movie about HIS micro expressionism reacted to a question about the Luke Mitchell case, he replied that in that case where he simply couldn't tell if the suspect was lying or not due to his intense mistrust of the police and those seeking to persue him. Tell me John what Prof Ekman stated at the trial?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 29, 2014, 10:29:PM
Quote
James Matthews from Sky News interviewed Luke Mitchell on the day of Jodi's funeral.

This is something that doesn't sit right with me john, the interview for the sky report was done on the day of the funeral and it was that interview that was given to Prof Ekman where he delivered is points "to catch a killer" these were not done on the same day so how could the sky interveiwer put these points to the mitchells?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 29, 2014, 10:53:PM
Mat, SL didn't accuse Shane in the application mate. Where did you hear that?

I've a copy of it.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 10:55:PM
This is something that doesn't sit right with me john, the interview for the sky report was done on the day of the funeral and it was that interview that was given to Prof Ekman where he delivered is points "to catch a killer" these were not done on the same day so how could the sky interveiwer put these points to the mitchells?

well they obviously couldn't of done.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 29, 2014, 10:57:PM
Mat, SL didn't accuse Shane in the application mate. Where did you hear that?

I've a copy of it.

Yeah, I know you have a copy - I thought you'd also said it previously in this thread about SL . I will PM you the details as I don't want to get my hand slapped for posting in here about it further.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 29, 2014, 10:58:PM
Yeah, I know you have a copy - I thought you'd also said it previously in this thread about SL . I will PM you the details as I don't want to get my hand slapped for posting in here about it further.

She heavily implicated Jodi's brother not Luke's, maybe there's been a misunderstanding either with yourself or the source.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 29, 2014, 11:00:PM
She heavily implicated Jodi's brother not Luke's, maybe there's been a misunderstanding either with yourself or the source.

Oh thanks, Lith. That's very interesting.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 11:03:PM
She heavily implicated Jodi's brother not Luke's, maybe there's been a misunderstanding either with yourself or the source.

out of interest lithium how would you have been given a copy.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on May 29, 2014, 11:11:PM
Lith are you able to give an opinion on the SCCRC submissions?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 29, 2014, 11:15:PM
What Luke Mitchell looked like when he was seen by two witnesses.

Now anyone reading this will ask themselves this question.  What are the chances of two teenagers who look almost identical and wearing the exact same clothes being seen at this remote spot?


They're now trying to claim this other youth was Mark Kane.

Pictured here:

(http://i.imgur.com/ly30kr2.png)

A 'striking resemblance'?

And they say we're the ones clutching at straws lol.


Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h9_tbE69d4

(source providedSandra had a mod delete his picture last time, as though she owned a picture taken from publicly available youtube video)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 11:16:PM
you can normally i belive only get hold of a copy of a sccrc review if your mentioned in it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 29, 2014, 11:17:PM
Lith are you able to give an opinion on the SCCRC submissions?

Very poor.

a lot of "it was said at the time so and so did this"

"reported that such n such behaved in this way"

nothing on it supports any part of the original trial being unfair.

The writer has focused on police mistakes, forgetting Luke had his day in court and was not found guilty by the police, but by a jury of his peers who heard his defense from one of Scotland's top QCs, so that again doesn't constitute a re-trial.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2014, 11:19:PM
are you mentioned in the sccrc review lithum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 29, 2014, 11:59:PM
no
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 30, 2014, 12:01:AM
oh ok it was just my understanding that was the legal way you could get a copy of the submissions.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 30, 2014, 12:04:AM
oh ok
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 30, 2014, 12:20:AM
in that case gordo i think you might have to make that compliant after all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 30, 2014, 12:32:AM
in that case gordo i think you might have to make that compliant after all.

the SCCRC would sooner put it down to one of your lot leaking it than have any sort of investigation

not to mention you don't even believe i've seen it let alone have proof.

"Hi SCCRC??? "nugnug" here from the internet, "Dr. Lithium" hinted vaguely at some things that most people could guess would be in Luke Mitchells application... what are you going to do about this?!

hello???"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 30, 2014, 12:37:AM
oh so your saying you haven't really seen it then.

or you just we wouldent prove it even though you've admitted it on a public forum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 30, 2014, 12:52:AM
think what you want broseph.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 30, 2014, 01:01:AM

or you just we wouldent prove it even though you've admitted it on a public forum.

yes because nothing is quite as damning in the court of law as "but he said so on the internet!"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 30, 2014, 01:30:AM
well we will see how damning it is wont we.

if gordo goes through with it.

would you mind if we put it to the test.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on May 30, 2014, 02:00:AM
(http://i.imgur.com/1jERAN1.gif)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 30, 2014, 11:49:AM
ok then
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 16, 2014, 01:05:PM
(http://i.imgur.com/1jERAN1.gif)

i have to wonder why you would so desprate to look a sccrc submission.

were you frightend you would be mentioned in it by any chance.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on June 16, 2014, 04:05:PM
How is Lithium related to this case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 16, 2014, 04:47:PM
i dont know but if you read all his posts he certanly is.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 12, 2014, 03:30:AM
Like Mitchell has been refused by the SCCRC

Why has Sandra Lean dumped this case?  Check http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on July 12, 2014, 03:38:AM
No shock.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 12, 2014, 09:28:AM
Like Mitchell has been refused by the SCCRC

Why has Sandra Lean dumped this case?  Check http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/

ive no idea but ill try to find oit.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on July 12, 2014, 10:31:AM
 It doesn't look too promising.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 12, 2014, 10:34:AM
on the face of it but theres more to come yet.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on July 12, 2014, 10:57:PM
What part was not a shock mat? I have to agree with you though as I didn't think it was going to go our way either. The trouble is that the way Lukes trial went based completely on circumstantial evidence then it was always going to be hard. In most cases of MoJ's its concrete evidence,witness testimony or procedural manipulations that get the verdict over turned and of course there were none of those in this case anyway.

On the other hand we have an independent body having done part of the police's job in investigating and came up with more evidence that could if it had been available gone a very long way to finding Luke innocent, the fact that it may lead to another suspect is not what the SCCRC are there fore so again not a surprise.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on July 12, 2014, 11:12:PM
Hi Gordo.

I don't think it's a shock that the SCCRC rejected - although I didn't think that this information was to be released until Monday 14th July, so I was shocked to read about it already - don't suppose you know who/where this was openly spoken about first?

Also - not shocked about SL's apparent actions (If what Michaela says is true) as it's not the first time she's cut all contact off with the people she's meant to be working with.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 12, 2014, 11:29:PM

I don't know what is going on within the Wrongly Accused Person people. I just posted the link after reading it.  Gordo might know more about what is going on behind the scenes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 12, 2014, 11:56:PM
Hi Gordo.

I don't think it's a shock that the SCCRC rejected - although I didn't think that this information was to be released until Monday 14th July, so I was shocked to read about it already - don't suppose you know who/where this was openly spoken about first?

Also - not shocked about SL's apparent actions (If what Michaela says is true) as it's not the first time she's cut all contact off with the people she's meant to be working with.

The Mail on Sunday ran an article about it. Its on WAP site.  Other newspapers followed suit.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on July 13, 2014, 05:54:PM
Mat.

What made you think that the information was going to be released on that specific date? let alone when the information was even going to be pasted to Luke?

SL's actions are indicative to her, Luke's case will be placed in the hands of those more apt to deal with it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on July 13, 2014, 06:30:PM
Mat.

What made you think that the information was going to be released on that specific date? let alone when the information was even going to be pasted to Luke?



That's just the date I'd heard, Gordo - can't really say much more than that.

As for SL - has there been any news you can report? I heard Lukes family have been banned off the other forum/unable to get any contact with SL?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2014, 06:30:PM
Mat.

What made you think that the information was going to be released on that specific date? let alone when the information was even going to be pasted to Luke?

SL's actions are indicative to her, Luke's case will be placed in the hands of those more apt to deal with it.

i was wondering that as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 13, 2014, 06:53:PM
What I am wondering and I assume others will be wondering is will there be an explanation for leaving?
I have been reading the WAP forum for a long time and this sudden departure seems suspicious.
It makes me wonder has Sandra Lean found out something she did not know before?
I think a statement as to why this relationship has broken down so badly should be forthcoming.
Its not fair to just up and leave and say nothing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2014, 06:56:PM
it broke down a little while ago i believe it happens in campaigns ive seen it a fair few times.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 13, 2014, 07:23:PM
I understand that campaigns sometimes break up nugnug. there should be some explanation from the Mitchell family or from Sandra Lean.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2014, 08:09:AM
Corrine and another poster had been banned from any posting on the WAP forum for over 2 years so It has nothing to do with information received that would have been a turning point in the case, or SL  would not have gone through with the SCCRC application in the first place.
The Mitchell family have no real idea why this occurred and I know that sounds far fetched but its the truth. In the a joining time that both these accounts were banned someone was accessing their accounts on the WAP forum something I saw for myself.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 14, 2014, 11:55:AM
Someone from WAP was posting as Mrs Mitchell and another poster without their knowledge?
So all the replies in the past two years have not actually been Mrs Mitchell?
Why on earth would they ban his mother?  What a mess this all is and still no explanation from WAP on this behaviour.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2014, 01:42:PM
There are no replies from Corrine or certain other posters in the last two years except for in the comments section that for a time Corrine was allowed to access.

The accounts however were used and logged into when those posters were banned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2014, 02:01:PM
oh deary deary me
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2014, 02:54:PM
its not over till its over.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jo on July 14, 2014, 03:32:PM
I don't know much about this case, however, I haven't seen much action/developments/
There is a video here though-: http://www.roughjusticetv.co.uk/rjlukefilm.htm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2014, 03:35:PM
good little film that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 14, 2014, 04:31:PM

nugnug says its not over so what next for the case? can anything else be done?



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2014, 04:38:PM
judicial review of the decision ors there's the echr.

or new submission could made possbly if more evedence was found.

theres now 2 new dna profiles and they dont belong to luke sonner or later they will be matched to somebody.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: jon on July 16, 2014, 12:06:PM
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on July 16, 2014, 08:58:PM
Thanks for that Jon. Very interesting.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: welty on July 16, 2014, 09:17:PM

judicial review of the decision ors there's the echr.

or new submission could made possbly if more evedence was found.

theres now 2 new dna profiles and they dont belong to luke sonner or later they will be matched to somebody.

nug, are you saying there are 2 new full dna profiles, they would need to be full to be matched right?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on July 16, 2014, 11:59:PM
I read that the new DNA discovered from the top of Jodi's jeans were most likely from semen. Would they have looked for a match or partial match with other DNA samples discovered on Jodi that were taken during the investigation? Or did they just rule them out as belonging to Luke?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2014, 06:33:AM
nug, are you saying there are 2 new full dna profiles, they would need to be full to be matched right?

yes they right they would to be fully matched.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on July 17, 2014, 01:30:PM
The SCCRC is not in a position to apportion blame on anyone else, the samples didn't match Luke mitchell and therefore they were someone elses. Luke wasn't convicted on DNA evidence and as any investigation into the new samples would mean getting the case re opened then I doubt we will hear anything else happening.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2014, 01:32:PM
it was evedence the jury should of heard and dident so it should be grounds for appeal.

if the jury had heard that the evdence the verdict may have been very different.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: welty on July 17, 2014, 01:49:PM
nug, are they full profiles or not?

the samples didnt match luke, is it possible the samples are mixed, a low % of dna, it could be anyones, it could be lukes, just cant tell because there isnt enough there?

if anyone has the full details on the 2 new dna, please post
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2014, 02:02:PM
here have a read.

http://luke-mitchell-is-innocent.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media-and-other-considerations/review-finds-mitchells-favour-guilty-mos-06-07-2014/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: welty on July 17, 2014, 10:52:PM
where did the paper get there information from, lean etc? its a shame we cant get every detail from sccrc, from the horses mouth instead of fed bits the defence only want readers to know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2014, 11:12:PM
they could of got it from the sccrc for all i know.

im hoping that the full report will be published at sometime if that's possible.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 18, 2014, 12:17:AM
the report can only be shown by people who were given it by the ccrc.  So Dr Lean would need to give permission for this.  would be interesting to read it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2014, 12:19:AM
bob smyth would of been given a copy im sure.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 18, 2014, 12:40:AM
who is he?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on July 18, 2014, 12:45:AM
Nugs,is it possible to try to discover whose dna it is in the newly found samples? Even if Luke's team foot the bill for any tests perhaps?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on July 18, 2014, 12:54:AM
Tyler I was thinking about that too. but I think that they would only be able to id the samples if the person was on the database. But there again they would have surely tested other people?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: tyler on July 18, 2014, 01:02:AM
Yes,would obviously have to be on the database,but I would be interested to know if they matched other samples found on Jodi's body or if they matched any of the other people that were interviewed in the original investigation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2014, 01:21:AM
Nugs,is it possible to try to discover whose dna it is in the newly found samples? Even if Luke's team foot the bill for any tests perhaps?

im not sure but i dont think independant testing is normaly allowed in scotland.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2014, 03:39:PM
Tyler I was thinking about that too. but I think that they would only be able to id the samples if the person was on the database. But there again they would have surely tested other people?

they probebely are on the database becouse its not in the intrests of the police to find out.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 29, 2014, 12:12:PM
i belive mojo are taking over the case now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 30, 2014, 04:01:PM
here we are lukes new webpage.

http://www.miscarriagesofjustice.org/case-files/fighting-for-freedom/luke-mitchell
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on August 06, 2014, 05:52:PM
here we are lukes new webpage.

http://www.miscarriagesofjustice.org/case-files/fighting-for-freedom/luke-mitchell

Do you know why Dr Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton pulled away from the case nugnug?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 06, 2014, 06:32:PM
Sandra and Corrine had decided to part company while ago but obviously they  dident want to jepordise the review so they stayed together for that.

that's what i can gather anyway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2014, 03:15:PM
paddy hills involed now.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3841626
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 21, 2014, 05:29:PM
Interesting comment.

"I cannot believe the moronic attitudes on this thread! he was wrongly convicted ? apart from the evidence being stacked against him he has openly displayed psychotic behavior towards Jodie in the past! We had friends at a house party where he was poking her with a kitchen knife! Hoarded bottles of his own urine ( clear sign of severe mental health problem). THIS is NOT a case of a miscarriage of justice, he is an evil little wretch! I remember watching his false tears over the news knowing full well what he had done to that girl. He writes to Peter Tobin for god sake!! If I were an innocent person who has suffered false imprisonment I would have not had my mother lie for me, burned my clothing, nor would I be pen pals with a convicted rapist and murderer. Open your eyes! There is NO rehabilitation for someone who can inflict this on any human being and his mother is just as bad. I genuinely hope that boy is free'd and his address is given out to the parents of that poor young girl. He deserves every horrific thing coming to him and his wicked, disgusting excuse for a mother! may they suffer greatly"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2014, 05:32:PM
the fact is none of his dna is on the body.

but other peoples dna is on the body

i cant see a clearer case of wrongfull conviction.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 21, 2014, 06:03:PM
Interesting comment.

"I cannot believe the moronic attitudes on this thread! he was wrongly convicted ? apart from the evidence being stacked against him he has openly displayed psychotic behavior towards Jodie in the past! We had friends at a house party where he was poking her with a kitchen knife! Hoarded bottles of his own urine ( clear sign of severe mental health problem). THIS is NOT a case of a miscarriage of justice, he is an evil little wretch! I remember watching his false tears over the news knowing full well what he had done to that girl. He writes to Peter Tobin for god sake!! If I were an innocent person who has suffered false imprisonment I would have not had my mother lie for me, burned my clothing, nor would I be pen pals with a convicted rapist and murderer. Open your eyes! There is NO rehabilitation for someone who can inflict this on any human being and his mother is just as bad. I genuinely hope that boy is free'd and his address is given out to the parents of that poor young girl. He deserves every horrific thing coming to him and his wicked, disgusting excuse for a mother! may they suffer greatly"
Good to see you back, Mat.  Who have you quoted?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on August 21, 2014, 06:55:PM
Good to see you back, Mat.  Who have you quoted?

Hey, Neil. It's a comment on the newpaper article that Nugnug posted.

Good to be back - fighting the holiday blues at the moment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 21, 2014, 07:06:PM
thanks for that quote mat id missed the coments ill go and have a look.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jo on August 22, 2014, 01:22:PM
Do you know why Dr Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton pulled away from the case nugnug?
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on August 23, 2014, 03:00:PM
The only evidence I have seen against him is theories with nothing solid to back it up..the star witness wouldn't pick him out in court.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on August 23, 2014, 11:06:PM
The only evidence I have seen against him is theories with nothing solid to back it up..the star witness wouldn't pick him out in court.

Not at all surprising since Mitchell changed his appearance drastically before the trial.  She identified him from his picture in the local rag though some weeks after the murder and that is the important bit.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on August 23, 2014, 11:12:PM
Sandra and Corrine had decided to part company while ago but obviously they  dident want to jepordise the review so they stayed together for that.

that's what i can gather anyway.

As you are in the know nuggy, have Billy and Sandra split completely this time?  Could it be that she like some others weren't too happy at the revelation that Middleton was posting in Corinne's name after her departure?

And tell us, as a registered charity why has WAP never submitted accounts showing income since its registration in December 2010.

https://www.oscr.org.uk/search-charity-register/charity-extract/?charitynumber=sc041953
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2014, 11:38:PM
ive got no idea whats going on they don't tell me about that side of things.

and its of no intrest to me really.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 23, 2014, 11:44:PM
The only evidence I have seen against him is theories with nothing solid to back it up..the star witness wouldn't pick him out in court.

ill secound that marty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on August 24, 2014, 12:08:AM
Luke Mitchell had no alibi after leaving school.  His claim to have gone straight home was shown to have been a lie by his own brother who was in the house.  Consequently there is a period of almost 2 hours unaccounted for after he left school alone.

He was seen by two independent witnesses standing just yards from the murder scene staring into space and just a matter of minutes after Jodi's murder. Nobody stands at that particular spot for any reason other than they are up to some mischief.  Mitchell was unlucky, he was caught as he was about to clamber over a gate which led to a small wood and access to his house avoiding the main road.  Remember the neighbours dogs who followed his trail home?

This wasn't the first time he had held his favourite hunting knife at a girls throat was it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 24, 2014, 12:31:AM
at the end of day none of his dna is at the crime scene

but theres plenty of dna from other people.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on August 24, 2014, 06:47:AM
Luke Mitchell had no alibi after leaving school.  His claim to have gone straight home was shown to have been a lie by his own brother who was in the house.  Consequently there is a period of almost 2 hours unaccounted for after he left school alone.

He was seen by two independent witnesses standing just yards from the murder scene staring into space and just a matter of minutes after Jodi's murder. Nobody stands at that particular spot for any reason other than they are up to some mischief.  Mitchell was unlucky, he was caught as he was about to clamber over a gate which led to a small wood and access to his house avoiding the main road.  Remember the neighbours dogs who followed his trail home?

This wasn't the first time he had held his favourite hunting knife at a girls throat was it?
Hi John, can you elaborate on the line about the neighbours dog?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on August 24, 2014, 07:47:AM
Two witnesses that did not know him..where as others that did know him were ignored..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on August 24, 2014, 07:54:AM
I don't think they proved anyone was lying as much as Shane couldn't collaborate Luke's alibi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on August 24, 2014, 09:03:AM
The neighbours dog...is this the same neighbour who from his own description must have virtually tripped over jodies body without seeing anything but was found to have blood on his shoe.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 26, 2014, 11:54:AM
at the end of the day dna doesnt lie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on September 01, 2014, 08:09:PM
Mods, close this thread please. It's over.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 01, 2014, 08:21:PM
why is it over exactly lithum? i dont see why this thread should be closed and i could just start another thread anyway at some time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Lithium on September 06, 2014, 01:51:AM
lol, it's so over.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 06, 2014, 03:17:PM
well well have to Waite and see.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 24, 2014, 09:56:PM
Any updates on this?????????
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 24, 2014, 10:03:PM
im working on somthing at the moment no news to report though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 24, 2014, 10:15:PM
im working on somthing at the moment no news to report though.

Okie dokes Nugs.  ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on October 25, 2014, 07:04:PM
 When was Tobin imprisoned ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 25, 2014, 07:25:PM
years before this happend.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 25, 2014, 07:27:PM
When was Tobin imprisoned ?

2007/8?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 26, 2014, 11:30:AM
no tobin was already in prison for rape when this what happened.

he wasnt released til the year after.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 26, 2014, 12:07:PM
no tobin was already in prison for rape when this what happened.

he wasnt released til the year after.

Yes I did have a google but forgot to post what I found.  I watched a documentary last night about his wife. That poor women.... :'(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on October 27, 2014, 01:21:AM
I hope something happens soon in this case. I have been following it
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 27, 2014, 02:04:PM
i hope mojo are chalanging the sccrc decision.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on October 27, 2014, 03:41:PM
Will Luke get another go at the SCCRC?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 27, 2014, 03:43:PM
i really dont know depends what comes out really.

mojo might challenge the sccrcs decisn.

though those challenges re rarely succesfull.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 27, 2014, 04:23:PM
SCCRC application can't be challenged. It's a total bust. There's not a single part of it that supports Luke's trial being unjust. Luke should really have went with someone more qualified.

well thats for a judge to decide if theres a legal flaw and im sure there is moj will find you one.

i can think of a great big one so i am sure mojo can.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 27, 2014, 04:24:PM
So you are aware of that then? Presumably Sandra must be too then.

Still didn't stop her from implying it could have been Tobin:


Her dishonest posts certainly won't be missed.

thats not dishonesty shes asking a qustion hence the qustion mark.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 28, 2014, 10:19:AM
We might be due an update in about... a decade's time. There should be a fair bit of public outcry if Luke gets out.

Stay tuned.

there will be no public outcry once out im pretty sure of that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 28, 2014, 10:30:AM
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153
That was a terrible decision by the SCCRC. I believe as Dr. Sandra Lean does, that Mitchell is 100% innocent. Why is it so difficult to get justice in this land?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 28, 2014, 10:32:AM
what id like to know is why the scrc ordered new fornisic tests and then ignored the results of those tests.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on October 29, 2014, 03:42:PM
Mods why was my last post deleted?

When?  Nothing has been deleted today.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 29, 2014, 03:45:PM
Mods why was my last post deleted?

I removed it. The reason I did that was because I was unsure that the person it was aimed might be offended.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 29, 2014, 03:50:PM
I'm offended by nugnug but I don't want his posts deleted.

I apologize I shall retrieve the post minus the image.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 29, 2014, 03:54:PM
Sorry there was no post from Nugs with the image attached.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on October 29, 2014, 03:56:PM
....I dunno what you're on about Patti

does Mat still post?

and what happened to my old account?

You are not allowed multiple accounts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: ngb1066 on October 29, 2014, 04:00:PM
Before this

I made this because my password didn't work on the original

and I checked the last active time, 13th October. I wasn't online then. I think someone's hacked it.

I have checked the logs.  There is nothing there.  A common error here is "cannot recognise url"  Did you get that message?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on October 29, 2014, 04:03:PM
....I dunno what you're on about Patti

does Mat still post?

and what happened to my old account?

Heyyyy.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 29, 2014, 05:07:PM
Before this

I made this because my password didn't work on the original

and I checked the last active time, 13th October. I wasn't online then. I think someone's hacked it.
If your password doesn't work then go to "forgot password" and click on it and it will reset it for you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 29, 2014, 05:09:PM
Justice has been done.
The law has been satisfied, but whether justice has been done is another thing entirely?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on October 29, 2014, 05:28:PM
If your password doesn't work then go to "forgot password" and click on it and it will reset it for you.

It appears his account has been deleted though, as it's now a "Guest" account.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 29, 2014, 09:55:PM
The forensic tests obviously support the guilty verdict.

There's literally no other explanation.

there was to more sets of dna found neather of them belonging to luke mitchell.

clear grounds to overturn  the verdict.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 29, 2014, 10:54:PM
anyonewho reads the report  can see what happemd.

http://luke-mitchell-is-innocent.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media-and-other-considerations/review-finds-mitchells-favour-guilty-mos-06-07-2014/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 29, 2014, 11:15:PM
Why is the DNA evidence ignored and I thought the lie detector tests were admissible in a Scottish court of law? 

What evidence is there to prove he did kill her?

The eyes cuts are quite strange.....Its not a normal kill. I know that sounds bad for me to say, but its a clear message of thou shalt not see.  :(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 29, 2014, 11:19:PM
well we will have to ask the sccrc why they have ignored the resultsd of there own investigation

scottish courts are a law unto themselves.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Patti on October 29, 2014, 11:29:PM
well we will have to ask the sccrc why they have ignored the resultsd of there own investigation

scottish courts are a law unto themselves.

It sounds to me that the vital evidence that exonerates him is being ignored Nugs. Why?

They admit that he had an unfair interview with no solicitor present which infringes his human rights...What's up with them? 

Its not fit for purpose is it? The whole system is a failure from the day it was set up.... :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 29, 2014, 11:50:PM
and in the mean time nobods concerned about who the real owner of the dna is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 12, 2014, 10:24:AM
some stuff from other forums.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6284

http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/Luke_Mitchell_Appeal_and_Media_Links_about662.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 13, 2014, 08:56:AM
The SCCRC is not in a position to apportion blame on anyone else, the samples didn't match Luke mitchell and therefore they were someone elses. Luke wasn't convicted on DNA evidence and as any investigation into the new samples would mean getting the case re opened then I doubt we will hear anything else happening.

so why did the order retesting then why test for dna evedence if it doesnt afect the result.

surely thats evedence the jury dident and should of done.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 07, 2014, 08:56:PM
vey relvant in this case i feel.

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Laundry-sperm%20transfer.pdf
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 14, 2014, 06:10:PM
well thats not going to happen im afraid.

if you really think its over why are you posting.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on March 09, 2015, 04:48:PM
 The laws in Scotland don't allow polygraph tests to be carried out,yet both Luke and his mother were given such a test-------- and both passed it.Luke's can be seen on youtube.Like Jeremy,Luke had been asking for a test from day one,and such as it had been granted,it had also been disallowed under Scottish Law ?? ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 09, 2015, 05:31:PM
Just a cursory look at this case reveals the prosecution didn't use DNA evidence because even the DNA results they had proved little.  For instance, the victim's DNA was found on Mitchell's pants.  This could have been through innocent contamination though there was no way to prove it ot there during the murders. 

It seems like some people want to ignore that her DNA was found on him but then to claim any DNA found on her items has to be from the killer.  The reality is that the same contamination possibility exists across the board, it was her sisters shirt so not surprising the DNA of her sister's boyfriend was found on the shirt.  Only DNA from semen inside the victim or blood based DNA would be highly reliable.

Mitchell was seen near the seen of the crime around the time of the murder, his own brother busted his alibi and he found the body though he should not have been able to see it from where he supposedly located it. I doesn't look good for him and then when you factor in some other things it looks like he is the killer. 

 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 09, 2015, 05:44:PM
none of his dna was found at the crimme scene.

there was no postive id of him the investigating officer admited that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 12, 2015, 08:26:PM
I thought the DNA found on his pants was from clothing removed from his home rather than what he had on that day.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 12, 2015, 08:47:PM
I thought the DNA found on his pants was from clothing removed from his home rather than what he had on that day.

He could have changed his clothes after the murders though. Experts testified the killer had a good chance of getting her blood on his clothing and if Mitchell did then he must have thrown them out.  It is believed he did so which is why the DNA on the pants wasn't played up more plus it could have come from innocent contamination.  Finding blood on his clothing would have been far more damning. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 12, 2015, 09:12:PM
The sisters boyfriends blood was also found on the shirt as well as seamen and had been transferred through the washing machine apparently. I didn't think blood would stand up to that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 12, 2015, 09:37:PM
The sisters boyfriends blood was also found on the shirt as well as seamen and had been transferred through the washing machine apparently. I didn't think blood would stand up to that.

Not his blood, his DNA was found on the shirt and the shirt belonged to Jodi's sister, Jodi was just borrowing it. There was no way to establish his DNA wasn't already on the shirt before Jodi put it on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 12, 2015, 09:46:PM
I thought the DNA found on his pants was from clothing removed from his home rather than what he had on that day.

her dna was found on trousers taken from his house.

when you consider he was her boyfriend thats hardly suprising.

not much was made becuse its hardly really evedence of anything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 13, 2015, 05:07:PM
Yes his blood  was found also.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 15, 2015, 10:13:AM
He could have changed his clothes after the murders though. Experts testified the killer had a good chance of getting her blood on his clothing and if Mitchell did then he must have thrown them out.  It is believed he did so which is why the DNA on the pants wasn't played up more plus it could have come from innocent contamination.  Finding blood on his clothing would have been far more damning.

Experts testified that he would have to have had some sort of coveralls,hat,goggles,gloves on for no trace to be left on him but he said it was not impossible.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 15, 2015, 02:15:PM
when he was qustioned his hair and fingernails were dirty so he hadent washed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 15, 2015, 07:18:PM
Exactly nugnug, so his hair and everything else must have been covered then. So when he was seen by so called witnesses,did they see him dressed in all this gear or carrying a bag/rucksack whatever.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: scipio_usmc on March 15, 2015, 07:59:PM
Experts testified that he would have to have had some sort of coveralls,hat,goggles,gloves on for no trace to be left on him but he said it was not impossible.

Mitchell had enough time to dispose of the clothing he wore.  If the clothing had blood on it then surely he would have gotten rid of it. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 15, 2015, 08:02:PM
Where,then 11inch in diameter log burner
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 15, 2015, 08:08:PM
Exactly nugnug, so his hair and everything else must have been covered then. So when he was seen by so called witnesses,did they see him dressed in all this gear or carrying a bag/rucksack whatever.

no they certanly did not .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 16, 2015, 03:57:PM
Mitchell had enough time to dispose of the clothing he wore.  If the clothing had blood on it then surely he would have gotten rid of it.

but he hadent had dirty figngernails and dirty hair when examend witch would indicate he hadent washed and changed.

if the proscutions timing is correct he hardly had any time to to change his clothes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on April 05, 2015, 03:51:PM
I read it on the wap forum.it was discussed at length. There was also diagrams of the t shirt and where the various samples were found. And as far as I am aware everything on the wap forum was verified from the case papers by sandra lean. Alas, since she is not power of attorney anymore it was all taken down. I'm sure it was on Luke's website under other suspects as well. Alas, it has all been taken down also.
I'm sure nugnug would have seen that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 05, 2015, 06:12:PM
it is also in the gaurdion i belive and i belive it has been posted here but ill have to go check.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on April 19, 2015, 01:41:AM
I read it on the wap forum.it was discussed at length. There was also diagrams of the t shirt and where the various samples were found. And as far as I am aware everything on the wap forum was verified from the case papers by sandra lean. Alas, since she is not power of attorney anymore it was all taken down. I'm sure it was on Luke's website under other suspects as well. Alas, it has all been taken down also.
I'm sure nugnug would have seen that.

Why would 'power of attorney' affect information on a website? Doesn't make sense? Could there be another reason for this?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on April 19, 2015, 07:56:AM
Pwahahahaha ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on June 27, 2015, 01:52:PM
Pwahahahaha ;)

By your laughter, are you suggesting Mr Middleton is being disingenuous about the power of attorney claim?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on June 29, 2015, 11:05:PM
What is going on with this case? can someone please give me a dummies introduction?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 30, 2015, 02:04:AM
heres a basic outline i will post more later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on July 06, 2015, 07:16:AM
No. There's zero happening that's all
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 07, 2015, 12:06:AM
Are you the last one left who thinks Mitchell is innocent lol.

well theres mojo and paddy hill ever heard of him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on August 12, 2015, 02:13:AM
oh i can asure you they are higly qualfied.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on September 06, 2015, 11:57:AM
Luke has recently hit back at Double Standards in the use of polygraph testing as it has emerged that 60 sex offenders have been sent back to prison after FAILING the tests.
He said " that if lie detectors are reliable to jail the guilty then they are reliable to free the innocent . These are double standards ".
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on September 06, 2015, 11:59:AM
Luke has recently hit back at Double Standards in the use of polygraph testing as it has emerged that 60 sex offenders have been sent back to prison after FAILING the tests.
He said " that if lie detectors are reliable to jail the guilty then they are reliable to free the innocent . These are double standards ".





His mother,Corinne who'd provided an alibi for him,also passed the test. What more do they want ??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on September 09, 2015, 03:09:PM
Of all the cases I have read about. Luke Mitchell's is the one I am most convinced is a moj, and a bad one at that. It's incredible .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 11, 2015, 05:20:PM
There were 492 sex offenders tested, of which 63 were sent back to jail. That means 87% of those tested remained at liberty solely on the basis of the result of their polygraph. The reason given for poygraphs not being allowed as evidence or support for those maintaining innocence is that they are not reliable enough.

Whatever your thoughts on the test itself, the double standard here is quite clear, and has some disturbing implications - it's "reliable enough" to justify keeping convicted sex offenders at liberty, but our parole system is supposed to ensure that those who are released from prison have demonstrated a clear reduction in their risk of re-offending and, far more importantly, to be considered not a risk to the community to which they are returning.  The use of these tests on sex offenders makes a clear statement that the authorities are not confident enough in their own decision making processes to accurately judge who is ... and isn't... a continuing risk to the community.

But those taking the deccision to leave the remaining 429 offenders at liberty have to be trusting that the polygraph results are accurate. On the basis of some claims (used to discredit polygraph results for those maintaining innocence) that the test is less than 60% accurate, 197 of those offenders could be at liberty not because they are safe to be free, but because their test results are wrong.

So which is it? The test is reliable enough that we can be confident that nearly 200 offenders are not dangerous (and therefore should be reliable enough to support claims of innocence), or it is not nearly reliable enough for any sort of confident conclusion (the excuse used for those maintaining innocence), in which case, we are actively putting people at risk of sexual attacks?

I'm not suggesting, and I don't believe anyone else is suggesting that a polygraph result alone should be evidence of guilt or innocence but, as with everything else, especially in so-called "circumstantial cases," they could be used to lend weight to other evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on September 12, 2015, 01:34:PM
Nice to see you back, Sandra.

Are you able to give us any updates on Luke's case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 12, 2015, 06:06:PM
Thank you Neil.

I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.

What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on September 12, 2015, 07:05:PM
Excellent news sandra, on all fronts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on September 13, 2015, 11:45:AM
Thank you Neil.

I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.

What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.
Many thanks Sandra.  I look forward to hearing any news.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on September 26, 2015, 01:35:PM
Thank you Neil.

I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.

What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.

Let's face it Sandra you got the boot by the Mitchells and have no more insight into developments than any of the rest of us.  Tell me, what changed your mind about Luke, did the penny drop at last??

What of the Wrongly Accused Person charity you are associated with, why have you never filed accounts in 5 years?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on September 26, 2015, 06:39:PM
Of all the cases I have read about. Luke Mitchell's is the one I am most convinced is a moj, and a bad one at that. It's incredible .

If you believe Juke is innocent who do you think committed the murder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on September 26, 2015, 07:43:PM
If you believe Juke is innocent who do you think committed the murder?

I have no names, stocky man perhaps?
Personally I think a older more powerfull person than luke. I also don't think it was their first time at a crime of this nature. Only my opinion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 27, 2015, 05:07:PM
Thank you Neil.

I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.

What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.

good to see you back sandra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 27, 2015, 07:43:PM
Let's face it Sandra you got the boot by the Mitchells and have no more insight into developments than any of the rest of us.  Tell me, what changed your mind about Luke, did the penny drop at last??

What of the Wrongly Accused Person charity you are associated, why have you never filed accounts in 5 years?

Hello John,

I'll take your comments in turn, so that I don't miss anything.

Quote
Let's face it Sandra you got the boot by the Mitchells

As you wish. There are reasons why I have not commented on my departure from the case, reasons I am not prepared to disclose at the moment, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want about this.

Quote
and have no more insight into developments than any of the rest of us

Ah, unfortunately, you are misinformed - my connections to the case were always wider than simply through the Mitchell family.

Quote
Tell me, what changed your mind about Luke, did the penny drop at last??

Nothing changed my mind about Luke. My mind has not changed about Luke. The penny dropped many years ago - this case was a farce from the outset. Nothing has changed my mind about that either.

Quote
What of the Wrongly Accused Person charity you are associated

I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.

Quote
why have you never filed accounts in 5 years?

WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.

I hope this answers your questions. I'm not here in my previous capacity as a spokesperson for Luke's case - I think I made that clear in my earlier posts - I'm just another Joe Ordinary, sharing my thoughts and opinions in forum discusssions.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 27, 2015, 07:46:PM
good to see you back sandra.

Thanks nugnug, nice to be back.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on September 27, 2015, 10:38:PM
Hello John,

I'll take your comments in turn, so that I don't miss anything.

As you wish. There are reasons why I have not commented on my departure from the case, reasons I am not prepared to disclose at the moment, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want about this.

Ah, unfortunately, you are misinformed - my connections to the case were always wider than simply through the Mitchell family.

Nothing changed my mind about Luke. My mind has not changed about Luke. The penny dropped many years ago - this case was a farce from the outset. Nothing has changed my mind about that either.

I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.

WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.

I hope this answers your questions. I'm not here in my previous capacity as a spokesperson for Luke's case - I think I made that clear in my earlier posts - I'm just another Joe Ordinary, sharing my thoughts and opinions in forum discusssions.
Luke is one lucky devil, to have you fighting his corner.  Although, I have to admit, I'm far from convinced of his innocence. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on September 28, 2015, 10:45:PM
Does anyone have any links to the Frontline Scotland documentary about this case? I cant find it anywhere
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on September 29, 2015, 12:38:AM
Hello John,

I'll take your comments in turn, so that I don't miss anything.

As you wish. There are reasons why I have not commented on my departure from the case, reasons I am not prepared to disclose at the moment, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want about this.

Ah, unfortunately, you are misinformed - my connections to the case were always wider than simply through the Mitchell family.

Nothing changed my mind about Luke. My mind has not changed about Luke. The penny dropped many years ago - this case was a farce from the outset. Nothing has changed my mind about that either.

I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.

WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.

I hope this answers your questions. I'm not here in my previous capacity as a spokesperson for Luke's case - I think I made that clear in my earlier posts - I'm just another Joe Ordinary, sharing my thoughts and opinions in forum discusssions.

I think you made a very bad decision to take up this case Sandra, just as bad as your decision to support self confessed killers Adrian Prout and Simon Hall.  I'm quite sure you must have regrets about these cases so why keep up this pretence about Luke Mitchell?  Surely by now you must realise that Mitchell did it for all the reasons previously gone into? There isn't a shred of evidence which supports his innocence.

As far as the WAP organisation is concerned, as co founder/administrator, do you not think you had and indeed have a responsibilty to have accounted for the funds obtained whilst you were in a position of authority and ensured that they were properly recorded in terms of the Scottish Charity Regulator rules?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on September 29, 2015, 10:47:AM
Does anyone have any links to the Frontline Scotland documentary about this case? I cant find it anywhere

It was on Luke's website under documentaries, the devils own.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on September 29, 2015, 06:28:PM
I think you made a very bad decision to take up this case Sandra, just as bad as your decision to support self confessed killers Adrian Prout and Simon Hall.  I'm quite sure you must have regrets about these cases so why keep up this pretence about Luke Mitchell?  Surely by now you must realise that Mitchell did it for all the reasons previously gone into? There isn't a shred of evidence which supports his innocence.

As far as the WAP organisation is concerned, as co founder/administrator, do you not think you had and indeed have a responsibilty to have accounted for the funds obtained whilst you were in a position of authority and ensured that they were properly recorded in terms of the Scottish Charity Regulator rules?

You also supported Simon Hall's innocence for a long time. Which means you also made 'a bad decision' as you refer to it.

And it is my belief that Middleton is the person you should be asking about accounts relating to WAP. It is Middleton who appears allusive and not willing to admit to his wrong doings and deceitfulness.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on September 30, 2015, 08:09:PM
I think you made a very bad decision to take up this case Sandra, just as bad as your decision to support self confessed killers Adrian Prout and Simon Hall.  I'm quite sure you must have regrets about these cases so why keep up this pretence about Luke Mitchell?  Surely by now you must realise that Mitchell did it for all the reasons previously gone into? There isn't a shred of evidence which supports his innocence.


Sandra also believes Petrina Stocker is innocent  ::)   If legal system used Sandra's standards for reasonable doubt the prisons would be empty
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on September 30, 2015, 09:07:PM
I will only doubt Lukes guilt if a viable alternative suspect is brought to light and so far there is no one
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on September 30, 2015, 09:17:PM
who knows lithium,could be anywhere. Don't know if the perpetrator was from the area, was visiting or what. I just don't think it was luke mitchell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on September 30, 2015, 09:29:PM
Definitely possible of course but not a fact. Maybe went to meet the cousins and they weren't there. Then someone by chance got the opportunity. I don't think the killer was from the area, don't know why .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on September 30, 2015, 11:00:PM
Definitely possible of course but not a fact. Maybe went to meet the cousins and they weren't there. Then someone by chance got the opportunity. I don't think the killer was from the area, don't know why .


Your not making a very compelling argument. If Luke didn't do then I would bet it would be someone from the same school or local. Ex boyfriend of Jodi? or maybe a girl that liked Luke and was Jelous of Jodi?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 01, 2015, 07:34:AM

Your not making a very compelling argument. If Luke didn't do then I would bet it would be someone from the same school or local. Ex boyfriend of Jodi? or maybe a girl that liked Luke and was Jelous of Jodi?

the lassie got a severe hiding. Her throat was slashed twelve to twenty times, stripped naked apart from her socks folded over her toes. eyelids deliberately slit, mutilation to the body. this was done by afourteen year old because of jealousy (ex boyfriend ect) really? Then ,at fourteen you have to imagine its their first time at a crime of this nature. Cant see it myself. But thats what discussion is all about, different opinions.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 01, 2015, 10:21:AM
i dont think its very good idea to go around throwing names about i have person i think did it but im not going to name them becouse isnt knowing.

who did well the person whos dna was found on the body is a good suspect but we dont at presnt know who that dna belongs to other than it doesnt belong to luke mitthel.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 01, 2015, 11:23:AM

Your not making a very compelling argument. If Luke didn't do then I would bet it would be someone from the same school or local. Ex boyfriend of Jodi? or maybe a girl that liked Luke and was Jelous of Jodi?

if you resarch the case you will see that there have been sevral alternatives suspects offered some more convincing than others.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 01, 2015, 04:41:PM
I can't join the discussion properly at the moment as I'm having to post via my phone which is  rubbish - just wanted to say, for me, the appallingly bad so-called investigation is what raises so many of  the doubts in this case. What credible police force bleaches the scene before the sniffer dogs get there, offers an innocent explanation to a person whose DNA puts them in a very compromising position, falls to follow up on distinct lack of alibi for two people whose lack of alibi would have made them definite persons of interest in any normal murder investigation. And that's a tiny fraction of the anomalies in the case. Hope to have normal internet by tomorrow
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2015, 07:12:PM
i dont think its very good idea to go around throwing names about i have person i think did it but im not going to name them becouse isnt knowing.



Ok this person you believe done it, lets for sake of this discussion call this person "Suspect B"

What verifiable evidence makes you believe "Suspect B" killed Jodi?

And when I say evidence I mean concrete evidence not rumors that have spread on forums.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 01, 2015, 08:57:PM
What concrete verifiable evidence convicted luke mitchell
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2015, 09:55:PM
What concrete verifiable evidence convicted luke mitchell


http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2006/HCJAC_84.html (http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2006/HCJAC_84.html)

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC_28.html (http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC_28.html)

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2010/2010HCJAC54.html (http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2010/2010HCJAC54.html)

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2011/2011HCJAC10.html (http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2011/2011HCJAC10.html)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 02, 2015, 08:31:AM
Is this not after conviction at appeal. I only looked at the first one to be honest.
I meant evidence that convicted in the first place.
DNA
Positive I'd
Forensics
Recovery of clothes
Murder weapon
Right to a fair trial.
Believable motive
A time line not manipulated by 40 minutes suit by police
Failure to follow up other possibilities

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 02, 2015, 06:56:PM
Is this not after conviction at appeal. I only looked at the first one to be honest.
I meant evidence that convicted in the first place.
DNA
Positive I'd
Forensics
Recovery of clothes
Murder weapon
Right to a fair trial.
Believable motive
A time line not manipulated by 40 minutes suit by police
Failure to follow up other possibilities

There had to be something that convinced the Jury. This was one of the longest trails in Scotish legal history. It cant have been based on nothing
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 02, 2015, 07:03:PM
Tell me what then
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 02, 2015, 07:05:PM
Did you manage to see the frontline documentary david
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 02, 2015, 07:16:PM
Did you manage to see the frontline documentary david

No there have been a few documentaries made around 2007/08ish but I cannot find them anywhere online
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 02, 2015, 07:29:PM
I tried it on the BBC site, just saying, page not found. Could be my tablet though try it there. The links there. Luke mitchell, the devils own.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on October 02, 2015, 09:50:PM
Hello John,

I'll take your comments in turn, so that I don't miss anything.

As you wish. There are reasons why I have not commented on my departure from the case, reasons I am not prepared to disclose at the moment, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want about this.

Ah, unfortunately, you are misinformed - my connections to the case were always wider than simply through the Mitchell family.

Nothing changed my mind about Luke. My mind has not changed about Luke. The penny dropped many years ago - this case was a farce from the outset. Nothing has changed my mind about that either.

I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.

WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.

I hope this answers your questions. I'm not here in my previous capacity as a spokesperson for Luke's case - I think I made that clear in my earlier posts - I'm just another Joe Ordinary, sharing my thoughts and opinions in forum discusssions.

great reply  :) look forward to further posts
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 02, 2015, 11:26:PM
You also supported Simon Hall's innocence for a long time. Which means you also made 'a bad decision' as you refer to it.

And it is my belief that Middleton is the person you should be asking about accounts relating to WAP. It is Middleton who appears allusive and not willing to admit to his wrong doings and deceitfulness.

I think you are just a tad confused.   I supported you in pursuit of what you claimed to be justice in your hubby (Simon Hall's) case.  It soon became clear however that his story did not add up so at that point I made it clear that I no longer supported your and his cause.  The rest as they say is history and for the record I was proved right yet again.

Billy Middleton's name still appears as representing the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation on the Scottish Charity Regulator's website but Sandra Lean was a co Director and so is still jointly responsible in accounting for funds obtained by that charity during her tenure.

http://www.oscr.org.uk/search-oscr/charity-details?number=SC041953#results
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 02, 2015, 11:42:PM
I can't join the discussion properly at the moment as I'm having to post via my phone which is  rubbish - just wanted to say, for me, the appallingly bad so-called investigation is what raises so many of  the doubts in this case. What credible police force bleaches the scene before the sniffer dogs get there, offers an innocent explanation to a person whose DNA puts them in a very compromising position, falls to follow up on distinct lack of alibi for two people whose lack of alibi would have made them definite persons of interest in any normal murder investigation. And that's a tiny fraction of the anomalies in the case. Hope to have normal internet by tomorrow

Lothian and Borders Police did undertake a sloppy investigation but the facts all came together in the end.  You can make all the excuses you like about what did and didn't happen but the fact is this wasn't the first time Luke had used a knife to threaten a young girl. Not a normal activity for any 14-year-old youth I would have thought.

Luke lied about being at the gate just down the road from where the path emerges onto the main road. Two witnesses in a passing car saw him there just minutes after Jodi was murdered a few hundred metres away. 

Then there was the story about being at home alone when his own brother testified that that wasn't the case and that it was he who was in the house alone.  A period of time for which Luke had no alibi and which coincidentally again occurred shortly after Jodi's murder.  We all know about the burned pie claim which again brother Shane disputed.  So which one was lying Sandra?

Then there was the disappearing act after school.  Dozens of kids milling around who walked that route home every day yet not one child came forward to support Luke's claim that he went directly home. Another lost alibi opportunity?

This was but some of the evidence which saw him convicted of murder.  To this day there still isn't a shred of evidence which supports his claim innocence and by the way...polygraphs don't count!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 03, 2015, 09:04:AM
Lothian and Borders Police did undertake a sloppy investigation but the facts all came together in the end.  You can make all the excuses you like about what did and didn't happen but the fact is this wasn't the first time Luke had used a knife to threaten a young girl. Not a normal activity for any 14-year-old youth I would have thought.

Luke lied about being at the gate just down the road from where the path emerges onto the main road. Two witnesses in a passing car saw him there just minutes after Jodi was murdered a few hundred metres away. 

Then there was the story about being at home alone when his own brother testified that that wasn't the case and that it was he who was in the house alone.  A period of time for which Luke had no alibi and which coincidentally again occurred shortly after Jodi's murder.  We all know about the burned pie claim which again brother Shane disputed.  So which one was lying Sandra?

Then there was the disappearing act after school.  Dozens of kids milling around who walked that route home every day yet not one child came forward to support Luke's claim that he went directly home. Another lost alibi opportunity?

This was but some of the evidence which saw him convicted of murder.  To this day there still isn't a shred of evidence which supports his claim innocence and by the way...polygraphs don't count!

well thers dna that belons to other people not him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2015, 09:32:AM
Girl who claimed, after the murder that Luke had threatened her with a knife - never reported to the police, never called as a witness, zero evidence that it happened.

Two witnesses did not "identify" him - they initially described  a youth with dark hair wearing ordinary (not baggy) jeans and trainers. Luke was wearing very baggy trousers and distinctive snow boarding boots ...and he was very definitely blond. These witnesses changed their stories (by their own admission) after Luke's pictures appeared in the paper 6 weeks later. There is one statement in which it says one of the witnesses is identifying him from a newspaper shown to her by police officer - no leading the witness there, I don't suppose?

Disappearing act after school never happened - there are witness statements from people who knew  Luke testifying that he took his normal route home. One kid was leaned on afterwards - he changed his story to he thought he'd seen Luke walking home, then he wasn't sure, then he didn't think it was that day. First statement from this kid was absolutely certain - what do we think happened there?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2015, 09:53:AM
Shane did not dispute the burned pie story, he confirmed it on the stand. His evidence at trial about who was where came right on the back of having pictures of the body thrust unexpectedly under his nose, then the humiliating suggestion in open court with the press  ready to pounce, that he had been masturbating at the time - he told thecourt that the police had refused to accept most of the information he gave, opting instead for bombarding him with other suggestions until he was so confused, he didn't know what were original recollections, and what had been affected by police manipulation.

The sort of misinformation presented by John as fact that we see here is playing right into the hands of the very people John claims maliciously pursued and convicted him, using exactly the same tactics they used in the Luke Mitchell case. John knows police routinely use these tactics - why does he pretend, when discussing this case, that he fully accepts the oifficial case at face value, as if none of it has been tainted by police manipulation?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2015, 10:17:AM
One last point for now - how can the story "add up" when so much of it was never made public? If you pick and choose points, you can stitch them together to make what looks like a compelling narrative, so long a no-one comes along and ruins the story by pointing out all of the"missed out" bits that make a nonsense of it.

For example, two witnesses mentioned smelling smoke - one said wood smoke, one said funny smelling smoke. Conclusion, Corrine was burning something untoward (supported by just one statement.) That's the official story.

Here are the misSing bits - 37 statements in all regarding smoke. 7 witnesses mention funny smelling smoke.exactly a week after the murder a neighbour's citronella candle had gone up in flames (rather than burning normally) on the night of the murder, all of the other 35 statements say they did not notice any unusual smoke from the direction of the Mitchell garden. One woman said she burned leaves  and other garden waste around that time B
But she could not remember which evening. She pointed out it would be difficult to tell which garden smoke came from because they all backed onto each other.

Is it not possible that the witness to the funny smelling smoke was mistaken about the time? Would that explain why none of the other smoke witnesses were called - because their testimony would seriously undermine the prosecution case on such a critical point?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 03, 2015, 11:00:AM
I think you are just a tad confused.   I supported you in pursuit of what you claimed to be justice in your hubby (Simon Hall's) case.  It soon became clear however that his story did not add up so at that point I made it clear that I no longer supported your and his cause.  The rest as they say is history and for the record I was proved right yet again.

Billy Middleton's name still appears as representing the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation on the Scottish Charity Regulator's website but Sandra Lean was a co Director and so is still jointly responsible in accounting for funds obtained by that charity during her tenure.

http://www.oscr.org.uk/search-oscr/charity-details?number=SC041953#results

Utter rubbish... The only time things did not add up was after learning about the Zenith burglary. 

You'll be lucky to get an answer from Sandra in relation to the WAP Org. But good luck with that.

And Middleton won't answer anything, as to do so I believe will incriminate himself.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2015, 11:16:AM
I already gave my answer regarding WAP - I have not been associated with the organisation since April 2013, I was not responsible for submission of accounts, and first accounts were not due for submission until April 2013. Anyone with any Concerns regarding my involvement/responsibilities is free to contact the charities commission - I have nothing to hide.

I don't therefore understand Stephanie's comment about me not answering the question about WAP which was specifically about the return of accounts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 03, 2015, 12:21:PM
I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.

WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.


I already gave my answer regarding WAP - I have not been associated with the organisation since April 2013, I was not responsible for submission of accounts, and first accounts were not due for submission until April 2013. Anyone with any Concerns regarding my involvement/responsibilities is free to contact the charities commission - I have nothing to hide.

I don't therefore understand Stephanie's comment about me not answering the question about WAP which was specifically about the return of accounts.

So as not to cause confusion - How were the funds spent up to April 2013 and why have the accounts not been submitted in relation to this time period?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2015, 01:22:PM
I don't  know and I don't  know - I had no access to accounts whatsoever, and was no longer associated with WAP by the time accounts were due to be returned - how much clearer can I make this?

This is supposed to be a discussion about the LukeMitchell/ Jodi Jones case - if you want info re WAP accounts, please feel free to do as I suggested and contact the charities commission - there is notHing more I can tell you - I had no signatory rights, and no access to accounts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2015, 04:13:PM
The dog wasn't tracking on the way up, she was very excitable and pulling hard - Luke was not looking for an"alert" - he took the dog originally for safety.

He did call looking for Jodi - he didn't call back again because he was afraid he might get Jodi into trouble if she was somewhere she wasn't supposed to be. He started to think later still that maybe Jodi had"dumped"him for some reason (14 year old, remember). Why didn't Judy call back to check on her daughter? Why, knoWing Jodi hadn't been where she was supposed to be nearly an hour after shewas supposed to arrive did Judy wait another 40 minutes after Jodi was supposed to arrive home before contacting Luke?

The evidence doesn't support Luke being told Jodi had left to meet him - only that she'd left, or was out. Judy herself said she assumed, because Luke had called, he and Jodi must have been planning to meet up at some point. The police would not accept any of Luke's thoughts on why Jodi hadn't turned up - with the info in 'this post you can see it's entirely possible Jodi could have returned home from wherever she was Whitten like called, and got into a fight with her mum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2015, 04:16:PM
Sorry, can't edit last post - that's why I hate using my phone for this - last line should read " when Luke called
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 03, 2015, 04:24:PM
Two of the friends he was with that night were adamant Luke did not say Jodi wasn't coming out. The other changed his story to include this claim in his third or fourth statement - as you can see, it's totally uncorroborated

Luke regularly called the speaking clock. The kitchen clock was often wrong, the clock on the microwave was never set, and Shane was on the landline (pre - broadband).

Your account of Shane is totally based on prosecution contention - I'll answer those questions when I have Proper internet connection (hopefully Monday)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 03, 2015, 05:19:PM
Hello everyone discussing this case.

I took an interest some years ago in this case and it has  occasionally popped back into my head since. I was then recently discussing MOJs in general and having forgotten so many of the details of Luke's case I decided to remind myself. However, I can't find a site that actually presents the evidence. I have been through all 190 pages of this forum (I'm ready for my medal now, or maybe therapy!) and to be honest there isn't a great deal of content regarding the facts. There has been some really helpful and informative posts but I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are any accessible sites that still present the evidence? Also if anyone knows where I can watch the BBC doc "Devils own" I'd be grateful.

For the record I'm not totally convinced of Luke's innocence but I am convinced he didn't get a fair investigation which would obviously ruin any chances of a fair trial. I couldn't have convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt from what I have read so far but I want to read more. Help.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 03, 2015, 06:05:PM
I don't  know and I don't  know - I had no access to accounts whatsoever, and was no longer associated with WAP by the time accounts were due to be returned - how much clearer can I make this?

Thank you for the clarification
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 03, 2015, 08:05:PM
This is in reply to Lithium 2.0 (I haven't worked out how you do the quote thing you all seem to do.)

The dog/Luke finding the body seems to be a big part of the prosecutions case so I have been paying attention to that a fair bit when reading this.

From what I understand Luke's supporters contend that on his walk along the path alone with dog he was just going to meet the search party and was not encouraging the dog to actively seek anything, which is part of their training. So at that point it was just a 14 year old boy walking hurrying along a dark path at night so even if the dog had caught the scent of the body it would have been dutifully following its master's will. No way of corroborating this either way though of course.
The second trip along the path with the search party was the idea of someone else (a grandmother?) and at this point they are actively searching for Jodi. Luke is telling the dog to search so it is now following that order and so when he gets the scent he leads Luke there. I'm not sure if any of the search party members testified to Luke doing this though.
As for the dogs abilities, which strangely seem like a really important piece of evidence, I remember reading somewhere that the police did follow up on this somewhat and found that Luke and his Mum had had some official training with this dog. If memory serves they weren't qualified or anything official like that but did have training. Enough to use a dog to search for someone? I have no idea. Was the dog tested in any way? Is that even possible?! 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 03, 2015, 08:20:PM
So within the space of minutes Luke decided he was suddenly looking for a dead body?

Might have worked the quote thing out.

That's not what I meant to imply. By scent I personally meant the scent of Jodi. I'm not sure it's quite as specific as that though, in terms of telling the dog to search for someone alive or dead. I just presumed the dog was trained to be searching for any "out of the ordinary scents" or something a long those lines. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well. I have no experience with sniffer dogs or their training. But surely if this was part of the case this sort of information should have been covered at the trial? Was it? No idea, again.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2015, 01:19:AM
So within the space of minutes Luke decided he was suddenly looking for a dead body?

a dog found sarah paines body nobody in there right mind would acuse the dog walker of being involved in her murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 04, 2015, 01:34:AM
a dog found sarah paines body nobody in there right mind would acuse the dog walker of being involved in her murder.

Yes they should and they do. The one who finds the body is always a person of interest until cleared. It happens often where the killer informs the police that they "discovered" the body. Its a deceptive tactic and only the dumbest of police/detectives would think "it cant be him he found the body" that's why the have protocols 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2015, 09:13:AM
dogs find body's because they can smell blood.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 04, 2015, 09:16:AM
Hi Baz, the official site was taken down because I no longer had power of attorney, or access to the papers, so couldn't prove, if legally challenged that what I'd quoted was true - in Scotland there are tight restrictions on what third parties can make public. The dog had some tracker training - the training logs were given to the police and an expert put her through testing which showed she had been trained,although not to"expert"level.

The gran thought Jodi may be lying hurt somewhere, so Luke instructed the dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi, Jodi's hiding" which was a tracking exercise they used in training - Luke would hide, and the trainer would tell the dog Luke was "hiding" and to seek and find him - the three words the dog would recognise, therefore, were seek, find and hiding.

David, while I agree that the person finding the body needs to be checked out, their finding of the body shouldn't be the sole reason for suspicion - Jodi's sister's boyfriend, who had also been over the wall and seen the body - his first words to them were "I suppose you've been to my house already?" Just over two weeks later, his DNA from bodily fluids was found on Jodi's t shirt, and still Luke finding the body was considered "more suspicious." I'm not saying the sister's boyfriend was guilty of anything - I'm saying in those circumstances, we'd normally expect closer  police attention
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 04, 2015, 09:22:AM
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.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 04, 2015, 09:39:AM
David said "that's why they have protocols" Not in this case!

The body was left uncovered in the rain for more than 8 hours, six officers traipsed through the scene without protective gear, items were moved and gathered up, the body was moved and branches cut down to give the photographer easier access, all before the forensics team got there.

The two lads on the moped took a week to come forward (even though they were relatives of Jodi) one had hacked off his hair, and they lied about the time they were on the path, because it was the claimed time of death. They were eliminated within 48 hours, before the DNA results were back, and before police knew they were lying about the time.

If police had taken statements from the people who reported those boys at the time, they would have known they were lying - instead, they waited almost two months - the reason all of those people could be sure of the time was that it was closing time when the moped came through their place of work en route to the path. So another two people at the crime scene at the claimed time of death who lie, one changes his appearance, they fail to come forward until forced to do so - and still Luke finding the body is "more suspicious?"

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 09:53:AM
Was the body not moved onto plastic sheeting
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 04, 2015, 12:18:PM
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.

Sorry, initials should be SK - don't know why my phone does that!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 04, 2015, 12:22:PM
Was the body not moved onto plastic sheeting

Yes, Marty, it was, and in keeping with the"protocols" of this case, the ground where Jodi had originally been lying was also not protected or preserved after she was moved onto the plastic sheet.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 12:44:PM
For a full month after the murder, all three family members of the search party started categorically that the dog had alerted Luke by suddenly darting over to the wall, standing up on her hind legs, scrabbling at the wall and sniffing the air "that's AL (the sister's boyfriend)'s description, not mine - he even gave the size of the dog compared to the v break in the wall.

By trial, 16 months later, all of them claimed the dog did nothing unusual, or they couldn't remember the fog doing anything.

Hi Sandra, thanks for the responses. Shame the rules have restricted the available information.

The change in recollection of all three search party members seems very suspicious to me. Did the defence not make a big point out of this? Did any of them give any explanation as to why their story changed so dramatically?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 12:53:PM
Hi Baz, the official site was taken down because I no longer had power of attorney, or access to the papers, so couldn't prove, if legally challenged that what I'd quoted was true - in Scotland there are tight restrictions on what third parties can make public. The dog had some tracker training - the training logs were given to the police and an expert put her through testing which showed she had been trained,although not to"expert"level.

The gran thought Jodi may be lying hurt somewhere, so Luke instructed the dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi, Jodi's hiding" which was a tracking exercise they used in training - Luke would hide, and the trainer would tell the dog Luke was "hiding" and to seek and find him - the three words the dog would recognise, therefore, were seek, find and hiding.

David, while I agree that the person finding the body needs to be checked out, their finding of the body shouldn't be the sole reason for suspicion - Jodi's sister's boyfriend, who had also been over the wall and seen the body - his first words to them were "I suppose you've been to my house already?" Just over two weeks later, his DNA from bodily fluids was found on Jodi's t shirt, and still Luke finding the body was considered "more suspicious." I'm not saying the sister's boyfriend was guilty of anything - I'm saying in those circumstances, we'd normally expect closer  police attention

I wasn't far off with my dog sniffing understanding.

So the expert that tested this dog, was his/her evidence accepted at trial? It just seems quite reasonable that Luke's dog pulled him towards the body's location considering the initial statements of the search party and an expert having tested the dog. However, from what I have managed to read, Luke's finding of the body is one of the main things held against him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 02:14:PM
I wasn't far off with my dog sniffing understanding.

So the expert that tested this dog, was his/her evidence accepted at trial? It just seems quite reasonable that Luke's dog pulled him towards the body's location considering the initial statements of the search party and an expert having tested the dog. However, from what I have managed to read, Luke's finding of the body is one of the main things held against him.

The dog experts evidence was never used by the defence at court.
Only Donald Findlay knows why. Seems strange to me, surely it would have certainly challenged the prosecution's contention of how the body was found.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 02:51:PM
The dog experts evidence was never used by the defence at court.
Only Donald Findlay knows why. Seems strange to me, surely it would have certainly challenged the prosecution's contention of how the body was found.

That seems crazy.

What was the defences case then? Just the alibi?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 02:52:PM
Can I ask sandra,purely out of curiosity, why you parted ways with the wap site.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 02:59:PM
That seems crazy.

What was the defences case then? Just the alibi?

I think Donald Finlays style is just to defend against what the prosecution's case is. He didn't put forward a case, so to speak, other than it wasn't luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 06:52:PM
Well that's obviously because by that point they've decided to frame Luke to  cover up the murder of Jodi by a family member.

Just say what you mean lol.

Do you not find it even mildly suspicious that they all changed their story in the same way by the time they got to testifying? I do. I can't see any reason that their testimony would change so dramatically. Can you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 07:02:PM
My issue isn't with a dog finding a body, it's with a dog finding a body only after passing it a second time. Like you said they can smell blood, apparently Luke's dog mysteriously never smelt it the first time he passed it. Or he did but Luke didn't want to discover the body then.


I can see why this makes people suspicious. It does me a little.

But I can also see that if Luke is hurrying along then he might not paying attention to the dog or that the dog didn't go mad because he hasn't at this point been instructed to search.

So, I guess we will never know.

We can know the behaviour of Luke and the dog on the second trip down the path as their are three witnesses. And I feel more inclined to accept their initial statements that haven't possibly been tainted by the media's portrayal of Luke.

Did the initial statements comment on how Luke was controlling the dog? Did they remember him saying "seek Jodi" etc? And did any of the have to explain why their statements changed?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 07:04:PM
The only thing that changed dramatically was Luke's alibi.

But we know that's not true. Their statements definitely changed. So I don't understand your point here.

The alibi issues are troubling but that does change that the change of statements is troubling too.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2015, 07:20:PM
Yes he "hacked off his hair", he didn't simply get a haircut like teenage boys regularly do. Be sure to keep using that term, it makes it sound much more frantic and desperate and guilty!

He "hacked off his hair" because he killed Jodi, even though it was also SK. Oh and it was Jodi's brother too. (Luke's mother has a hilarious theory on how all of them may be involved.) Please choose one male relative of Jodi and focus on it because blaming them all just results in contradictions.

i agrea hacking off his hair wouldent of been that suspicious had he not been at a murder scene they before and lied about what time he had been there.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 07:26:PM
Luke's alibi was the only thing that changed 'dramatically'. It completely fell apart.

Yes we are encouraged to go by this rule, unless of course it applies to Luke's brother Shane, who originally claimed Luke wasn't at home at all at the time of the murder, he was in his room watching porn and masturbating which he wouldn't do if his brother was home. After being "reminded" by his mother, he later said Luke was home and he distinctly remembers because Luke burned their dinner. But it's ok when he forgets, people get confused all the time! But any change in what Jodi's family remember about what was undoubtedly the most traumatic night of their lives, they must be covering up a murder.

Sorry if my replies are getting at all confusing but we seem to be crossing each other's responses a bit.

I haven't been encouraged to go by this rule. Just seems sort of logical to me in less there is a reasonable explanation for the change. Which I would personally be willing to consider.

The problems with Luke's alibi are undoubtedly problems for a lot of people that point to Luke's guilt. I don't know the exact time line of what was said and what was changed and whether a reasonable explanation were given for the changes. This is something I obviously need to read more about, and will try.

But I don't think this one issue excuses the problems with the search party statements. Both issues should surely be considered.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2015, 07:26:PM
he also failed to come forward for a week even though he had been asked to do so.

thern when he does come forward he gives the wrong time for being on there.

other people have been sent down on evdence like that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2015, 07:39:PM
is it posble for 2 people to give the exact same time and both be wrong by one hour rather strange coincedence if it was just an honest mistake.

a cynic might say that they both coluded to give  the wrong time.

no it doesnt on its own mean they did it but i t does bloody suspicios to me.

to me it sounds more like a delbrate lie than a mistake.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 07:40:PM

Baz mate if you are new to this case please do not accept anything Sandra tells you at face value.

From what I understand Sandra L was once someone who was heavily involved in the effort to exonerate Luke and so, presumably, is someone who is still discussing the case from this point of view. I have no problem with this just as I have no problem with those who are coming from the opposite side.

But what I will say is that in the 190 pages of this forum I read she has consistently been presenting evidence to consider and engaged in actual debate of the evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on October 04, 2015, 07:41:PM
That's because he did it.

Case cracked by a guy who can't even spell.

We're never done hearing about how Shane's statement was wrong because it was just a regular day and nobody can remember what they are doing at any given minute. But when you ask a teenage boy what he was doing a week prior and he tells you the wrong time for mucking about in a field on a moped - he's a murderer.

You can't have it both ways!t
I agree.

I don't find it too unbelievable for Shane, or anyone else for that matter, to incorrectly remember certain times and events.

The missing coat and knife trouble me greatly. 

If Luke is guilty, that means that Corinne has lied to cover for him.  How much do we think she knows?  Would she cover for her son if she knew that he was responsible?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 04, 2015, 07:54:PM
Building a case against every male member of Jodi's family is not helpful when they conflict with one another.

She also tried to implicate Peter Tobin knowing full well it couldn't have been him. It would be laughable if not so serious.

Don't even get me started on Mark Kane.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me that in case that has stretched over years that there would have been numerous attempts to investigate other suspects, as is so often the case in cases like this. Proving someone else did it being a sure fire way of freeing someone wrongfully incarcerated.

I'm not comfortable discussing someone who I don't know who isn't here to defend herself. Your warning is noted but I'm only interested in the case not the sort of petty in fighting that seems to go with it, no offence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 08:58:PM
I agree.

I don't find it too unbelievable for Shane, or anyone else for that matter, to incorrectly remember certain times and events.

The missing coat and knife trouble me greatly. 

If Luke is guilty, that means that Corinne has lied to cover for him.  How much do we think she knows?  Would she cover for her son if she knew that he was responsible?

I don't think there is any knife unaccounted for. And I'm wondering what jacket you refer to, the fishing jacket, the army styled shirt, the pilot jacket, or the parka that not one witness mentions in their possible sightings of luke. The parka that was disposed off in a bucket used as a log burner with no forensic trace being left.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 09:08:PM
That's because he did it.

Case cracked by a guy who can't even spell.

We're never done hearing about how Shane's statement was wrong because it was just a regular day and nobody can remember what they are doing at any given minute. But when you ask a teenage boy what he was doing a week prior and he tells you the wrong time for mucking about in a field on a moped - he's a murderer.

You can't have it both ways!

That's not the whole story though is it. He cut his own hair off after the description of the two boys on the moped who the police were looking for were released. Was one of their stories not that granny had told them to lie about the time they were on the path.
The thing that bothers me about those two moped chaps is they waited a week to come forward. They could have possibly mistook the time they were there but they knew the polis were looking for them without doubt, they still took a week.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on October 04, 2015, 09:24:PM
That's not the whole story though is it. He cut his own hair off after the description of the two boys on the moped who the police were looking for were released. Was one of their stories not that granny had told them to lie about the time they were on the path.
The thing that bothers me about those two moped chaps is they waited a week to come forward. They could have possibly mistook the time they were there but they knew the polis were looking for them without doubt, they still took a week.
Maybe they were worried that they would be treated as suspects.  They would understandably, have been a little fearful of what might happen. 

I don't find their initial reluctance to come forward as overly suspicious. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 09:28:PM
Well that's obviously because by that point they've decided to frame Luke to  cover up the murder of Jodi by a family member.

Just say what you mean lol.

Maybe not frame luke exactly.Definitely been persuaded by the polis that they were sure they had their man. Asked, are you sure the dog reacted or did you just think it did.
Manipulated slightly.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 09:42:PM
I was talking about the parka that his mother replaced, the same one numerous witnesses (including school teachers) confirmed Luke owned prior to the murder. I'm willing to believe them over one person (Sandra Lean) who didn't know Luke before conviction so has no idea what items of clothing he owned.



None of his friends came forward that he owned a parka before the murder(if I have remembered correctly).Was it not only one school teacher who said this. He was in every paper in the land with the parka his mum bought after the murder for months before the trial. Simple mistake to me. Strange none of the other school teachers remember him in that jacket, no photos or such like either.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2015, 09:45:PM
Maybe they were worried that they would be treated as suspects.  They would understandably, have been a little fearful of what might happen. 

I don't find their initial reluctance to come forward as overly suspicious.

well the police had already stated they wernt suspects so and less thought this statement was lie that dident really have any reason not to.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 09:49:PM
So what's your theory mate explain what you think this suggests.

Not sure to be honest pal, haha, just niggles me. And the fact they couldn't account for what they were doing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on October 04, 2015, 09:53:PM
well the police had already stated they wernt suspects so and less thought this statement was lie that dident really have any reason not to.
I wasn't aware of that, to be honest.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 04, 2015, 10:00:PM
Not sure to be honest pal, haha, just niggles me. And the fact they couldn't account for what they were doing.

and the fact they were at the murder scene at more or less the same time the proscution cliamed the victem was murdered but said they dident see her or anybody else.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 04, 2015, 10:02:PM
I wasn't aware of that, to be honest.

That's before the DNA results were back.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 04, 2015, 11:15:PM
Yes, Marty, it was, and in keeping with the"protocols" of this case, the ground where Jodi had originally been lying was also not protected or preserved after she was moved onto the plastic sheet.

when I said protocols I was referring to fact that any competent police force or detectives will by default have the person who discovered the body as a person of interest until cleared.

It happens often where the killer attempts to fool people into thinking they discovered the body in order to make them appear innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 05, 2015, 08:38:AM
Ok, for clarity (and about the millionth time) I am not accusing anyone of anything, apart from the police.  If they had done their jobs properly, none of the questions I raise could be raised, because they would all be adequately answered. My point in raising these questions is to demonstrate that police officers did not find anything even remotely odd, unless it was connected to Luke. It was, I believe, police manipulation that changed the family's statements, which is pretty disgusting, given the grief and trauma they were suffering. The absolute police conviction that Luke was the murderer from the moment the body was found (that's official now, by the way) drove every aspect of this case. All of the protocols David rightly said we should expect were abandoned in favour of a modern day witch hunt.

Baz, the granny didn't tell them to lie about the time- they lied to her about the time and she told them not to go to the police because they were on the path too early. What I find strange is that at least 6 other members of the extended family knew they were on the path and not one of them said a word. When the time of Jodi leaving was changed, it meant the earlier time they gave was also important
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 05, 2015, 09:14:AM
The term "hacking off his hair" is not mine - it was the phrase used by witnesses in their statements - to be precise - he was cutting chunks out of his hair at the back, hacking away at it.

For ease of understanding for those who don't see where I'm coming from:

Imaginary murder investigation. Police find a condom just over 19 yards from the body - they are able to tell the semen is "fresh" (as in, it hasn't begun to degrade in the ways they would expect if it was, say more than 24 hours old.) What do they do with this information?
(a) try to find the owner - after all, he could be a crucial witness?
(b) change the location of the condom first to "within a 20 yard radius" then to "within a 50 yard radius" to distance it from their crime scene, because the DNA does not match their "person of interest"?

Witnesses come forward imediately to say two lads on a moped were acting strangely at 5pm on the evening of the murder. Two witnesses see the bike propped against the V break in the wall at 5.15pm - they can be sure of the time because it is connected with closing time at work, leaving something in the office and having to go back for it, and timing the drive from that point to the point in their journey  where they saw the bike at the V. The police, and only the police, know 5.15pm is the time of death, as this information hasn't yet been made public. Do they
(a) Assume they have absolutely critical witnesses here, and try to trace them immediately
(b) Wait two months to take statements from the witnesses who came forward immediately
(c) Trace the youths a week later, take statements about their knowledge of Luke, and eliminate them from the enquiry within 48 hours before they find out both lied about the time they were on the path (if they'd had the statements from the others, this would have been obvious straight away), one cut off his own hair, and no DNA results have been returned?

Eight crucial witnesses give a number of statements in the early part of the investigation. They were, at the time of the murder, in three separate houses. All give timings of events that evening 20 - 30 minutes earlier than those events actually happened (as proven by, for example, phone records.)

Do the police
(a) recognise that these statements are unreliable in terms of timing, and try to find out how all of these people, in three separate locations, all came to give the same wrong timings
(b) accept the information at face value, then try to explain away other, concrete evidence that the timings are wrong by making the concrete evidence "wrong?"

And so it goes, on and on throughout this entire case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 05, 2015, 12:20:PM
Baz, the granny didn't tell them to lie about the time- they lied to her about the time and she told them not to go to the police because they were on the path too early. What I find strange is that at least 6 other members of the extended family knew they were on the path and not one of them said a word. When the time of Jodi leaving was changed, it meant the earlier time they gave was also important

Not sure why this is aimed at me but didn't to be rude and not reply.

Is this a different granny than that which was searching with Luke?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 05, 2015, 12:41:PM
one of cliamed that his granny had told him not to come forward but there is only his word for that and if he lied to her about the time she couldent really give proper advice anyway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 05, 2015, 03:58:PM
Not sure why this is aimed at me but didn't to be rude and not reply.

Is this a different granny than that which was searching with Luke?

Sorry, Baz, it was Marty who posted about the gran, not you! My mistake. This is the same gran - Ferris claims he told her he was on the path half an hour earlier than he actually was, and she told him not to bother telling the police because "Jodi hadn't even left the house yet." But the time of Jodi leaving was changed to 10 to 5 (from 5.30 initially, then 5.05ish) - if the earlier time was accepted, he was on the path just 5 minutes before Jodi was eventually claimed to have left, so would (presumably) have seen "Luke" walking up to meet Jodi where Andrina Bryson claimed she made her sighting at 5.54 precisely!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 05, 2015, 04:10:PM
one of cliamed that his granny had told him not to come forward but there is only his word for that and if he lied to her about the time she couldent really give proper advice anyway.

The problem here, nugug, is that 6 other family members knew they were on the path (according to various statements) and none of them thought to mention it to the police, or tell them to contact the police themselves.

For example, one of the mothers (Dickie's, from memory) saw the police appeal for the boys on the moped to come forward and said to him "the police are looking for you." She knew what time his jobcentre appointment was, and she knew the arrangement was for Ferris to pick him up on the moped afterwards (she drove him up for petrol for the bike). If Ferris's claim that he lied to the gran about the time they were on the path was true, Dickie's mother must have known it was a lie - they were all talking to each other throughout that whole week.

Another relative said Ferris had told her he was on the path (at the time he was actually on the path, not the earlier, dishonest time) and that he'd said on July 1st he was going to go to the police.

How, with so many people knowing they were on the path at the very time police were claiming Jodi was murdered, did they manage to keep it from the police? Again, I'm not saying these two were involved in anything, I'm saying managing to keep this information out of a massive police investigation, when so many people so close to the victim knew about it, clearly had an impact on the direction (and claimed robustness) of the first week of the investigation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 05, 2015, 08:42:PM
What is rather odd I must say is that since Luke was found guilty why has the court not prosecuted his mother for perjury? After all if Luke is guilty then she has lied in court in order try and let Luke getaway with murder.

 

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 05, 2015, 09:01:PM
Luke's mother and brother were both charged with perverting the course of justice, ftr.

where they both found guilty of perjury (perverting the course of justice) ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 05, 2015, 09:06:PM
No, all the charges were dropped....go figure
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on October 05, 2015, 09:09:PM
No, all the charges were dropped....go figure

That don't make sense,
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 05, 2015, 09:13:PM
They couldn't have been lying in their testimony could they? They dropped the charges.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 05, 2015, 09:15:PM
That don't make sense,
Especially in a murder case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 05, 2015, 09:20:PM
 :o :o
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 05, 2015, 09:24:PM
If they didn't believe the alibi they have proved it. The jury called them liars in a court of law, they have to be guilty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 05, 2015, 09:26:PM
Anyway, would love to debate with you longer but am up early..cheers, till next time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 05, 2015, 11:45:PM
The police also interviewed around 3000 people even though they 'never bothered to investigate because they already decided it was Luke.'

This is interesting. That does sound like quite a lot.

Were there other suspects investigated as thoroughly as Luke? As in were there a list of suspects that were whittled down thoroughly?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 06, 2015, 08:37:AM
The police also interviewed around 3000 people even though they 'never bothered to investigate because they already decided it was Luke.'

they claimed to have done but there's only there word for that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 06, 2015, 08:50:AM
What we do know is that she had no issue with breaking the law for her son and lying about it in court. She denied lying to a tattoo parlour about Luke's age so he could get some hideous flaming skull tattoo (for his 15th birthday I believe.) She denied this in the witness stand despite staff from the tattoo parlour confirming her presence and consent, and her signature and fingerprints being on the consent form.

Source: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (Section 24)

This is the same mother who was pictured sharing cigarettes with her 14 year old son at Jodi's grave which they had been asked to stay away from by the victim's family. You'll find these pictures online of her standing at Jodi's grave in high heels and shirt tied up to expose her midriff, muzzled Alsatian by her side, and sharing and flicking cigarettes on the ground while clinging to her son like a besotted school girl. She also didn't mind him smoking weed and bought him a new knife not long after the murder.

well thats got no relvance to weather he did or not and shouldent really been used in court.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 06, 2015, 09:04:AM
The problem here, nugug, is that 6 other family members knew they were on the path (according to various statements) and none of them thought to mention it to the police, or tell them to contact the police themselves.

For example, one of the mothers (Dickie's, from memory) saw the police appeal for the boys on the moped to come forward and said to him "the police are looking for you." She knew what time his jobcentre appointment was, and she knew the arrangement was for Ferris to pick him up on the moped afterwards (she drove him up for petrol for the bike). If Ferris's claim that he lied to the gran about the time they were on the path was true, Dickie's mother must have known it was a lie - they were all talking to each other throughout that whole week.

well i would of thought there familys would of rocognised the description of them on the moped but not necessarly.

Another relative said Ferris had told her he was on the path (at the time he was actually on the path, not the earlier, dishonest time) and that he'd said on July 1st he was going to go to the police.

How, with so many people knowing they were on the path at the very time police were claiming Jodi was murdered, did they manage to keep it from the police? Again, I'm not saying these two were involved in anything, I'm saying managing to keep this information out of a massive police investigation, when so many people so close to the victim knew about it, clearly had an impact on the direction (and claimed robustness) of the first week of the investigation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 06, 2015, 06:04:PM
What we do know is that she had no issue with breaking the law for her son and lying about it in court. She denied lying to a tattoo parlour about Luke's age so he could get some hideous flaming skull tattoo (for his 15th birthday I believe.) She denied this in the witness stand despite staff from the tattoo parlour confirming her presence and consent, and her signature and fingerprints being on the consent form.

Source: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (Section 24)

This is the same mother who was pictured sharing cigarettes with her 14 year old son at Jodi's grave which they had been asked to stay away from by the victim's family. You'll find these pictures online of her standing at Jodi's grave in high heels and shirt tied up to expose her midriff, muzzled Alsatian by her side, and sharing and flicking cigarettes on the ground while clinging to her son like a besotted school girl. She also didn't mind him smoking weed and bought him a new knife not long after the murder.

More concrete evidence of murder
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 06, 2015, 06:37:PM
This is interesting. That does sound like quite a lot.

Were there other suspects investigated as thoroughly as Luke? As in were there a list of suspects that were whittled down thoroughly?

In a word, no.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 06, 2015, 07:52:PM
It wasn't used as evidence, someone asked if Corinne would lie and I was highlighting that she already had. I touched on the unhealthy and inappropriate behaviour because it shows that we can't judge Corinne Mitchell by 'normal mum' standards.

Who are you to say that? What are you talking about? You have no idea who was investigated and how thoroughly as you weren't there. Concrete argument though.  ::)

No, I do. What did dobie say they suspected luke from as early as the second.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 06, 2015, 08:02:PM
It wasn't used as evidence, someone asked if Corinne would lie and I was highlighting that she already had. I touched on the unhealthy and inappropriate behaviour because it shows that we can't judge Corinne Mitchell by 'normal

Your are trying to post it here as evidence that Corrine must have lied about her son committing murder because she let him smoke in a graveyard, get a tattoo, wears a short top and high heels.
That's it I've changed my mind, obviously guilty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 06, 2015, 08:04:PM
There were between 2 and 3000 statements taken - not that number of people interviewed. Dozens of kids whose statements started "I have been asked what I know of Luke Mitchell," (one lad's statement begins like that and continues "I don't know why, because I don't know him and have never met him!")

35 statements from neighbours talking about the log burner (none of whom noticed anything "untoward" that night).

Multiple statements from particular witnesses - I recall working out that there were, on average, something like 8 statements for every one of Jodi's family (including extended family members)

Of those statements, literally dozens of them were from police officers simply logging what they did at certain stages of the investigation - i.e. "I was tasked with patrolling the grounds of St David's High School the day the pupils returned" and so on.

There may have been 2 - 3000 statements, but how many of them were actually the result of genuine investigation (rather than simply attempts to gather damning information about Luke?)

For accuracy, Corinne's fingerprints were never found on the form from the tattoo parlour, nor was her signature on it. A single thumbprint from Luke was identified, which would be expected, since he signed the form. I've said before, the only thing Corinne was guilty of in the tattoo episode was being Luke's mother, and she certainly never denied that! Seriously, can you imagine - "I've come for a tattoo, I'm over 18 and I've brought my mum along to prove it" - please!

The males close to Jodi were not "ruled out one by one." Their stories were either accepted at face value, or the police handed them "innocent explanations" - SK and Janine both say, in statements "I have been asked if it is possible the t shirt Jodi was wearing that night belonged to me/Janine." That'll be the T shirt that had Kelly's DNA from bodily fluids on it.

Ferris and Dickie were "ruled out" before police discovered they'd lied, Ferris cut his hair, and before the DNA results had been returned. So, on what basis were they ruled out? The statements from the witnesses that proved they were lying were not taken until two months later - by which time the investigation was hurtling full pelt down the "Luke Mitchell's our murderer" route.

What about Falconer? His condom was found in the early hours of the morning, he lived a stone's throw from the murder scene, police were in his house on the second day of the investigation, and still they didn't connect the DNA from that condom with him - took them another three and a half years. Then they ruled him out again, even though his own story meant he would have literally have had to step over Jodi's body twice, in daylight, on the evening of June 30th.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 06, 2015, 08:11:PM
I'm not trying anything, I'm telling you as a matter of fact that Corinne lied in the witness box about this particular incident. The discussion was originally about her perverting the course of justice. I provided an example of when she demonstrably lied in court.
they claimed to have done but there's only there word for that.
[/quote
Dobie also claimed it was the finest investigation that he  had ever seen... we all know that's a lot of pish :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 06, 2015, 08:25:PM
No, as previously stated, 3000 people were not interviewed.

The DNA on Luke's trousers was actually on a pair of trousers which had been in a bag in his room for several days - there was nothing to connect those trousers to the murder/murder scene, and the forensics expert who raised this in court was shot down in flames. There was no DNA from Luke on Jodi's body or clothing - that is none. One exert tried to claim that partial profiles on Jodi matched "parts of" Luke's profile - she too, was forced to concede that that could not be claimed as a "match" to anyone

Here's how desperate they were to make a connection via DNA - one report flags up a partial profile from the crime scene as one fom which "Luke could not be eliminated as a contributor." That means some of the "markers" from Luke's profile matched some of the "markers" from the sample found. The report, however, concludes that this particular marker could be expected to appear in the profiles of ... are you ready ... 1 in every 2 people.

No full DNA profile from Luke was found at the murder scene, ever. One full DNA match to Jodi was found on a pair of trousers in Luke's house - other testing ruled that sample out as having been deposited the day/night of the murder. Really, if they'd had a full profile from Jodi on any article of Luke's that linked it to the murder, does anyone really believe they wouldn't have hammered that home at trial?

"The jury heard both sides" ... oh no, they most certainy did not. What about the education professional who was ready to give testimony that the scribblings on Luke's jotters were "tame" in comparison to many she'd seen over the years? What about the witnesses ready to testify about Luke's love of animals, and his kindness towards them? What about the positive identifications of people who were still, by the time of trial, being claimed as "untraced." What about the 35 people who not only said there was nothing untoward about the log burner that evening, but several of them spoke of the citronella candle which had gone up in flames a week later, causing a "strong smell" to permeate all the homes in that particular "block?" Not one of them before the jury.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 06, 2015, 08:33:PM
They suspected him because his lack of emotion and strange behaviour, that doesn't mean they didn't investigate anybody else. As I previously mentioned, over 3000 people were witnessed by L&B. While they couldn't link him forensically (murder weapon and jacket vanishing off the face of the Earth, and DNA having an innocent explanation due to them being a couple*) in the end the circumstantial evidence was just too damning. To think he almost got away with it, scary thought.

*yes Luke's DNA were found on Jodi, and her's on his trousers. Findlay had to provide an innocent explaination for this at the trial. If you've read the Wrongly Accused site you've probably saw them saying there wasn't a shred of DNA linking Luke to the scene - simply untrue and dishonest.

I'd like to know how Luke could describe to police what Jodi was wearing at the time of the murder if he hadn't seen her since school and she had changed. He even described a hair 'scrunchie' which was covered by Jodi's hair at the murder scene.

Now you are just being naughty now. You know fine well the DNA on the trousers were from a pair that were nothing to do with the murder and were taken from Luke's home with hundreds of other items for testing. As discussed by you 100 pages ago by you on this thread. And it was only jodi on his trousers.


Posting newspaper articles as fact doesn't help
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 06, 2015, 08:35:PM
"They suspected him because of his lack of emotion and strange behaviour."

(1) Not according to the police - they suspected him for a number of reasons, all of them based on misinformation and misunderstandings, but their official reason for suspecting Luke was the "discrepancies between his accounts and the accounts of the family search trio." One problem here - by July 3rd, there were no discrepancies. The search trio and Luke were all telling exactly the same story - in fact, until July 30th, they were pretty much all telling the same story.

(2) Not according to the statements of the family search trio - Janine said she knew from the "concern in Luke's voice" that he had found something bad behind the wall. She said "His eyes were wider than normal, like he was in a state of shock." Kelly described Luke as, variously "scared," nervous" and "jumpy." Janine said "we were all in hysterics. Kelly said, "We were all so upset.

So where's the lack of emotion or strange behaviour?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 06, 2015, 08:48:PM
I think to be fair sandra, df must take his share of the blame for a lot the jury never heard.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 06, 2015, 09:00:PM
Yeah findlays a rubbish wee lawyer, doesn't know what he's doing. If only Sandra was there.

If the trousers were so irrelevant why did Findlay feel he had to explain it away at the trial?

HAHAHA
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 06, 2015, 10:00:PM
For Lithium, step by step.

The "expert" raising the trousers/dna evidence was challenged by Findlay to explain, clearly and lucidly to the jury, the relevance of the "evidence" just raised.

Amidst much waffling, the expert was forced to concede that the trousers/dna could not, in any way, be linked to the murder, the murder scene, or to draw any assumption, however feeble, of a link between the two.

It was, in fact, the "expert" who broke the rules here, and Findlay who stomped all over it. Finday handled that particularly well - he didn't "feel he had to explain it away" - he demonstrated, quite clearly, that the "expert" was making false claims about the relevance of the DNA sample on the trousers

However, an objection had been raised to that false evidence being heard by the jury, on the basis that it was prejudicial and without foundation, and that objection was over-ruled - the jury heard it anyway, in its full prejudicial form.

The rules of our courts are quite clear - the probative value of any evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect - didn't happen here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 06, 2015, 10:08:PM
I think to be fair sandra, df must take his share of the blame for a lot the jury never heard.

I totally agree, but again, there's more to it than just that. I have to call it a night at this point - will come back to talk about this point tomorrow evening
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 07, 2015, 07:04:PM
I've been reading about the trial. is it usual for the judge to basically say there's enough evidence to find him guilty if you believe the evidence?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 08:29:PM
Would be funnier if not for the fact you require 0 evidence (of which there's none) to convince you he's not guilty.

I see you don't reply to sandra cause you get ripped a new one.
You will find I addressed that a few pages ago. Will find it if you like but am sure you read it. :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 08:33:PM
Is this not after conviction at appeal. I only looked at the first one to be honest.
I meant evidence that convicted in the first place.
DNA
Positive I'd
Forensics
Recovery of clothes
Murder weapon
Right to a fair trial.
Believable motive
A time line not manipulated by 40 minutes suit by police
Failure to follow up other possibilities

There it is
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 08:34:PM
I've been reading about the trial. is it usual for the judge to basically say there's enough evidence to find him guilty if you believe the evidence?


Looking for a conviction perhaps
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 08:41:PM
Give yourself a break, you spout stuff you have read in the papers or rumours as the truth. Where as sl has had all the case files an terms you on all points cause she is telling the truth and you have no answer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 08:43:PM
Show me the proof that convicted
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 08:47:PM
Sandra's not telling me anything I don't already know. She still has no evidence or clue if Luke's innocent.

I think it's lack of evidence that's the telling factor
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 08:52:PM
I'm not from Edinburgh mate , why?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 09:04:PM
Your talking about things that didn't exist, hence not found, so you can't call that evidence. Give me something concrete shown in court like a knife, jacket. The carving is evidence of what?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 09:18:PM
Can I ask what first got you interested in this case?


A couple of people I know from the area were talking about it one night. They were convinced of innocence and knew the two of them. They told me who they thought it was, but I don't agree. I read into it a lot more which convinced me they were right. No chance he was capable or it was him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 09:23:PM
Right about who it was? You think you figured who really killed Jodi or you just mean right about him being innocent?

Right about innocence.. I have my own theory though
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 07, 2015, 09:30:PM
Well, would you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 07, 2015, 11:55:PM
I've been reading about the trial. is it usual for the judge to basically say there's enough evidence to find him guilty if you believe the evidence?

it is a tad baised.. but it wasnt the first a judge has done that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 08, 2015, 06:55:AM
Sorry to go all technical here, but it's perfectly normal for the judge to say "there is a sufficiency of evidence to convict... if the jury believes the "evidence."

Before a case goes to trial, there's a process of "examining" the prosecution evidence "at its highest" - that means, what does the prosecution case say before there have been any arguments against it - that's what decides whether or not there is a sufficiency of evidence to convict.

So for example, the prosecution case "at its highest" here is that (1) We have a witness who saw a youth and  girl at the Easthouses end of the path - we (the prosecution) contend that these people were Jodi and Luke (and therefore can place Luke Mitchell near the murder scene at the time of the murder (2) This proves his alibi is untrue (and his brother's uncertainty about the evening coupled with his use of a mobile phone suppports this contention) and (3) Luke Mitchell had specialist knowledge of the crime because he led searchers to the body.

If all three of those were proven to be true, the judge can conclude that together, they constitute "sufficient evidence." It may be "normal" but is it justice? Or is it just a way to make really flimsy cases look and sound more robust than they are?

For example, did you know the actual legal position is that it's not for jurors to decide which witnesses they understand, they are simly asked to decided which witnesses they believe - that's why the evidnce from the forensics expert is so important - even if the jury did not understand the intricacies of DNA evidence, if they believed this witness, that's all that's needed to convict, even though she was taking utter rubbish in what could be seen as a cynical attempt to get the jury to believe that an unconnected DNA sample was, in fact, important.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 08, 2015, 06:59:AM
Sorry, just to clarify, the three contentions are what decide, at the beginning, whether there is a case to answer. When the judge tells the jury there is "sufficient evidence to convict" after all of the evidence has been heard, he's referring to these original contentions, and saying, in effect, if you still believe the prosecution case, after hearing the evidence you've heard, you can return a guiilty verdict.

But should a judge be making such a claim after the evidence has been heard? Is it just a way of subtly influencing jurors under the guise of "guidance?"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 08, 2015, 07:15:AM
Quote
Why is it so inconceivable that perhaps the person who stabbed Jodi was indeed the person she had arranged to meet who was also known to carry knives? You and Sandra don't know that it wasn't. Don't post your personal opinion as facts please, you could be campaigning to free a murderer for all you know. I wouldn't risk that unless I had some evidence he was innocent

There was no "missing" knife - the whole missing knife thing was a massive smokescreen used to introduce confusion and suspicion. The knife that was claimed to be missing was handed to Nigel Beaumont (Luke's solicitor) just after the second raid on Luke's house (August 18th 2003, from memory). The knife produced in court said to be "like" the missing knife (that wasn't missing) was, by the pathologist's own admission, too short to have caused the injuries suffered by Jodi.

"Campaigning to free a murderer?" Can we get a little bit real here? My daughters were12 and 13 at the time of Jodi's murder. The eldest went to Newbattle High School, and the youngest was going there that autumn. We lived just 10 minutes walk from Newbattle High. Do you honestly believe a mother in those circumstances, in an area where a 14 year old girl has been so brutally murdered, would campaign to free "the murderer" right back into her own community, putting her own daughters, their friends, and every other young girl in the area at risk?

You may think what you like, but there was a lot of work and soul searching which went into my involvement in this case. I do not believe there was justice for Jodi or her family obtained here - they were lied to, manipulated and misled from the off - that's a pretty disgusting way to treat a grieving family. And you're right, I didn't know the Mitchells or the Joneses prior to June 2003 which, I would suggest, would make my involvement all the more strange, unless, by the time I became involved, I was convinced there was something badly wrong with the whole case, and believed my daughters to be at risk because of that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 11:18:AM
Sorry to go all technical here, but it's perfectly normal for the judge to say "there is a sufficiency of evidence to convict... if the jury believes the "evidence."

Don't apologise, that's what I was hoping for.

Interesting to know. It felt so prejudicial when I read it that I was shocked. But I guess if it's the norm then the shock is just my lack of expertise.

Thanks for the information.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 11:35:AM

For example, did you know the actual legal position is that it's not for jurors to decide which witnesses they understand, they are simly asked to decided which witnesses they believe - that's why the evidnce from the forensics expert is so important - even if the jury did not understand the intricacies of DNA evidence, if they believed this witness, that's all that's needed to convict, even though she was taking utter rubbish in what could be seen as a cynical attempt to get the jury to believe that an unconnected DNA sample was, in fact, important.

Is this Mahasweta Roy? And is this relating to the trousers mentioned in an earlier post that were removed from Luke's room? Did she present this as significant?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 11:49:AM
Sorry for the multiple posts but whilst I'm here there was something else bothering me.

The Elizabeth Short/Black Dahlia connection that the prosecution seemed to want to make. From what I read the pathologist asked about this said that there were only subtle similarities between the cases and another pathologist said there were no similarities. Is this right?

So, the thing that is bothering me, how is this allowed to be produced as evidence? So Marilyn Manson was obsessed with the murder and you own one of his CDs (bought after the murder if I remember correctly) but the crimes themselves are wildly different. So how is it relevant to the jury? But even without proving the connection/relevance of Short's murder they have surely left the jurors with some impression that it is significant.

Sorry, started to ramble a bit then. What I mean is surely this evidence could influence the jury's impression of Luke/the crime despite technically having no relevance at all (that I can see!)

(I owned the special dvd edition of that Manson album too, I might dig it out!)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 08, 2015, 04:41:PM
Is this Mahasweta Roy? And is this relating to the trousers mentioned in an earlier post that were removed from Luke's room? Did she present this as significant?

From memory, yes, she was the "professional" who tried to claim that there was DNA from Jodi "connected to" a pair of trousers belonging to Luke - thankfully Findlay pointed out that those trousers, were not connected to the murder, therefore the "link" was non existent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 04:56:PM
From memory, yes, she was the "professional" who tried to claim that there was DNA from Jodi "connected to" a pair of trousers belonging to Luke - thankfully Findlay pointed out that those trousers, were not connected to the murder, therefore the "link" was non existent.

That's interesting, thanks. I wonder why she felt the need to bring up the trousers as they were irrelevant to the crime. I can't see that she has anything to gain from trying to include this evidence. Strange.

I've been reading The Scotsman's accounts of the trial, difficult to find many other sources of information with many details, and during her testimony she is shown photos of clothes belonging to Luke that it is assumed he was wearing that night, I think. One of the items shown is a green bomber jacket. So why all this fuss about a parka? Are these actually the clothes he was wearing with his friends and the search party and it is assumed that the hypothetical parka was blood stained, destroyed and changed for a bomber before heading out again?

The Scotsman isn't always clear.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 08, 2015, 04:59:PM
The pathologist said at trial there were "superficial" similarities. The same pathologist said, in the BBC documentary that the "similarities" were that both murders included "slashing type" wounds - in other words, the "simiarities" could in no way suggest a "link" between the two murders (any more than they could suggest a "link" between other murders which involved slashing type wounds.)

The suggestion was that Luke had carried out a "copy-cat" killing, using the watercoloour paintings of the Dahlia murder by Manson as his "guide." Nimmo Smith even said he thought Luke had "carried those images in his mind."

Big, big problem here. There was no evidence produced to show that Luke had ever seen those images. The home computer was checked, other computers Luke had access to were checked - nothing. No access, anywhere, to the water colour paintings. The cop who had "researched" them admitted that they were "not easy to find" and that you "had to know what you were looking for."

How was this ever accepted as "evidence?" Even the judge, by making the above claim, demonstrated that he, himself, had been influenced by the hype, because there was no evidence produced in his court, during a trial over which he presided, to support his claim. So there you have it - the prosecution only has to make an accusation, no evidence required to back it up, and the judge will accept it as proven - that is one of the reasons this case worries me so much.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 08, 2015, 05:10:PM
The bomber/parka jacket theory. They never quite specified what they thought had happened - Luke was wearing the bomber in the afternoon at school, and later, when he was taken to the police station after Jodi's body was found.

But here's the bit I find really interesting. On August 14th, following the second raid, they were grilling Luke about what he was wearing the evening of the murder. They claimed to have more than 50 witnesses, all describing Luke "to a T" wearing ... ready ... a German army shirt. Not a parka, not a bomber jacket, but a German Army shirt. The very next day, the first pictures of Luke wearning the parka his mother bought after the murder (the police had the receipt) appeared in the papers on August 15th - the very next day.

Luke was never questioned about a Parka, missing or otherwise, until April 2004, 8 months later, yet police claimed their "suspicions were raised" when they searched his house and found the parka "missing." That had to have been the raid on July 4th (since by August 14th, he had a parka, so there was no "missing" parka.) But by July 4th, there were no statements about Luke and a parka, nor even by August 14th (as evidenced by their line of questioning.) As a matter of fact, the first statements about Luke wearing a parka began to appear ... after he was pictured in the media wearing one.

So, what about all these witnesses saying they'd seen Luke in a german army shirt on the evening of the murder, directly after the time it was claimed Jodi was murdered? Why weren't they all paraded into court to challenge the "parka witnesses?" After all, the claim has been that "all those witnesses" (to the parka" can't have been mistaken, yet it appears we have 50+ witnesses who were all mistaken about the army shirt?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 05:15:PM

How was this ever accepted as "evidence?" Even the judge, by making the above claim, demonstrated that he, himself, had been influenced by the hype, because there was no evidence produced in his court, during a trial over which he presided, to support his claim. So there you have it - the prosecution only has to make an accusation, no evidence required to back it up, and the judge will accept it as proven - that is one of the reasons this case worries me so much.

This is what I was getting at, but you made more sense!!

The thing that worries me most about this particular line of enquiry is that by it being presented as true, that Luke was obsessed with Manson and the paintings etc, it makes it more understandable in the mind of the public/jury. It adds some sense to how a 14 year old with no evidential motive COULD do this. It's a story you can understand now even though that understanding has no basis in the evidence presented.

How that was allowed to happen seems very odd to me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 05:43:PM


Luke was never questioned about a Parka, missing or otherwise, until April 2004, 8 months later, yet police claimed their "suspicions were raised" when they searched his house and found the parka "missing."


It seems to me, and this is speculation so please no one take this is as fact, that in the post conviction analysis of the case police were asked a lot of questions about why they had focused on Luke so early and they couldn't really answer it. The reason I say this is that the reasons given all seem to have proven false e.g the parka (as mentioned above) and the supposed discrepancies between the statement given by Luke and the statements of the search party (which have been shown not to come about till later statements/the trial!)

And this sort of sums it up for me. This is from Dobbie, the detective chief inspector not the house elf:

"I am open to suggestions as to where we could have made improvements in the investigation, but I can’t think of anything obvious."

It's like a wilful decision not to learn from mistakes. How about all the fundamental errors at the crime scene such as a tent to protect from the rain or not moving stuff, Dobbie? What's that, it's "the finest crime scene" you've ever seen?

It doesn't give you much faith in the team that ran this investigation, does it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 08, 2015, 06:06:PM
Dobbie (you may be right, not the house elf!) is on record as saying:

When the results came back (from the labs) there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.

And Dobbie lied. If the above was true, why did the DNA results state "Jodi Jones and unknown male"? How did Falconer's DNA (recorded in the DNA results as "UNKNOWN MALE TWO) come to be finally identified three years later? Why were there no less than 10 references to "unknown male" in the DNA results? So Dobbie lied to the media.

But in the same article, he said police "did not want to arrest Luke until they were sure the circumstantial evidence as "correct." The correct circumstantial evidence was that they had unidentified male DNA at the murder scene which was not ruled out by the time of Luke's arrest or conviction and, apart from that one sample, remains unidentified to this day.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 06:20:PM
I remember reading this and it seems like further evidence of rewriting history. For starters, and I might be wrong, but there was none of Luke's DNA identified.

Was there any official investigation into the police's conduct after the trial?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 08, 2015, 06:23:PM
Thanks for the refresher, it's amazing what you start to remember again about this vast case. I read the 1000 page thread but it's hard to remember everything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 06:25:PM
Thanks for the refresher, it's amazing what you start to remember again about this vast case. I read the 1000 page thread but it's hard to remember everything.

It was years ago that I was first interested and I forgot it all but the broad strokes in that time. I'm slowly piecing it back together.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 08, 2015, 06:27:PM
It was years ago that I was first interested and I forgot it all but the broad strokes in that time. I'm slowly piecing it back together.

There's a lot to take in Baz, you need reminding of the facts now and again.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 06:35:PM
True.

Does Luke have any more appeals to pursue? Does he have an active campaign still going to free him?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 08, 2015, 06:43:PM
Yes, I believe they are still perusing areas, avenues.
Mojo have taken over the case from sandra and there is a fair bit still going on. I'm sure sandra said she hopes to be able to discuss some of it in the not to distant.
It must have been hard for everyone to pick themselves back up after the last submission.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 08, 2015, 06:46:PM
Yes, I believe they are still perusing areas, avenues.
Mojo have taken over the case from sandra and there is a fair bit still going on. I'm sure sandra said she hopes to be able to discuss some of it in the not to distant.
It must have been hard for everyone to pick themselves back up after the last submission.

Well least I can hold on to the hope of something in the future giving us a definitive answer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 08, 2015, 10:12:PM
Thanks for the refresher, it's amazing what you start to remember again about this vast case. I read the 1000 page thread but it's hard to remember everything.

All stored in my head - not sure if that's a blessing or a curse! As I said previously, I'm only commenting here as a member of the public - not in any "official" capacity - but I have this strange ability to remember dates, times, small details, etc, from stuff I've seen/studied, so a lot of what I'm able to post is based on that.

I do obviously have my notes, copies of "non official" data and so on, but by law, I was required to hand over everything "official" to the SCCRC, so no longer have access to that in its original form, if you know what I mean.

Future appeals, routes to remedy, avenues for further action are still very much available, although I will not be officially involved directly in any of them. Whatever updates I can make public, I will, although, as always, the over-riding concern is to not jeopardise any proceedings which may happen in the future for Luke or anyone else
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 09, 2015, 01:21:AM
i forgot just how complicated this case was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 10, 2015, 01:42:AM
Can you explain how the parka has been proven false? Sandra doesn't know. The several witnesses who testified that he did own a parka prior to the murder actually knew Luke. It's far from proven false please don't post such misinformation.

I was only referring to the reason for suspecting Luke early being the parka seems to be false. Not the existence or ownership of the parka in general, that's something I haven't studied carefully.

Is that any better Lithium?

P.s. Love the new picture.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 10, 2015, 07:45:AM
Falconer's DNA has absolutely no connection to the murder scene and you know it, so I suggest you stop typing the poor guy's name on forums. And while we're on the subject - do you honestly believe if SK ejaculated at the scene there wouldn't be far more DNA than 'traces' of semen on a shirt? This is why it can safely be considered an innocent transfer, i.e. obviously not transferred at the scene - not relevant to the murder.

I'd like to make two points here. Firstly, the post was about the fact that Dobbie's claim of "no unknown DNA samples" was false. Secondly, no-one could have known until late 2006 more than 3 years after the murder whether or not Falconer's DNA was linked to the murder - another example of a shoddy investigation. (Please note, neither of these points casts any shadow of suspicion on Falconer.)

What I do have some difficulty with is Falconer's own account of what he was doing that night and first thing the following morning. He lied about where he got the condoms (remember this is more than 3 years later, and Luke's already been in prison nearly two of those, so Falconer was not in any real "trouble"). When asked why he lied (rather than, for example, the believable "I don't remember, it was years ago") he said "I had to say something." OK, I agree, not the end of the world, but why deliberately lie? But it's his account of his actions on June 30th which interest me most.

According to where he said he walked (which could be accepted as broadly correct given the original claim of the distance of the condom from the body) he could not possibly have failed to see Jodi's body, both on the way down, and on the way back. If he used the exact route he claims to have used, he would have had to literally step over her body. That tells us two things - either Falconer is lying, or Jodi's body was not there when Falconer was - and that means Jodi was not murdered at the spot behind the wall at 5.15pm. So which was it, and why, 12 years later, do we still not know the answers?

Lithium's argument here about Kelly's DNA is, of course Lithium's own opinion posted as fact. I have never, ever suggested that Kelly ejaculated at the scene, or have I ever seen anyone else make such a claim. However, it is not certain that, even if he had, there would have been "far more DNA than traces on a shirt." That's a whole other discussion which I don't have time to go into in detail this morning - I can come back to it later tomorrow if anyone wants to go through it.

But
Quote
This is why it can safely be considered an innocent transfer, i.e. obviously not transferred at the scene - not relevant to the murder.
Sorry, Lithium, but the prosecution's argument, that semen and sperm heads may have been transfered from one item of Jodi's clothing to another by rainwater diffusion at the scene would have to stand for any semen, sperm heads, or any other bodily fluid containing identifiable DNA profiles, regardless of how those fluids got there. Or it's dismissed as total nonsense, and the "innocent explanation" for the DNA on the shirt evaporates with the rainwater!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 10, 2015, 03:33:PM

Lithium's argument here about Kelly's DNA is, of course Lithium's own opinion posted as fact. I have never, ever suggested that Kelly ejaculated at the scene, or have I ever seen anyone else make such a claim. However, it is not certain that, even if he had, there would have been "far more DNA than traces on a shirt." That's a whole other discussion which I don't have time to go into in detail this morning - I can come back to it later tomorrow if anyone wants to go through it.


I would like to understand the DNA found better, so please do.

I'll try and read up a bit first.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 11, 2015, 12:38:AM
I've been trying cobble together a time line.

Disclaimers: this isn't all correct no doubt and is me trying to get information, not give it. So anyone reading it, read it with that in mind please. Secondly, this is clearly the prosecutions timeline (I even titled it!) only, and I'm aware a lot of this is questionable. This is more about what has to be believed as true for the jury to convict. Maybe I'll question it all next.

Prosecution Timeline:

4:50 Jodi leaves the house to meet Luke.

4:49 - 4:54 Adrina Bryson witnesses a couple at Jodi's end of the path.

5:00 John Farris and Gordon Dickie are on and around the path and the gap in the wall. They do not see Luke or Jodi.

5:40 Luke phones Jodi's home and discovers she has left.

5:40 - 5:55 Lorraine Fleming and Rosmary Walsh witness Luke hanging around near the path.

5:55 - 6pm A group of teenagers (Holbourn, Houston, Elliot) witness Luke on a road near the path entrance.

6:05 Carol Heattie witnesses Luke hanging around near a driveway.

6:32 Luke phones David High to meet up.

6:30 - 7:30 Mrs Frankland smells a fire.

7:05 Luke meets David High in the woods.

9:00 Franklands both smell a fire.

10:00 George Ramage smells a fire.

10:00 The Frankland neighbours see Luke.

10:40 Judith Jones texts Luke's phone.

11:00 Jodi's sister, her fiancé and grandmother set out searching for Jodi.

This is mostly from reading about the trial in various newspapers and reading here.

Questions I have:

Firstly, what did I miss or get wrong?

Secondly, I feel like I need to understand the geography of the area better.

So the path that this all centres around runs between where Luke and Jodi lived. How long a walk is it from Jodi's to the path and Luke's to the path? And roughly how long would it take one to walk the length of the path; I've seen statements of between 15-30 minutes.
What are the areas at each end called? I have Jodi's end as Newbattle in my head?

And then more specifics on the various witnesses.

Which end of the path were JF and GD seen? What were their journeys and times? When was his bike seen at the gap and how far down the path is the gap?

What time was Leonard Kelly cycling? Where and when was it he heard the noise?

Which end of path did LF and RW see Luke?

Which end of the path did Carol Heattie see Luke?

Where did the three teenagers see Luke?

I've read that at 4:15 Someone answered Luke's home phone. Why is this relevant?

Well I think that's enough!!






Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 11, 2015, 05:57:PM
JF probably is lying. I think it's safe to assume he was more than likely having sex in the woods with someone whose name he doesn't want to disclose (could be many reasons for this - cheating on a partner? a male? an underage girl? or for the same reason loads of people prefer to keep their sex life private.) If it was anything to do with Jodi, her DNA would surely be on the outside of the condom, but we already know she wasn't raped. Unless he randomly decided to murder a stranger and masturbate over what he had done. (While being cautious enough to use a condom to avoid leaving DNA - then daft enough to dump the condom nearby.)

its was crap lie considering he had 3 years to think it up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 11, 2015, 09:29:PM
Sorry, I got back much later than intended, so I'll do this in stages tonight and tomorrow.
Quote
Prosecution Timeline:

4:50 Jodi leaves the house to meet Luke.
Previously 5.30 and 5.05 respectively. The police reconstruction exactly a week later had the Jodi lookalike leaving her mother's house at "a few minutes after 5" to place her on the Easthouses road at 5.05 to coincide with the "stocky man" sighting.

Quote
4:49 - 4:54 Adrina Bryson witnesses a couple at Jodi's end of the path.

This is the timeframe in which it was claimed AB could have been driving past the entrance to the path. According to the prosecution, Jodi didn't leave home until 4,50, so the AB sighting couldn't have been 4.49. It takes 2 mins 40 seconds to walk from Jodi's house to the entrance to the path, so AB's sighting couldn't have been before 4:52:40, so the actual window for this sighting is 1 minute and 20 seconds - 4.52.40 - 4.54 (using the prosecution and police timings.)

Quote
5:00 John Farris and Gordon Dickie are on and around the path and the gap in the wall. They do not see Luke or Jodi.

5:00 - 5.15 - and John Ferris

Quote
5:40 Luke phones Jodi's home and discovers she has left.

5.32, Luke calls Jodi's home, but the call does not connect (engaged or unanswered). 5.40 he calls again and is told she has left.

Quote
5:40 - 5:55 Lorraine Fleming and Rosmary Walsh witness Luke hanging around near the path.

Originally almost 6pm - no earlier time possible because of people's finishing times at work. Original sighting claimed to be at Newbattle Abbey College entrance, not "close to the path." Police timings place the walk to Newbattle entrance to the path from the end of Luke's street (directly opposite the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College) at 5 minutes, at a "brisk" pace - that's a police "brisk" pace, not a civilian one.

Quote
5:55 - 6pm A group of teenagers (Holbourn, Houston, Elliot) witness Luke on a road near the path entrance.

At the end of his street, directly opposite the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College - see above.

Quote
6:05 Carol Heattie witnesses Luke hanging around near a driveway.

The entrance to Barondale Cottages, a few yards from the end of his street/the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College. She sees "a youth" - she does not know Luke

Quote
6:32 Luke phones David High to meet up.

6:30 - 7:30 Mrs Frankland smells a fire.

There was a second call between Luke and David High - don't have the time or direction of the call to hand - will come back to you on this - Luke had wandered into the Abbey grounds, from memory, one called the other saying "where are you" because the meeting point was an area where there was a bridge, but there were, in fact two bridges. (Having since checked out the area, there are several bridges, so I can only assume that Luke and David each knew of "a" bridge, and initially assumed each other was talking about the same bridge.)

Mrs Frankland said she smelled "woodsmoke."

Quote
7:05 Luke meets David High in the woods.

9:00 Franklands both smell a fire.

Mrs Frankland said she smelled smoke around 6.30 - 7pm, because she had been out feeding the rabbit, and again later - she thought it was around 9 o'clock. Mr Frankland didn't initially mention having smelled smoke himself at 9 o'clock- he later said his wife had mentioned smelling smoke sometime after 9 o'clock -  later still, he said he saw Luke passing the window, must have been around 10 o'clock, and somehow, his recollection of smelling smoke himself is timed at just a few minutes before he sees Luke - around 10pm.

Quote
10:00 George Ramage smells a fire.

No time originally claimed for this other than "late evening" - he had been doing some DIY and was putting the tools away when he smelled "funny smelling smoke." Specific time coincides with Mr Frankland's almost 10'oclock smelling of smoke (see above).

Quote
10:00 The Frankland neighbours see Luke.

Mr Frankland claims to have seen Luke. No statement from Mrs Frankland supporting Mr Frankland's claim of a conversation between them as Luke passed the window.

Quote
10:40 Judith Jones texts Luke's phone.

10.38 - Judith texts Luke. 10:40 Luke calls back - second try, call did not connect first time. Appeal documents have Luke's call back timed at 10.41 - I don't know where the extra minute came from - the phone logs show 10.40.

Quote
11:00 Jodi's sister, her fiancé and grandmother set out searching for Jodi.

11.09, Search trio leave Alice's house (according to official timings).

Quote
So the path that this all centres around runs between where Luke and Jodi lived. How long a walk is it from Jodi's to the path and Luke's to the path? And roughly how long would it take one to walk the length of the path; I've seen statements of between 15-30 minutes.
What are the areas at each end called? I have Jodi's end as Newbattle in my head?

Jodi lived at the Easthouses end of the path, Luke at the Newbattle end. Official police timings - the end of Luke's street to the Newbattle entrance to the path - 5 mins at a brisk pace. The path itself, 11 mins at a brisk pace. No timings from the end of the path to the entrance to the path (this was a track through wasteland)- having walked it, I'd say 2 - 3 mins normal pace, entrance to the path to Jodi's house 2 mins 40 seconds. (For completion, Luke's house to the end of his street where official police timings began) 2 mins.

So, path itself, 11 mins at a police "brisk pace." Luke's house to Jodi's house approximately 24 minutes at a march. Normal walking speed would make that a fair bit longer. I walked from the entrance to the path with someone Alice Walker's age, for example, and it took a fraction under 20 minutes for us to reach the V break, which is just over halfway down the path - even allowing the police "brisk pace" for the remainder of the journey to Luke's house, it would still have taken another 12.5 minutes to reach Luke's house.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 11, 2015, 09:46:PM
JF probably is lying. I think it's safe to assume he was more than likely having sex in the woods with someone whose name he doesn't want to disclose (could be many reasons for this - cheating on a partner? a male? an underage girl? or for the same reason loads of people prefer to keep their sex life private.) If it was anything to do with Jodi, her DNA would surely be on the outside of the condom, but we already know she wasn't raped. Unless he randomly decided to murder a stranger and masturbate over what he had done. (While being cautious enough to use a condom to avoid leaving DNA - then daft enough to dump the condom nearby.)

Missing the point again. Nobody is claiming Falconer was guilty of anything (apart from lying 3 years after the event!) The argument as far as I'm concerned is that the so-called investigation was a farce. A full DNA profile, 20 yards from the mutilated body of a 14 year old girl is found in a condom with semen less than 24 hours old contained within it, and they can't find the person to whom it belongs, even though he lives 300 yards from the murder scene? They are in his house within 24 hours of the murder, and they still don't make the connection? He decides it's a very good idea to wander into a full blown murder investigation, yards from where the body is still lying and masturbate behind a tree, with cops swarming everywhere, and they still don't find him in order to eliminate him from the enquiry?

Don't you see, Lithium, these questions should have been answered in 2003. We shouldn't still be discussing them 12 years later. Falconer should have been traced, questioned and eliminated 12 years ago, if the police had done their job properly.

But if that's how badly their investigative skills failed (a) how can we be sure they properly "investigated" Luke, and (b) how confident can we be that they properly investigated anybody who could, and perhaps should, have been considered persons of interest?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 11, 2015, 10:46:PM
Thanks Sandra. I'm going to digest before responding but wanted to say thanks.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 12, 2015, 06:57:AM
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.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 12, 2015, 12:39:PM
"What I said" (or, indeed, what others involved in the applications said) is centred specifically around the points being made for the Commission to review - applications to the commission are not intended to cover every single aspect of the case.

Unless the distance of the condom from the body was a point of contention which the commission was being asked to review, then the "official" information has to be used.

The application asked the commission to consider the fact that individuals who would, in what we consider "normal" circumstances in a murder enquiry, become persons of interest were not properly investigated, and therefore the investigation and prosecution built against Luke from that investigation, were both biased from the off. The distance of the condom from the body is irrelevant to that point (although not irrelevant to the overall case.)

Quoting information out of context leads to all sorts of misunderstandings, and it's better if people don't do that if they genuinely want to discuss the case factually and accurately.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 13, 2015, 03:33:PM
I'm still obsessively reading about this case and happened upon a long forgotten forum in which people were discussing the case (some familiar names from here!) and found some helpful maps with routes and drawings of Jodi's clothing with what forensic evidence was found and where.

I don't know who created these pictures/maps or for what purpose or how accurate they are. I took screenshots on my iPad of them and wondered if I could/should post them here? I don't know anything about intellectual property, so it might not be allowed.

I might be able to find links to the image files rather than posting them directly if that is more acceptable?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 13, 2015, 06:30:PM
If it's the pictures I'm thinking of, then there's no copyright issue that I'm aware of - if you post the links/screenshots, I'll be able to tell right away whether or not they are the same pictures and diagrams.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 13, 2015, 06:33:PM
I'll just post one as an example:

http://i.imgur.com/gr9cb.png

Did that work and is it what you were thinking of?

If that one seems ok then I'll find the others. Sandra, I'm obviously taking your word for it that I'm not breaking any laws in posting them so if I end up in trouble I'm expecting you to fight pretty hard for me!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 13, 2015, 07:11:PM
Are they accurate?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 13, 2015, 11:55:PM
Well I remain unsure of how accurate these diagrams are but they can always be removed if they aren't.


Shoe
http://i.imgur.com/gr9cb.png

Underwear
http://i.imgur.com/K3apn.png

Trousers
http://i.imgur.com/pSctL.png

Body-front
http://i.imgur.com/uVNOy.png

Body-back
http://i.imgur.com/AmPsW.png

Jacket
http://i.imgur.com/9CToK.png

T-shirt
http://i.imgur.com/uzKcB.png

Bra
http://i.imgur.com/Tcnqq.png

A helpful map
http://i.imgur.com/8g52b.jpg
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 14, 2015, 07:30:AM
Good morning, these are not the pictures I was thinking about. They appear, at first glance, to be quite accurate, but I will check later this evening and report back then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 14, 2015, 03:02:PM
You guys have been busy
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 14, 2015, 03:55:PM
Thanks, don't want to be sharing things that give misinformation.

I have another question. I hope they're not becoming annoying.

Is Jodi's time of death being between 5 and 5:45 based only on Luke's whereabouts and a lack of witnesses seeing her? Is there any forensic evidence to base this on?

The reason I ask is that surely without any definitive evidence surely Jodi could have been alive for hours longer than is presumed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 14, 2015, 04:13:PM
Her proposed time of death is 5.15. I think it's the only time they could come up with that could fit with luke being the killer.
I don't think there is anything forensic that makes the time of death fact.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 14, 2015, 04:34:PM
She could well have been killed hours later, but where was she in that time. No one seen her or is admitting being with her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 14, 2015, 05:13:PM
Here is why it has been bugging me:

The original time that Judith Jones said Jodi left the house was 5:30 and I've never seen a reason for the change to 40 minutes earlier. Add this to the fact that the time of death is based only on circumstantial evidence. Add also that the police investigation seemed to focus on Luke from very early on and other suspects seemed to be cleared without due consideration.

Well, I'm left wondering what I really KNOW about what happened.

Maybe there were other sightings or evidence that didn't emerge until after the investigation was on its myopic course already, and so was incorrectly deemed to be unrelated. There's also the chance of course that someone with important evidence never came forward or didn't realise they knew something important because the murder happened hours before they saw a girl like her (or whatever their evidence might be!)

Does that make sense? I fear I rambled again.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 14, 2015, 05:29:PM
I know exactly what you mean Baz.
I'm not aware of any other sightings later but I'm sure sandra will fill us in on that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 14, 2015, 06:39:PM
I think it's interesting that there were, in fact, three claimed sightings - two of Jodi, and one of someone who could have been Jodi (the Andrina Bryson "sighting.")

The first two were after 5pm (between 5.05 and 5.10pm), placing Jodi on the Easthouses Road, a few minutes away from the Easthouses entrance to the path, meaning there was not enough time between those sightings and the claimed time of death of 5.15pm (Jodi would have needed a minimum of 8 minutes at a "brisk pace" to get to the Entrance to the path, and from there to the V break, taking the time to 5.13 - 5.18). We know from the evidence that the beating/strangulation before the fatal cut-throat injuries took place on the woodland side of the wall so, however it's presented, these sightings rule out a 5.15pm time of death and, as a result of other timings, rule out Luke as the killer.


But it's the Andrina Bryson sighting which interests me most. Firstly, Mrs Bryson placed the timing of her sighting much later (5.30pm 5.40pm) She based her timing on a call from her husband - she had been home for about half an hour, had unloaded the car and put away the shopping and had started cooking dinner, she told police. In her next statement, she produced her phone to show officers the time the call came in from her husband - 6.17pm, meaning she had returned home, after her "sighting," at 5.50pm.

The till receipt (originally) was timed at 16.45 - the prosecution allowed just 5 minutes for her to get out of the store, load up the car (with two small kids) and drive the 12 - 17 minutes to the point where she made her sighting - that's, absolute minimum, 5.02pm - 5.07 - 20 - 25 minutes before her earlier estimates, but still after 5pm. (In my opinion, the 5.30 - 5.40 timing is much more likely to have been accurate because (a) she would have needed more than 5 minutes to get out of the shop, load up the car, etc, and she was looking for a house that was for sale, so drove slowly into and out of a couple of streets - that wasn't factored into the police "timing" of her route.)

But here's where it gets crazy - police investigators "discovered" the time on the till receipt was wrong - it should have read 4.32pm. Taken with other timings, this means she did a large shopping, with two small children and had cleared the checkout in just 17 minutes. But without the till receipt being 4.32, she could not have made her sighting between 4.49 and 4.54pm - any time after that, and they could not have claimed Luke was the killer.

Sorry it's a bit confusing - I'm having to rush this as I have other work I need to do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 14, 2015, 08:01:PM
What explanation was given for the change in time of the receipt? Surely a copy of the receipt is physical evidence? How can you get that wrong?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 14, 2015, 08:05:PM
The prosecution said there was evidence the time of the receipt was wrong, but I don't think the evidence was ever produced.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 14, 2015, 09:38:PM
Well remembered, marty - there was never any evidence provided to the defence of bank records themselves - only the claim that they showed the shop's receipt machine must have been wrong.

I know for certain there was cctv technology available for the area at the time - why wasn't that cross referenced to see which was right - the claimed bank times or the actual receipt?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 14, 2015, 10:56:PM
That seems like something the defence should have contested.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 15, 2015, 12:13:AM
I'm reading a part of the appeal opinion from 2008.

At the end of 92, which details the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, it says "The evidence regarding Marilyn Manson was not founded upon." And then something about Janine buying a cd.  What does this mean exactly?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 15, 2015, 06:58:AM
It means that even though they paraded all the nonsense about Luke, Manson, the Dahlia, the dvd, etc before the jury, they did not then "rely" upon it for the conviction - it was, in the prosecution's opinion, unnecessary for the jury to believe that stuff, because there was sufficient other evidence for the jury to convict.

Just another example of legal "trickery" intended to influence the jury's overall opinion of Luke, although there was nothing whatsoever to back up the impression given. Even the judge, at the sentencing hearing, if I remember corrrectly, said he believed Luke had "carried those images (of the Dahlia paintings) in his mind."

Luke having one Manson CD, bought after the murder, was put to to the jury as evidence of Luke's "obsession" with Manson and its apparent effect on his state of mind (i.e. turning him into a crazed murderer). Janine, it turned out, not only had exactly the same cd, but every cd Manson had ever released, she said she didn't think he was "weird" or "strange," and that was apparently ok - no explanation of why all those Manson cds didn't have the same effect on her state of mind! She was never asked if her fiance, Kelly, shared her clear liking for Manson.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 15, 2015, 11:29:AM
i dont see how the music somone likes constitures evedene anyway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on October 15, 2015, 01:55:PM
It would clearly show an unhealthy obsession,nugs beyond the norm, that is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 15, 2015, 01:59:PM
it would show crap musical taste but thats all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 15, 2015, 04:15:PM
It means that even though they paraded all the nonsense about Luke, Manson, the Dahlia, the dvd, etc before the jury, they did not then "rely" upon it for the conviction - it was, in the prosecution's opinion, unnecessary for the jury to believe that stuff, because there was sufficient other evidence for the jury to convict.

I see. When do the prosecution state this opinion?

How do we know that it doesn't have an effect on the jury? Are they specifically told to ignore this evidence?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 15, 2015, 04:25:PM
It would clearly show an unhealthy obsession,nugs beyond the norm, that is.

I do not understand this opinion at all. And it's this kind of thinking I worry was in the jury's head.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 15, 2015, 04:46:PM
If a person having one cd/dvd demonstrates an "unhealthy obsession," then what about someone with several cds/dvds of the same ilk by the same artist? And where is the evidence to back up the claim that one cd/dvd of an artist, or 100 cd/dvds "demonstrates an unhealthy obsession"?

The jury is not told, per se, that the prosecution is not founding the case on this evidence - in his speech to the jury, the prosecuting QC sums up the evidence he thinks is most important for the jury. The judge gives an overall direction that it is for the jury to decide what evidence it believes/rejects - in this case, the jury was warned to forget about everything jurors had read or heard about the case, and make its decision on the "facts before them." we don't know what effect this "evidence" has on jurors, because they are not allowed to discuss their verdict, and it is an offence to ask them about it.

The claim that the prosecution had not founded the case on the Manson/Dahlia evidence was the opinion of the appeal court judges, long after the evidence had been before the jury in a technical interpretation of what evidence meant what - it's all sleight of hand, and smoke and mirrors, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 15, 2015, 05:00:PM
well thats what they do when have no real evedence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 15, 2015, 06:32:PM
Exactly, nugnug - if the "evidence" about the Manson/Dahlia claimed connection wasn't needed, and since it was completely unfounded (no proof that Luke had ever seen the Dahlia paintings, no proof of an "obsession" etc) why on earth was it before the jury at all?

There is supposed to be a rule about the probative value of evidence having to outweigh its prejudicial potential - what happened to that rule in this case? Bottles of urine, stored after the murder (and an innocent explanation for that), a tattoo obtained months after the murder, a cd bought after the murder... none of that could prove anything about the murder itself, so was automatically bound to be more prejudicial than probative, yet all of it went before the jury in a grotesque display of character asassination. It wasn't even needed - the character assassination had already been completed by the media long before the case came to trial.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 15, 2015, 06:58:PM
It's just all deceit and lies. Make believe.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 15, 2015, 07:01:PM
I do not understand this opinion at all. And it's this kind of thinking I worry was in the jury's head.

That was exactly the point mate.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 15, 2015, 07:12:PM
That was exactly the point mate.

But the opinion itself, that liking Manson clearly shows an unhealthy obsession, doesn't make sense to me in either lookout or the jury's minds.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 15, 2015, 07:13:PM
Were photographs taken before the body and items were moved?

I suspect I know the answer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 15, 2015, 07:24:PM
But the opinion itself, that liking Manson clearly shows an unhealthy obsession, doesn't make sense to me in either lookout or the jury's minds.

It's how easily they will have been led with the circus going on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 17, 2015, 10:04:AM
Exactly, nugnug - if the "evidence" about the Manson/Dahlia claimed connection wasn't needed, and since it was completely unfounded (no proof that Luke had ever seen the Dahlia paintings, no proof of an "obsession" etc) why on earth was it before the jury at all?

There is supposed to be a rule about the probative value of evidence having to outweigh its prejudicial potential - what happened to that rule in this case? Bottles of urine, stored after the murder (and an innocent explanation for that), a tattoo obtained months after the murder, a cd bought after the murder... none of that could prove anything about the murder itself, so was automatically bound to be more prejudicial than probative, yet all of it went before the jury in a grotesque display of character asassination. It wasn't even needed - the character assassination had already been completed by the media long before the case came to trial.

You have a very short memory Sandra.  The evidence in relation to events which played out in the family home was introduced to show that Luke was a boy out of control.  A one parent household with an absent father where the youngest son dictated to his mother rather than the other way round.  A 14-year-old child who was allowed to set up a cannabis factory in his bedroom and was allowed freedoms above and beyond his age.  A child who was effectively left to do anything he wanted with little or no parental intervention.  A child who did not understand right from wrong and was seldom disciplined, this was an important part of the evidence against Luke and the jury accepted it.

Your innocent explanation excuse just doesn't cut any ice.  You are still making excuses for Luke Mitchell, apparently you haven't yet learned a lesson from the Prout and Hall cases?

Luke Mitchell has no alibi for the period of time when Jodi was murdered. His own brother disputed his claim that he was at home.  He was seen by two independent witnesses who described his clothing exactly while he was lurking a matter of yards from the murder scene just minutes after it occurred.

Now you tell me Sandra, on a section of main road with few pedestrians, what are the chances of two male youths wearing exactly the same clothes being in the same quiet spot at exactly the same time?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 17, 2015, 12:19:PM
Quote
You have a very short memory Sandra.
Interesting claim, since I'm doing all of this from memory.

Quote
The evidence in relation to events which played out in the family home was introduced to show that Luke was a boy out of control.

Which events were those? Luke making the family dinner 4 evenings a week? Helping out with the family business?

Quote
A one parent household with an absent father

And?  Anyay, Luke's father wasn't "absent" - Luke spent every weekend with him. You may have forgotten that Jodi, too, was part of a one parent family - best be careful what inferences you imply about one parent families, I think.

Quote
where the youngest son dictated to his mother rather than the other way round.

Not according to Jodi and Judith. The evidence shows that Judith had threatened to tell Luke's mother about something he and Jodi had done that they houldn't have, and Jodi begged her not to because of how strict Luke's mum was. Judith told the police that Jodi and Luke didn't normally meet until around 6pm because Luke "had to" cook the dinner because his mother and brother worked.

Quote
A 14-year-old child who was allowed to set up a cannabis factory in his bedroom

Now you're just being silly.

Quote
and was allowed freedoms above and beyond his age.


Careful again - Jodi was allowed to smoke cannabis, and have underage sex - her mother knew about both. Are you suggesting Jodi was also "out of control?" What's being described here are a couple of ordinary teenagers, doing things that ordinary teenagers do - you might not approve, I might not approve, but it won't change the fact that that's what teenagers do, and it certainly doesn't suggest they're all "out of control." Remember, Luke was doing well in school, getting good marks in all of his classes - not really "out of control" at all, was he?


Quote
A child who was effectively left to do anything he wanted with little or no parental intervention.  A child who did not understand right from wrong and was seldom disciplined, this was an important part of the evidence against Luke and the jury accepted it.


See above - there was no substantiated evidence of any of this - it was merely suggestion and conjecture. A child who did not understand right from wrong, and a mother who didn't give a damn what he got up to would not have arranged to extend his curfew time to allow him to see Jodi safely home of an evening would they? (That is in the evidence, from both sides.)

Quote
Your innocent explanation excuse just doesn't cut any ice.  You are still making excuses for Luke Mitchell, apparently you haven't yet learned a lesson from the Prout and Hall cases?

Why would I do that? I had two girls just about Jodi's age, living in exactly the area the murder happened, going to school 500 yards from where the body was found. For the record, I was never "involved" in the Adrian Prout case - I discussed it, on the basis of available information, online with others, that was the extent of my "involvement." I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case.

Quote
Luke Mitchell has no alibi for the period of time when Jodi was murdered. His own brother disputed his claim that he was at home

Neither do Joseph Jones, or Steven Kelly, or Ferris and Dickie, on the same basis you make this claim. Someone made a phone call from Luke's home landline to Scotts caravans during this period - we know where his mother, brother, grandmother and father were, so who do you suppose made that call? His brother did not "dispute" Luke's whereabouts initially, as I've explained elsewhere. Mother and brother both ate dinner when mother came in from work - who do you suppose cooked the dinner they ate, or did it somehow make itself?

Quote
He was seen by two independent witnesses who described his clothing exactly while he was lurking a matter of yards from the murder scene just minutes after it occurred.

That'll be the dark haired, tall/ medium height youth wearing jeans and trainers with a jacket they couldn't say whether or not it was zipped up but could later read the writing on the t shirt underneath. Oh, yes, that'll be the description given after Luke's pictures appeared in the papers, and the whole area was awash with rumour that Luke was the killer. Those will be the "independent" witnesses who originally claimed to have seen the youth nearer to 6pm close to the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College, and not "near the entrance to the path," the independent witnesses whose statements begin "I have been shown a newspaper article (by police)... and asked..."

Quote
Now you tell me Sandra, on a section of main road with few pedestrians, what are the chances of two male youths wearing exactly the same clothes being in the same quiet spot at exactly the same time?
No idea, but it's irrelevant, because their descriptions (one from a fleeting glance in a rearview mirror) were originally nothing like Luke on the evening in question, the timings were changed, the location of the sighting was changed - what are the chances this "evidence" was shoehorned (badly, as it turned out) to fit a particular agenda? And, for the record, in the summer, it's not an area with "few pedestrians" - granted, it's not a busy town street, but neither is it a deserted pathway.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 17, 2015, 12:28:PM
Quote
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?

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.

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.

Fleming and Walsh described ordinary jeans and trainers - at a bit of a loss to what he was wearing on top, so it changed a number of times, a youth with dark hair, no fringe, his fringe covering his face (yes, that's what the evidence says).

So who are these three people, since none of them are Luke or Jodi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 17, 2015, 01:46:PM
Your innocent explanation excuse just doesn't cut any ice.  You are still making excuses for Luke Mitchell, apparently you haven't yet learned a lesson from the Prout and Hall cases?

Hi John, nice to meet you.

I've been reading about this case on lots of old forums and you were at one point very passionate in your defence of Luke, to the point of a lot of your posts being moderated even. So I was wondering what the evidence was that came out that changed your mind so dramatically?

I understand that both Prout and Hall eventually ended up confessing to their crimes despite having allowed people to campaign for their innocence for years. This must have been so hard for their families and their supporters. But isn't not having the fight knocked out of you or to not be so jaded by experience that you give up something, to be admired? I think it is.   
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 17, 2015, 01:51:PM

Stop doing this.

Jodi isn't accused of anything.

I think the idea is that these things don't make you a murderer, hence why they are mentioned as true of Jodi also.

It's not an accusation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 17, 2015, 02:01:PM
These things didn't get Mitchell convicted.

No they did not, because they are not evidence of murder. I think that's sort of the point.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 17, 2015, 02:05:PM
Quote
Stop doing this.

Jodi isn't accused of anything.

Stop doing what? Telling the truth? Stating the facts? I've said for 12 years, I do this as much for justice for Jodi as for Luke. I can't bear to think of how badly she was treated by the police officers involved in this case - from the treatment of the crime scene onwards.

From everything I've learned about her, Jodi was feisty, strong, passionate, and had her own ideas and opinions- she wasn't a sheep, she liked to find out things for herself rather than taking things at face value.

The portrayal of Jodi as it has played out over the last 12 years is, in my opinion, both an insult and a betrayal of the vibrant, multifaceted, complex and interesting person she was.

The point I was making in the post from which you quote is that it cannot be claimed that smoking cannabis and having sex at 14 are indications of teenagers being "out of control" - if it is accepted as "evidence" for one, then it has to be accepted as "evidence" for all others as well, and I do not agree that either Jodi or Luke were "out of control" because their young relationship became physical or because they both, like many of their friends, smoked cannabis.

In fact, my criticism in all of this is reserved for John Ferris, who supplied all of the youngsters - maybe if he hadn't made cannabis so easily and readily available, those kids wouldn't have started smoking it in the first place - remember, Jodi was smoking cannabis before she met Luke, and we know where she got her cannabis then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 17, 2015, 02:12:PM
Quote
These things didn't get Mitchell convicted.

Technically, that is correct. However, this was a wholly circumstantial case, and the introduction of these things to support the claim that Luke was "out of control" contributed to the case presented to the jury as information on which inferences about his "character" could be drawn.

The tangled mess that follows from that, combined with the hysterical media coverage for a year and a half before trial may have led jurors to make emotionally charged assumptions and decisions, rather than the more impartial and logical considerations we should be able to expect.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 17, 2015, 02:16:PM
Quote
Were photographs taken before the body and items were moved?

I suspect I know the answer.

It's difficult to tell for sure, Baz. There are some photographs of the scene without the plastic sheet, so presumably these were taken earlier, but we also know that overhanging branches were cut down to allow the videographer better access, and several officers had been over the wall prior to the photographer first arriving on the scene.

By the time Scrimger got there at 8am, items had been "gathered up." Before then, there's simply no way of telling whether all of the items at the crime scene were photographed exactly as they were left by the killer, or whether those early police forays over the wall meant that items were moved bfore the first photographs were taken.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 18, 2015, 12:44:AM
John, is that what he calls himself now. Personally I wouldn't give him the steam off ma piss never mind the time of day. His name is about the closest to the truth about anything you will get.

Fair enough.

Although sounds like you need a plumber to look at your heating or a doctor to look at your plumbing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 18, 2015, 07:46: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?

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.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 19, 2015, 04:04:PM
Hi John, nice to meet you.

I've been reading about this case on lots of old forums and you were at one point very passionate in your defence of Luke, to the point of a lot of your posts being moderated even. So I was wondering what the evidence was that came out that changed your mind so dramatically?

Its very simple Baz.  At one time Luke Mitchell's mother Corinne used to post regularly on the WAP forum and would usually answer questions put to her, in fact she stated originally that she would answer any questions about the case to the best of her knowledge.  I initially gave her the benefit of the doubt and having met Luke I found it difficult to comprehend him having committed such a cold blooded murder.  However, as time went on Corinne's replies began to worry me, there were things which did not add up, there were gaps in her knowledge and the case began to unravel.  Excuses were being made which again were not consistent with the facts and Mitchell supporters were becoming abusive and dishonest.

The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was one day when Corinne refused point blank to answer questions, the excuses had run out, the deception and the charade was laid bare. That was the turning point for me, Luke had no alibi despite Corinne's protestations, his brother refuted his claims that he was at home the afternoon Jodi was murdered.  The Mitchell family home was not that big, there was no way Luke could have returned home without his brother being aware of it.  The claims about Luke making dinner were not borne out by his brothers evidence.

The facts are as follows. Corinne Mitchell was at work at her caravan business some distance away from the family home but the internet records showed that someone was in the house surfing the internet.  Luke's brother Shane claimed it was he, that he was surfing porn sites from his bedroom with the door ajar so that he could hear anyone come into the house.  His evidence was that nobody did until his mother arrived home at around 5.30pm.

In his evidence Luke makes no reference to Shane being in the house before 5.30pm.  He claims to have phoned Jodi from the house, to have prepared dinner in the house yet Shane's evidence disputed these events in their entirety.  Bottom line was that one of the brothers was telling lies in order to establish an alibi.

Question is...why?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 19, 2015, 04:39:PM
Hi John, nice to meet you.

I understand that both Prout and Hall eventually ended up confessing to their crimes despite having allowed people to campaign for their innocence for years. This must have been so hard for their families and their supporters. But isn't not having the fight knocked out of you or to not be so jaded by experience that you give up something, to be admired? I think it is.

I spent a lot of time on the Prout and Hall cases, I even considered Hall innocent initially but the case unravelled as time went on.  Prout was never an innocent in my book, his prior conduct towards his wife taken together with his body language during the initial police interviews gave the game away.  No woman goes off suddenly leaving her most personal possessions lying on the bed.  There was no doubt she was dead and little doubt that Prout was behind it.

The Hall case was a different kettle of fish.  I spent many hours conversing with Halls wife, helping her with correspondence and trawling through the evidence looking for that glimmer of light which could open up the case.  We thought we had it at one stage but it was a coincidence and nothing more. The moment of truth however came when it was discovered that Hall had in fact burgled premises in Ipswich the night of Joan Albert's murder.  It was then revealed that his family and other close associates knew about this burglary yet failed to inform police.  Alibis then began to look shady, people who had once been reliable began to crumble under the threat of further police intervention.  A fresh look at the timings revealed that Hall had indeed been in Ipswich but had time to have burgled Mrs Albert's home and stabbed her before returning to his parents house.

The rest as they say is history, Simon Hall later admitted his guilt and committed suicide.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 19, 2015, 05:53:PM
And?  Anyay, Luke's father wasn't "absent" - Luke spent every weekend with him. You may have forgotten that Jodi, too, was part of a one parent family - best be careful what inferences you imply about one parent families, I think.

He had been absent from the family home for many years if I recall and Corinne had brought the two boys up mostly on her own.  Many single parent family's cope perfectly well as you know from your own experiences.

Not according to Jodi and Judith. The evidence shows that Judith had threatened to tell Luke's mother about something he and Jodi had done that they houldn't have, and Jodi begged her not to because of how strict Luke's mum was. Judith told the police that Jodi and Luke didn't normally meet until around 6pm because Luke "had to" cook the dinner because his mother and brother worked.[/b]

So you are denying the claim that Luke was out of parental control and effectively did whatever he wanted?

Now you're just being silly.

Again you are denying that Luke Mitchell had bulk cannabis stashed in his bedroom along with plastic bags and a set of scales for weighing it before being packaged ready for sale?  Do you condone such behaviour Sandra?
 

Careful again - Jodi was allowed to smoke cannabis, and have underage sex - her mother knew about both. Are you suggesting Jodi was also "out of control?" What's being described here are a couple of ordinary teenagers, doing things that ordinary teenagers do - you might not approve, I might not approve, but it won't change the fact that that's what teenagers do, and it certainly doesn't suggest they're all "out of control." Remember, Luke was doing well in school, getting good marks in all of his classes - not really "out of control" at all, was he?

As already pointed out, what Jodi did in her spare time is sort of irrelevant to her killers disposition.
 

For the record, I was never "involved" in the Adrian Prout case - I discussed it, on the basis of available information, online with others, that was the extent of my "involvement." I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case.

For the record you are/were co director of the Wrongly Accused Person organsation/forum which supported strangler Adrian Prout so let's stop pussy footing around Sandra.  You also made several posts supporting Prout on the WAP forum.  No doubt you would like this event to be assigned to history but it won't happen.

As for the Hall case, you say you do not regret your involvement so effectively you are saying you don't regret supporting a cold blooded killer who murdered a defenceless old lady in her own home before molesting her?  Really Sandra, do you really want to be associated with Hall?

Neither do Joseph Jones, or Steven Kelly, or Ferris and Dickie, on the same basis you make this claim. Someone made a phone call from Luke's home landline to Scotts caravans during this period - we know where his mother, brother, grandmother and father were, so who do you suppose made that call? His brother did not "dispute" Luke's whereabouts initially, as I've explained elsewhere. Mother and brother both ate dinner when mother came in from work - who do you suppose cooked the dinner they ate, or did it somehow make itself?

So you don't believe Shane then?  One of them was lying for some very good reason!  Interesting??

That'll be the dark haired, tall/ medium height youth wearing jeans and trainers with a jacket they couldn't say whether or not it was zipped up but could later read the writing on the t shirt underneath. Oh, yes, that'll be the description given after Luke's pictures appeared in the papers, and the whole area was awash with rumour that Luke was the killer. Those will be the "independent" witnesses who originally claimed to have seen the youth nearer to 6pm close to the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College, and not "near the entrance to the path," the independent witnesses whose statements begin "I have been shown a newspaper article (by police)... and asked..."
 No idea, but it's irrelevant, because their descriptions (one from a fleeting glance in a rearview mirror) were originally nothing like Luke on the evening in question, the timings were changed, the location of the sighting was changed - what are the chances this "evidence" was shoehorned (badly, as it turned out) to fit a particular agenda? And, for the record, in the summer, it's not an area with "few pedestrians" - granted, it's not a busy town street, but neither is it a deserted pathway.

You can twist all you like but the two women didn't imagine it all.  It happened, Mitchell admitted being in that area, they saw him, get over it!


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 06:05:PM
I spent a lot of time on the Prout and Hall cases, I even considered Hall innocent initially but the case unravelled as time went on.

The Hall case was a different kettle of fish.  I spent many hours conversing with Halls wife, helping her with correspondence and trawling through the evidence looking for that glimmer of light which could open up the case.  We thought we had it at one stage but it was a coincidence and nothing more. The moment of truth however came when it was discovered that Hall had in fact burgled premises in Ipswich the night of Joan Albert's murder.  It was then revealed that his family and other close associates knew about this burglary yet failed to inform police.  Alibis then began to look shady, people who had once been reliable began to crumble under the threat of further police intervention.  A fresh look at the timings revealed that Hall had indeed been in Ipswich but had time to have burgled Mrs Albert's home and stabbed her before returning to his parents house.

Don't you mean 'people who appeared to have been reliable?' The motive appears to have not been burglary....

I must say in relation to the Mitchell case, with hindsight, the absence of support (Public) by brother Shane leaves big questions for me... There are also other factors, that I was made aware of last year by Sandra L that concern me greatly....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2015, 06:40:PM
this all irlvant to the case we are talking about.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 06:42:PM
this all irlvant to the case we are talking about.

What is?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2015, 06:44:PM
well simon hall and adrian prout both have there on threads im happy discuss ethere case in its pproper  place but this thread was sort of suposed to be about luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 06:50:PM
well simon hall and adrian prout both have there on threads im happy discuss ethere case in its pproper  place but this thread was sort of suposed to be about luke.

That's why I edited my previous post...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 19, 2015, 06:50:PM
I agree with nugnug, most of this is irrelevant, but to avoid claims that I'm "not answering questions" or whatever, here goes:

[/quote]He had been absent from the family home for many years if I recall and Corinne had brought the two boys up mostly on her own.  Many single parent family's cope perfectly well as you know from your own experiences.[/quote]

Three years, from memory, so Luke would have been 11 and Shane 16 - 17, so, no, Corinne did not bring the boys up "mostly on her own." And Luke spent most weekends at his father's. My girls were 3 and 5 when I became a single parent, and I am very proud of both of them, thank you.

Quote
So you are denying the claim that Luke was out of parental control and effectively did whatever he wanted?
Yes, see previous posts

Quote
Again you are denying that Luke Mitchell had bulk cannabis stashed in his bedroom along with plastic bags and a set of scales for weighing it before being packaged ready for sale?  Do you condone such behaviour Sandra?
Ten months of intense police scrutiny, his every move watched and documented, but they allowed him to not only stash "bulk" cannabis, but to sell it right under their noses? The "scales" and "bags" were trinket style objects, freely available from a well known shop in Edinburgh - real dealers advertise what they're up to by helpfully putting their wares in little bags conveniently displaying a cannabis leaf on the outside, don't they? The amount of cannabis taken from Luke's house on April 14th 2004 was reported to be much higher than the actual amount in police statemnts. Whether I condone or not is irrelevant. I do not believe that smoking cannabis predisposes teenagers to becoming brutal murderers.
 

Quote
As already pointed out, what Jodi did in her spare time is sort of irrelevant to her killers disposition
Missed the point - see previous posts.
 

Quote
For the record you are/were co director of the Wrongly Accused Person organsation/forum which supported strangler Adrian Prout so let's stop pussy footing around Sandra.  You also made several posts supporting Prout on the WAP forum.  No doubt you would like this event to be assigned to history but it won't happen.
Was co director. Discussed the case online with others. You have no idea what I would or would not like.

Quote
As for the Hall case, you say you do not regret your involvement so effectively you are saying you don't regret supporting a cold blooded killer who murdered a defenceless old lady in her own home before molesting her?  Really Sandra, do you really want to be associated with Hall?
Goodness, a number of quantum leaps of assumption there. I'm not "effectively" saying anything - I'm stating, as a fact, I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case - I learned many difficult and painful lessons from it.

Quote
So you don't believe Shane then?  One of them was lying for some very good reason!  Interesting??
not even worth a response. See previous posts.

Quote
You can twist all you like but the two women didn't imagine it all.  It happened, Mitchell admitted being in that area, they saw him, get over it!
Now  now, John, no need to get personal and aggressive. The evidence strongly suggests they did not see what they claimed in court. See previous posts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 06:59:PM
this all irlvant to the case we are talking about.



I must say in relation to the Mitchell case, with hindsight, the absence of support (Public) by brother Shane leaves big questions for me... There are also other factors, that I was made aware of last year by Sandra L that concern me greatly....

How is this irrelevant?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 19, 2015, 07:01:PM
Quote
  However, as time went on Corinne's replies began to worry me, there were things which did not add up, there were gaps in her knowledge and the case began to unravel.  Excuses were being made which again were not consistent with the facts and Mitchell supporters were becoming abusive and dishonest.

John's opinion, to which he is, of course, entitled. I would strongly refute any claim that Luke's supporters became abusive or dishonest, or that excuses were being "made up." There were gaps in Corinne's legal knowledge - she never denied that, referring posters to me if they asked legal questions which she could not answer.

Quote
The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was one day when Corinne refused point blank to answer questions, the excuses had run out, the deception and the charade was laid bare.

Never happened! Corinne would answer the same questions over and over again - because people didn't like the answers, they would come back and ask the same questions in a different way. To these people, whom Corinne had answered repeatedly, she stated that she would not continue to answer questions she had already answered several times - not quite the same thing as "refusing point blank to answer questions" is it?

Quote
That was the turning point for me, Luke had no alibi despite Corinne's protestations, his brother refuted his claims that he was at home the afternoon Jodi was murdered.  The Mitchell family home was not that big, there was no way Luke could have returned home without his brother being aware of it.  The claims about Luke making dinner were not borne out by his brothers evidence.
See previous posts.

Quote
The facts are as follows. Corinne Mitchell was at work at her caravan business some distance away from the family home but the internet records showed that someone was in the house surfing the internet.  Luke's brother Shane claimed it was he, that he was surfing porn sites from his bedroom with the door ajar so that he could hear anyone come into the house.  His evidence was that nobody did until his mother arrived home at around 5.30pm.
These are not even the facts as presented by the prosecution, but never mind, John says they're the facts, so he must be right.

Quote
In his evidence Luke makes no reference to Shane being in the house before 5.30pm.  He claims to have phoned Jodi from the house, to have prepared dinner in the house yet Shane's evidence disputed these events in their entirety.  Bottom line was that one of the brothers was telling lies in order to establish an alibi.

Question is...why?
Please! Luke did not claim to have "phoned Jodi from the house." Shane's evidence was that he ate a dinner he did not prepare, and his mother did not prepare, so who prepared it - the dog? And who made the call to Scotts Caravans from the Mitchell landline that afternoon? Oh, let's not forget the witnesses who saw Luke making his way home from school, shall we?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 19, 2015, 07:07:PM
Quote
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.

You got me thinking about something nugnug, even after all these years. We know AB's brother in law was in AW's house on the morning of July 1st, telling everyone there about his sister in law's "sighting" the day before (although it was originally claimed it was his brother who made the "sighting.")

But AB didn't know Jodi or her family. Jodi wasn't known to be missing until 10.40pm on the night of June 30th. Did AB say to her husband, "I saw a young couple at the entrance to Roan's Dyke Path - a place I've never even heard of - this afternoon." Hubby says, "That's nice dear, I must mention this to my brother later this evening - you never know, he might know who they are."

And by some amazing coincidence, by 9am the following morning, the brother does know who they are, and rushes off to tell Jodi's family. Really?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2015, 07:36:PM
findly did qustion her about the conection on the stand i belive.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 19, 2015, 09:03:PM
Did Luke mention Shane being in, in his original statement?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 19, 2015, 09:11:PM
t.  The claims about Luke making dinner were not borne out by his brothers evidence.

His evidence was that nobody did until his mother arrived home at around 5.30pm.


When did he say this?

The problem with relying so heavily on Shane's evidence, from either point of view, seems to be that at some point he has made statements that support both guilt and innocence. And then when you also factor in his treatment by police, it all just seems too muddled to reach any solid conclusions.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 09:53:PM
When did he say this?

The problem with relying so heavily on Shane's evidence, from either point of view, seems to be that at some point he has made statements that support both guilt and innocence. And then when you also factor in his treatment by police, it all just seems too muddled to reach any solid conclusions.

What about the suggestion that Shane was home alone in his bedroom, with his door ajar, whilst viewing porn on the internet? What has police treatment got to do with this?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 19, 2015, 10:11:PM
What about the suggestion that Shane was home alone in his bedroom, with his door ajar, whilst viewing porn on the internet? What has police treatment got to do with this?

The over zealous police questioning left him unsure about everything. Memory's such a complicated thing and, for me, none of Shane's evidence seems solid enough to build an opinion on, guilty or innocent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 10:15:PM
The over zealous police questioning left him unsure about everything. Memory's such a complicated thing and, for me, none of Shane's evidence seems solid enough to build an opinion on, guilty or innocent.

Were you there when he was questioned?

Where is he? Why hasn't he ever publicly supported his brother?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 19, 2015, 10:26:PM
Were you there when he was questioned?

Where is he? Why hasn't he ever publicly supported his brother?

No, obviously not. But, I may be wrong, the transcripts of his interviews were part of one of his appeals and it was agreed that their methods were unacceptable.

I don't know anything about Shane's life or choices.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 11:01:PM
No, obviously not. But, I may be wrong, the transcripts of his interviews were part of one of his appeals and it was agreed that their methods were unacceptable.

"The appellant was on 14 August 2003 interviewed under caution by police officers. In the course of the trial the Crown sought to lead before the jury evidence of some but only a few of the questions and answers put and given in the course of that interview. Objection was taken on behalf of the appellant to that course of action but the objection was repelled by the trial judge. The challenge was renewed on appeal, it being maintained that the interview was conducted in circumstances which were wholly and manifestly unfair to the appellant. Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored. However, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the answers to the particular questions, which alone the Crown sought to introduce in evidence, were elicited in such circumstances that the trial judge was bound to hold that they were inadmissible. Having considered the response of the appellant throughout and in detail each of the passages in dispute, we are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to take the course which he did. Moreover, having regard to the context of the questions and responses, many of which related to matters already otherwise properly in evidence, we are not persuaded that on this ground a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted."

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/luke-mitchell-official-summary-of-appeal-court-decision-1-1259417


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 11:04:PM

I don't know anything about Shane's life or choices.

Why doesn't he publicly support Luke?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 11:09:PM
The over zealous police questioning left him unsure about everything. Memory's such a complicated thing and, for me, none of Shane's evidence seems solid enough to build an opinion on, guilty or innocent.

THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.

Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.

Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.

His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.

The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.

"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.

"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."

Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.

Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"

"No, " he said.

"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.

"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.

"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"

"Yes, " came the answer.

Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"

"I don't know, " he said.

The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
     
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.Jodi_trial___brother__apos_alone_in_house_apos__Court_hears_porn_admission/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 19, 2015, 11:23:PM
Thanks. Yes that was the thing I was referring to. Overbearing and hostile... Deplored.... Poor kid, must have been horrible.

"I don't know".... I get that it looks bad, and it is one of the few things that stops me from saying I definitely think he's innocent but he doesn't say Luke wasn't in. It just feels undefinitive and doesn't answer all the other questions about his guilt.

Also, why does nobody seem to place as much importance in the changing statements of everyone else... Only Shane.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 19, 2015, 11:25:PM
Why doesn't he publicly support Luke?

Again, I don't know him.

Why doesn't he publicly support Luke?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 11:40:PM
Thanks. Yes that was the thing I was referring to. Overbearing and hostile... Deplored.... Poor kid, must have been horrible.

"I don't know".... I get that it looks bad, and it is one of the few things that stops me from saying I definitely think he's innocent but he doesn't say Luke wasn't in. It just feels undefinitive and doesn't answer all the other questions about his guilt.

Also, why does nobody seem to place as much importance in the changing statements of everyone else... Only Shane.

Who for? Luke or Jodie?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 11:41:PM
Also, why does nobody seem to place as much importance in the changing statements of everyone else... Only Shane.

Could it be that Shane was Luke's alibi?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 11:44:PM
Again, I don't know him.

Why doesn't he publicly support Luke?

Is it because he believes Luke to be guilty?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 19, 2015, 11:52:PM
I must say in relation to the Mitchell case, with hindsight, the absence of support (Public) by brother Shane leaves big questions for me... There are also other factors, that I was made aware of last year by Sandra L that concern me greatly....

Yes, there has always been a big question mark over Shanes intiial statements to the police.  He initially told police that he was home alone but his mother sent him back to the police station to claim Luke was at home backed up by the burned pie story.  In the witness box however he was warned of the consequences of committing perjury so reverted to the home alone version. Speaks volumes!

I'm glad to hear it Stephanie. Sandra likes to promote the stuff which suports her own beliefs whilst conveniently ignoring the damning evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 19, 2015, 11:57:PM
Is it because he believes Luke to be guilty?

That's conjecture.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 19, 2015, 11:57:PM
Yes, there has always been a big question mark over Shanes intiial statements to the police.  He initially told police that he was home alone but his mother sent him back to the police station to claim Luke was at home backed up by the burned pie story.  In the witness box however he was warned of the consequences of committing perjury so reverted to the home alone version. Speaks volumes!

Sandra likes to promote the stuff which suports her own beliefs whilst conveniently ignoring the damning evidence.

I'm unsure why Sandra L appears to be choosing to ignore some of the things she told me last year? Many of which were damning...?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 19, 2015, 11:58:PM
Ten months of intense police scrutiny, his every move watched and documented, but they allowed him to not only stash "bulk" cannabis, but to sell it right under their noses? The "scales" and "bags" were trinket style objects, freely available from a well known shop in Edinburgh - real dealers advertise what they're up to by helpfully putting their wares in little bags conveniently displaying a cannabis leaf on the outside, don't they? The amount of cannabis taken from Luke's house on April 14th 2004 was reported to be much higher than the actual amount in police statemnts. Whether I condone or not is irrelevant. I do not believe that smoking cannabis predisposes teenagers to becoming brutal murderers.

We are talking about the period in the run up to the murder.  Luke was a drug dealer, he bought the cannabis in bulk and sold it to his friends in measured lots.  His friends gave evidence that he always carried a load of cash with him, far more than a child of his age should have had acces to but you just go on attempting to make him look for all the innocent child he wasn't.

I notice you also attempted to play down the other knife attacks Luke made on yet other young unsuspecting girls.  One of which was an assault just days before Jodi's murder for which he was kicked out of the Army Cadets.  Do you think his fantasy went one step too far with Jodi?


But one of Mitchell's former girlfriends, who says he attacked her with a knife just weeks before Jodi's murder, yesterday dismissed his latest claims of innocence.

Kara Van Nuil is adamant that her ex-boyfriend did kill Jodi, and also revealed she is terrified that Mitchell will attempt to track her down on his release.

The 24-year-old, who believes that her decision to end the relationship probably saved her life, has now moved away from Midlothian in an attempt to avoid being found.

Ms Van Nuil, who was 16 when she dated Mitchell, maintains that he pressed a blade to her neck during an Army Cadet Force platoon meeting.

With the other cadets enjoying a snack break outside the hut, Mitchell is said to have grabbed Ms Van Nuil from behind, turned her round and forced a penknife to her throat.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/319784/Jodi-s-family-hit-back-over-killers-claims-of-innocence


"When he was 12 he threatened his then girlfriend with a knife because she refused to have sex with him. The incidents went on. When he moved to St David’s High, a music teacher found him trying to throttle another pupil and he was sent to an educational psychologist. He refused the expert’s help. Instead Mitchell became a rebellious, mysterious teenager who was heavily into cannabis and supplied his Goth friends with the drug."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 19, 2015, 11:59:PM
Who for? Luke or Jodie?

For Shane, in this instance.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:00:AM
That's conjecture.

How is it conjecture? I've merely asked a question?

Although based on my own experiences it is highly questionable and extremely telling imo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:01:AM
Could it be that Shane was Luke's alibi?

You're right, I should have worded it better.

I'm not saying it's not important I just never see any explanation for why everyone else's testimony seems to differ from their statements.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:02:AM
For Shane, in this instance.

Are you making this up as you go?

You said;

Thanks. Yes that was the thing I was referring to. Overbearing and hostile... Deplored.... Poor kid, must have been horrible.

In response to;

"The appellant was on 14 August 2003 interviewed under caution by police officers. In the course of the trial the Crown sought to lead before the jury evidence of some but only a few of the questions and answers put and given in the course of that interview. Objection was taken on behalf of the appellant to that course of action but the objection was repelled by the trial judge. The challenge was renewed on appeal, it being maintained that the interview was conducted in circumstances which were wholly and manifestly unfair to the appellant. Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored. However, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the answers to the particular questions, which alone the Crown sought to introduce in evidence, were elicited in such circumstances that the trial judge was bound to hold that they were inadmissible. Having considered the response of the appellant throughout and in detail each of the passages in dispute, we are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to take the course which he did. Moreover, having regard to the context of the questions and responses, many of which related to matters already otherwise properly in evidence, we are not persuaded that on this ground a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted."

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/luke-mitchell-official-summary-of-appeal-court-decision-1-1259417

I asked;

Who for? Luke or Jodie?

Please explain yourself.....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:03:AM
You're right, I should have worded it better.

I'm not saying it's not important I just never see any explanation for why everyone else's testimony seems to differ from their statements.

Everyone else wasn't on trial for murder....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 20, 2015, 12:18:AM
Was co director. Discussed the case online with others. You have no idea what I would or would not like.
Goodness, a number of quantum leaps of assumption there. I'm not "effectively" saying anything - I'm stating, as a fact, I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case - I learned many difficult and painful lessons from it.

You play down your involvement with the discredited WAP Organisation as if it never happened Sandra. You were a co director so every bit responsible for the way in which it was run.  You do realise that you are still jointly responsible for the funds which the organisation accrued and which by the way have never been declared in any filings with the Scottish Charity Regulator?

Are you now distancing yourself from the allegation that Corinne Mitchell (Luke's mother) was banned from posting on WAP for two years and that someone with access to her account had been posting fake comments in her name. I notice from other threads that you have always declined to comment on this accusation?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:22:AM
Are you making this up as you go?

You said;

In response to;

I asked;

Please explain yourself.....

Happy to explain.

We were discussing the treatment of Shane by the police during questioning. I was expressing empathy for a 15 year old boy being handled in an overbearing and hostile manner by the police. I was also questioning the affect this might have on whatever information is gathered during such deplorable questioning.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:25:AM
Everyone else wasn't on trial for murder....

No they were witnesses in a murder trial, just like Shane..... I don't see your point here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:27:AM
Happy to explain.

We were discussing the treatment of Shane by the police during questioning. I was expressing empathy for a 15 year old boy being handled in an overbearing and hostile manner by the police. I was also questioning the affect this might have on whatever information is gathered during such deplorable questioning.

Thanks for the explanation.

I take it your stance now is that LM is innocent?

So you disagree with the appeal judges then?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 20, 2015, 12:30:AM
Never happened! Corinne would answer the same questions over and over again - because people didn't like the answers, they would come back and ask the same questions in a different way. To these people, whom Corinne had answered repeatedly, she stated that she would not continue to answer questions she had already answered several times - not quite the same thing as "refusing point blank to answer questions" is it?

That's untrue Sandra. Corinne refused to answer some of the more awkward questions when she was challenged about Lukes whereabouts on the afternoon of the murder. Maybe you were off doing your other things that night and never saw the posts which Middleton conveniently deleted?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:31:AM
You're right, I should have worded it better.

I'm not saying it's not important I just never see any explanation for why everyone else's testimony seems to differ from their statements.

Everyone else wasn't on trial for murder....

No they were witnesses in a murder trial, just like Shane..... I don't see your point here.

Where was LM if he wasn't in the house with Shane? Who is telling the truth, Shane or Luke?

Why hasn't Shane spoken out about this since the conviction of Luke?


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:32:AM
You play down your involvement with the discredited WAP Organisation as if it never happened Sandra. You were a co director so every bit responsible for the way in which it was run.  You do realise that you are still jointly responsible for the funds which the organisation accrued and which by the way have never been declared in any filings with the Scottish Charity Regulator?

Are you now distancing yourself from Middleton and the allegation that he posted on the WAP forum in Corinne Mitchell's name after she had left?

Is there no moderation on this site?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 20, 2015, 12:35:AM
Is there no moderation on this site?

Why? Is it getting too close to the truth?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:37:AM
Thanks for the explanation.

I take it your stance now is that LM is innocent?

So you disagree with the appeal judges then?

No. My stance, which is not set in stone and I'm still hoping one day it will change, is that the investigation was awful and because of the failings in it I will never KNOW who killed Jodi. There are big unanswered questions for me in how Luke could have committed the crime in the way and time frame that the prosecution claimed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 20, 2015, 12:38:AM
Where was LM if he wasn't in the house with Shane? Who is telling the truth, Shane or Luke?

Why hasn't Shane spoken out about this since the conviction of Luke?

Good points Steph.  Shane has never commented publicly outside the courtroom to my knowledge.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:39:AM
Why? Is it getting too close to the truth?

No, because it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Because you're more interested in tearing people down and causing/having arguements that civilised discussion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:40:AM
Is there no moderation on this site?

What is there to moderate? Please point out exactly what you believe should be moderated and why?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 20, 2015, 12:42:AM
No, because it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Because you're more interested in tearing people down and causing/having arguements that civilised discussion.

I believe in exposing the facts.  The old questions won't just go away you know.

It is my opinion that Sandra Lean has questions to answer over her conduct in the Luke Mitchell case so isn't this the correct thread to air them?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:44:AM
No. My stance, which is not set in stone and I'm still hoping one day it will change, is that the investigation was awful and because of the failings in it I will never KNOW who killed Jodi. There are big unanswered questions for me in how Luke could have committed the crime in the way and time frame that the prosecution claimed.

It's simple;

He's either -

A) Guilty

Or

B) Innocent

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:46:AM
No, because it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Because you're more interested in tearing people down and causing/having arguements that civilised discussion.

What are you basing your statement on? Please point out what you are referring to?

When you joined this forum you posted the following:

"I took an interest some years ago in this case and it has  occasionally popped back into my head since. I was then recently discussing MOJs in general and having forgotten so many of the details of Luke's case I decided to remind myself. However, I can't find a site that actually presents the evidence. I have been through all 190 pages of this forum (I'm ready for my medal now, or maybe therapy!) and to be honest there isn't a great deal of content regarding the facts. There has been some really helpful and informative posts but I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are any accessible sites that still present the evidence? Also if anyone knows where I can watch the BBC doc "Devils own" I'd be grateful"

Why did you ask if there are any accessible sites that still present the evidence? Did you know The WAP site removed most of the LM case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:49:AM
What is there to moderate? Please point out exactly what you believe should be moderated and why?

I'd moderate out the entire post rather than picking out certain bits to be honest. The financial dealings of a charity that someone here used to be involved in isn't really relevant and is more interested in finding new ways to discredit Sandra. And by new I mean not remotely new because it's exactly the same things you were bringing up not that long ago and she addressed them then.

I'd moderate this out too.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:49:AM
It's simple;

He's either -

A) Guilty

Or

B) Innocent

C) Not proven
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 20, 2015, 12:51:AM
No. My stance, which is not set in stone and I'm still hoping one day it will change, is that the investigation was awful and because of the failings in it I will never KNOW who killed Jodi. There are big unanswered questions for me in how Luke could have committed the crime in the way and time frame that the prosecution claimed.

The investigation was 'awful' as you put it but that doesn't render Luke Mitchell innocent.  I agree he was treated inproperly by police when interviewed but again that does not make him innocent.

Mitchell's supporters including Sandra Lean had hoped that Mitchell would be freed not because he was innocent but because his rights to a fair trial had been impinged.  What is your view Baz?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 20, 2015, 12:54:AM
C) Not proven

Not proven - the Scottish get out of jail free card!  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 12:56:AM
C) Not proven

What like the Middleton case?

Knew you would say 'not proven,' predictable.

So better to have a 'not proven' verdict in a murder case like this in your opinion? You think the people of Scotland would have been okay with that?

Jodie and her family didn't deserve justice, is that what you are suggesting?

Who did it then if it wasn't LM?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 12:59:AM
The investiagation was 'awful' as you put it but that doesn't render Luke Mitchell innocent.  I agree he was treated inproperly by police when interviewed but again that does not make him innocent.

Mitchell's supporters including Sandra Lean had hoped that Mitchell would be freed not because he was innocent but because his rights to a fair trial had been impinged.  What is your view Baz?

That's a good question. Not one that I really have a formed opinion on, and without legal expertise I'm not sure I'm that qualified to say. But if the basis of a fair trial is innocent until proven guilty then I think the media attention would have made that a lot more difficult, if not impossible. I also think a fair trial is dependent on the strength of the evidence presented and this is dependent on the people collecting that evidence. 

However, I also think Luke had a top-notch lawyer and has had his case revisited with appeals. I know that people question the defence's performance, and there are things that seem lacklustre about it to me, but there are entire day's lost to legal wrangling as well so he can't have been that weak.

As I say, And wasn't at the trial, so it's hard to say.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 01:02:AM
What like the Middleton case?

Knew you would say 'not proven,' predictable.

So better to have a 'not proven' verdict in a murder case like this in your opinion? You think the people of Scotland would have been okay with that?

More irrelevance.

I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 01:06:AM
That's a good question. Not one that I really have a formed opinion on, and without legal expertise I'm not sure I'm that qualified to say. But if the basis of a fair trial is innocent until proven guilty then I think the media attention would have made that a lot more difficult, if not impossible. I also think a fair trial is dependent on the strength of the evidence presented and this is dependent on the people collecting that evidence

However, I also think Luke had a top-notch lawyer and has had his case revisited with appeals. I know that people question the defence's performance, and there are things that seem lacklustre about it to me, but there are entire day's lost to legal wrangling as well so he can't have been that weak.

As I say, And wasn't at the trial, so it's hard to say.

Human beings aren't infallible. From my own experiences, I now realise that police mistakes will get made along the way, especially in cases like this. You cannot expect an investigation to run like clockwork...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 01:08:AM

Jodie and her family didn't deserve justice, is that what you are suggesting?


It's Jodi.

And I won't dignify that with a response.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 01:10:AM
More irrelevance.

I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.

How is it irrelevant? The WAP organisation was run by Middleton and Sandra L which advocated for the LM case for several years. Sandra L then disassociated herself from the organisation, one has to ask the question why? It's relevant imo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 01:12:AM
It's Jodi.

And I won't dignify that with a response.

It's Jodi what?

You mean you won't answer because to do so leaves your theory of a not proven verdict wide open for critism...  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 01:18:AM
It's Jodi what?

You mean you won't answer because to do so leaves your theory of a not proven verdict wide open for critism...  ::)

I was just explaining that you've spelt her name wrong. There is no 'e' at  the end. Easy mistake.

And no I won't answer because it's a completely ridiculous question to ask. I'm pretty sure anyone interested in the case ultimately wants justice for Jodi and to imply that someone with a different opinion to you doesn't think the Jones family deserved justice is petty and reductive.

And these circles we are going round in are pointless.

Night.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 01:20:AM
C) Not proven

"The result is the modern perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again".[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 01:23:AM
I was just explaining that you've spelt her name wrong. There is no 'e' at  the end. Easy mistake.

And no I won't answer because it's a completely ridiculous question to ask. I'm pretty sure anyone interested in the case ultimately wants justice for Jodi and to imply that someone with a different opinion to you doesn't think the Jones family deserved justice is petty and reductive.

And these circles we are going round in are pointless.

Night.

I get a strong sense from your posts that you have a personal agenda or score to settle as opposed to a genuine interest in the facts of this case?

Unless of course you were goading?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:01:AM
Good morning.

Nugnug, Andrina Bryson was asked on the stand if she knew any of the Jones family. She said she didn't. Janine was asked if she knew Mark "Bill" Bryson - she said she did, but played down the relationship between him and her family. Mark "Bill" Bryson wasn't called to give evidence, neither was his brother (Andrina's husband.) Nobody was ever asked how MBB came to be in Alice Walker's house by 9am on the morning of July 1st, and how he had come by AB's story of a "sighting" so quickly. The formal identification of Jodi's body was not made public until around 3pm on July 1st.

For the record, the description he is reported to have given is different again from the one given by AB in court- it was of someone wearing "army clothes" and "army style boots."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:15:AM
Shane did not initially state he was "home alone" that afternoon - he said he had no idea whether or not he came straight home from work, and gave the time/route he would normally take/arrive home, with the proviso that he might not have come straight home.

Police checks showed he had stopped off to help a friend with a car problem (which Shane instantly agreed was corrrect, he had simply forgotten about it on what must have been, by the Tuesday afternoon/evening, the most shocking and surreal experience.) That meant Luke would have been home before Shane, and not the other way around. He said he usually came in from work and went straight upstairs to his room, and believed he did so that afternoon. If Luke was in the kitchen, Shane would not have seen him, and, unless they called out to each other, may not even have known Luke was there.

I knocked at Corinne's front door and let myself in one day - Mia was lying on the settee in the living room and didn't bark (because she knew me), I said hello to Mia, then walked through to the kitchen (there were heavy curtains on the door between the kitchen and the dining room) and almost gave Corinne a heart attack because she hadn't heard me come in.

None of the questions about Shane which have been posed here take account of the phone call made from Corinne's landline to Scotts Caravans, or the fact that Shane and Corinne ate a cooked dinner which they did not prepare themselves.

The treatment of Shane by police was outrageous - one officer kept telling him "I'm ot accepting "I don't know" or "I don't remember" - that's not good enough" before aggressively telling Shane to picture crtain scenarios in his head. If that isn't a blatant attempt to interfere with witness recall, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:30:AM
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.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 20, 2015, 12:30:PM
Good morning.

Nugnug, Andrina Bryson was asked on the stand if she knew any of the Jones family. She said she didn't. Janine was asked if she knew Mark "Bill" Bryson - she said she did, but played down the relationship between him and her family. Mark "Bill" Bryson wasn't called to give evidence, neither was his brother (Andrina's husband.) Nobody was ever asked how MBB came to be in Alice Walker's house by 9am on the morning of July 1st, and how he had come by AB's story of a "sighting" so quickly. The formal identification of Jodi's body was not made public until around 3pm on July 1st.

For the record, the description he is reported to have given is different again from the one given by AB in court- it was of someone wearing "army clothes" and "army style boots."

what i cant grasp is why they denied it i mean that wouldent of made mrs brysons testomany any less valid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 01:23:PM
More irrelevance.

I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.

You said not proven.... Here...

C) Not proven
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 01:31:PM
Quote
what i cant grasp is why they denied it i mean that wouldent of made mrs brysons testomany any less valid.

I think the problem, nugnug, is that the to-ing and fro-ing of Mark Bill Bryson amongst immediate family members could have undermined Andrina Bryson's testimony as potentially contaminated. The initial description changed after he had spoken to Jodi's family members, but before Mrs Bryson gave her first statement - had that been before the jury, they may have wondered why the description changed so quickly.

Also, MBB was with Jodi's family on July 4th, telling them the same story about the "sighting" and AO claims it was not long after that that he began to have doubts about Luke.

The identification from photographs would potentially have been further undermined (Luke's photos hadn't been in the paper prior to that "identification") if it was known that there were such close ties between the Brysons and the Jones family - if AB already knew, by the time of the photo id what Luke looked like, it's not difficult to see how such knowledge, along with the family certainty that Luke was the killer, might have influenced her "identification."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 01:50:PM
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.


Thanks for the information. That goes some way to explaining why stories are allowed to change so much from original statements without being seen as suspicious.

I should probably know all the names by now but who is AO?

Edited: just worked it out. Allen Ovens, Jodi's Stepdad.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 04:46:PM
More irrelevance.

I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.

Furthermore my simple A or B cannot be incorrect, he's either innocent or guilty. Surely you can understand this; especially in a case like this? Someone committed the murder. You cannot have a suspect like LM and then think 'oh he could be guilty but all the circumstantial evidence isn't enough to settle my mind into believing he did it, I need to see a DNA match or photograph to prove to my mind he didn't do it.' Not in a case like this.

If this mentality was allowed to stand then there would be numerous unsolved cases and more worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 06:11:PM
It's Jodi.

And I won't dignify that with a response.

I was just explaining that you've spelt her name wrong. There is no 'e' at  the end. Easy mistake.

And no I won't answer because it's a completely ridiculous question to ask. I'm pretty sure anyone interested in the case ultimately wants justice for Jodi and to imply that someone with a different opinion to you doesn't think the Jones family deserved justice is petty and reductive.

And these circles we are going round in are pointless.

Night.

May I suggest it is you who is being petty.

I'm merely trying to point out that if you believe LM to be innocent then you need to have another suspect in mind, one with the means, motive and opportunity in order to establish their guilt.

Who do you believe carried out the murder if you believe in your mind that LM should have been given a 'not proven' verdict (based on your belief there were too many police errors, inconsistencies, suspicions surrounding other individuals etc etc)?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 06:37:PM
14th April 2014

JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.

Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right.

Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.

The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial.

The Scottish Prison Service is said to be considering the request although it can ban inmates from obtaining books not on the approved list of suppliers.

A trio of books on Mitchell’s list are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the US founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

Another title, Satan Speaks, has a foreword by goth musician Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of tragic Jodi.

Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.

Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home.

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. While under investigation for Jodi’s murder it emerged he had a demonic tattoo done.

Mitchell’s school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

Criminologist Elizabeth Rudman said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point.”

The SPS said: “Any request by a prisoner for materials on the grounds of religious practice would be considered carefully and risk-assessed by our chaplaincy team.”

Mitchell would not be given any materials that could incite violence or antisocial behaviour."

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 06:43:PM
Quote
I'm merely trying to point out that if you believe LM to be innocent then you need to have another suspect in mind, one with the means, motive and opportunity in order to establish their guilt.

Why? Isn't it enough to look at the evidence, investigation and prosecution tactics etc, and come to the conclusion that none of it actually supports the contention that he is the killer?

Believing someone to be innocent on this basis is entirely separate from "having another suspect in mind."

There were a number of people in this case who were not properly investigated, so cannot be said to have been safely eliminated from the enquiry. Does that make them "suspects" or does it just leave, 12 years later, a mountain of unanswered questions, all of which undermine the safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell.

I don't believe Baz said he thought Luke should have had a Not Proven verdict - I thought he said Not Proven was another verdict open to the jury, without expressing an opinion on whether that should have been the outcome in this case?

You said earlier
Quote
You cannot have a suspect like LM and then think 'oh he could be guilty but all the circumstantial evidence isn't enough to settle my mind into believing he did it, I need to see a DNA match or photograph to prove to my mind he didn't do it.' Not in a case like this.

Why not? Our justice system is supposed to demand two fundamental premises - that every person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was Luke afforded the presumption of innocence? Not according to the SCCRC, not according to John Scott QC, Roy Ramm, Keith Ashcroft... I could go on, but you get the picture. Not even according to SIO Craig Dobbie himself! It's not the case of circumstantial evidence "settling" anyone's mind - the evidence has to piece logically together to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the killer, and a number of professionals do not believe that happened. Far too many of the normal rules of justice were broken - events which happened after the murder, for example, cannot have influenced the murder itself - that is basic logic. Yet they were allowed to be used to support claims (nothing more than that) about behaviours, propensities etc, prior to the murder.

Quote
If this mentality was allowed to stand then there would be numerous unsolved cases and more worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets

Does that mean it's ok to get someone - anyone, rather than have an "unsolved case?" And what if they get the wrong person - doesn't that leave "worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets?"

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on October 20, 2015, 06:44:PM
14th April 2014

JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.

Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right.

Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.

The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial.

The Scottish Prison Service is said to be considering the request although it can ban inmates from obtaining books not on the approved list of suppliers.

A trio of books on Mitchell’s list are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the US founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

Another title, Satan Speaks, has a foreword by goth musician Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of tragic Jodi.

Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.

Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home.

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. While under investigation for Jodi’s murder it emerged he had a demonic tattoo done.

Mitchell’s school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

Criminologist Elizabeth Rudman said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point.”

The SPS said: “Any request by a prisoner for materials on the grounds of religious practice would be considered carefully and risk-assessed by our chaplaincy team.”

Mitchell would not be given any materials that could incite violence or antisocial behaviour."

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463

Good post. I think that it shows LM's state of mind  - and that is important in a case like this.

Some people have a financial incentive in MOJ cases, I think that needs to be kept in mind.

I think LM is guilty as sin. When a suspect can't keep their stroy straight, and those around him don't either, then there is usually a reason for that.  If it was my brother inside for a crime I didn't believe he committed I would be SCREAMING from the rooft tops.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 06:45:PM
"Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence.

One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a
serious interest in the subject.

“Some people think he is playing a game and is trying to cause mischief. He’s still fighting his conviction. How can surrounding yourself with Satanic materials make a good impression?

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted that he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. It also emerged he had a demonic tattoo done while under investigation for Jodi’s murder.

Prosecutors revealed his school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 06:46:PM
"Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence.

One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a
serious interest in the subject.

“Some people think he is playing a game and is trying to cause mischief. He’s still fighting his conviction. How can surrounding yourself with Satanic materials make a good impression?

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted that he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. It also emerged he had a demonic tattoo done while under investigation for Jodi’s murder.

Prosecutors revealed his school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

I can confirm that I have seen LM satanical writings firsthand and have original copies of such. Explain that?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 06:53:PM
Why? Isn't it enough to look at the evidence, investigation and prosecution tactics etc, and come to the conclusion that none of it actually supports the contention that he is the killer?

Believing someone to be innocent on this basis is entirely separate from "having another suspect in mind."

There were a number of people in this case who were not properly investigated, so cannot be said to have been safely eliminated from the enquiry. Does that make them "suspects" or does it just leave, 12 years later, a mountain of unanswered questions, all of which undermine the safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell.

I don't believe Baz said he thought Luke should have had a Not Proven verdict - I thought he said Not Proven was another verdict open to the jury, without expressing an opinion on whether that should have been the outcome in this case?

You said earlier
Why not? Our justice system is supposed to demand two fundamental premises - that every person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was Luke afforded the presumption of innocence? Not according to the SCCRC, not according to John Scott QC, Roy Ramm, Keith Ashcroft... I could go on, but you get the picture. Not even according to SIO Craig Dobbie himself! It's not the case of circumstantial evidence "settling" anyone's mind - the evidence has to piece logically together to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the killer, and a number of professionals do not believe that happened. Far too many of the normal rules of justice were broken - events which happened after the murder, for example, cannot have influenced the murder itself - that is basic logic. Yet they were allowed to be used to support claims (nothing more than that) about behaviours, propensities etc, prior to the murder.

Does that mean it's ok to get someone - anyone, rather than have an "unsolved case?" And what if they get the wrong person - doesn't that leave "worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets?"

I do not take you seriously anymore Sandra L nor do I think you are credible (My opinion of course) and therefore see no point in responding to everything you have written. ...

However if you stand so strongly behind your arguments;

Who killed Jodi Jones if you believe LM didn't?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 06:57:PM
Not for you

As 'Baz' likes to say - irrelevant to the discussion!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:00:PM
Quote
Good post. I think that it shows LM's state of mind  - and that is important in a case like this.
State of mind more than a decade later.

Quote
Some people have a financial incentive in MOJ cases, I think that needs to be kept in mind.
The people named in my last post had zero financial motive/gain from their comments and opinions. I personally have never made a penny from my involvement in MoJ work.

Quote
I think LM is guilty as sin. When a suspect can't keep their stroy straight, and those around him don't either, then there is usually a reason for that.  If it was my brother inside for a crime I didn't believe he committed I would be SCREAMING from the rooft tops.

Luke's story was the only one that stayed straight throughout all of the statements. Unless you've been in a situation where a relative has been wrongly convicted, I don't think you're in a positon to say what you'd do. I know of several families where some members are able to campaign tirelessly and others simply cannot cope.

For the record, I personally believe the request for this material was ill conceived - it doesn't, however,  change my view of the facts of the case or the so-called investigation
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 07:06:PM
State of mind more than a decade later.
 The people named in my last post had zero financial motive/gain from their comments and opinions. I personally have never made a penny from my involvement in MoJ work.

Luke's story was the only one that stayed straight throughout all of the statements. Unless you've been in a situation where a relative has been wrongly convicted, I don't think you're in a positon to say what you'd do. I know of several families where some members are able to campaign tirelessly and others simply cannot cope.

For the record, I personally believe the request for this material was ill conceived - it doesn't, however,  change my view of the facts of the case or the so-called investigation

But it wasn't a decade later as the news article I posted shows....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

I don't think Mat was suggesting you had made any money from your involvement in MOJ work - I believe he was referring to the person maintaining innocence and them having a financial motive...

Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes in my opinion. Why doesn't he write a statement, in his own words, supporting what you and others say about him? What is he worried about?

And it would have been no use to Luke to have wavered from his original statements as this would have set off further alarm bells....

I'll-conceived? How and why?

What did he want with the books? Research material? If LM has nothing to hide then he would not need to careful plan when or how he would ask for copies of the books imo. However if this is the case, why no explanation? What is your explanation?

Nothing wrong in believing the investigation was flawed and outlining those flaws but doesn't mean a person is innocent because of them; as my experience proves.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 07:14:PM

I don't believe Baz said he thought Luke should have had a Not Proven verdict - I thought he said Not Proven was another verdict open to the jury, without expressing an opinion on whether that should have been the outcome in this case?


Thanks, that was exactly what I was getting at. I truly wish I could just come down on one side and that's why I ask so many questions, hoping to sure up my opinion.

The conviction is troubling though. I'll happily say that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 07:16:PM
Thanks, that was exactly what I was getting at. I truly wish I could just come down on one side and that's why I ask so many questions, hoping to sure up my opinion.

The conviction is troubling though. I'll happily say that.

How is it 'troubling?'

Not that your opinion of what side to 'come down on' will make an iota of difference to LM's conviction.....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:19:PM
Quote
I do not take you seriously anymore Sandra L nor do I think you are credible (My opinion of course) and therefore see no point in responding to everything you have written. ...

However if you stand so strongly behind your arguments;

Who killed Jodi Jones if you believe LM didn't?

I see, so you'll ignore my questions and comments, but still feel perfectly justified in demanding answers from me that you've already said you're going to ignore. Not sure how that's going to work!

You did make me smile, though... "If you stand so strongly behind your arguments...." Really??? More than 12 years down the line, and you use "if." And, just for clarity, your opinion of me is none of my business - I came here to discuss Luke's case with people who seemed to be interested in discussing it - if that's not you, no worries!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:28:PM
Quote
I don't think Mat was suggesting you had made any money from your involvement in MOJ work - I believe he was referring to the person maintaining innocence and them having a financial motive...

Where did that come from? Luke's never made any mention of gaining financially from his situation - he wouldn't get compensation under today's rules, even if his conviction was overturned. Luke's only concern, since the age of 15, has been to clear his name, and regain his freedom.

Quote
Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes in my opinion. Why doesn't he write a statement, in his own words, supporting what you and others say about him? What is he worried about?
I don't know, and it's none of my business. Why presume he is "worried" about anything? Do you know how many people end up suffering PTSD following events such as these?
 

Quote
I'll-conceived? How and why?
Let's not pllay silly games. It was ill conceived because the reaction, when the news was leaked to the media, was predictable, and did nothing to further his cause.

Quote
What did he want with the books? Research material? If LM has nothing to hide then he would not need to careful plan when or how he would ask for copies of the books imo. However if this is the case, why no explanation? What is your explanation?

Doesn't matter, remember? Credibility etc!

Quote
Nothing wrong in believing the investigation was flawed and outlining those flaws but doesn't mean a person is innocent because of them; as my experience proves.

But it may mean he's innocent because the circumstances may be different. Having a clearer idea of what really went on in both cases would help people come to informed conclusions - that can surely only be a positive step?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 07:29:PM
I see, so you'll ignore my questions and comments, but still feel perfectly justified in demanding answers from me that you've already said you're going to ignore. Not sure how that's going to work!

You did make me smile, though... "If you stand so strongly behind your arguments...." Really??? More than 12 years down the line, and you use "if." And, just for clarity, your opinion of me is none of my business - I came here to discuss Luke's case with people who seemed to be interested in discussing it - if that's not you, no worries!

You make me smile too  ;D The word cockaloram springs to mind.  ::)

Btw; you didn't stand behind the stance of innocence last year. Even pointing out some of your concerns regarding this 'waver.'
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 07:33:PM
I don't know, and it's none of my business. Why presume he is "worried" about anything? Do you know how many people end up suffering PTSD following events such as these?
 
 Let's not pllay silly games. It was ill conceived because the reaction, when the news was leaked to the media, was predictable, and did nothing to further his cause.

Doesn't matter, remember? Credibility etc!

But it may mean he's innocent because the circumstances may be different. Having a clearer idea of what really went on in both cases would help people come to informed conclusions - that can surely only be a positive step?

So Luke asked for books on Satan because he is suffering from PTSD is that what you are suggesting?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:36:PM
Quote
Thanks, that was exactly what I was getting at. I truly wish I could just come down on one side and that's why I ask so many questions, hoping to sure up my opinion.

The conviction is troubling though. I'll happily say that.

This is why I do what I do, Baz (although not to the extent I once did - I simply don't have the time or energy any more). For me, there's a pile of information about how police investigations and prosecution procedures deviate from what we expect, and what we think we know about them, and I think it's important that more people are made aware of that, because wrongful accusation and conviction could so easily happen to any one of us.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:39:PM
Quote
So Luke asked for books on Satan because he is suffering from PTSD is that what you are suggesting?

No. Please read your own posts, and my responses to them. The PTSD reference was in response to your questions about what Shane does or doesn't do, and why. Interesting series of "non responses" to my posts though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 07:41:PM
This is why I do what I do, Baz (although not to the extent I once did - I simply don't have the time or energy any more). For me, there's a pile of information about how police investigations and prosecution procedures deviate from what we expect, and what we think we know about them, and I think it's important that more people are made aware of that, because wrongful accusation and conviction could so easily happen to any one of us.

Making people aware of 'a pile of information about how police investigations and prosecution procedures deviate from what we expect' is one thing - what we actually do about it (And how we do it) to bring about change is entirely different.....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 07:43:PM
No. Please read your own posts, and my responses to them. The PTSD reference was in response to your questions about what Shane does or doesn't do, and why. Interesting series of "non responses" to my posts though.

So you were suggesting Shane suffers with PTSD?

Neither irony or sarcasm is argument.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2015, 07:53:PM
Quote
So you were suggesting Shane suffers with PTSD?

Neither irony or sarcasm is argument

No, I was offering that as a possible explanation for Shane not commenting/campaigning publicly. Not sure what the irony/sarcasm bit means - I was using neither.

Quote
You make me smile too  ;D The word cockaloram springs to mind.  ::)

Btw; you didn't stand behind the stance of innocence last year. Even pointing out some of your concerns regarding this 'waver.'

I would have been a fool to have accepted, without question, everything that has come my way over the years - I had to question everything, doubt everything, re-think everything over and over again - there have been many times I have had to re-examine everything I thought I knew in light of new developments - that is the nature of this work, and always will be. I'd have thought, given your experiences, you, too, would understand that. Just as a reminder, your opinion of me is none of my business.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 08:23:PM

I would have been a fool to have accepted, without question, everything that has come my way over the years - I had to question everything, doubt everything, re-think everything over and over again - there have been many times I have had to re-examine everything I thought I knew in light of new developments - that is the nature of this work, and always will be. I'd have thought, given your experiences, you, too, would understand that. Just as a reminder, your opinion of me is none of my business.

Pray tell me 'my experiences?' Telepathy another of your 'masterful' talents  ::)

Strikes me how you do indeed avoid answering direct questions and instead divert to something else.

Who killed Jodi Jones? If Luke Mitchell is innocent A N Other is responsible! Who ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 08:35:PM
Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes in my opinion. Why doesn't he write a statement, in his own words, supporting what you and others say about him? What is he worried about?

I don't know, and it's none of my business. Why presume he is "worried" about anything? Do you know how many people end up suffering PTSD following events such as these?

So you were suggesting Shane suffers with PTSD?


No. Please read your own posts, and my responses to them. The PTSD reference was in response to your questions about what Shane does or doesn't do, and why

No, I was offering that as a possible explanation for Shane not commenting/campaigning publicly.



I'm baffled? :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 08:45:PM
Having a clearer idea of what really went on in both cases would help people come to informed conclusions - that can surely only be a positive step?

Where would you like to start? How about childhood development? http://library.allanschore.com/docs/AttachMurderHeide06.pdf

Have you been following the Becky Watts murder trial?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/19/becky-watts-suspect-nathan-matthews-spoiled-selfish
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 20, 2015, 08:54:PM
I would make it your business to find out why Shane hasn't publicly supported Luke and why he hasn't made a statement in relation to his factual evidence.....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 20, 2015, 11:42:PM
This is why I do what I do, Baz (although not to the extent I once did - I simply don't have the time or energy any more). For me, there's a pile of information about how police investigations and prosecution procedures deviate from what we expect, and what we think we know about them, and I think it's important that more people are made aware of that, because wrongful accusation and conviction could so easily happen to any one of us.

It's a terrifying prospect. Especially with the Marilyn Manson CDs stored unde my bed (unplayed for a decade probably) and notes about Luke Mitchell on my iPad. All damning evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 21, 2015, 01:01:AM
It's a terrifying prospect. Especially with the Marilyn Manson CDs stored unde my bed (unplayed for a decade probably) and notes about Luke Mitchell on my iPad. All damning evidence.

Do you have another account here under the name Suzie by any chance?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 21, 2015, 10:17:AM
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D

This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!

(apologies, off topic )

Edited for clarity

Only some of yours posts are extremely similar to Suzies posts?

To anyone interested - it's worth reading the first few pages of this thread. 'Baz & Suzie' even have a similar sense of humour  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 21, 2015, 10:37:AM
This statement intrigues me.

Yet Shane has a different take on things.

Luke's brother admits mum aided evidence
Source: Evening News - Scotland
Date: 1/13/2005

THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family's house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.

In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane's statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother's car being in the driveway and the front door being open.

His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.

Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell's statement given on the previous day to Shane's. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."

Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."

Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.

"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

Mitchell replied: "My mother."

Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: 'You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.'"

Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.

Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan's Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues

Here's a recap re Shane's evidence.

Maybe this is why he doesn't speak out publicly anymore?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 21, 2015, 12:16:PM
Here's a recap re Shane's evidence.

Maybe this is why he doesn't speak out publicly anymore?

I was quite shocked the first time I read this when going through this forum because my immediate reaction was that he had just admitted to setting up an alibi with his Mum. But, it can surely just as easily have been him saying that he couldn't have given the evidence without his Mum reminding him. He'd already shown that his memory of the evening wasn't exactly reliable when he said he got home at 3:30 (if memory serves) but the police showed with evidence that he went to a friends house first. So if it hadn't been for the police working that out and reminding him then his evidence would probably have still been that he got in at 3:30.

It just isn't the definitive piece of evidence that I would have been willing to convict on.

Edit: I'm terrible at this quoting business. Sorry.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 21, 2015, 04:58:PM
I was quite shocked the first time I read this when going through this forum because my immediate reaction was that he had just admitted to setting up an alibi with his Mum. But, it can surely just as easily have been him saying that he couldn't have given the evidence without his Mum reminding him. He'd already shown that his memory of the evening wasn't exactly reliable when he said he got home at 3:30 (if memory serves) but the police showed with evidence that he went to a friends house first. So if it hadn't been for the police working that out and reminding him then his evidence would probably have still been that he got in at 3:30.

It just isn't the definitive piece of evidence that I would have been willing to convict on.

Edit: I'm terrible at this quoting business. Sorry.

Or it surely just as easily have been both Shane and his Mum were lying?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 21, 2015, 05:18:PM
Or it surely just as easily have been both Shane and his Mum were lying?

Exactly.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 21, 2015, 05:33:PM
But I guess, if we're open to the possibility that they were lying (rather than simply trying to remember details of what was, until the discovery of Jodi's body, a perfectly mundane weekday) then we'd have to give that same consideration to others whose stories changed as a result of information given to them by other people.

Findlay made that point in court - Janine's story about not knowing about the path and Jodi "not being allowed to use it alone" was, she admitted, given to her in the early hours of July 1st. Was that true (that Jodi wasn't allowed to use the path alone) , or was it inserted into the narrative very early on? (Clue, Janine admitted her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone).

Or what about Joseph, who told police the whole family, including Jodi, had eaten dinner at the table on the evening of June 30th? Was he lying then, or when he changed his statement to say he'd eaten dinner from a plate on his lap in the sitting room? Did the discussion with his mother remind him that the family hadn't eaten together?

What about Alice, who forgot to mention that John Ferris was staying with her at the time of the murder, and took nearly two weeks to mention it? Was she lying by ommission or did she genuinely forget?

I'm not saying any of these people did anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that the existence of suspicion in the first place allows a sinister slant to be put on behaviours by one group, but not on others for exactly the same behaviours.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 21, 2015, 05:38:PM
Quote
the police showed with evidence that he went to a friends house first. So if it hadn't been for the police working that out and reminding him then his evidence would probably have still been that he got in at 3:30.

Interestingly, it was never, ever suggested that Shane was lying about the time he got home - it was accepted, totally, that he had forgotten about stopping at a friend's on the way home. I always wondered why they made such a song and dance about the dinner reminder, but not about the stopping at a friend's reminder - they seem like pretty much the same thing to me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 21, 2015, 05:54:PM
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?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 21, 2015, 05:56:PM
But I guess, if we're open to the possibility that they were lying (rather than simply trying to remember details of what was, until the discovery of Jodi's body, a perfectly mundane weekday) then we'd have to give that same consideration to others whose stories changed as a result of information given to them by other people.

Findlay made that point in court - Janine's story about not knowing about the path and Jodi "not being allowed to use it alone" was, she admitted, given to her in the early hours of July 1st. Was that true (that Jodi wasn't allowed to use the path alone) , or was it inserted into the narrative very early on? (Clue, Janine admitted her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone).

Or what about Joseph, who told police the whole family, including Jodi, had eaten dinner at the table on the evening of June 30th? Was he lying then, or when he changed his statement to say he'd eaten dinner from a plate on his lap in the sitting room? Did the discussion with his mother remind him that the family hadn't eaten together?

What about Alice, who forgot to mention that John Ferris was staying with her at the time of the murder, and took nearly two weeks to mention it? Was she lying by ommission or did she genuinely forget?

I'm not saying any of these people did anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that the existence of suspicion in the first place allows a sinister slant to be put on behaviours by one group, but not on others for exactly the same behaviours.

Agreed. I obviously have no idea if the police thoroughly investigated the lies and changes in story from the non-Mitchells.

It is suspicious, to me, that both Luke and Shane are in the house together but aren't sure if the other is also in, but not impossible. And this gets a lot of attention and is possibly the main thing that got Luke convicted. But isn't it more suspicious that at the police's presumed time of death John Ferris's moped is seen unattended at the gap in the wall. His explanation is that he doesn't remember why, I think. And they're fine with that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 21, 2015, 05:58:PM
Interestingly, it was never, ever suggested that Shane was lying about the time he got home - it was accepted, totally, that he had forgotten about stopping at a friend's on the way home. I always wondered why they made such a song and dance about the dinner reminder, but not about the stopping at a friend's reminder - they seem like pretty much the same thing to me.

well id never heard of it before so obviosly they never made a big thing about it in court.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on October 21, 2015, 06:03:PM


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.


Where and what time was this sighting?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 21, 2015, 06:21:PM
I would make it your business to find out why Shane hasn't publicly supported Luke and why he hasn't made a statement in relation to his factual evidence.....

how many people do in all cases like this very few.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 22, 2015, 02:40:AM
And Stephanie, please xxxx.

Never!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 22, 2015, 03:36:AM
Interestingly, it was never, ever suggested that Shane was lying about the time he got home - it was accepted, totally, that he had forgotten about stopping at a friend's on the way home. I always wondered why they made such a song and dance about the dinner reminder, but not about the stopping at a friend's reminder - they seem like pretty much the same thing to me.

In reality it matters little what anyone says in their statements as it is what they repeat under oath in the witness box which is important. Shane was warned by Turnbull, prosecuting, of the consequences of committing perjury thus when he was asked in Court if Luke was at home the afternoon Jodi was murdered he had to admit that he hadn't seen him.  Which sort of renders Corinne's and Luke's version of events extremely questionable.  Corinne was extremely lucky to have escaped a perjury charge or even a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice following Luke's conviction imo.

I have often wondered why you perservered with this case Sandra, returning to it even now after being effectively sidelined by the Mitchell family?  Has history not taught you that the Scottish Justice System is one of the most incestuous and corrupt legal systems in the world?  Even if some hard evidence of Mitchell's innocence were ever to be uncovered do you really think for a moment that such an institution could even admit to failure?

Have you ever considered the damage that you and other academics have caused to the entire miscarriage of justice scene by wrongly promoting the guilty as innocent?  Don't you think that your previous history of involvement in such cases renders your input in the Mitchell case a bit of a poisoned chalice?  Is that the real reason why Corinne Mitchell effectively sacked you?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 22, 2015, 07:29:AM
Quote
I have often wondered why you perservered with this case Sandra, returning to it even now after being effectively sidelined by the Mitchell family?  Has history not taught you that the Scottish Justice System is one of the most incestuous and corrupt legal systems in the world?  Even if some hard evidence of Mitchell's innocence were ever to be uncovered do you really think for a moment that such an institution could even admit to failure?

That is exactly why. What should I have done - shrugged, sighed and walked away, knowing that the justice system as corrupt and incestuous?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 22, 2015, 07:31:AM
Where and what time was this sighting?

On the Easthouses main street at around 5.05pm on June 30th. The police knew about it by July 5th.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 22, 2015, 07:39:AM
Quote
What are you implying by "Really?" What's your alternative explanation? A totally innocent woman and her brother with no reason to lie fake a sighting and lie to police in order to frame a teenage boy and help cover up a murder for a random family they barely know? Yes, that's much easier to believe Sandra.

OK, let me make it absolutely clear what I'm saying. I believe it is an extremely strong possibility that Andrina Bryson's "sighting" was tainted and embellished by the close communication between MBB and the Jones family. I do not believe Andrina Bryson was knowinglyo r deliberately dishonest - I believe she was influenced initially by information being fed to her by oher family members, and then put under extreme pressure by police to agree to certain propositions.

Her possible routes home from the supermarket, for example, and the change of timing of her sighting, of which she was very, very sure initially, going so far as to retrieve the time of a text on her phone to prove the point. Is it really believable that she, like all of the Jones and extended family witnesses (whom she did not know), was out by 30 - 40 minutes?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 22, 2015, 10:20:AM
Agreed. I obviously have no idea if the police thoroughly investigated the lies and changes in story from the non-Mitchells.

It is suspicious, to me, that both Luke and Shane are in the house together but aren't sure if the other is also in, but not impossible. And this gets a lot of attention and is possibly the main thing that got Luke convicted. But isn't it more suspicious that at the police's presumed time of death John Ferris's moped is seen unattended at the gap in the wall. His explanation is that he doesn't remember why, I think. And they're fine with that.

Name that tune in one
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2015, 10:59:AM
well i wouldent be that suspicios that john ferris couldent rember exactly what he was doing but i thought he would at least remember vaguely.

and if you couple that with his falure to come forward it is highly suspicious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2015, 05:17:PM
well the the qustion remains how did she think she had seen jodi if she dident know jodi and no pictures had been released.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2015, 05:30:PM
i dont know but the qustiion needs to be ansred how can you think you have seen 2 people when you have never met and have no idea what they look like.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2015, 05:43:PM
who did she see ive got no idea but as she dident know them she couldent of had any idea ethere.

so why she came forward is rather a mystory.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2015, 06:14:PM
but they dident show her the photo till after she had come forward before then she would of had no idea what luke and jodi looked like.

well avording to her she dident know them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2015, 06:17:PM
so how could she had seen jodi she cliamed she dident know jodi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2015, 06:23:PM
how could say that if know idea whay jodi looked like.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 22, 2015, 06:36:PM
she said she had seen jodi with a boy when she came forward otherwise she wouldent of come forward they were appealing for witnesses who had seen jodi at the time not luke luke hadent been mentioned yet.

so the qustions how could she of thought that if she dident know jodi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on October 22, 2015, 08:45:PM
I've seen you say this about every single person (whose surname isn't Mitchell) that gave evidence or provided a statement. You also make the same assumption that the jury was influenced by the media. This is pure speculation on your part. You assume all of these people are weak minded and easily influenced. Do you not think those involved understood the seriousness of the situation and knew it wasn't something to be taken lightly? Do you really think the high school teacher who testified that Luke Mitchell definitely owned a parka before the murder (staff said he resembled a hooded monk) was too naive to understand the seriousness of a murder trial and give it his utmost consideration?

You're too quick to dismiss all of these people with nothing to support your theory that every last one of them are simply being dim-witted. Isn't it you who's being naive to make such assumptions and write off so many statements? Is it not far more likely that respectively they are all more or less giving accurate accounts (you've yet to come out and declare any reason they had for lying) which combined amount to evidence?
Excellent post. 

Sandra makes a good case for the defence but the jury heard ALL the evidence, first hand.  They would have been warned repeatedly about being influenced by media coverage. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 23, 2015, 12:27:AM
yes they would of been warned but i doubt if they would of taken any notice.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 23, 2015, 12:30:AM
source?

well it simple logic she dident know luke mitchell so she wouldent of said luke mitchell would she.

to do that she would of had to have known both of them and anybody who has followed the case knows that she cliamed not to know ethere of them.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 23, 2015, 07:06:AM
Quote
You assume all of these people are weak minded and easily influenced...You're too quick to dismiss all of these people with nothing to support your theory that every last one of them are simply being dim-witted

I have never suggested that these people were weak minded, easily influenced or dim-witted. I have suggested, repeatedly, that police tactics in cases like these are designed to elicit the answers they (the police) want. It's a  recognised process, well documented by many experts, and they use it because it works.

Quote
Is it not far more likely that respectively they are all more or less giving accurate accounts

No, because (a) they're not, and (b) "retrospectively" is the giveaway - you can get anything "accurate" once you've been given all of the information you need to be "accurate." None of these witnesses was anywhere near accurate initially (although, bizzarely, many gave the same mistaken timings - like 9 separate people from 4 different homes.)

Quote
She knew it was Luke from the police photo/ Doesn't matter, she knew what the person she seen looked like, and recognized him in the paper (which had his name printed along with it.)

The photo was show to her 6 weeks later. It did not resemble, in any way, the description she gave police. You don't think there were any leding/suggestive tactics used here?

Quote
around 50 minutes before he was seen alone at the opposite side of the path by Lorraine Fleming who described him as looking like he was "up to no good?"

For accuracy, Fleming and Walsh both gave this "evidence" in court, and both were pulled up by Findlay because neither had used that particular phrase in any of their police statements. He asked if it was merely coincidence that two people, who were not supposed to be discussing the case, happened to use exactly the same phrase, one after the other, a phrase neither had used before. Neither of their descriptions matched Luke either. Both said they did not see his face, one was absolutely clear she would only recognise him from his clothes - she then identified a youth in a suit and tie in court! (There was never any suggestion that the youth seen outside Newbattle Abbey College (and not the entrance to the path) was wearing a suit and tie.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 23, 2015, 07:31:AM
Quote
Sandra makes a good case for the defence but the jury heard ALL the evidence, first hand.  They would have been warned repeatedly about being influenced by media coverage.

No, the jury didn't hear all of the evidence - far from it. They didn't hear Ferris's claim that it was Alice Walker who told him not to come forward. They didn't hear that at least 6 members of the Jones/Walker and Dickie families knew they were on the path, and kept schtum for nearly a week. They didn't hear anything at all about Falconer or Kane (including the witness who would have been able to tell them that Kane wore a Parka jacket in the weeks prior to the murder, and how she could be sure of that).

They didn't hear about Joseph and a 9 bar (or anything else about Joseph, in fact). They didn't hear about the forensic report that stated the possibility that a number of semen/sperm samples may have come from one person (further testing required) and that person was not Luke Mitchell. Or the education professionals who were willing to testify that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" and nothing at all unusual, in their experience, or that the claimed "satanic" slogans were lines from a computer game.

They didn't hear that, rather than the finely detailed story about Jodi coming in from school, sitting listening to a song with her mother and brother, then kissing her mother before leaving to meet Luke, Judith had no idea what time Jodi came in or left, where she was going, or what she was planning to do. She hadn't a clue what Jodi was wearing, and told police she remembered Jodi sitting on the settee trying to talk to her (Judith) and Judith was telling Jodi to "be quiet, shoo and go out."

And that's only a fraction of what the jury didn't get to hear.

Even if the jury was warned to ignore the media coverage (experts have since pointed out that this would have been impossible because, after so long, it would not be possible for people to identify, far less erase information which had been absorbed over that length of time) it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis) and that he believed Luke had carried the Dahlia images in his mind (to commit a "copycat" murder), yet there was no evidence whatsoever at trial that Luke had ever seen those pictures - it was purely conjecture by the prosecution. How did Nimmo Smith come to those "conclusions" - it was certainly not on the basis of evidence at trial?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 23, 2015, 07:44:AM
Quote
She said the female "could be" Jodi.

When did she say that? And how could she have said that - when she first came forward on July 1st, there were no pictures of Jodi available? The description of clothing she gave was nothing like what Jodi was wearing, and she did not see her face - in fact, initially she said she "presumed" the person she saw was female. So she could not have said the female "could have been Jodi" when she first came forward, because she (a) would have nothing on which to base such a claim and (b) her own description was so far removed from a description of Jodi that, if she had known  what Jodi looked like, she would have been able to tell police the person she saw did not look like that.

Quote
She's on record as being unable to identify the female

Correct!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 23, 2015, 05:03:PM
It was Luke she identified. She's on record as being unable to identify the female, so not sure what you're talking about or what Sandra's filled your head with.

So if not Jodi, who was the mystery female Luke Mitchell was arguing with not far from Jodi's house at a time which he lied about being at home, the same time Jodi would be in that very area on her way to meet him, around 50 minutes before he was seen alone at the opposite side of the path by Lorraine Fleming who described him as looking like he was "up to no good?"

So many coincidences eh nug.

Sandra would have us believe all these coincidences were real.  A coincidence that a young couple matching Luke and Jodi just happened to have been seen arguing at the Easthouses end of the path a short time before the murder and a coincidence that a male youth identified as matching Luke Mitchell was seen standing at a gate on the main road at the opposite end of the path a matter of minutes after the murder.  I'm afraid it really doesn't cut much ice.

The parka story has always been a bit of a mystery, surely if he owned a parka jacket all his friends would have known about it too?  Poor police work again!

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 23, 2015, 05:09:PM
No, the jury didn't hear all of the evidence - far from it. They didn't hear Ferris's claim that it was Alice Walker who told him not to come forward. They didn't hear that at least 6 members of the Jones/Walker and Dickie families knew they were on the path, and kept schtum for nearly a week. They didn't hear anything at all about Falconer or Kane (including the witness who would have been able to tell them that Kane wore a Parka jacket in the weeks prior to the murder, and how she could be sure of that).

They didn't hear about Joseph and a 9 bar (or anything else about Joseph, in fact). They didn't hear about the forensic report that stated the possibility that a number of semen/sperm samples may have come from one person (further testing required) and that person was not Luke Mitchell. Or the education professionals who were willing to testify that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" and nothing at all unusual, in their experience, or that the claimed "satanic" slogans were lines from a computer game.

They didn't hear that, rather than the finely detailed story about Jodi coming in from school, sitting listening to a song with her mother and brother, then kissing her mother before leaving to meet Luke, Judith had no idea what time Jodi came in or left, where she was going, or what she was planning to do. She hadn't a clue what Jodi was wearing, and told police she remembered Jodi sitting on the settee trying to talk to her (Judith) and Judith was telling Jodi to "be quiet, shoo and go out."

And that's only a fraction of what the jury didn't get to hear.

Even if the jury was warned to ignore the media coverage (experts have since pointed out that this would have been impossible because, after so long, it would not be possible for people to identify, far less erase information which had been absorbed over that length of time) it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis) and that he believed Luke had carried the Dahlia images in his mind (to commit a "copycat" murder), yet there was no evidence whatsoever at trial that Luke had ever seen those pictures - it was purely conjecture by the prosecution. How did Nimmo Smith come to those "conclusions" - it was certainly not on the basis of evidence at trial?

Are you still attempting to implicate Kane?   Hasn't the SCCRC already reviewed all those claims and threw them out?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 23, 2015, 06:44:PM
His friends confirmed he owned a parka. The only person saying he didn't have one is Corinne. Sandra, of course, hasn't got a clue what clothing Luke owned. I'll take the word of Luke's friends and teachers over Sandra's speculation.

Fifty witnesses if I remember correctly said he was wearing a green army shirt were they all wrong then
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 23, 2015, 07:29:PM
Quote
Sandra would have us believe all these coincidences were real.  A coincidence that a young couple matching Luke and Jodi

That would be a young couple not matching everything known about Jodi and Luke

Quote
just happened to have been seen arguing at the Easthouses end of the path a short time before the murder

No time of death ever established,

Quote
and a coincidence that a male youth identified as matching Luke Mitchell was seen standing at a gate on the main road at the opposite end of the path a matter of minutes after the murder.  I'm afraid it really doesn't cut much ice.

please refer to previous posts... did not match luke, time changed, location changed... time wasting tactics here

Quote
The parka story has always been a bit of a mystery, surely if he

He? We are talking about Mark Kane here, I presume?

Quote
owned a parka jacket all his friends would have known about it too?  Poor police work again

Since it took police investigators 3 years to trace Mark Kane, they wouldn't have been in a position to ask "all of his friends" what he habitually wore three years previously? Yes, poor police work - he was on their doorstep - Dalkeith police could have traced and eliminated him within 48 hours (like they did with Ferris and Dickie) - why didn't they?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 23, 2015, 07:43:PM
Quote
Sandra I cringe every time you bring up Mark Kane. He's completely irrelevant to this case.

Relevance - Fleming and Walsh saw a male (irrespective of changing descriptions) somewhere on the Newbattle Road that evening in a fleeting drive-by sighting. They did not know the male they were "identifying." How can anyone, anywhere, be sure that they were not seeing a completely innocent Mark Kane on the same stretch of road as they were seeing a "suspicious" Luke Mitchell?

This is not rocket science - I am not accusing Mark Kane of anything, and never have.

The relevance is in the claimed "positive identification" of Luke at the Newbattle end of the path - if witnesses may have seen someone else who was not Luke, the prosecution case disintegrates.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 23, 2015, 07:52:PM
Quote
Fifty witnesses if I remember correctly said he was wearing a green army shirt were they all wrong then

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?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on October 23, 2015, 08:49:PM
Not to mention the "absolutely striking resemblance" you keep talking about is non existent. Did anybody witness a lanky college student with a bowl cut and blonde highlights?

(http://i.imgur.com/a89Pbmi.png)

Can you tell me why you had a mod delete this picture when I posted it before?
What are you talking about a mod deleting this picture, when was that?  I cannot believe anyone removed the link, unless the message with it was removed for a reason. :-\
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on October 23, 2015, 09:06:PM
A while back when I first posted Mark Kane the picture was edited out at Sandra's request. I've asked her a few times why she asked for this to be removed and she hasn't answered. Mark Kane's identity wasn't any secret in regards to the case, and even if it was - not Sandra's "property", and it's a screenshot from a public YouTube video. I would like her to justify this. Surely if she believed the resemblance was so absolutely striking, she'd want everyone to see it.
I don't know anything about this, I would guess it was a while ago but there must have been a good reason.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 24, 2015, 07:55:AM

Quote
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.

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?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 24, 2015, 08:06:AM

Quote
There's no evidence it was MK....  Continually bringing him up speaks volumes about your case

There is circumstantial evidence that he was on the Newbattle Road that evening. Why did he tell a witness he'd been seen running there, and as a result had been spoken to by police, when he had never been spoken to by police?

My point, the one I keep making with monotonous regularity, is that the eyewitness identifications of Fleming and Walsh are further undermined by the existence of another youth on the Newbattle Road - their evidence was that there was one, and only one youth. This was a fleeting, drive-by glimpse, thir initial descriptions did not match Luke - it's reasonable to assume it may have been someone else they saw.

I am not implicating MK in any wrongdoing, I'm saying his presence on the Newbattle Road seriously undermines the safety of the identifications by Flemig and Walsh.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 24, 2015, 08:13:AM

Quote
A while back when I first posted Mark Kane the picture was edited out at Sandra's request. I've asked her a few times why she asked for this to be removed and she hasn't answered. Mark Kane's identity wasn't any secret in regards to the case, and even if it was - not Sandra's "property", and it's a screenshot from a public YouTube video. I would like her to justify this. Surely if she believed the resemblance was so absolutely striking, she'd want everyone to see it.

I have never shared this picture because I believe it is morally wrong to do so. Talking about the connection of Kane to the case in respect of his undermining other witnesses is one thing, plastering his face all over the internet is another entirely. To have used images of him could have caused exactly the same prejudice as was raised against Luke because of media images, and that was something I was not prepared to risk, especially as I have repeatedly said I am not accusing him of any wrongdoing.

The reason I asked for it to be moderated out when I did was partly for these reasons and partly because the case was with the SCCRC, and the picture had never been made public in relation to the case - it could have had implications for the SCCRC review.

If you're trying to help Kane, posting pictures of him is not, I would suggest, the best way to go about it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 24, 2015, 08:26:AM
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.

It was a green army shirt before the picture in the paper with luke wearing a parka, then it changed to he was wearing a parka, that's my point. All the witnesses who saw him in a green army shirt must have been wrong then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 26, 2015, 06:34:PM
On August 14th 2003, police believed Luke was wearing a german army shirt on the night of June 30th. They believed this, they said, because 50+ witnesses had described it. They bombarded Luke with questions about a green army shirt and how it had "disappeared" until they were forced at accept that it had, indeed "disappeared" - into police possession directly from Luke's home.

In April 2004, they searched Luke's home again after he was arrested. Now, they discovered, a Parka jacket was missing. Wait. Rewind.

On August 15th 2003, the world and its big brother was treated to media pictures of Luke in a Parka jacket. Why, if police thought this was a "replacement" for a jacket which had "disappeared," did they not search for it in August 2003? Why did they not even mention it, not one single time, in August 2003? Why did they wait another 8 months before thinking, hey, that's a bit odd - the parka jacket he had in June 2003 is missing, especially when they'd been handed the receipt, the week beginning July 7th,  for the Parka Luke was wearing in those pictures in August 2003?

It doesn't make any sense. Dobbie claimed it was the "missing parka" which added to their suspicion of Luke, but, by all accounts, the story of the "missing parka" didn't even come into existence until after he was arrested, after his house had been searched twice already, and after he'd been questioned for a total 19 hours without a solicitor and without a single mention of a parka. Did it really take them all that time to ome up with a story that would "fit" their explanation for why not a single piece of forensic evidence connected to the murder was found on the clothes taken from Luke that night, or on his body, or anywhere in his house or his mother's car, or his father's house, or in the garden.......
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 26, 2015, 08:32:PM
Quote
There was! And there was partials for him on the body!

No there was/were not! One DNA sample on a pair of trousers completely unrelated to the murder and no partials "for him" anywhere. A number of mixed samples were found from which a number of males "could not be excluded."

DNA profiles in the UK are made up of 10 sets of two number "markers" - like this:

Marker 1   Marker 2   Marker 3   Marker 4   Marker 5   Marker 6   Marker 7   Marker 8  Marker 9   Marker 10
 9:12           11:13        5:8          23:28        15:18        33:35        17:20        10:14       29:31        14:16


All of us have "markers" in common with other people - there were, from memory, something like 9 males known to the investigation with the same numbers at marker 9 - none of them could be excluded from a sample in which the only available data was Marker 9 data (even SIO Dobbie himself!)

To complicate the matter even further, some of the partials had only one number recovered in a marker so, for example, a sample might recover number 11 at marker 2, and number 33 at marker 6 - now, not only can anyone with the same numbers as those shown here in these two markers "not be excluded" as a contributor, but anyone with one number the same, but the other different (e.g. 11:18 at Marker 2 and 33:39 at Marker 6) also can't be excluded.

One thing that can exclude someone is if a partial sample is recovered, but both numbers at a particular marker are different from that person's profile, then it can safely be said that the sample did not originate from the person in question (so, for example, if a sample turns up the numbers 7:9 at marker 3, then the person from whom our hypothetical profile above originates cannot be a contibutor to that sample, because his numbers at marker 3 are 5:8 )

There was a suggestion that the other semen samples on the t shirt could have originated from one male. Guess what the DNA reports said about that? If they did (originate from one person), then that male was not Luke Mitchell, because there were markers in the samples that were not present in Luke's profile.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 26, 2015, 08:49:PM
There has been a longstanding campaign of misinformation surrounding the case, Curly Wurly, and this claim of "partials" has been repeated more times than I can count. Every single time, I correct it, and try to give a reasonaby simple explanation of why those "partials" cannot be claimed to have originated from Luke (or anyone else, for that matter) - there is simply not enough information contained within them to make such a claim.

But where partials were recovered that had markers which were not in Luke's profile, we can safely and categorically state that Luke was not a contributor to those samples. This also explains why so many samples recovered from the scene were labelled "Jodi Jones and unknown male."

One mixed sample in the DNA reports was labelled "Jodi Jones, Luke Mitchell and unknown male." That labelling has been utterly discredited by renowned DNA experts who have pointed out (a) there was no full DNA sample for any male recovered, (b) the markers which were recovered could have, in fact, been attributed to a number of males known to the investigation, and therefore could not, in any way, be claimed to be "Luke Mitchell" and (3) an assumption had been made that some of the markers attributed to Luke's profile, could, in fact, have belonged to the "unknown male." The reason they had to include the unknown male reference was because there were markers in this sample which were not in Luke's profile.

I know it get's very complicated, but, similar to my last post, the markers recovered in this sample which were claimed to be Luke's (3 from memory) could, in fact, have belonged to any other person with the same numbers at those marker points. One report suggested that this sample should, in reality, have been labelled "Jodi Jones and unknown male" because of the high possibility that the male markers recovered had all originated from one person and not, as the report had tried to dishonestly suggest, from two different males.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 26, 2015, 10:27:PM
It must be very frustrating when your paying attention to the minute details in order to make a valid assessment, and others attempt to discredit, based on what is, under closer examination mere fiction based on mere speculation which promotes their particular stance. I often wonder to myself, why such people do this, knowing the consequences are so damaging.

It was frustrating for a while (I have a 20 year background in psychology!) but I had to come to a point where it doesn't matter what others do to discredit or undermine - telling fact based, evidence based truth is the only way to educate, inform and assist those who need or want the information I have to share.

The way I see it, people can take what they can use from what I have to say - if it helps, excellent, if it doesn't, c'est la vie, I can only say what I know, and hope it's useful to someone, somewhere.

For the others, I have long since stopped wasting time and energy wondering why they do what they do - they just do!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 27, 2015, 07:01:AM
Quote
When confronted with this during his police interview Luke responded with something smug along the lines of "well if it's a partial match, it's not me, is it?" (if it was me when I was 14 I would have said "well she's my girlfriend!!!" but I wasn't as calculated as Luke

Oh dear, and you tell others to do their own research! During the "outrageous and to be deplored" interrogation of August 14th (the appeal court judges' words, not mine) the police told a number of proven lies, durring a long phase where the intrrogating officers had "completely lost control" (again, not my words.)

One of the lies they told was that they had "parts of DNA on Jodi's clothing that match part of your DNA." They demanded "How do you explain that, then, eh?"

Luke responded, having been goaded, hectored and bullied (again, not my words) for hours, with a science lesson on how DNA profiles are identified, the uniqueness of the full sample being the point of identification. Up to that point, everything he'dtried to say had been closed off, negated, dismissed as lies or ignored.

If it had been you, you'd have faced the same police tactics, so you simply cannot know what you would have said in those circumstances. The "partial match" on the piece of clothing they claimed to have did not exist in any of the DNA results available to them by August 14th, nor did it magically appear in any later results.  The one result they did try to claim originated from Luke came after this interrogation, and was, as already explained, totally discredited as a blatant misrepresentation.

Remind me, what did the police do when they found a full DNA profile from Steven Kelly on Jodi's  shirt? Oh, no, it's ok I remember - they trotted off and handed him an "innocent" explanation forr it being there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 27, 2015, 07:14:AM
Quote
What about if Sandras wrong? She has no way of actually knowing if Luke is actually innocent, but still would happily have had him released based on her own opinion and theories.

These are not just "my own opinions and theories" - several experts and legal professionals are on public record as stating this case is far, far too flawed to be considered "safe."

I've said before, why do you think a mother of two teenage girls (as they were at the time) would take the route I've taken, knowing that,if the conviction was overturned, Luke would be released directly into the community where my girls were growing up?

My support of Simon Hall was also not based on my own opinions and theories - again, a number of experts agreed that the evidence used to convict him was deeply flawed. The fibre evidence was torn apart by Tiernan Coyle in meticulous scientific testing (a far cry from the original police lab testing.)

My argument, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is that we have to insist that these things are done properly, from the start, and alll the way through, otherwise the doubts left mean questions are still being asked (and left unanswered) years later. The more we allow these cases to remain unexamined, the more able police ivestigators are to fit up anyone they choose, in any way they choose. And that could be any one of us.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 27, 2015, 09:39:AM
There was!

And there was partials for him on the body!

Don't do that, it's utter drivel and you know it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 27, 2015, 12:16:PM
"No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene that cannot be innocently explained" has somehow transformed into "No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene" over time. At the trial is was certainly still a case of "that cannot be innocently explained". Ask Donald Findlay if you don't believe me, he's the one who attempted to "innocently explain" it when Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure testified that a stain on a Jodi's bra showed DNA traces which matched Luke Mitchell.

The prosecution and defence were both in agreement that it existed.

So marty, you were saying?

Please don't call me a liar based on your own misinformation (it's not your fault though)

This is my problem with people using Sandra as their only source of information.





- Prediction: Sandra will magic this away again with a long winded reply that doesn't prove it isn't Luke's, accuse Findlay and the Tayside Police expert of incompetence, subtly implicate a few others by flipping it around on them, and all will be right again in your mind won't it.

Your twisting it and you know it. The only DNA between the two was Jodie on a pair of trousers that belonged to luke that were found in a bag in Luke's house which had hee haw to do with the murder. And you know that, this is what Findlay is talking about, again you know it.
Your trying to lead people up the garden path.

How do you get a DNA trace, it's a person's profile or its not. She was trying to imply it was luke mitchell. So what did the prosecution do with this. They would have had a field day. His DNA is on the bra... the DNA of jodi found on Luke's trousers was of bodily fluid if I remember correctly hence the boyfriend-girlfriend being intimate reference.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 27, 2015, 12:17:PM
And what are you basing this on? Are you saying teenage killers don't exist?

I assume you wouldn't believe Jamie Bulgar was killed by 2 kids if the case was unsolved?

Please, I feel embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 27, 2015, 12:53:PM
It's totally inconceivable that Luke stood and waited for Jodi at the gate for so long without getting impatient and just walking along for her. It gets even more ridiculous when he suddenly just forgets about the person he was so willing to wait for and goes and meets his mates to muck about in the woods to get good and dirty. Then it just becomes utterly laughable when he goes home that night, sticks a video on, and still doesn't wonder why his girlfriend never turned up. This was a girl he told the papers recently that he loved, who we're told was spotted acting suspciously at a gate because he was waiting on her.

Oh wait it wasnt a story for the papers he was just randomly telling Sandra these detailed things she already knew in a letter which she then asked his permission to send to the paper.  ::) (despite corinne later describing the letter as an opportunity for Luke to have his own say. In a letter that was only meant for Sandra's eyes? ::) get your stories straight girls)

Sounds like he was fourteen and pissed off
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 27, 2015, 05:43:PM
Quote
"No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene that cannot be innocently explained" has somehow transformed into "No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene" over time. At the trial is was certainly still a case of "that cannot be innocently explained". Ask Donald Findlay if you don't believe me, he's the one who attempted to "innocently explain" it when Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure testified that a stain on a Jodi's bra showed DNA traces which matched Luke Mitchell

Misrepresentation. Susan Ure was trashed on the stand when she tried to make the claim that parts of the partial on the bra "matched" parts of Luke's profile, and was forced to admit that that was a wholly misleading statement. Funny how that's the same stain police tried to make the same dishonest claim about months earlier, isn't it? Please see my explanation of DNA "matching" in my previous post.

The "innocent explanation" evidence referred to the tiny sample on the trousers that were found to be not, in any way, connected to the murder. Best if you don't conflate entirely discrete pieces of information - it just leads to confusion and misinformation.

A friendly heads-up here - I'd be a bit careful about making claims (especially when they appear to contain deliberate misinformation) about the stains (plural) on the bra and the padding beneath - you never know what independent testing might prove, especially if there's enough information already available to support a viable proposition. Just saying.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on October 27, 2015, 06:28:PM
Yes I'm targeting poor Sandra because I'm a bully I thought she was alone.  When I joined here she had far more support. Big Gordo already ducked my offer of a square go. I don't care how many suspicious new accounts crawl out the woodwork you're still in the minority.

Yes, I remember that.  he was very, very mad that night.  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on October 27, 2015, 09:14:PM
Awwwwww!! And we were just starting to get along!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry to spoil your fun  ;D Pity he's so obnoxious. :'(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Caroline on October 27, 2015, 09:16:PM
Sorry to spoil your fun  ;D Pity he's so obnoxious. :'(

Ha, ha!! What a gormless moron, if I have banned everyone that didn't agree with me, there would be no members left!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on October 27, 2015, 09:18:PM
For the record, Kevin Craigie was convicted, along with Mark Fuller, for the murder of Kenneth Rothwell.

Craigie has 'appeared' on a few forums over the years, using various alias's.  He's always very easy to spot.  However hard he tries to disguise his true identity, he seems unable to surpress his truly vile personality.

He has shown no remorse for his crimes, choosing instead to bleat, whine and generally feel sorry for himself.

He is a utterly pathetic individual.  R.I.H.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on October 27, 2015, 09:25:PM
For the record, Kevin Craigie was convicted, along with Mark Fuller, for the murder of Kenneth Rothwell.

Craigie has 'appeared' on a few forums over the years, using various alias's.  He's always very easy to spot.  However hard he tries to disguise his true identity, he seems unable to surpress his truly vile personality.

He has shown no remorse for his crimes, choosing instead to bleat, whine and generally feel sorry for himself.

He is a utterly pathetic individual.  R.I.H.

Neil, good post actually. His downfall is that he leaves enough clues - on purpose to see who will pick up on them. The way he praised Sandra stood out to me and then I thought about the username and thought "my oh my I remember his curly wurly comment!"
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on October 27, 2015, 09:28:PM
Sorry to have to say goodbye to curly surly but have banned him forever. 8)

Maggie very well done he needed to be banned he will be back with another silly username ;D ;D ;D ;D l
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on October 27, 2015, 09:30:PM
Maggie very well done he needed to be banned he will be back with another silly username ;D ;D ;D ;D l

Yes he will! Judas!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on October 27, 2015, 09:33:PM
Yes he will! Judas!

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on October 27, 2015, 09:34:PM
Maggie very well done he needed to be banned he will be back with another silly username ;D ;D ;D ;D l
Thanks Susie, just trying to unravel his posts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jan on October 27, 2015, 10:48:PM
how does he get internet access?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on October 27, 2015, 11:30:PM
how does he get internet access?
He is no longer incarcerated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on October 28, 2015, 02:20:AM
He posted his own death notice on the internet a while back, says it all really!

https://kevincraigiex.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/kevin-craigie-3/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 28, 2015, 06:19:AM
I thought this was a discussion about the Luke Mitchell case? I'd no idea who Curly Wurly was (or any of the others posting, with the exceptions of nugnug, John and Stephanie). Does someone being banned really warrant that much attention?

Quote
for clarification Sandra's "heads up" was because they have a theory I'm Steven Kelly and should be worried

What? I have no such theory, and who are they “they” to whom you refer? I’m here, posting in my own right-  there is no “they.”

I meant, if you’re basing your absolute conviction that Luke is guilty on the stain on the bra,  you’ve chosen a weak rock to cling to, that’s all.





Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 28, 2015, 06:45:AM
For the record, Kevin Craigie was convicted, along with Mark Fuller, for the murder of Kenneth Rothwell.

Craigie has 'appeared' on a few forums over the years, using various alias's.  He's always very easy to spot.  However hard he tries to disguise his true identity, he seems unable to surpress his truly vile personality.

He has shown no remorse for his crimes, choosing instead to bleat, whine and generally feel sorry for himself.

He is a utterly pathetic individual.  R.I.H.

thanks for that, everything is a little clearer now
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Neil on October 28, 2015, 06:51:AM
I thought this was a discussion about the Luke Mitchell case? I'd no idea who Curly Wurly was (or any of the others posting, with the exceptions of nugnug, John and Stephanie). Does someone being banned really warrant that much attention?

What? I have no such theory, and who are they “they” to whom you refer? I’m here, posting in my own right-  there is no “they.”

I meant, if you’re basing your absolute conviction that Luke is guilty on the stain on the bra,  you’ve chosen a weak rock to cling to, that’s all.
Apparently yes, it does.  You obviously felt the need to make comment yourself, just as four or five other posters very briefly have. 


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 28, 2015, 07:28:AM
Okay. I was commenting on the amount of attention, not the ban itself, but fair enough if that's the way you do things here. Didn't mean to cause any offence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 29, 2015, 02:31:PM
well we were to discuss the luke mitchell how the bloody hell did we get onto kevin cragie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 29, 2015, 06:15:PM
Certainly was a conversation stopper :(
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on October 30, 2015, 03:33:PM
well we were to discuss the luke mitchell how the bloody hell did we get onto kevin cragie.

I think Kevin Craigie got us into Kevin craigie.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 02, 2015, 12:13:AM
Sandra, can I ask you something.  Do you honestly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent or is it simply that you feel the verdict was unsafe?  TY
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 04, 2015, 01:13:PM
do you think she would bother if she dident.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 05, 2015, 12:08:AM
There has been a longstanding campaign of misinformation surrounding the case, Curly Wurly, and this claim of "partials" has been repeated more times than I can count. Every single time, I correct it, and try to give a reasonaby simple explanation of why those "partials" cannot be claimed to have originated from Luke (or anyone else, for that matter) - there is simply not enough information contained within them to make such a claim.

But where partials were recovered that had markers which were not in Luke's profile, we can safely and categorically state that Luke was not a contributor to those samples. This also explains why so many samples recovered from the scene were labelled "Jodi Jones and unknown male."


dident criag dobbie himself state that there was no dna evedence agianst luke
One mixed sample in the DNA reports was labelled "Jodi Jones, Luke Mitchell and unknown male." That labelling has been utterly discredited by renowned DNA experts who have pointed out (a) there was no full DNA sample for any male recovered, (b) the markers which were recovered could have, in fact, been attributed to a number of males known to the investigation, and therefore could not, in any way, be claimed to be "Luke Mitchell" and (3) an assumption had been made that some of the markers attributed to Luke's profile, could, in fact, have belonged to the "unknown male." The reason they had to include the unknown male reference was because there were markers in this sample which were not in Luke's profile.

I know it get's very complicated, but, similar to my last post, the markers recovered in this sample which were claimed to be Luke's (3 from memory) could, in fact, have belonged to any other person with the same numbers at those marker points. One report suggested that this sample should, in reality, have been labelled "Jodi Jones and unknown male" because of the high possibility that the male markers recovered had all originated from one person and not, as the report had tried to dishonestly suggest, from two different males.

dident criag dobbie say there was no dna evedence agianst luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 05, 2015, 08:47:AM
Dobbie was quoted in a media article after the conviction as saying it was a particuary difficult case because there was no direct evidence, no DNA etc - I'll see if I can find the exact quote later
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 05, 2015, 12:32:PM
Sandra, can I ask you something.  Do you honestly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent or is it simply that you feel the verdict was unsafe?  TY

Bumped for Sandra L
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 05, 2015, 12:59:PM
Dobbie was quoted in a media article after the conviction as saying it was a particuary difficult case because there was no direct evidence, no DNA etc - I'll see if I can find the exact quote later

and anyone who has bothered to study the case should really no that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 05, 2015, 09:33:PM
Dobbie was quoted in a media article after the conviction as saying it was a particuary difficult case because there was no direct evidence, no DNA etc - I'll see if I can find the exact quote later

From the Edinburgh Evening News...
23 January 2005

Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Dobbie believes he has the "why". Softly spoken and bespectacled, Dobbie was appointed head of the murder hunt after Jodi’s body was discovered in the woods near Roan’s Dyke, Dalkeith, hours after she met her death. He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence, finding himself up against a teenage suspect who showed immense cunning under the fiercest pressure.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 06, 2015, 12:47:AM
the fact you both have to resort to lying says a lot about the case agianst luke its well known who the exolianed dna belongs to and theres plenty of links about the dna not belonging to luke nice try though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 06, 2015, 06:54:AM
Like I said. "No 'unexplainable' DNA" has been transformed into "no DNA" over time.

"lacks critical DNA" is not "no DNA"

like we have said before,  partial or strands of dna isnt a match. its either a match or its not.
To say there was strands of his dna is utter snot, this was totally discredited.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 06, 2015, 04:04:PM
From the Edinburgh Evening News...
23 January 2005

Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Dobbie believes he has the "why". Softly spoken and bespectacled, Dobbie was appointed head of the murder hunt after Jodi’s body was discovered in the woods near Roan’s Dyke, Dalkeith, hours after she met her death. He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence, finding himself up against a teenage suspect who showed immense cunning under the fiercest pressure.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861

So much of that article and Dobbie's theories are based on things that have been shown to be untrue (the Marilyn Manson worship... By someone who owned none of his music?!) and some of it is just sordid hearsay ("may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.")

From beginning to end it's a horribly biased piece of journalism tailored to meet the morbid interest of those reading it.

But thanks for sharing.....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 06, 2015, 05:46:PM
Either the media horribly misrepresented what Dobbie said on a number of occasions, or Dobbie is a liar. According to press reports, Dobbie claimed there was no DNA from an "unidentified person" and that all DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry, including Luke.

We know, for certain, that there were DNA samples listed in the results and "unidentified male one, unidentified male 2, etc, all the way to unidentified male 5." Then there were result mixed with Jodi's own DNA which were labelled "Jodi Jones and unidentified male." So, it is simply not true that there was no "unidentified DNA", nor is it true that all of the DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry.

He must have had a moment when the DNA of James Falconer was identified three years later - his officers had been in Falconer's house two days after the murder!!

As for the DNA "including Luke" this is true, but very misleading. Dobbie is, in fact, talking about Luke's DNA found on.... Luke's clothing. Seriously! There was a t shirt lited in the productions as "Blood - T shirt - Luke Mitchell." I thought, hang about, where did that come from? A little digging showed it wasa spot of  Luke's own blood on his own t shirt (which had never been claimed to have any connection whatsoever to the murder.)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 06, 2015, 10:46:PM
Either the media horribly misrepresented what Dobbie said on a number of occasions, or Dobbie is a liar. According to press reports, Dobbie claimed there was no DNA from an "unidentified person" and that all DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry, including Luke.

We know, for certain, that there were DNA samples listed in the results and "unidentified male one, unidentified male 2, etc, all the way to unidentified male 5." Then there were result mixed with Jodi's own DNA which were labelled "Jodi Jones and unidentified male." So, it is simply not true that there was no "unidentified DNA", nor is it true that all of the DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry.

He must have had a moment when the DNA of James Falconer was identified three years later - his officers had been in Falconer's house two days after the murder!!

As for the DNA "including Luke" this is true, but very misleading. Dobbie is, in fact, talking about Luke's DNA found on.... Luke's clothing. Seriously! There was a t shirt lited in the productions as "Blood - T shirt - Luke Mitchell." I thought, hang about, where did that come from? A little digging showed it wasa spot of  Luke's own blood on his own t shirt (which had never been claimed to have any connection whatsoever to the murder.)

As Jodi and Luke were together earlier the day of the murder there should have been traces of her DNA on Luke and vice versa but the Scottish police forensics failed to find it.  That in itself doesn't surprise me in the least given they couldn't even find a crashed car which had come off the M9 motorway.


I notice you are avoiding answering my earlier question Sandra, should I infer from that you don't believe Luke Mitchell innocent any more?

Bumped again...

Sandra, can I ask you something.  Do you honestly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent or is it simply that you feel the verdict was unsafe?  TY
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 07, 2015, 10:06:AM
Quote
As Jodi and Luke were together earlier the day of the murder there should have been traces of her DNA on Luke and vice versa but the Scottish police forensics failed to find it.  That in itself doesn't surprise me in the least given they couldn't even find a crashed car which had come off the M9 motorway.

Could have been, not necessarily should have been - it would have been dependent on the amount of physical contact, if any, between them. There are no witness accounts of Jodi and Luke being in physical contact with each other that lunchtime, and they were in differrent classes throughout the day.


Quote
I notice you are avoiding answering my earlier question Sandra, should I infer from that you don't believe Luke Mitchell innocent any more?

No John, I was not avoiding it, I was completely ignoring it. I really shouldn't encourage your games, but you'll start talking about your "inference" as if it's fact, so here you are, an answer to your question.

No John, you should not infer that I don't believe Luke is innocent any more, because you would be wrong. Your original question asked whether I believed Luke to be factually innocent, or it was simply that I felt that the verdict was unsafe.

I believe Luke to be factually innocent on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen. I believe the verdict to be unsafe on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen.

From the technical approach, the law states that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - an unsafe verdict means a case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But let's get absolutely real. If you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know I've pointed out that I have two daughters around Luke's age - I still have two daughters - do you really believe that I would be proclaiming Luke's innocence if even a tiny part of me doubted it? Because that would still mean, 12 years down the line, that I'd be calling for the release of someone I suspected was guilty of a brutal murder into the community where my own daughters live.

Please don't ask the next question (which I can already see galloping over the horizon) - I am not prepared to discuss my deprture from Luke's campaign.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 07, 2015, 12:30:PM
same old same old
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 08, 2015, 12:11:AM
Could have been, not necessarily should have been - it would have been dependent on the amount of physical contact, if any, between them. There are no witness accounts of Jodi and Luke being in physical contact with each other that lunchtime, and they were in differrent classes throughout the day.


No John, I was not avoiding it, I was completely ignoring it. I really shouldn't encourage your games, but you'll start talking about your "inference" as if it's fact, so here you are, an answer to your question.

No John, you should not infer that I don't believe Luke is innocent any more, because you would be wrong. Your original question asked whether I believed Luke to be factually innocent, or it was simply that I felt that the verdict was unsafe.

I believe Luke to be factually innocent on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen. I believe the verdict to be unsafe on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen.

From the technical approach, the law states that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - an unsafe verdict means a case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But let's get absolutely real. If you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know I've pointed out that I have two daughters around Luke's age - I still have two daughters - do you really believe that I would be proclaiming Luke's innocence if even a tiny part of me doubted it? Because that would still mean, 12 years down the line, that I'd be calling for the release of someone I suspected was guilty of a brutal murder into the community where my own daughters live.

Please don't ask the next question (which I can already see galloping over the horizon) - I am not prepared to discuss my deprture from Luke's campaign.

Thank you for the reply Sandra.  The reason I asked was because many of your posts are suggestive of an unsafe verdict rather than a wrongful conviction.   

And speaking of evidence, as Luke Mitchell does not have an independently corroborated alibi for the period of time when Jodi was murdered and given that his own brother disputes his account of his whereabouts, what evidence do you hold up to support your contention that he is innocent?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 08, 2015, 01:59:PM
The time of death is based on Luke being guilty, so might not be the time of death, and his brother doesn't exactly "dispute" the alibi. Even on the stand he didn't say Luke wasn't in the house. Is there more evidence you're basing your certainty of his guilt on?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 08, 2015, 03:16:PM
there was no actully time of death given the bodys was not in a good enough state to do that,
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 09, 2015, 02:59:AM
The time of death is based on Luke being guilty, so might not be the time of death, and his brother doesn't exactly "dispute" the alibi. Even on the stand he didn't say Luke wasn't in the house. Is there more evidence you're basing your certainty of his guilt on?

On the stand Shane was reminded by Mr Turnbull prosecuting of the consequences of perjury.  Shane told the court that he did not see or hear Luke in the house from the moment he arrived.  He agreed with the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing about it.

Shane also admitted to the court that it was his mother who sent him back to the police station to change his statement after initially stating in his first statement that Luke was not at home.  I hasten to add, it is not the sort of thing you forget about when your younger brother is accused of murdering his girlfriend.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 09, 2015, 07:14:AM
Quote
On the stand Shane was reminded by Mr Turnbull prosecuting of the consequences of perjury.  Shane told the court that he did not see or hear Luke in the house from the moment he arrived.  He agreed with the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing about it.

Another example of the prosecution wanting to eat its cake and have it, too, and John mixing fact and fiction to suit his own ends - after it was discovered Shane did not come straight home, but had, in fact, stopped off at a friend's, it was obvious that Luke was already home when Shane came in and went straight upstairs to his room - whether Shane agreed or not that it would have been "difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing it" is utterly irrelevant - the prosecution's suggestion is based on Shane arriving at an earlier time, which it already knew was wrong.

It clearly would not have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without Shane knowing about it if Shane was not there when Luke entered the house. Who made the call from the house landline to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm? Clue - Shane wasn't home yet, Corinne was at work.

Quote
Shane also admitted to the court that it was his mother who sent him back to the police station to change his statement after initially stating in his first statement that Luke was not at home.  I hasten to add, it is not the sort of thing you forget about when your younger brother is accused of murdering his girlfriend.

And again, John making it up as he goes along. Shane admitted that he and his mother had discussed what they ate for dinner that night - he did not admit his mother had "sent him" back to the police station. (Seriously, there was a liaison officer in the house from the afternoon of July 1st!) Shane did not say in his first statement that Luke was not at home -  in his first statement he simply said he had no idea what he did on the afternoon of June 30th - and that, on a normal day he'd come home from work between 3.30 and 4pm, go to his room until his tea was ready,  and maybe go out after tea. And Luke was not formally accused of murdering Jodi until nearly 10 months later - he certainly wasn't accused by July 3rd. The nature of police interrogation tactics in this case was designed to create as much confusion as possible, and the prosecution, as I've just demonstrated, used inaccurate information to make assertions which, although apparently logical, were, in fact, irrelevant.

John peddles this rubbish repeatedly, wasting everyone's time and energy. He is corrected repeatedly, ignores the correction and carries on making false, dishonest and inaccurate claims. What I have never understood is why.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 09, 2015, 11:00:AM
On the stand Shane was reminded by Mr Turnbull prosecuting of the consequences of perjury.  Shane told the court that he did not see or hear Luke in the house from the moment he arrived.  He agreed with the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing about it.

Shane also admitted to the court that it was his mother who sent him back to the police station to change his statement after initially stating in his first statement that Luke was not at home.  I hasten to add, it is not the sort of thing you forget about when your younger brother is accused of murdering his girlfriend.

Ignored my question John... Fair's fair.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 09, 2015, 05:39:PM
Quote
And speaking of evidence, as Luke Mitchell does not have an independently corroborated alibi for the period of time when Jodi was murdered

Nobody does.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 09, 2015, 09:38:PM
Another example of the prosecution wanting to eat its cake and have it, too, and John mixing fact and fiction to suit his own ends - after it was discovered Shane did not come straight home, but had, in fact, stopped off at a friend's, it was obvious that Luke was already home when Shane came in and went straight upstairs to his room - whether Shane agreed or not that it would have been "difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing it" is utterly irrelevant - the prosecution's suggestion is based on Shane arriving at an earlier time, which it already knew was wrong.

It clearly would not have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without Shane knowing about it if Shane was not there when Luke entered the house. Who made the call from the house landline to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm? Clue - Shane wasn't home yet, Corinne was at work.


You're a fine one to talk about mixing fact from fiction.  Luke Mitchell making a short telephone call to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm  does not represent an alibi of any sort and most certainly has no relevance to Luke Mitchell being in the family home at the time of the murder.  Shane was adamant that Luke was not at home when he got home and that he could not have got into the house without him knowing.  As per usual you have conveniently forgotton about Shane and the internet porn browsing in his bedroom with the door ajar just in case anyone arrived home.

You are stuck with those facts Sandra and no amount of twisting will ever change that situation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 09, 2015, 09:52:PM
Ignored my question John... Fair's fair.

Sorry Baz, I missed your question.

Mitchell's guilt is based on several aspects of the case including his actions in the hours following the murder, the absence of an alibi, the conflicting statements, the eyewitness sightings, Mitchell's past conduct with a knife and the fact that he had the means, the motive and the opportunity to do it.  This case was always going to be decided on circumstantial evidence and that is how the jury determined it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 09, 2015, 10:03:PM
Shane admitted that he and his mother had discussed what they ate for dinner that night - he did not admit his mother had "sent him" back to the police station. (Seriously, there was a liaison officer in the house from the afternoon of July 1st!) Shane did not say in his first statement that Luke was not at home -  in his first statement he simply said he had no idea what he did on the afternoon of June 30th - and that, on a normal day he'd come home from work between 3.30 and 4pm, go to his room until his tea was ready,  and maybe go out after tea. And Luke was not formally accused of murdering Jodi until nearly 10 months later - he certainly wasn't accused by July 3rd. The nature of police interrogation tactics in this case was designed to create as much confusion as possible, and the prosecution, as I've just demonstrated, used inaccurate information to make assertions which, although apparently logical, were, in fact, irrelevant.

Lets not split hairs Sandra. Are you denying that Corinne Mitchell sent Shane back to the police with the story about the burnt pie?  The only possible reason for doing so was to give Luke an alibi.

If I recall correctly, pies which are overcooked to the point of burning usually emit a strong lingering smell in a house, and in a two storey house like the Mitchells that burning odour would waft upstairs yet not once did Shane ever comment about this. Are you honestly asking people to believe that Shane sat in his upstairs bedroom with the door open while the smell of burning wafted in his door and made no attempt to investigate?

Wasn't Corinne also warned on the stand about the consequences of committing perjury?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 09, 2015, 10:12:PM
Maybe now you will answer some questions Sandra, specifically, what evidence is there to support Mitchell's innocence?

And while we are on the subject of peddling rubbish, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously given your past participation in the Prout and Hall cases?

Or is it a case of going for the treble??
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 09, 2015, 10:42:PM
Maybe now you will answer some questions Sandra, specifically, what evidence is there to support Mitchell's innocence?

And while we are on the subject of peddling rubbish, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously given your past participation in the Prout and Hall cases?

Or is it a case of going for the treble??

as somone who has not pruduced the slightist bit of evedence to support there own innocence im suprised you have the cheek to say that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 09, 2015, 10:43:PM
we allready know the answer to that its been in all the papers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 10, 2015, 02:23:AM
as somone who has not pruduced the slightist bit of evedence to support there own innocence im suprised you have the cheek to say that.

Shows how little you know but then thats no surprise.

Maybe Sandra will answer for herself instead of her pet poodle.   
                                                          (http://www.zwergpudel.com/pudel.gif)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 10, 2015, 07:07:AM
Here's why I won't be wasting any more time on John:

Quote
You're a fine one to talk about mixing fact from fiction.  Luke Mitchell making a short telephone call to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm  does not represent an alibi of any sort and most certainly has no relevance to Luke Mitchell being in the family home at the time of the murder.

So the telephone dialled itself, in a empty house, because that's more believable than a real human being dialling it! And that telephone dialling itself supports your theory that Luke didn't go home from school that afternoon (so the witnesses who saw him were seeing an apparition), but skulked around in the woods waiting for a grounded Jodi to show up, so that he could kill her at an unspecified time.

Quote
Shane was adamant that Luke was not at home when he got home and that he could not have got into the house without him knowing


John's favourite game - ask a question-ignore the answer if it doesn't suit- ask the same question again as if it hasn't been answered. If you don't even bother to read my posts, don't bother asking me questions, cos I won't be answering them from you, John.

Your offensive references to nugnug are the perfect example of your level of reasoning and argument - if you can't make your fiction work, you personally attack posters instead - transparent and very boring.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 10, 2015, 10:44:AM
Shows how little you know but then thats no surprise.

Maybe Sandra will answer for herself instead of her pet poodle.   
                                                          (http://www.zwergpudel.com/pudel.gif)


so in other words theres proof that your anything other than bang to rights guilty i thought so.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 10, 2015, 03:46:PM
Here's why I won't be wasting any more time on John:

So the telephone dialled itself, in a empty house, because that's more believable than a real human being dialling it! And that telephone dialling itself supports your theory that Luke didn't go home from school that afternoon (so the witnesses who saw him were seeing an apparition), but skulked around in the woods waiting for a grounded Jodi to show up, so that he could kill her at an unspecified time.
 

John's favourite game - ask a question-ignore the answer if it doesn't suit- ask the same question again as if it hasn't been answered. If you don't even bother to read my posts, don't bother asking me questions, cos I won't be answering them from you, John.

Your offensive references to nugnug are the perfect example of your level of reasoning and argument - if you can't make your fiction work, you personally attack posters instead - transparent and very boring.

You never could answer the important questions Sandra.   No evidence to support Luke Mitchell's innocence...what a reveal!

As for fiction, ask yourself the same question and relate it to the Prout and Hall cases where you were shown to be 100% wrong!

ps if anyone is transparent and boring look in the mirror lovee.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 10, 2015, 08:36:PM
Sorry I don't know how to do the individual quote by quote thing

Like this, Baz

I'll do it here with spaces, so you can see how it looks:

[quote     ] Sorry I don't know how to do the individual quote by quote thing [/quote     ]

and now, without the spaces:

Quote
Sorry I don't know how to do the individual quote by quote thing

so square bracket with the word "quote" at the beginning of the bit you want to quote, and square bracket "/quote" at the end
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 11, 2015, 10:59:AM
Well that's pretty easy. Thanks
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 11, 2015, 11:53:AM
Quote
actions in the hours following the murder

What about his actions specifically?

Quote
the absence of an alibi

His Mother gives an alibi which they did not disprove in court and his brother never out right said Luke wasn't home so it's not the smoking gun for me as it is for you.

Quote
the conflicting statements

Conflicting statements and changing statements do a lot to make him look innocent too.

Quote
the eyewitness sightings

One damning eye witness but she doesn't identify him court. And gets so much wrong.

Quote
Mitchell's past conduct with a knife


He liked knives. A teenage boy? Unheard of.

Quote
he had the means, the motive and the opportunity to do it

Motive? What's his motive again? The secret girlfriend that Jodi didn't seem to know about or his disproved Marilyn Manson obsession?


Not bad for a first attempt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 11, 2015, 08:44:PM
Oh dear Baz doesn't know about Luke's previous threats and assaults with a knife.

What other threats and assaults were used in court? Happy to learn.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 08:58:PM
Oh dear Baz doesn't know about Luke's previous threats and assaults with a knife.

he had no prvios convictions for or chardges for atacking anybody with a knife a few people after he was convicted who had never any previos compliants before the conviction.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 09:20:PM
he had no prvios convictions for or chardges for atacking anybody with a knife a few people after he was convicted who had never any previos compliants before the conviction.

Neither did Nathan Matthews
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 09:33:PM
i have qustion the word of somone who only with a story after somones been convicted these allegations were never tested in a court

so no way of knoeing weather they are true or not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 09:40:PM
i have qustion the word of somone who only with a story after somones been convicted these allegations were never tested in a court

so no way of knoeing weather they are true or not.

I doubt it would have been allowed to be heard during the trial.... It's normally after a case has been heard these stories come out. Not out of the ordinary imo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 09:45:PM
that could of possbly been heard as evedence.

but then agian the people concerned never went to the police they went to the tabloids.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 09:52:PM
that could of possbly been heard as evedence.

but then agian the people concerned never went to the police they went to the tabloids.

I imagine they did speak to the police but maybe it couldn't be heard during the trial? You'd be surprised what the police do uncover..... Evidence of which is often 'played down,' distorted/twisted etc....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 10:09:PM
I imagine they did speak to the police but maybe it couldn't be heard during the trial? You'd be surprised what the police do uncover..... Evidence of which is often 'played down,' distorted/twisted etc....

A different case (I imagine very little has been said to protect the child in question) but it appears Nathan Matthews & Shauna Hoare carried out their crimes with a/their child in the house  :'(

"Hoare went out into the garden for 15 to 20 minutes to smoke a cigarette before going back inside the house to join Matthews.

She gave a child in the house some Shreddies cereal to eat and heard music playing upstairs
."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/becky-watts-murder-trial-stepbrother-6621107

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 10:33:PM
thats a diffrent altogether.

the fact luke was never chardged with these says they never went near a police station.

he could of been chardged with threateng bacior with knives on topp of murder and tat would of strenthrnrf the proscution case.

a bit funny he wasnt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 10:44:PM
thats a diffrent altogether.

the fact luke was never chardged with these says they never went near a police station.

he could of been chardged with threateng bacior with knives on topp of murder and tat would of strenthrnrf the proscution case.

a bit funny he hasnt.

I've mentioned this case before in relation to Luke Mitchell's case due to the gruesome aspects of the murder/post Mortum injuries and whether or not anything can be drawn from it...

Nugs I believe you are talking about previous allegations of threatening behaviour towards other with a knife by Luke M, which wouldn't have been related to JJ's murder trial?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 10:46:PM

the fact luke was never chardged with these says they never went near a police station.

he could of been chardged with threateng bacior with knives on topp of murder and tat would of strenthrnrf the proscution case.

a bit funny he hasnt.

I don't think that's unusual in cases like this
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 10:56:PM
he was charged with possen of canbis as well as murder.

now its rather they would add on a fhardge of possen but not a chardge of making threats with a knife.

if your chardged you can be chardged with other things at the same time meaning the evdence can be heard like it was with the canabis.

with such a weak hand the proscution would of jumped at the chance of geting such evdence into court.

so the only reason i can think this dident happen is it was never reported to the police and you have to ask yourself why it wasnt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 11:01:PM
he was charged with possen of canbis as well as murder.

now its rather they would add on a fhardge of possen but not a chardge of making threats with a knife.

if your chardged you can be chardged with other things at the same time meaning the evdence can be heard like it was with the canabis.

with such a weak hand the proscution would of jumped at the chance of geting such evdence into court.

so the only reason i can think this dident happen is it was never reported to the police and you have to ask yourself why it wasnt.

"A knife pouch was also found in Mitchell's possession on which he had marked "JJ 1989 - 2003" and "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came". The prosecution said it would be unlikely for anyone but the killer to remember someone killed with a knife in this way

Mitchell was a good student, but a teacher became concerned about the violence in an essay he had written.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 11:04:PM
thats a quate from somwhere the proscution trying to make somthing out of nothing like proscuters do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 11:12:PM
thats a quate from somwhere the proscution trying to make somthing out of nothing like proscuters do.

How so? A teacher suggests they were concerned about a violent essay he had written? That's evidence!

Same goes for the inscription on the pouch - damning evidence imo.

Ignore the prosecutions theory - look at the evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 11:17:PM
its nothing of the kind its an english esay.

some witing a shocking english esay is not evdence there guilty of murder.

by the dame logic half the script writers in the country are muderers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 11:22:PM
its nothing of the kind its an english esay.

some witing a shocking english esay is not evdence there guilty of murder.

by the dame logic half the script writers in the country are muderers.

Half the script writers in the country don't end up on trial for murdering their girlfriends...

Explain this http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 11:23:PM
its nothing of the kind its an english esay.

some witing a shocking english esay is not evdence there guilty of murder.

by the dame logic half the script writers in the country are muderers.

If Luke Mitchell is innocent or killed JJ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 11:37:PM
Half the script writers in the country don't end up on trial for murdering their girlfriends...

Explain this http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

its the daily record no explication is really needed.

its not taken seriosly as a newspaper anymore than the sun or the news of the world is.

a lurid tabliod headline does not make a case for murder.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 11:44:PM
its the daily record no explication is really needed.

its not taken seriosly as a newspaper anymore than the sun or the news of the world is.

a lurid tabliod headline does not make a case for murder.

But I have a letter from Luke Mitchell with satanic writings on it?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 11, 2015, 11:46:PM
Have you followed the trial of Nathan Matthews? A tabloid has written that the grainy photo taken of him in his army fatigues is of him in a morgue. Do you think that's made up? Take a look at the photo.... It isn't all made up...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 11, 2015, 11:50:PM
heres wht a reputable newspaper has to say about the case.

https://t.co/9hJwF2YJs1

and about the dna evedence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 12, 2015, 01:51:AM
Despite Sandra Lean's wild claims to the Press about the DNA samples the SCCRC found no reason whatsoever to the refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

In essence they found that "...he was not the victim of a miscarriage of justice and that there were no grounds to challenge his guilty verdict."

The 200-page report stated: "The Commission has decided not to refer Mr Mitchell's case to the High Court."


At least you are consistent Sandra.  Three fails in a row!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 12, 2015, 06:35:AM
Failures?

Left the body uncovered in the rain for 8 hours
Trampled all over the murder scene
Moved and gathered up items before forensics got there
Concentrated on one "suspect" from the off, allowing all other possibilities to slip through the net
Didn't take body temperature to estimate time of death
Ignored accurate and reliable statements and used inaccurate, vastly altered statements instead
Bleached the scene before sniffer dogs arrived
Accepted some information at face value, then quietly let it drop when it was found to be dishonest
Withheld evidence from the defence
Attempted entrapment via two different sources (including the victim's family)
Messed up the labelling of mobile phones for which already misleading and inaccurate claims had been made
Messed up the labelling and reporting of DNA results
Misrepresented DNA results
Engaged in behaviour which was "outrageous and to be deplored"
Told locals, from the day after the murder, that a 14 year old kid was the murderer
Accepted "alibis" on the say so of single individuals for anyone but their chosen suspect
Leaked lurid (and dishonest) details to the media to dehumanise their chosen suspect and his family
Tried to claim that a sniffer dog, trained to scent dead bodies and blood, which failed to alert its handler to a living, breathing, unbloodied person was proof that Mia ould not have reacted at the V
Took 12 days to find a purse, complete with uncancelled cards, at the foot of the V point on the path side (or worse, allowed someone to drop one there within the first 12 days of the so-called investigation)


And that's only a fraction of it. Failures on every level. It's beyond me how anyone can look at a list like that and not think, wait a minute, how can anyone be sure of anything the police claimed in this case?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 12, 2015, 10:35:AM
But I have a letter from Luke Mitchell with satanic writings on it?

I don't think anyone disputes that his school book had satanic symbols on them and that Luke had an interest in these things but the relevance of this interest then or in letters to you after is what is questionable. Were there satanic symbols at the scene?

I'm not sure why Nathan Matthews is brought up either?!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 12, 2015, 10:41:AM
Despite Sandra Lean's wild claims to the Press about the DNA samples the SCCRC found no reason whatsoever to the refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

In essence they found that "...he was not the victim of a miscarriage of justice and that there were no grounds to challenge his guilty verdict."

The 200-page report stated: "The Commission has decided not to refer Mr Mitchell's case to the High Court."


At least you are consistent Sandra.  Three fails in a row!

John

Rather than the frankly childish repetition of "Sandra's been wrong before" how about responding to actual discussion of the case. I responded to all your reasons for belief of guilt but you haven't replied.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 11:57:AM
Failures?

Left the body uncovered in the rain for 8 hours
Trampled all over the murder scene
Moved and gathered up items before forensics got there
Concentrated on one "suspect" from the off, allowing all other possibilities to slip through the net
Didn't take body temperature to estimate time of death
Ignored accurate and reliable statements and used inaccurate, vastly altered statements instead
Bleached the scene before sniffer dogs arrived
Accepted some information at face value, then quietly let it drop when it was found to be dishonest
Withheld evidence from the defence
Attempted entrapment via two different sources (including the victim's family)
Messed up the labelling of mobile phones for which already misleading and inaccurate claims had been made
Messed up the labelling and reporting of DNA results
Misrepresented DNA results
Engaged in behaviour which was "outrageous and to be deplored"
Told locals, from the day after the murder, that a 14 year old kid was the murderer
Accepted "alibis" on the say so of single individuals for anyone but their chosen suspect
Leaked lurid (and dishonest) details to the media to dehumanise their chosen suspect and his family
Tried to claim that a sniffer dog, trained to scent dead bodies and blood, which failed to alert its handler to a living, breathing, unbloodied person was proof that Mia ould not have reacted at the V
Took 12 days to find a purse, complete with uncancelled cards, at the foot of the V point on the path side (or worse, allowed someone to drop one there within the first 12 days of the so-called investigation)


And that's only a fraction of it. Failures on every level. It's beyond me how anyone can look at a list like that and not think, wait a minute, how can anyone be sure of anything the police claimed in this case?

It's seems apparent these things can happen in murder investigations and these failures are used by people like Luke Mitchell to maintain innocence.

However it is clear to me now that these failures aren't unusual in cases like this.

I think it's wrong that you continue to point out these failures in cases like this, especially if you are not willing to say who killed JJ - if it wasn't Luke Mitchell..

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 12:03:PM
I don't think anyone disputes that his school book had satanic symbols on them and that Luke had an interest in these things but the relevance of this interest then or in letters to you after is what is questionable. Were there satanic symbols at the scene?

I'm not sure why Nathan Matthews is brought up either?!

Luke Mitchell appears to have an interest in satanism.

On it's own i guess it's not extraordinary but given that his 14 year old girlfriend was murdered and her body grossly mutilated then 'laid out' I'd have thought it was of significance.

With regards Nathan Matthews, I'm using this case as an example for many reasons. Imo there are aspects within the case that cross over not just in this case but the Jeremy Bamber case also.

"The police may face pressure to explain why it took so long for them to establish what had happened to Becky, who vanished from her home on 19 February. It was a week before police found her blood on the doorframe of her bedroom, and 12 days before her remains were discovered."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/11/becky-watts-stepbrother-nathan-matthews-guilty-murder
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 12:16:PM
It's seems apparent these things can happen in murder investigations and these failures are used by people like Luke Mitchell to maintain innocence.

However it is clear to me now that these failures aren't unusual in cases like this.

I think it's wrong that you continue to point out these failures in cases like this, especially if you are not willing to say who killed JJ - if it wasn't Luke Mitchell..

Furthermore, with regards the 'secrecy' you use to explain why you no longer hold power of attorney in order to represent Luke Mitchell sets off alarm bells for people like myself. What are you hiding? What are you not telling the public?

In my humble opinion you should be transparent with regards these issues as there may be apparent reasons that you may not see, that others could - which may well support Lukes guilt.

Also, the reason why you are no longer associated with the WronglyAccusedPerson/Billy Middleton 'charity' should be made public imo as there are many unsuspecting individuals who could be affected by the truth of the matter.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 12:26:PM
I don't think anyone disputes that his school book had satanic symbols on them and that Luke had an interest in these things but the relevance of this interest then or in letters to you after is what is questionable. Were there satanic symbols at the scene?

I'm not sure why Nathan Matthews is brought up either?!

JJ's mother called Luke Mitchell a Sociapath http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-murdered-jodi-jones-brands-1105317

She said: "Luke Mitchell is a person without feeling or emotion. I witnessed this on the day I went to his house (after the discovery of Jodi's body).

"He stood there like a stick of rock, did not show any emotion at all whilst I tried to cuddle him and give him comfort."

The onslaught came as Mitchell's backers said they would take his bid for freedom to the Supreme Court in London.

Mitchell, now 22, was jailed for at least 20 years after slashing his 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi across the throat in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in 2003.

He has been trying to get his 2005 conviction overturned on human rights grounds because he was questioned without a lawyer present. Jodi's mother, of Easthouses, Midlothian, penned her bitter attack on an internet forum about Mitchell's conviction.

Judy also attacked Mitchell's supporters.

She said: "You are all a bunch of cyber court bullies. Shame on you all for your defamation of my baby."

Your thoughts Baz?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 12, 2015, 12:27:PM
Furthermore, with regards the 'secrecy' you use to explain why you no longer hold power of attorney in order to represent Luke Mitchell sets off alarm bells for people like myself. What are you hiding? What are you not telling the public?

In my humble opinion you should be transparent with regards these issues as there may be apparent reasons that you may not see, that others could - which may well support Lukes guilt.

Also, the reason why you are no longer associated with the WronglyAccusedPerson/Billy Middleton 'charity' should be made public imo as there are many unsuspecting individuals who could be affected by the truth of the matter.


seeing as you have so much to hide in your own husbands im suprised you have the cheek to say that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 12:32:PM

seeing as you have so much to hide in your own husbands im suprised you have the cheek to say that.

I have nothing to hide Nugnug. If there is something you wish to know just ask me.

SH was guilty. End of.

I am not asking these questions out of 'cheek' I am asking these questions as I do not believe Sandra L.

There are many unanswered questions and questions Sandra L is clearly not prepared to answer, which leaves me to believe she is hiding something that could show the Mitchell's in a bad light. Same applies to the WAP charity and Billy Middleton. My opinion of course.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 12, 2015, 12:37:PM
heres wht a reputable newspaper has to say about the case.

https://t.co/9hJwF2YJs1

and about the dna evedence.


bump
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 12:46:PM

bump

Bump all you like but to ignore all these questions will only further confuse things imo.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 12:51:PM

seeing as you have so much to hide in your own husbands im suprised you have the cheek to say that.

I could never understand why SH's family behaved the way they did, especially after the burglary omission. I couldn't understand the posts made by his brother on this forum. His brother once said "SH always lies when he was backed into a corner" or words to that effect....

I had to ask myself why someone's blood brother would say something like that and behave in that way. I was already doubting SH at this point, given the fact I had learned in November 2012 he had lied about his movements on the night of the murder....

I found it strange someone would set up a spoof website about me and SH and write the things they did. What were they hiding? Why were they behaving this way? What was their true motive?

So you see, I'm asking these questions to Sandra L as I believe her avoidance of these questions only adds to the fact I believe she is hiding something.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 01:28:PM
Well she testified in court that she was his girlfriend.  Luke Mitchell never stood up in court and said she wasn't his girlfriend did he?

Having two girlfriends could be a motive for murder.

Visiting the grave of a child, whose mother had insisted he was not to go there was a total lack of respect.
They should have abided by the Jones family decision but no they knew better.

There is no excuse whatsoever for them being at the grave against the mothers wishes. They had no rights to be there plain and simples.

Bump
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 01:29:PM
if love someone you visit there grave weather you are told to stay away or or not.

Bump
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 12, 2015, 05:32:PM
Quote
It's seems apparent these things can happen in murder investigations and these failures are used by people like Luke Mitchell to maintain innocence.

However it is clear to me now that these failures aren't unusual in cases like this.

Could it possibly be that failures like this are apparently not unusual in cases like these (i.e. people maintaining factual innocence) because they are recognised and acknowledged tactics in cases of "fitting up" innocent people, rather than conducting proper investigations? I wouldn't dream of asking you to take my word for it - try Prof Phil Scraton, Prof Allan Jamieson, Prof Derek Pounder, Prof Tim Valentine, Dr Keith Ashcroft, former head of Scotland Yard Roy Ramm - I could go on.... and on... but I'm sure you'll get the point I'm making here.

Quote
I think it's wrong that you continue to point out these failures in cases like this,

Why do you think it's wrong? Take this away from individuals - the question remains, are we prepared to accept this rubbish as  "investigation" from our police services, or as proof "beyond reasonable doubt" from our Criminal Justice System? You may well be, I most certainly am not.

Quote
especially if you are not willing to say who killed JJ - if it wasn't Luke Mitchell

The discussion just entered a logic-free zone. My ability or willingness to name the "real killer" (even if I could) has absolutely nothing to do with appallingly poor police and judicial processes (and media processes, just to be absolutely clear that they are all interlinked.)

My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X." Even if I had the photographs, accounts from witnesses who were standing there when the murder occurred, and a statement in blood from the real killer I STILL wouldn't name him publicly. Why? Because I still believe the proper processes of the CJS are the best protection for everyone, and the real killer would be entitled to the full process of the law, from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, through the right to protection against prejudicial information being publicised which might jeopardise his right to a fair trial, all the way through to solid evidence, full disclosure to the defence, and juries properly advised and directed. Then, and only then, can we have some assurance that the correct person has been convicted.

And yes, I would argue - even campaign- that the identity of the real killer be kept out of the media prior to trial, even if I personally knew who he was (which I don't.) Because I would not want to see a real perpetrator of a horrible crime "get off" because the rights to which he, however horrible his crimes, was entitled, were breached - that just gets in the way of true justice. Afford him all of his rights, force the police and the courts to do a proper job, and maybe then we'll end up with much more satisfactory outcomes.

Of the claimed "satanic influences" you said

Quote
On it's own i guess it's not extraordinary but given that his 14 year old girlfriend was murdered and her body grossly mutilated then 'laid out' I'd have thought it was of significance.

Where did you get the information that Jodi's body was "laid out?" It was not.

Or, for that matter "grossly mutilated?"  How does "mutilated" differ from "grossly mutilated?" Are we talking pre or post-mortem mutilation?  And how, exactly, do these phrases indicate anything significant about claimed "satanic influences?"

I do not ask these questions from some sort of sick desire to spell out all of the details of Jodi's injuries (nor am I blind to the rather obvious crumbs being dropped here in an attempt to lead me down certain paths!) Rather, I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 06:00:PM
Could it possibly be that failures like this are apparently not unusual in cases like these (i.e. people maintaining factual innocence) because they are recognised and acknowledged tactics in cases of "fitting up" innocent people, rather than conducting proper investigations? I wouldn't dream of asking you to take my word for it - try Prof Phil Scraton, Prof Allan Jamieson, Prof Derek Pounder, Prof Tim Valentine, Dr Keith Ashcroft, former head of Scotland Yard Roy Ramm - I could go on.... and on... but I'm sure you'll get the point I'm making here.

Why do you think it's wrong? Take this away from individuals - the question remains, are we prepared to accept this rubbish as  "investigation" from our police services, or as proof "beyond reasonable doubt" from our Criminal Justice System? You may well be, I most certainly am not.

The discussion just entered a logic-free zone. My ability or willingness to name the "real killer" (even if I could) has absolutely nothing to do with appallingly poor police and judicial processes (and media processes, just to be absolutely clear that they are all interlinked.)

My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X." Even if I had the photographs, accounts from witnesses who were standing there when the murder occurred, and a statement in blood from the real killer I STILL wouldn't name him publicly. Why? Because I still believe the proper processes of the CJS are the best protection for everyone, and the real killer would be entitled to the full process of the law, from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, through the right to protection against prejudicial information being publicised which might jeopardise his right to a fair trial, all the way through to solid evidence, full disclosure to the defence, and juries properly advised and directed. Then, and only then, can we have some assurance that the correct person has been convicted.

And yes, I would argue - even campaign- that the identity of the real killer be kept out of the media prior to trial, even if I personally knew who he was (which I don't.) Because I would not want to see a real perpetrator of a horrible crime "get off" because the rights to which he, however horrible his crimes, was entitled, were breached - that just gets in the way of true justice. Afford him all of his rights, force the police and the courts to do a proper job, and maybe then we'll end up with much more satisfactory outcomes.

Of the claimed "satanic influences" you said

Where did you get the information that Jodi's body was "laid out?" It was not.

Or, for that matter "grossly mutilated?"  How does "mutilated" differ from "grossly mutilated?" Are we talking pre or post-mortem mutilation?  And how, exactly, do these phrases indicate anything significant about claimed "satanic influences?"

I do not ask these questions from some sort of sick desire to spell out all of the details of Jodi's injuries (nor am I blind to the rather obvious crumbs being dropped here in an attempt to lead me down certain paths!) Rather, I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
It appears your manipulation tactics and power for persuasion knows no bounds.  ::)

Let's be clear about one thing - I am not throwing you any 'crumbs' in order to 'lead you down certain paths' - though it concerns me that this comment is one of projection and indeed what you are doing with this case.

Last year you told me some alarming things related to this case which I haven't forgotten.

You have told me 'alarming' things in the past about other 'things' which, as above, I have not forgotten.

Why is it I get the distinct impression you will not answer all questions posed and instead respond with your highfalutin responses?  ::)





Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 12, 2015, 07:09:PM
Quote
Where did you get the information that Jodi's body was "laid out?" It was not.

Or, for that matter "grossly mutilated?"  How does "mutilated" differ from "grossly mutilated?" Are we talking pre or post-mortem mutilation?  And how, exactly, do these phrases indicate anything significant about claimed "satanic influences?"

I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 07:15:PM
Where did you get the information that Jodi's body was "laid out?" It was not.

Or, for that matter "grossly mutilated?"  How does "mutilated" differ from "grossly mutilated?" Are we talking pre or post-mortem mutilation?  And how, exactly, do these phrases indicate anything significant about claimed "satanic influences?"

I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm

"[13] The deceased's body was found naked apart from some socks on the front part of her feet. Other items of clothing were strewn around the area. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse. There was no sign of a struggle except in the area around the body. She had a number of injuries, including cuts to the throat, the right cheek, the left breast, numerous cuts to the stomach and cuts round both eyes. Some of these injuries appeared to have been inflicted post-mortem. Defensive injuries suggested that the deceased had struggled with her assailant. The cut to the neck had severed the deceased's windpipe and jugular vein, as well as the carotid artery on the left side. This would have caused death within a couple of minutes. According to the pathologist, Professor Anthony Busuttil, the implement which caused the injuries to the throat was a stout, sharp-pointed, bladed weapon. Professor Busuttil gave evidence that a reddish hair bobble, or "scrunch", was situated at the back of the deceased's head, but was not easily visible among her hair which was largely uncontained by it."

Grossly mutilated - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BN0Kb9rgPksC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=grossly+mutilated+definition&source=bl&ots=xana9oDA-0&sig=kD-ULfs9PBokAjKNjah2yCrF1ME&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCGoVChMIzdCy8MuLyQIVAewUCh3-PwSZ#v=onepage&q=grossly%20mutilated%20definition&f=false
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 12, 2015, 07:37:PM
I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.

I'm suggesting we need transparency from yourself as to why you no longer hold power of attorney for Luke Mitchell. Why there appears to be animosity between you and his mother and why it is you disassociated yourself from the WAP organisation?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 13, 2015, 01:28:AM
you dont ask luke you cliam you have been in contact mind you like most of your cliams i have my doubts but if you really have then theres no reason not to ask him is there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 13, 2015, 01:30:AM
But I have a letter from Luke Mitchell with satanic writings on it?

and you know what a satanic symbol looks like do you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 13, 2015, 01:37:AM
I have nothing to hide Nugnug. If there is something you wish to know just ask me.

SH was guilty. End of.

I am not asking these questions out of 'cheek' I am asking these questions as I do not believe Sandra L.

There are many unanswered questions and questions Sandra L is clearly not prepared to answer, which leaves me to believe she is hiding something that could show the Mitchell's in a bad light. Same applies to the WAP charity and Billy Middleton. My opinion of course.

ok ill start a new thread on it tommrow then see if your any more recetive to ansering qustions thean you were before.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 13, 2015, 02:51:AM
Failures?

Left the body uncovered in the rain for 8 hours
Trampled all over the murder scene
Moved and gathered up items before forensics got there
Concentrated on one "suspect" from the off, allowing all other possibilities to slip through the net
Didn't take body temperature to estimate time of death
Ignored accurate and reliable statements and used inaccurate, vastly altered statements instead
Bleached the scene before sniffer dogs arrived
Accepted some information at face value, then quietly let it drop when it was found to be dishonest
Withheld evidence from the defence
Attempted entrapment via two different sources (including the victim's family)
Messed up the labelling of mobile phones for which already misleading and inaccurate claims had been made
Messed up the labelling and reporting of DNA results
Misrepresented DNA results
Engaged in behaviour which was "outrageous and to be deplored"
Told locals, from the day after the murder, that a 14 year old kid was the murderer
Accepted "alibis" on the say so of single individuals for anyone but their chosen suspect
Leaked lurid (and dishonest) details to the media to dehumanise their chosen suspect and his family
Tried to claim that a sniffer dog, trained to scent dead bodies and blood, which failed to alert its handler to a living, breathing, unbloodied person was proof that Mia ould not have reacted at the V
Took 12 days to find a purse, complete with uncancelled cards, at the foot of the V point on the path side (or worse, allowed someone to drop one there within the first 12 days of the so-called investigation)


And that's only a fraction of it. Failures on every level. It's beyond me how anyone can look at a list like that and not think, wait a minute, how can anyone be sure of anything the police claimed in this case?

Nobody is disagreeing with you on the fact that Lothian & Borders Police made a complete dogs dinner of the investigation, by the way you forgot to add the fat forensics woman who couldn't be bothered to visit the crime scene because she couldn't climb over a six foot wall.

This doesn't change anything however and that is why I asked you previously whether you believe Mitchell to be innocent or merely the victim of a unsafe conviction.

You still havent provided any evidence which supports Mitchell's claim to innocence.  Is that because you haven't managed to get any remembering too that despite your best efforts the SCCRC stated there were no grounds to review the verdict?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 06:50:AM
Quote
Nobody is disagreeing with you on the fact that Lothian & Borders Police made a complete dogs dinner of the investigation, by the way you forgot to add the fat forensics woman who couldn't be bothered to visit the crime scene because she couldn't climb over a six foot wall.

This doesn't change anything

Really? This is really your argument? Tell me, was there any wrongdoing, unexpected behaviours or failings in your own case? Here's a clue, from your own online story:

Quote
This is a true story exposing abuse of power and malfeasance within the Scottish Justice System.  It is a story of lies, of collusion and ultimately of a conspiracy by Crown officials in Edinburgh to pervert the course of justice.  A story of how an ordinary respectable law-abiding individual could be deprived of his liberty and arrested abroad on what can only be considered as fabricated, malicious and trumped-up allegations against him.

But it's ok, John, it doesn't change anything, does it? The courts still found you guilty, so you must have been, even if the conviction was "unsafe." Remind me, did the SCCRC find grounds to refer your case back to the court of appeal? Ah well, there you are then.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 06:59:AM
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm

"[13] The deceased's body was found naked apart from some socks on the front part of her feet. Other items of clothing were strewn around the area. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse. There was no sign of a struggle except in the area around the body. She had a number of injuries, including cuts to the throat, the right cheek, the left breast, numerous cuts to the stomach and cuts round both eyes. Some of these injuries appeared to have been inflicted post-mortem. Defensive injuries suggested that the deceased had struggled with her assailant. The cut to the neck had severed the deceased's windpipe and jugular vein, as well as the carotid artery on the left side. This would have caused death within a couple of minutes. According to the pathologist, Professor Anthony Busuttil, the implement which caused the injuries to the throat was a stout, sharp-pointed, bladed weapon. Professor Busuttil gave evidence that a reddish hair bobble, or "scrunch", was situated at the back of the deceased's head, but was not easily visible among her hair which was largely uncontained by it."

Grossly mutilated - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BN0Kb9rgPksC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=grossly+mutilated+definition&source=bl&ots=xana9oDA-0&sig=kD-ULfs9PBokAjKNjah2yCrF1ME&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCGoVChMIzdCy8MuLyQIVAewUCh3-PwSZ#v=onepage&q=grossly%20mutilated%20definition&f=false

So, where does it say the body was "laid out"? It doesn't, does it? BUt you use that in part to claim a "satanic" link. From your link above:

Quote
It is now generally recognised that there were five Ripper victims; all had their throats cut from ear to ear, suffered multiple cuts and wounds, most were disembowelled, some had organs removed, and the last victim was grossly mutilated in her room – her throat was cut to the spinal column, her nose, ears and breasts were cut off and her organs taken out and placed on a nearby table.

Thank you, a differentiation between mutilation and "gross mutilation." The most "gross" of these mutilations did not occur in this case, though, did they? Yet you also use that, in part, to claim a "satanic link."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 07:17:AM
some interesting misrepresentations from Lithium:

Quote
...you wouldn't be so willing to implicate others such as SK and MK publicly. Also if it were truly the case, why were you happy to provide circumstantial cases against other so-called suspects in your SCRCC application using the same methods you've so strongly condemned? (interest in Marilyn Manson, Parka jackets, local hearsay, owning knives, etc)

The argument about all of the others who would, ordinarily, have been persons if interest in such a case, is that there was one set of rules for LM, and another for everybody else. Demonstrating how suspicious it can make others look when subjected to the same treatment as LM is a way of highlighting why the case against LM was so wrong on so many levels. I'm tired of emphasising that I'm not accusing anyone of anything - it's plain for anyone with an iota of intelligence to see that the so called "significant factors" in the case against Luke could just as easily have constructed cases against others.

Quote
And why don't you realise that the crime scene being poorly preserved supports Luke's guilt more than it does his innocence? (We're never done hearing how nothing links him to the scene, but then you contradict yourself by arguing that the scene wasn't preserved. What was that about John wanting to have his cake and eat it too?)

This gets sillier by the minute! So, no evidence is supportive of guilt? A p*ss poor police investigation which allowed evidence to be destroyed is supportive of guilt? The best you can argue is that some of that evidence might have been supportive of Luke being guilty, just as it equally might have implicated someone else entirely. What about the DNA which was recovered, but wasn't Luke's? Does that support any other possibility? What about the failure to accurately estimate time of death - does that support any other possibility? What about all of the hard evidence which was altered beyond recognition to manipulate the time of death to 5.15 - might that support other possibilities?

You see, if Jodi wasn't murdered at 5.15pm, then Luke couldn't have been her killer, so the destruction of the crime scene when taken in conjuncton with all of the changed timings, suggests the police let a vicious murderer slip through their fingers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 09:23:AM
Am I just being cynical here, but having read the old wap forum about this case. Did john and Stephanie change their minds about luke only after they had fallen out with everyone on that forum, especially sandra it would seem. John seemed to come back onto that forum still believing innocence but under false names, is that correct? Then when he inevitably fell out with everyone again, he turned against luke. Or more turned against sandra and billy middleton rather than luke mitchell. Is that about right?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 13, 2015, 09:37:AM
yes that's about right.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 13, 2015, 10:10:AM
I think the truth is that some people are more interested in having a fight than discussing the case. I have no idea what they get out of it but if you don't feed the trolls they do eventually starve to death.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 11:24:AM
Am I just being cynical here, but having read the old wap forum about this case. Did john and Stephanie change their minds about luke only after they had fallen out with everyone on that forum, especially sandra it would seem. John seemed to come back onto that forum still believing innocence but under false names, is that correct? Then when he inevitably fell out with everyone again, he turned against luke. Or more turned against sandra and billy middleton rather than luke mitchell. Is that about right?

yes that's about right.

I think the truth is that some people are more interested in having a fight than discussing the case. I have no idea what they get out of it but if you don't feed the trolls they do eventually starve to death.

I cannot speak for John but this has nothing to do with me 'falling out' with anyone, nor is it personal.

But for clarity, regarding Billy Middleton and the WAP forum. I did not trust him. I learned things about him I didn't like and I believe he is guilty of starting the fire. It is Middleton who has issues with me, as can be seen with his libellous blog about SH's confession. He even admits in the blog he doesn't like SH.

He also took money from people and spent it on himself it appears. He was meant to do a sponsored walk from Shetland to the UK, stopping off en route to visit people. I believe someone donated a treadmill in preparation for the so called walk and I know he was asking for trainer donations.

Where did the money go? Where does it go?

With regards Luke Mitchell, Sandra L and I last spoke on the telephone last year. During that time Sandra told me some things about the Mitchell's that changed my belief in the case (baring in mind By this time I knew SH was guilty). So you see nothing to do with WAP, Middleton, Sandra or John. I made up my own mind.

It is you all who are trolls, people without the courage and conviction to post using your own name. Hiding behind a screen name.

There is nothing personal in my posts, but I do see personal comments being made by you all.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 11:26:AM
Hello everyone discussing this case.

I took an interest some years ago in this case and it has  occasionally popped back into my head since. I was then recently discussing MOJs in general and having forgotten so many of the details of Luke's case I decided to remind myself. However, I can't find a site that actually presents the evidence. I have been through all 190 pages of this forum (I'm ready for my medal now, or maybe therapy!) and to be honest there isn't a great deal of content regarding the facts. There has been some really helpful and informative posts but I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are any accessible sites that still present the evidence? Also if anyone knows where I can watch the BBC doc "Devils own" I'd be grateful.

For the record I'm not totally convinced of Luke's innocence but I am convinced he didn't get a fair investigation which would obviously ruin any chances of a fair trial. I couldn't have convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt from what I have read so far but I want to read more. Help.

I think the truth is that some people are more interested in having a fight than discussing the case. I have no idea what they get out of it but if you don't feed the trolls they do eventually starve to death.

And 'Baz' you only registered here in October this year - now you are suggesting you know us all on a personal level?   ???
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 01:11:PM
So, where does it say the body was "laid out"? It doesn't, does it? BUt you use that in part to claim a "satanic" link. From your link above:

Thank you, a differentiation between mutilation and "gross mutilation." The most "gross" of these mutilations did not occur in this case, though, did they? Yet you also use that, in part, to claim a "satanic link."

This is my opinion and interpretation on what I believe could have been a factor with regards motive to murder.

Regarding a 'satanic' link - why did Luke request the books he did from the prison library? You have suggested the news article was misleading? How so? Either he did or did not request these books?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

What about the satanic scribblings on his school books? On the knife pouch?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1481752/Jodi-killed-by-boyfriend-attracted-to-sex-drugs-and-Satan.html

The satanic symbols on the letter he wrote me? (I wrote to LM several years ago now. He replied. I have not written to him since).

An example = "The downward-pointing pentacle is often used to represent Satanists."

You are being pedantic imo. Any type of mutilation in my opinion is gross. And from what I believe I know about the injuries inflicted, I would call them gross mutilations.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 01:38:PM
Yet you also use that, in part, to claim a "satanic link."

What are your thoughts and beliefs on the following?

And why do you think LM had requested these books?



"Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.

He made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison where he is serving life for the murder of Jodi in June 2003.

It is officially under consideration by the Scottish Prison Service, who can ban prisoners from receiving books that don’t come from an approved list of suppliers.

Three of the requested texts are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the American founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, he promotes human sacrifice and discusses the conditions in which someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice.

LaVey states: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

One of the other titles, Satan Speaks!, has a foreword by goth rocker Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of Jodi."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 13, 2015, 01:57:PM
And 'Baz' you only registered here in October this year - now you are suggesting you know us all on a personal level?   ???

Nope. Just from my experience here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:01:PM
What are your thoughts and beliefs on the following?

And why do you think LM had requested these books?



"Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.

He made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison where he is serving life for the murder of Jodi in June 2003.

It is officially under consideration by the Scottish Prison Service, who can ban prisoners from receiving books that don’t come from an approved list of suppliers.

Three of the requested texts are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the American founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, he promotes human sacrifice and discusses the conditions in which someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice.

LaVey states: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

One of the other titles, Satan Speaks!, has a foreword by goth rocker Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of Jodi."


Everyone knows this. Know one has ever said he didn't write these things or ask for these books... And?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:02:PM
Lord Nimmo Smith said Jodi’s injuries were the worst he had ever seen.

A blade was drawn backwards and forwards across her throat at least 20 times.  Her eyelids were slit by a hand steady enough not to touch her eyeballs. And her clothes were cut from her body before deep gashes were made to a cheek, breast and her abdomen.  The knife was also jabbed hard into her mouth.

Jodi’s arms were then bound with her trousers and her naked body dumped behind a tree near a woodland path.  Within minutes of murdering his girlfriend in June 2003, Mitchell phoned her home to ask where she was.

Article (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/101719/Boy-fiend-who-killed-Jodi.html#ixzz1MADTTLys)


(http://i.imgur.com/T54nl.jpg)

Victim... Jodi Jones' throat was cut 20 times

Further evidence to suggest imo gross mutilation...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:03:PM
Nope. Just from my experience here.

Can you provide examples...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:07:PM
This statement intrigues me.

Yet Shane has a different take on things.

Luke's brother admits mum aided evidence
Source: Evening News - Scotland
Date: 1/13/2005

THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family's house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.

In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane's statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother's car being in the driveway and the front door being open.

His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.

Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell's statement given on the previous day to Shane's. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."

Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."

Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.

"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

Mitchell replied: "My mother."

Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: 'You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.'"

Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.

Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan's Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues

Again, I ask the question - if the above was twisted and manipulated etc why has Shane Mitchell not spoken out in support of his brother?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:16:PM
You are claiming to have been told alarming things about this case and the Mitchell's which changed your mind Stephanie. So what are they, please tell.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:26:PM
You are claiming to have been told alarming things about this case and the Mitchell's which changed your mind Stephanie. So what are they, please tell.

Sandra L should be the one to answer this, not me. Ask her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:34:PM
Shane did not initially state he was "home alone" that afternoon - he said he had no idea whether or not he came straight home from work, and gave the time/route he would normally take/arrive home, with the proviso that he might not have come straight home.

Police checks showed he had stopped off to help a friend with a car problem (which Shane instantly agreed was corrrect, he had simply forgotten about it on what must have been, by the Tuesday afternoon/evening, the most shocking and surreal experience.) That meant Luke would have been home before Shane, and not the other way around. He said he usually came in from work and went straight upstairs to his room, and believed he did so that afternoon. If Luke was in the kitchen, Shane would not have seen him, and, unless they called out to each other, may not even have known Luke was there.

I knocked at Corinne's front door and let myself in one day - Mia was lying on the settee in the living room and didn't bark (because she knew me), I said hello to Mia, then walked through to the kitchen (there were heavy curtains on the door between the kitchen and the dining room) and almost gave Corinne a heart attack because she hadn't heard me come in.

None of the questions about Shane which have been posed here take account of the phone call made from Corinne's landline to Scotts Caravans, or the fact that Shane and Corinne ate a cooked dinner which they did not prepare themselves.

The treatment of Shane by police was outrageous - one officer kept telling him "I'm ot accepting "I don't know" or "I don't remember" - that's not good enough" before aggressively telling Shane to picture crtain scenarios in his head. If that isn't a blatant attempt to interfere with witness recall, I don't know what is.

Out of interest, could it be that Corrine Mitchell didn't hear you because she may have had one or two alcoholic drinks?

Also - you mention Mia didn't bark because she knew you? Do you then think it's plausible for Mia to not have been led to the V in the wall because she also knew Jodi and it was in fact Luke who knew where he was going after all?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:34:PM
Sandra L should be the one to answer this, not me. Ask her.

Surprise surprise. You claim in earlier posts that sandra had lost all credibility. You also claim she is not answering all the questions you pose. Then the first question you are asked about information you claim to possess, you pass the buck onto someone else and won't answer. Who has just lost all credibility? Bitter and twisted is what comes to mind
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:35:PM
Out of interest, could it be that Corrine Mitchell didn't hear you because she may have had one or two alcoholic drinks?

And your a saint?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:37:PM
And your a saint?

I beg your pardon?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:41:PM
Surprise surprise. You claim in earlier posts that sandra had lost all credibility. You also claim she is not answering all the questions you pose. Then the first question you are asked about information you claim to possess, you pass the buck onto someone else and won't answer. Who has just lost all credibility? Bitter and twisted is what comes to mind

No that is what you have claimed. I have said I do not trust Sandra L.

And, she is not answering all the questions I have posed. What I believe she is doing is leading people like you on a merry dance.

Now who is being personnel?

Seems you are unable to debate and be objective Marty!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:42:PM
Never claimed to be impersonal
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:44:PM
Am I just being cynical here, but having read the old wap forum about this case. Did john and Stephanie change their minds about luke only after they had fallen out with everyone on that forum, especially sandra it would seem. John seemed to come back onto that forum still believing innocence but under false names, is that correct? Then when he inevitably fell out with everyone again, he turned against luke. Or more turned against sandra and billy middleton rather than luke mitchell. Is that about right?

Out of interest - do you represent the WAP organisation?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:45:PM
Answer the question I posed you then please, or are you just leading people like me a dance also.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:47:PM
No I don't represent the wap forum. As it happens, I have much the same feelings about the admin their as you do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:48:PM
Out of interest, could it be that Corrine Mitchell didn't hear you because she may have had one or two alcoholic drinks?

And your a saint?

Never claimed to be impersonal

Not sure what you are attempting to allude to here but FYI I don't drink. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:49:PM
No I don't represent the wap forum. As it happens, I have much the same feelings about the admin their as you do.

How do you know what my feeling are toward the Admin at WAP?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:51:PM
Answer the question I posed you then please, or are you just leading people like me a dance also.

'People like you' - who are you?

Why would I be leading anyone on a dance?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:52:PM
I cannot speak for John but this has nothing to do with me 'falling out' with anyone, nor is it personal.

But for clarity, regarding Billy Middleton and the WAP forum. I did not trust him. I learned things about him I didn't like and I believe he is guilty of starting the fire. It is Middleton who has issues with me, as can be seen with his libellous blog about SH's confession. He even admits in the blog he doesn't like SH.

He also took money from people and spent it on himself it appears. He was meant to do a sponsored walk from Shetland to the UK, stopping off en route to visit people. I believe someone donated a treadmill in preparation for the so called walk and I know he was asking for trainer donations.

Where did the money go? Where does it go?

With regards Luke Mitchell, Sandra L and I last spoke on the telephone last year. During that time Sandra told me some things about the Mitchell's that changed my belief in the case (baring in mind By this time I knew SH was guilty). So you see nothing to do with WAP, Middleton, Sandra or John. I made up my own mind.

It is you all who are trolls, people without the courage and conviction to post using your own name. Hiding behind a screen name.

There is nothing personal in my posts, but I do see personal comments being made by you all.
[/quote

You told us yourself

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:55:PM
Not sure what you are attempting to allude to here but FYI I don't drink.

Give it a try
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:56:PM
I told you a 'snippet' of my feelings toward the Admin on the WAP forum...

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 02:57:PM
Give it a try

Like Middleton did on the night of the fires?

Anyway I'm really not sure what your posts have to do with the Luke Mitchell case. It's apparent you are only here to make personal insults to posters and that you have nothing of any value to add to the debate.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 02:59:PM
'People like you' - who are you?

Why would I be leading anyone on a dance?

You are evading questions, which is what you claim others are doing and leading people like me a merry dance. Which, is what you are claiming, others are doing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:03:PM
The same insults you are making about Corrine drinking alcohol. You are doing exactly the same. And still avoiding my question.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:07:PM
The same insults you are making about Corrine drinking alcohol. You are doing exactly the same. And still avoiding my question.

Ask Sandra L these questions as it was her who told me what I have since learned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:10:PM
Ask Sandra L these questions as it was her who told me what I have since learned.
Why? You know! You have appear to have no loyalties to the Mitchell's or anyone else.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:16:PM
Why? You know! You have appear to have no loyalties to the Mitchell's or anyone else.

Have just been familiarising myself with some of your past posts and came across you calling this forum a nonsense. Why then do you post on it?

Quote from: maggie on July 05, 2015, 07:03:PM
Adam, you have had a private warning already but you are going too far I have removed your offensive lost 3
times if you post it again I shall ban you.

Your reply:

I don't know what Adam wrote, but I have seen people call other people xxxxxx,xxxxxxx xxxxxxx and such like, oh, but that's ok cause there posts are edited for the thousandth time.
Unless your gonna treat everyone the same the forums a nonsense.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2787.msg314253.html#msg314253
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:18:PM
Why? You know! You have appear to have no loyalties to the Mitchell's or anyone else.

Your veil is slipping (again) Marty  ;D

What makes you think it has anything to do with loyalties?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:20:PM
So now you are saying I'm adam
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:21:PM
Your veil is slipping (again) Marty  ;D

What makes you think it has anything to do with loyalties?


Pahahaha 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:24:PM
At age 14:

Luke Mitchell was having sex with different partners.

He was smoking cannabis and selling it.

His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.

"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.

His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.

"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.

Several other jotters were shown which contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way", "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f*** off and stay out my mind" and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from late Nirvana singer Cobain.

The handwritten essay, questioning the existence of God, had been submitted in January 2003 in place of a short story, which had been requested.

The essay contained passages such as: "If you ask me, god is just a futile excuse at most for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with him. "Are these people insane?"

It also read "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance" and "Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-334963/Killer-Mitchell-ordinary-teenager.html#ixzz1MjIStCSu

There are many articles on this link

http://explore.dailymail.co.uk/people/mitchell_luke

Bump
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:25:PM
No, I said on the wap forum, there new thread on the luke Mitchell case was a nonsense.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:27:PM

Pahahaha 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Maybe you should change your name from Marty to Peter Pan...  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:27:PM
Bump

And? I'm not getting what your point is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:28:PM
No, I said on the wap forum, there new thread on the luke Mitchell case was a nonsense.

No you didn't! See below!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2787.msg314253.html#msg314253
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:29:PM
Peter pan. I have the feeling you would fit right in
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:29:PM
And? I'm not getting what your point is.

The reason you aren't getting the point is because you have no interest in the Luke Mitchell case. It appears you are merely here to have some fun.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:30:PM
Oh sorry your right, I'm not into vulgarity. I have just slapped my own hand sorry.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:31:PM
Oh sorry your right, I'm not into vulgarity. I have just slapped my own hand sorry.

Can someone please ban this apparent troll. Ty
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:33:PM
The reason you aren't getting the point is because you have no interest in the Luke Mitchell case. It appears you are merely here to have some fun.

I'm not interested in time wasters who call people this and that but are no better themselves.
Baz was right, don't feed the troll.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:39:PM
Could it possibly be that failures like this are apparently not unusual in cases like these (i.e. people maintaining factual innocence) because they are recognised and acknowledged tactics in cases of "fitting up" innocent people, rather than conducting proper investigations? I wouldn't dream of asking you to take my word for it - try Prof Phil Scraton, Prof Allan Jamieson, Prof Derek Pounder, Prof Tim Valentine, Dr Keith Ashcroft, former head of Scotland Yard Roy Ramm - I could go on.... and on... but I'm sure you'll get the point I'm making here.

Why do you think it's wrong? Take this away from individuals - the question remains, are we prepared to accept this rubbish as  "investigation" from our police services, or as proof "beyond reasonable doubt" from our Criminal Justice System? You may well be, I most certainly am not.

The discussion just entered a logic-free zone. My ability or willingness to name the "real killer" (even if I could) has absolutely nothing to do with appallingly poor police and judicial processes (and media processes, just to be absolutely clear that they are all interlinked.)


My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X." Even if I had the photographs, accounts from witnesses who were standing there when the murder occurred, and a statement in blood from the real killer I STILL wouldn't name him publicly. Why? Because I still believe the proper processes of the CJS are the best protection for everyone, and the real killer would be entitled to the full process of the law, from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, through the right to protection against prejudicial information being publicised which might jeopardise his right to a fair trial, all the way through to solid evidence, full disclosure to the defence, and juries properly advised and directed. Then, and only then, can we have some assurance that the correct person has been convicted.

And yes, I would argue - even campaign- that the identity of the real killer be kept out of the media prior to trial, even if I personally knew who he was (which I don't.) Because I would not want to see a real perpetrator of a horrible crime "get off" because the rights to which he, however horrible his crimes, was entitled, were breached - that just gets in the way of true justice. Afford him all of his rights, force the police and the courts to do a proper job, and maybe then we'll end up with much more satisfactory outcomes.

Sandra you say here (above) you don't know who killed JJ and you would never argue it was X - so can you explain your contradictions.

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/

And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more misrepresentations

“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”


Another poster said: “Jodi wore a T-shirt which had DNA on it from X yet no other was found.

You can really only take one conclusion from that.”

Sandra Lean – who publically supports Mrs Mitchell is her quest to clear her son’s name – denied she was accusing the man of murder.

She said: “No-one is accusing anyone.

“There’s a danger in pointing the finger but in many ways he’s pointing the finger at himself

“Any line of enquiry that might establish who killed Jodi is worth pursuing.”
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 13, 2015, 03:42:PM
I have no interest in this case. That's why I read the entire 1000 page wap thread and this thread in its entirety and have been posting in both for a few years now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 03:50:PM
Sandra you say here (above) you don't know who killed JJ and you would never argue it was X - so can you explain your contradictions.

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/

And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious.

“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”


Another poster said: “Jodi wore a T-shirt which had DNA on it from X yet no other was found.

You can really only take one conclusion from that.”

Sandra Lean – who publically supports Mrs Mitchell is her quest to clear her son’s name – denied she was accusing the man of murder.


She said: “No-one is accusing anyone.

“There’s a danger in pointing the finger but in many ways he’s pointing the finger at himself

“Any line of enquiry that might establish who killed Jodi is worth pursuing.”


And Sandra, can you see how you have used a double negative in your statement? Why do you do that?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 04:21:PM
A double negative equals a positive or affirmative. So on the one hand you are saying one thing then in the same statement you are saying something else. Do you not see how your contradictions give people like me cause for concern?

You appear to do it an awful lot too.

Whilst I don't disagree with the fact you put up a good argument, seeing your arguments as a whole, rather than individually tells a whole other story imo, as though you are trying to convince yourself of something?

I get the impression not all that you post comes from genuine belief/factual evidence, more because you enjoy a good argument? Just a thought...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 13, 2015, 05:11:PM
And Sandra, can you see how you have used a double negative in your statement? Why do you do that?

Where's the double negative? Can't see it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 05:43:PM
Left largely to his own devices he became defiant, violent and brooding with an unhealthy fascination with knives, the occult and drugs. He was first brought to the attention of the mental health profession aged just 11, following a fight at King’s Park Primary in Dalkeith. Although the incident was just a minor skirmish with another pupil, Mitchell’s attitude was sufficiently troublesome to warrant a referral to a school psychiatrist. However, there appears to have been little further action taken by the education authorities or his parents to curb his behaviour.

When he was 12 he threatened his then girlfriend with a knife because she refused to have sex with him. The incidents went on. When he moved to St David’s High, a music teacher found him trying to throttle another pupil and he was sent to an educational psychologist. He refused the expert’s help. Instead Mitchell became a rebellious, mysterious teenager who was heavily into cannabis and supplied his Goth friends with the drug.

He also appeared to have an unhealthy interest in the occult. The jotters at his Catholic school were daubed with Satanic slogans, and he wrote a school essay containing references to the devil. Yet teachers appeared to have little control over him and he would simply defy their instructions when it suited him.

Even more worryingly, he also acquired a fascination with knives. His older brother, Shane, had a knife collection and Mitchell gathered his own array. At a party six weeks before killing Jones, he repeatedly jabbed her in the leg with a knife he had been using to cut up cannabis.

Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.

One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.

Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.

Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.

Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."

That conversation may have taken place at one of their favourite hideaways, an alcove off King’s Park, Dalkeith, known locally as the China Gardens. It was a place for teenagers to gather and smoke. They lit up a joint and sat alone until a friend joined them.

Dobbie added: "I am making an informed hypothesis about how Jodi may have known that day. That in itself would certainly have been a cause for her to want to see him that night."

Read more: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861#ixzz3rOWawKQb
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 05:49:PM
Quote
An example = "The downward-pointing pentacle is often used to represent Satanists."

But, it seems, this is a common misunderstanding:

Point up, or Point Down?
A “point down” pentacle is nothing new- nor is it necessarily Satanic when it appears as such. Historical depictions of the pentagram were as likely to be points down as point up. A distinction between one or the other was rarely made by the ancients. Even today, one must not assume a point down pentagram is Satanic, as it is just likely to be Masonic, Wiccan, or simply upside-down. Some inexperienced Wiccans will occasionally claim that a point down pentacle is Satanic, but such a symbol has at times represented the Wiccan horned God, and is still today an emblem of the Second Degree initiation in Gardnerian Wicca.

The Satanic Pentagram
In the minds of many, the pentagram is inextricably linked with black magick and Satan worship. The Satanic pentagram is a difficult symbol- it is the newest and least used, but at the same time the best known and most controversial. The Satanic pentacle is almost always presented upside down, or inverted, with a single point facing downward, and it is this pentacle that is presented incorrectly as ‘evil.
http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1893

Also, I know from experience that Luke often drew symbols over the seal on envelopes, so it would be easy for the recipient to see if the seal had been tampered with. His most often used symbol was the hand-written style anarch symbol, which could be literally any way up - upright, upside down, sideways, at a diagonal  in comparitson to the top of the envelope.

But all of that means diddly squat - there was no evidence of satanic or ritualistic elements in Jodi's murder - only the claims of the police and prosecution that it was so. It would be a bit too far to claim that an argument over another girlfriend (another police fantasy) somehow turned into a satanic ritualistic murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 05:57:PM
Quote
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

Note the dates. April 14th was 10 months after the murder, Shane was arrested and interrogated under the same "outrageous and to be deplored" conditions as Luke had been in the August.  If there were concerns that Shane's account of dinner was wrong, why on earth was nothing said or done about it prior to April 14th? Did they honestly believe, 10 months later, in the circumstances he and his family found themselves, he was still going to be thinking about what he had for his tea? Or was it a case of, once we've done the dawn raids, arrested them all, separated them all from any form of support, they'll be really easy to manipulate with our well rehearsed interrogation tactics to get them to say (or to appear to be saying) whatever it is we need them to say?

I've seen the transcripts of the police interrogation - I'd go with the latter.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 06:01:PM
But, it seems, this is a common misunderstanding:

Point up, or Point Down?
A “point down” pentacle is nothing new- nor is it necessarily Satanic when it appears as such. Historical depictions of the pentagram were as likely to be points down as point up. A distinction between one or the other was rarely made by the ancients. Even today, one must not assume a point down pentagram is Satanic, as it is just likely to be Masonic, Wiccan, or simply upside-down. Some inexperienced Wiccans will occasionally claim that a point down pentacle is Satanic, but such a symbol has at times represented the Wiccan horned God, and is still today an emblem of the Second Degree initiation in Gardnerian Wicca.

The Satanic Pentagram
In the minds of many, the pentagram is inextricably linked with black magick and Satan worship. The Satanic pentagram is a difficult symbol- it is the newest and least used, but at the same time the best known and most controversial. The Satanic pentacle is almost always presented upside down, or inverted, with a single point facing downward, and it is this pentacle that is presented incorrectly as ‘evil.
http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1893

Also, I know from experience that Luke often drew symbols over the seal on envelopes, so it would be easy for the recipient to see if the seal had been tampered with. His most often used symbol was the hand-written style anarch symbol, which could be literally any way up - upright, upside down, sideways, at a diagonal  in comparitson to the top of the envelope.

But all of that means diddly squat - there was no evidence of satanic or ritualistic elements in Jodi's murder - only the claims of the police and prosecution that it was so. It would be a bit too far to claim that an argument over another girlfriend (another police fantasy) somehow turned into a satanic ritualistic murder.

Sandra your posts and excuses are getting more pathetic by the day.

Nevermind the satanic or ritualistic elements, let's talk about personality disorders and Luke's behaviour, his upbringing etc. the things he did prior to Jodi's murder.

And don't tell me that means 'diddly squat'.....

And for your information, Luke never wrote anything on the seal of the envelope. Maybe that's the excuse he gives you/others?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 06:07:PM
Note the dates. April 14th was 10 months after the murder, Shane was arrested and interrogated under the same "outrageous and to be deplored" conditions as Luke had been in the August.  If there were concerns that Shane's account of dinner was wrong, why on earth was nothing said or done about it prior to April 14th? Did they honestly believe, 10 months later, in the circumstances he and his family found themselves, he was still going to be thinking about what he had for his tea? Or was it a case of, once we've done the dawn raids, arrested them all, separated them all from any form of support, they'll be really easy to manipulate with our well rehearsed interrogation tactics to get them to say (or to appear to be saying) whatever it is we need them to say?

I've seen the transcripts of the police interrogation - I'd go with the latter.

It was 7 months before the police arrested SH. The same excuse was given ie; remembering that far back.

It would have been a significant day for all the Mitchell's. They were to find out later that night that Jodi had been murdered. 

Yes the interrogation tactics of the police were to be deplored, but they got their killer.

Yes, it was on circumstantial evidence and numerous police mistakes were made but they got their killer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 06:08:PM
Quote
Out of interest, could it be that Corrine Mitchell didn't hear you because she may have had one or two alcoholic drinks?

No, it couldn't, because she had just come in from work and gone into the kitchen to start cooking her dinner. Therefore, she had had no alcoholic drinks.

Quote
Also - you mention Mia didn't bark because she knew you? Do you then think it's plausible for Mia to not have been led to the V in the wall because she also knew Jodi and it was in fact Luke who knew where he was going after all?

I'll try to give this a serious answer. Mia knew Jodi. Correct. Mia knew Jodi alive, not lying dead in a blood soaked murder scene. In my opinion, it's utterly implausible that "knowing Jodi" would have been a credible explanation for Mia not reacting to the smell of blood. Also, all of the search trio agreed Mia was being instructed to "Seek Jodi, find Jodi," they all initially agreed that Mia suddenly darted over to the wall and started air sniffing, scrabbling at the wall with her front paws.

Why would there have been any "reason" for her to do that at precisely the place she did, if Luke already "knew where he was going?" Or is the suggestion that Luke somehow gave Mia some sort of secret "command" to react at precisely that point? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Mia "knew" Jodi, so wouldn't have reacted at all, so all this reacting that's going on is just... well... let's just ignore it, shall we? In fact, let's get the search trio to tell a completely different story in court - one that says the dog didn't react at all. That way we can claim Luke knew where the body lay, and have people 12 years later trying to fit together the pieces to try to make that claim make sense!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 06:12:PM
No, it couldn't, because she had just come in from work and gone into the kitchen to start cooking her dinner. Therefore, she had had no alcoholic drinks.

I'll try to give this a serious answer. Mia knew Jodi. Correct. Mia knew Jodi alive, not lying dead in a blood soaked murder scene. In my opinion, it's utterly implausible that "knowing Jodi" would have been a credible explanation for Mia not reacting to the smell of blood. Also, all of the search trio agreed Mia was being instructed to "Seek Jodi, find Jodi," they all initially agreed that Mia suddenly darted over to the wall and started air sniffing, scrabbling at the wall with her front paws.

Why would there have been any "reason" for her to do that at precisely the place she did, if Luke already "knew where he was going?" Or is the suggestion that Luke somehow gave Mia some sort of secret "command" to react at precisely that point? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Mia "knew" Jodi, so wouldn't have reacted at all, so all this reacting that's going on is just... well... let's just ignore it, shall we? In fact, let's get the search trio to tell a completely different story in court - one that says the dog didn't react at all. That way we can claim Luke knew where the body lay, and have people 12 years later trying to fit together the pieces to try to make that claim make sense!

How can you know that for sure, that she hadn't had a drink? Did you ask her? I thought she was lying on the couch when you went in? It's not always possible to tell if someone has had a drink. She may have had one with her meal? Or one whilst she was preparing it?

Here's the truth: you weren't there so you don't know what Luke or Mia did. You only have the word of others.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 06:19:PM
Quote
His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.

"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.
From a computer game

Quote
Several other jotters were shown which contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way", "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f*** off and stay out my mind" and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from late Nirvana singer Cobain.
All quotes from other sources (i.e. t shirts, posters, song lyrics). The Cobain quote was one of Jodi's favourites - she had it written in large letters on her bedroom wall.

Quote
The handwritten essay, questioning the existence of God, had been submitted in January 2003 in place of a short story, which had been requested.
I hadn't noticed this before. The kids were given a number of topics from which to choose - the existence of god was one of them, so this sentence is misleading.

Quote
The essay contained passages such as: "If you ask me, god is just a futile excuse at most for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with him. "Are these people insane?"

It also read "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance"
- in an essay questioning the existence of god, in response to an essay topic "The existence of god"!

Quote
and "Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life"
computer game.

Shame the teachers who stated that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" compared to others they'd seen over the years, and was "typical" of teenage jotter scribblings, were not invited to give evidence, though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 06:25:PM
How can you know that for sure, that she hadn't had a drink? Did you ask her? I thought she was lying on the couch when you went in? It's not always possible to tell if someone has had a drink. She may have had one with her meal? Or one whilst she was preparing it?

Here's the truth: you weren't there so you don't know what Luke or Mia did. You only have the word of others.

Oh, good grief. Mia, the dog, was lying on the couch. Corinne was in the kitchen where she had just started cooking her dinner - she hadn't eaten it yet because it wasn't cooked yet. She would have had approximately two minutes or so to have a drink because I had followed her down the road in my car (unbeknown to her.)

And yes, I only have the word of others - Jodi's own family members! Are you suggesting they lied in the first month of the investigation? That they mistook Mia doing things they could describe in detail for things she never did?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 06:25:PM
From a computer game
 All quotes from other sources (i.e. t shirts, posters, song lyrics). The Cobain quote was one of Jodi's favourites - she had it written in large letters on her bedroom wall.
 I hadn't noticed this before. The kids were given a number of topics from which to choose - the existence of god was one of them, so this sentence is misleading.
 - in an essay questioning the existence of god, in response to an essay topic "The existence of god"!
 computer game.

Shame the teachers who stated that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" compared to others they'd seen over the years, and was "typical" of teenage jotter scribblings, were not invited to give evidence, though.

And computer games can be the source of problems with pathology.

Have you seen the movie Gamechangers? Worth a watch imo. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Daniel-Radcliffe-Making-Movie-About-Grand-Theft-Auto-Creator-70809.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 06:33:PM
Oh, good grief. Mia, the dog, was lying on the couch. Corinne was in the kitchen where she had just started cooking her dinner - she hadn't eaten it yet because it wasn't cooked yet. She would have had approximately two minutes or so to have a drink because I had followed her down the road in my car (unbeknown to her.)

And yes, I only have the word of others - Jodi's own family members! Are you suggesting they lied in the first month of the investigation? That they mistook Mia doing things they could describe in detail for things she never did?

People do drink and drive, it has been known. She could have had a drink at work? - just saying.

Here you go again putting your spin on things.

Sandra we can argue these points over and over but there are too many other factors in this case that cannot be argued away imo. Like the behaviour of a 14 year old boy prior to the murders. I could go on.....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 13, 2015, 06:54:PM
Quote
People do drink and drive, it has been known. She could have had a drink at work? - just saying.

Indeed they do. But Corinne would have had to be either insane or suicidal to have risked drinking at work and driving home back in 2003-2008, when the police were watching her every move.

Now, if you don't mind, to return to the point being made at the beginning, it would have been entirely possible for Shane to have entered the house without knowing Luke was there and vice versa because of the layout of the house, the heavy curtains at the kitchen door etc. BUT, the question posed by the prosecution (and others on here) was how did Luke get home without Shane noticing Luke coming in, and the answer, of course, is that Luke was home before Shane.

Quote
Here you go again putting your spin on things

I see, so sticking to the actual facts is "putting [my] spin on things." OK, as you wish - other posters will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 07:07:PM
Indeed they do. But Corinne would have had to be either insane or suicidal to have risked drinking at work and driving home back in 2003-2008, when the police were watching her every move.

Now, if you don't mind, to return to the point being made at the beginning, it would have been entirely possible for Shane to have entered the house without knowing Luke was there and vice versa because of the layout of the house, the heavy curtains at the kitchen door etc. BUT, the question posed by the prosecution (and others on here) was how did Luke get home without Shane noticing Luke coming in, and the answer, of course, is that Luke was home before Shane.

I see, so sticking to the actual facts is "putting [my] spin on things." OK, as you wish - other posters will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions.

She was caught last year without MOT allegedly on her car so I don't see what point you are making?

I also stuck to the facts of the case In the SH case Sandra, mainly going by the case papers, court documents, and police evidence etc but I was wrong (As were the police with some  of their theories and many many professional individuals who had seen all the case files). You could be too.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 07:21:PM
You've said it yourself Sandra, you studied psychology for 10 years - you have a doctorate for goodness sake. Like me, you believed SH to be factually innocent. Pathologies (By this I mean
any deviation from a healthy, normal, or efficient condition) can hide themselves from many of us.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 13, 2015, 07:32:PM
No, it couldn't, because she had just come in from work and gone into the kitchen to start cooking her dinner. Therefore, she had had no alcoholic drinks.

I'll try to give this a serious answer. Mia knew Jodi. Correct. Mia knew Jodi alive, not lying dead in a blood soaked murder scene. In my opinion, it's utterly implausible that "knowing Jodi" would have been a credible explanation for Mia not reacting to the smell of blood. Also, all of the search trio agreed Mia was being instructed to "Seek Jodi, find Jodi," they all initially agreed that Mia suddenly darted over to the wall and started air sniffing, scrabbling at the wall with her front paws.

Why would there have been any "reason" for her to do that at precisely the place she did, if Luke already "knew where he was going?" Or is the suggestion that Luke somehow gave Mia some sort of secret "command" to react at precisely that point? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Mia "knew" Jodi, so wouldn't have reacted at all, so all this reacting that's going on is just... well... let's just ignore it, shall we? In fact, let's get the search trio to tell a completely different story in court - one that says the dog didn't react at all. That way we can claim Luke knew where the body lay, and have people 12 years later trying to fit together the pieces to try to make that claim make sense!

yes it comes from the computer game max pain.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 13, 2015, 07:38:PM
Indeed they do. But Corinne would have had to be either insane or suicidal to have risked drinking at work and driving home back in 2003-2008, when the police were watching her every move.

Now, if you don't mind, to return to the point being made at the beginning, it would have been entirely possible for Shane to have entered the house without knowing Luke was there and vice versa because of the layout of the house, the heavy curtains at the kitchen door etc. BUT, the question posed by the prosecution (and others on here) was how did Luke get home without Shane noticing Luke coming in, and the answer, of course, is that Luke was home before Shane.

I see, so sticking to the actual facts is "putting [my] spin on things." OK, as you wish - other posters will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions.

The other thing that needs pointing out with regards all prosecution cases is that a lot of the time it is down to the prosecution to put a hypothesis forward to the jury. They aren't always going to get all the details correct, Infact a lot of the time they could quite easily be way off track - like they were in SH's case. (It wasn't a burglary gone wrong).

So you can argue your points over and over year after year....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 14, 2015, 12:25:AM
well its very we are not going to be discusing the luke mitchel case on here for a while.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 14, 2015, 07:29:AM
She was caught last year without MOT allegedly on her car so I don't see what point you are making?

I also stuck to the facts of the case In the SH case Sandra, mainly going by the case papers, court documents, and police evidence etc but I was wrong (As were the police with some  of their theories and many many professional individuals who had seen all the case files). You could be too.

She got caught with no mot years later, so you have no point.
This is a luke mitchell thread, can you discuss sh elsewhere.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 14, 2015, 07:45:AM
Oh, good grief. Mia, the dog, was lying on the couch. Corinne was in the kitchen where she had just started cooking her dinner - she hadn't eaten it yet because it wasn't cooked yet. She would have had approximately two minutes or so to have a drink because I had followed her down the road in my car (unbeknown to her.)

And yes, I only have the word of others - Jodi's own family members! Are you suggesting they lied in the first month of the investigation? That they mistook Mia doing things they could describe in detail for things she never did?

I don't know why you are bothering, talk about banging your head against a brick wall.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 14, 2015, 06:22:PM
yes it comes from the computer game max pain.

Thanks nugnug - for the life of me, I couldn't remember the name of the computer game!!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 14, 2015, 06:31:PM
Thanks nugnug - for the life of me, I couldn't remember the name of the computer game!!!

And computer games can be the source of problems with pathology.

Have you seen the movie Gamechangers? Worth a watch imo. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Daniel-Radcliffe-Making-Movie-About-Grand-Theft-Auto-Creator-70809.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 14, 2015, 06:39:PM
I don't know why you are bothering, talk about banging your head against a brick wall.

I'm bothering because people like you, Baz and nugnug (sorry if I've missed anyone) actually seem to want to discuss the case intelligently and respectfully. I'm fairly sure there are others out there who are interested, who read but don't post - I just like to make sure they have as much information as possible so that they can make up their own minds.

Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.

If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 14, 2015, 06:49:PM
Quote
And computer games can be the source of problems with pathology.

Have you seen the movie Gamechangers? Worth a watch imo. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Daniel-Radcliffe-Making-Movie-About-Grand-Theft-Auto-Creator-70809.html

Damn fine piece of academic research there. I mean, look, it even says:

Quote
This much-publicized conflict over the claimed effects of video game violence seems to be what serves as the crux of the film’s drama

Sorry, I digress, no I haven't seen the movie, and it wouldn't affect my thoughts on whether or not computer game violence has an impact on real life violence (any more than the claims that violent movies 20 -30 years ago "caused" specific real life acts of violence) because it's a movie - you know, fictional?????
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 14, 2015, 07:01:PM
the game  is calledmax payne i imagene most people lukes age have played it
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 14, 2015, 07:32:PM
Damn fine piece of academic research there. I mean, look, it even says:

Sorry, I digress, no I haven't seen the movie, and it wouldn't affect my thoughts on whether or not computer game violence has an impact on real life violence (any more than the claims that violent movies 20 -30 years ago "caused" specific real life acts of violence) because it's a movie - you know, fictional?????

Rather than be insolently proud, can't you just answer the question. Have you seen the movie yes or no. It's based on a true story and shows the effects games like this can have on the mind.

In Luke's case he was clearly already showing signs of unhealthy behaviours - threatening a girl at the age of 12 for not having sex for example , smoking and selling cannabis. I take it you are aware of the negative affects cannabis can have on the brain...

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 14, 2015, 08:08:PM
I'm bothering because people like you, Baz and nugnug (sorry if I've missed anyone) actually seem to want to discuss the case intelligently and respectfully. I'm fairly sure there are others out there who are interested, who read but don't post - I just like to make sure they have as much information as possible so that they can make up their own minds.

Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.

If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me.

That is the biggest pile of pants I've ever seen you write!

I'm sure intelligent, logical and objective thinking people who read this also agree with me (Though I dare say they won't comment on the thread for the simple reason they aren't interested in the case).

Sandra you could set up a website or blog about Luke's case unless of course you are going to come out with one of your classic excuses - you don't have time, you are not allowed for such and such a reason....,

I am not posting false or misleading information.

Last year you told me things that concerned you about the Mitchell's. I am pointing out to you that I believe it's unfair you sit on this knowledge. I do not believe you are being frank or accurate with the public.




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 14, 2015, 08:09:PM
Quote
Rather than be insolently proud, can't you just answer the question. Have you seen the movie yes or no.

Hilarious - see my response at 6.49, when I said, quite clearly, 
 
Quote
no I haven't seen the movie

Insolently proud? Really?

Quote
It's based on a true story and shows the effects games like this can have on the mind.

As I said, fiction, "based on" being the operative phrase. The blockbuster Braveheart was "based on" a true story, and we all know how that panned out.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 14, 2015, 08:11:PM
Damn fine piece of academic research there. I mean, look, it even says:

Sorry, I digress, no I haven't seen the movie, and it wouldn't affect my thoughts on whether or not computer game violence has an impact on real life violence (any more than the claims that violent movies 20 -30 years ago "caused" specific real life acts of violence) because it's a movie - you know, fictional?????

My apologies, I didn't see your reply where you have said you haven't seen the movie. Worth a watch imo.

Also worth reading through Hares Psychopathy checklist and educating yourself with regards personality disorders and the likes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 14, 2015, 08:13:PM
Hilarious - see my response at 6.49, when I said, quite clearly, 
 
Insolently proud? Really?

As I said, fiction, "based on" being the operative phrase. The blockbuster Braveheart was "based on" a true story, and we all know how that panned out.

My apologies, I didn't see your reply where you have said you haven't seen the movie. Worth a watch imo.

Also worth reading through Hares Psychopathy checklist and educating yourself with regards personality disorders and the likes.

A chip on ones shoulder; how's that?

Seems we cross posted....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 14, 2015, 08:16:PM
I'm bothering because people like you, Baz and nugnug (sorry if I've missed anyone) actually seem to want to discuss the case intelligently and respectfully. I'm fairly sure there are others out there who are interested, who read but don't post - I just like to make sure they have as much information as possible so that they can make up their own minds.

Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.

If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me.

Baz, Marty and Nugnug actually seem to want to discuss the case intelligently and respectfully? Are you for real? Lol  ::)

As I said Sandra your arrogance at times just jumps from your posts....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 14, 2015, 10:08:PM
at the end of the day i tend to go with psyshcle evence rather than some ols bollocks and satan and half baked amateur psychology if not discusing the case intelgently then so be it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 14, 2015, 10:18:PM
Is Sandra seriously trying to claim "you need satanic people like me" is normal in an essay about the existence of god? (post your source for this essay requirement please as I've just saw you blatantly lie about other Luke quotes being from songs/games)

as you have never once posted a source for any of your cliams thats a bit cheeky but i can do it i think the frontline documentry that anyone who seriosly studeid must of watched points it out.

i havve tasted the devils gren blood is a qaute from the computer game max payne that merly takes a google serach to verify

im sure we can verfify nearly all the other qautes.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 14, 2015, 10:26:PM
Is Sandra seriously trying to claim "you need satanic people like me" is normal in an essay about the existence of god? (post your source for this essay requirement please as I've just watched you blatantly lie about other Luke quotes being from songs/games)

i think its perfectly normal for 14 year old boy at a cathlic to try and shock his teacher.

and at the end of the day even if it wasnt not being normal doesnt make somone guilty. of murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 14, 2015, 11:19:PM
Some more perfectly normal writings by Luke that he stuck to his cell wall in HMP Shotts.

you haven read much portry have you there are plenty of peoms simlar to that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 14, 2015, 11:42:PM
Is it normal for a 12 year old boy to threaten a 12 year old girl with a knife because she won't have sex with him?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 14, 2015, 11:48:PM
Luke Mitchell appears to have presented with poor behavioral controls, sexual promiscuity,
early behavior problems, amongst other traits.

He also appears to have been obsessed with knives from a young age.

“Piquerism or picquerism (from the French piquer - "to prick") is sexual interest penetrating the skin of another person, sometimes serious enough to cause death. Piquerism is a paraphilia and form of sadism. The most frequently targeted areas of the body are the breasts, buttocks, or groin”.

Given the relatively regular incidence of piquerism in the popular media, I was quite surprised to find next to nothing academically. There are passing references to piquerism in the clinical and forensic science literature but nothing (as far as I could find) on the prevalence or etiology of the disorder. Dr. Wade Myers has a short section on piquerism in his 2002 book Juvenile Sexual Homicide. In one of the chapters, Myers recounted the case of two teenage murderers (‘Frank’ and ‘Andy’) who killed and mutilated a pregnant teenage girl they had both previously had a sexual relationship with. As Myers wrote:

“Regardless of who first came up with the idea of the murder, [Frank and Andy] took her to a remote area in some nearby woods. Andy first had consensual sex with the girl. When Frank approached her for sex, she rebuffed his advances. The attack on the girl started after this interaction. Each of the boys attributed the cascade of murderous actions to the other. The victim was initially choked manually and strangled with a radio cord. Unconscious, she was carried further into the woods. She regained consciousness and attempted to run. She was bludgeoned with a piece of lumber, a tree branch and a concrete block. The bludgeoning with the concrete block…detached part of the scalp. One of the boys tried to cut her throat with a knife, and her arm revealed defensive wounds from trying to protect herself during the knife attack”.

The medical examiner reported that the girl had been repeatedly stabbed and that the boys had done it for the “heck of it”. Dr. Myers claimed that offender behavior was “an expression of the perversion known as piquerism”. Dr. Myers admitted he knew little about piquerism (and wrote “little is known about piquerism in adults, and even less so in children”), so he contacted Dr. Richard Walters (Omega Crime Assessment Group, and former prison psychologist for the Michegan Department of Corrections). Based on his colleagues’ expertise, Dr. Wade subsequently noted:

“Piquerism is sometimes performed post-mortem. It generally refers to the penetration of human flesh, although it is sometimes practiced against animals. The piquer’s range of activities for sating his or her needs can be a purposeful single prick with a pin or knife, multiple stab wounds to an eroticized area, or elaborate cutting, stabbing, biting and mutilation of a victim. Piquerism becomes part of the repertoire of many sadists, depending on their progress along the ‘sadistic learning curve’. Often the sexual mechanisms inherent in piquerism are ignored during the assessment of sexually sadistic crimes. The prevalence rate of piquerism is unknown”.

Read more:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-excess/201501/life-knife-edge



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 12:12:AM
I also found another theory for why he may have saved his urine in bottles in his bedroom...

"Because they incorrectly believe that they are so wonderful & valuable, that everything & anything even remotely connected to them, personally, is so precious , it cannot be discarded.
Or, they feel so inadequate, so invisible, That they are desperate to have something, anything of theirs left to "make their mark"."

I guess the same could apply to him not cutting his hair?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 12:25:AM
Didn't say it made him guilty but Sandra's attempts at painting Luke as a normal 14 year old lad are ridiculous.

I guess he was still trying to shock his catholic school teachers last year when he requested Satanic books in prison. Believe that, or believe he has an interest in Satanism. I know which one I find easier to believe.

And/or sadism - the occult? Same/similar thing?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 12:52:AM
"Even if you were innocent you could still express empathy for the victim - although you weren't responsible, you would feel something, so there is absolutely no sense of empathy there.

"You are looking at a very narcissistic, grandiose ego with no sense of empathy and a great deal of aggression and resentment towards people he thinks as have wronged him."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 01:27:AM
"Mitchell's appeal team would also question the behaviour of detectives during the investigation, suggesting they bullied the 15-year-old, behaving like "interrogators" trying to "break his resistance".

The interviewing officers, he pointed out, accused the schoolboy of selling cannabis, called him a "hash-head" and accused him of carrying a Bowie knife and being obsessed with knives.

Findlay said at one point Mitchell, now 19, responded: "I don't know what a Bowie f****** knife looks like."

At this point the appeal judge Lord Osborne interrupted, saying: "He is not exactly a wilting violet in giving a reply like that.

Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-of-oddball-killer-1-1259455#ixzz3rWFk369k
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 15, 2015, 02:08:AM
Really? This is really your argument? Tell me, was there any wrongdoing, unexpected behaviours or failings in your own case? Here's a clue, from your own online story:

But it's ok, John, it doesn't change anything, does it? The courts still found you guilty, so you must have been, even if the conviction was "unsafe." Remind me, did the SCCRC find grounds to refer your case back to the court of appeal? Ah well, there you are then.

Why do you keep changing the subject when asked a direct question Sandra, is that a trick you have learned from the lawyers?

I'll ask the question again.

What is this evidence which you claim supports Luke Mitchell's innocence?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 10:27:AM
"Even if you were innocent you could still express empathy for the victim - although you weren't responsible, you would feel something, so there is absolutely no sense of empathy there.

"You are looking at a very narcissistic, grandiose ego with no sense of empathy and a great deal of aggression and resentment towards people he thinks as have wronged him."


I find this psychologist's interpretation of a poem slightly odd. He takes the lack of empathy for Jodi in the poem as proof of narcissism but it's one poem and it's not about that. If you read from the point of view that he is innocent instead then surely it would make sense that it would be full of anger for those he believes have unjustly locked him up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 10:31:AM
Is Sandra seriously trying to claim "you need satanic people like me" is normal in an essay about the existence of god? (post your source for this essay requirement please as I've just watched you blatantly lie about other Luke quotes being from songs/games)

This is one of the reasons the  Luke's website had ot be taken down - I no longer have access to the papers so, if I don't have notes about something, I can't post sources, allowing people to do exactly as Lithium has done here.

From memory, which is the best I can do, as I don't have notes, all of the quotes I commented on were confirmed as having come from song lyrics, computer games or t shirts.

From memory, which is the best I can do, there were a number of topics which students could choose from, of which "The existence of God" was one. It is going to get very wearing if I have to add "from memory, which is the best I can do" to everything that I no longer have paperwork for.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 10:39:AM
I find this psychologist's interpretation of a poem slightly odd. He takes the lack of empathy for Jodi in the poem as proof of narcissism but it's one poem and it's not about that. If you read from the point of view that he is innocent instead then surely it would make sense that it would be full of anger for those he believes have unjustly locked him up.

I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc...

And I agree, read from the point of view of maintained innocence, it makes sense that he is angry and vengeful, not only against those who have treated him so unjustly, but also against whoever killed Jodi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:28:AM
This is one of the reasons the  Luke's website had ot be taken down - I no longer have access to the papers so, if I don't have notes about something, I can't post sources, allowing people to do exactly as Lithium has done here.

From memory, which is the best I can do, as I don't have notes, all of the quotes I commented on were confirmed as having come from song lyrics, computer games or t shirts.

From memory, which is the best I can do, there were a number of topics which students could choose from, of which "The existence of God" was one. It is going to get very wearing if I have to add "from memory, which is the best I can do" to everything that I no longer have paperwork for.

I would have thought after 10 years you knew the case inside out?

You've said 3 times you don't have notes/paperwork? So you threw away all your notes/paperwork or gave it back to the Mitchell's?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:33:AM
I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc...

And I agree, read from the point of view of maintained innocence, it makes sense that he is angry and vengeful, not only against those who have treated him so unjustly, but also against whoever killed Jodi.

I imagine the professional psychologist also used their knowledge of the case and the injuries inflicted on his victim?

Here's the poem in full.....,

"The emotional quality of the language is extremely high and it consists of a stream of very negative threatening words.

"Anyone reading that is going to feel disturbed and one of the purposes behind the poem is to disturb the reader.

"In that sense, the poem is intended as an aggressive communication rather than a cry for help or even an expression of anguish - it is essentially a long threat.

"It is not exactly a work of art because it uses quotations and quite repetitive imagery, so you are looking at a rather stilted and threatening communication without much in the way of creative novelty."

"He uses quite a lot of biblical imagery which, evoked in the context of the threat, is meant to do two things.

"The first is that it makes the threat more, i n hi s eyes, awesome and inevitable, as he is calling on God as his right hand in this act of threat and vengeance, so it is to enforce the power of the threat.

"It's also an act of grandiosity in that he is taking on these almost supernatural powers, which indicate a massively inflated ego in the writer.

"Because God is on his side, it is a way of avoiding any acceptance of blame or responsibility on his part for anything that has happened. In other words, none of what has happened is his fault and none of what will happen if he acts out the act of vengeance will be his fault.

"It is a communication lacking in any sense of remorse or empathy for the victim of his offence or empathy for the people he is going to threaten or attack.

"Even if you were innocent you could still express empathy for the victim - although you weren't responsible, you would feel something, so there is absolutely no sense of empathy there.

"You are looking at a very narcissistic, grandiose ego with no sense of empathy and a great deal of aggression and resentment towards people he thinks as have wronged him."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:35:AM
I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc...

And I agree, read from the point of view of maintained innocence, it makes sense that he is angry and vengeful, not only against those who have treated him so unjustly, but also against whoever killed Jodi.

From 'memory' what did the professionals who spoke with Luke before his trial say about him? I'm presuming a pre trial report of his mental state was carried out?

Was any diagnosis suggested?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 11:56:AM
Quote
I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc..

On reflection, it's not that surprising in this case. Remember when Ian Stephen gave his "professional" opinion about the "satanic scribblings" and what they told himm about Luke's psychological state? Didn't he look a bit silly when the Frontline documentary exposed that he didn't know that the quotes he said caused him the most concern were from a computer game, and the worst Luke could be accused of was plagiarism, and that all he knew about the case was what he had read in the press.

Not really very professional at all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 11:58:AM
From 'memory' what did the professionals who spoke with Luke before his trial say about him? I'm presuming a pre trial report of his mental state was carried out?

Was any diagnosis suggested?

Normal psychological profile except that he insisted he was innocent, which appeared to confuse them somewhat.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 12:03:PM
I imagine the professional psychologist also used their knowledge of the case and the injuries inflicted on his victim

Exactly, which would colour anyone's interpretation of a piece of writing. So the psychologist is judging this as the writings of a killer but if Luke is innocent, and this is about his anger at being wrongfully convicted, then the interpretation would be off. Does that make sense?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 12:15:PM
i can only conclude he hasnt read much peotry and pscholgists do get things wrong somtimes
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 12:28:PM
12 years old and threatening a 12 year old girl with a knife because she wouldn't have sex with him is not normal!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 12:32:PM
Nor is it truthful!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 12:50:PM
Isn't this your explanation for why Mia didn't care/notice the body when she passed it on the way up? Because Luke hadn't put her in "tracking mode"?   ::)
If you knew anything about dogs you would know that's entirely possible. But it's only one of a few possibilities imo
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 12:55:PM
If you knew anything about dogs you would know that's entirely possible. But it's only one of a few possibilities imo

Rubbish - we only have Luke's word that Mia didn't detect anything along the path on the way to meet the 3 others.

Plus, if you knew anything about dogs, they don't need to be told by a human to be in any kind of mode in order to smell blood.

Oh and Marty - Sandra's here - you can ask her directly about some of the things she said last year about the Mitchell's and of some of the behaviours that gave her cause for concern. Or are you going to miss the opportunity, so that you can harass me when she's gone?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 12:57:PM
Utter drivel
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 12:59:PM
Utter drivel

If you believe it to be utter drivel - pray tell how you know for certain Mia didn't react at the V in the wall on the way to meet the Jones family members?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:04:PM
Rubbish - we only have Luke's word that Mia didn't didn't anything along the path on the way to meet the 3 others.

Plus, if you knew anything about dogs, they don't need to be told by a human to be in any kind of mode in order to smell blood.

Oh and Marty - Sandra's here - you can ask her directly about some of the things she said last year about the Mitchell's and of some of the behaviours that gave her cause for concern. Or are you going to miss the opportunity, so that you can harass me when she's gone?

Only one person who harrasses anyone on here with utter drivel..
Is this the same information you claim to know but refuse to divulge . Is that because if it came from xxx xxxx xxx xx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxx. ;D
Wonder why?.
Why would anyone believe you? I mean really
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:06:PM
If you believe it to be utter drivel - pray tell how you know for certain Mia didn't react at the V in the wall on the way to meet the Jones family members?
I never said I knew for sure. I meant it was possible.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 01:07:PM
Only one person who harrasses anyone on here with utter drivel..
Is this the same information you claim to know but refuse to divulge . Is that because if it came from you no one would believe you?. ;D
Wonder why?.
Why would anyone believe you? I mean really

What's your agenda Marty?

What are you talking about 'no one would believe me?' Oh - are you one of the few who are attempting to suggest SH was innocent?  ::)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:09:PM
What about duckies dogs... did they react
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:10:PM
There we go, knew it wouldn't be long
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:16:PM
So why did none of Dickie's hunting dogs discover the body?

We're they trackers? I don't know?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:22:PM
They were hunting dogs trained in their own right.

If Mia was a tracker why would she ignore the body the first time she passed it?
Different people have different training methods, could be to do with that. If there was a breeze, wrong direction. That sort of thing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:23:PM
So why did none of Dickie's hunting dogs discover the body?


There was a lot of cloudless hairs on the body UN accounted for so maybe they did
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:27:PM
Because Luke told her "Find Jodi!" on the way back? He already decided they were looking for a dead Jodi at that point? Or did he think she may have been hanging around in the woods in the dark? (and if the latter, why wasn't he calling out her name?)
Was this not when he was with her family, so what was he going to say.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 01:33:PM
So why did none of Dickie's hunting dogs discover the body?

We only have Dickie's word for it that he was in a woodland strip, approximately 30 feet wide, with 8 hunting dogs within 15 minutes to a couple of hours after the murder (he couldn't remember the time, but his son initially thought his dad was out with the dogs by the time he and Ferris got back to the house, before realising he, too couldn't remember) and not one of the dogs reacted.

In his "reconstruction" for police ,he got to the V point and gave the command "over." 7 of the dogs jumped the wall, the last one had to be lifted over, so we know they were all 13.6 metres from the body at that point.

Feasible that not one of these trained hunting dogs reacted, so close to the body, so soon after the murder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 01:36:PM
Well I would have been calling out for her, I wouldn't already be thinking she may be dead and instructing my tracker dog to find her.

I'd maybe also be calling round mutual friends. Then again he didn't even bother calling Jodi that night to see why she never showed, despite caring enough to hang around waiting on her for so long.

His actions just aren't realistic, IMO.

Why do you assume he thought she was dead? Her gran assumed she may be lying hurt somewhere, unable to call for help.

He didn't call mutual friends because Judy had told him she had already called all of Jodi's friends - Luke had no way of knowing when he set out that that wasn't true.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:41:PM
Why did he leave home with a torch? Was he told on the phone the gran suspected Jodi was lying hurt somewhere?
maybe because he was fourteen going into the pitch black on a secluded woodland path :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 01:42:PM
Far more feasible than a perfectly innocent man finding a body and not reporting it, yes.

A man who knew his son had been at the V point at the claimed time of the murder and, like so many others, said nothing at all to police investigators.

Indeed, a man who was brought to police attention by someone who had seen him going through the V with his dogs - he didn't come forward voluntarily about his own movements either, even though for that first week, police were asking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5 and 10pm to contact them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 01:45:PM
And, again, it's entirely possible that he saw nothing and the dogs didn't react because, at that time, there was no body there - since the timings are such a mess, and there's no confirmed time of death, we simply don't know.

But if the body wasn't there, then Luke couldn't have been the murderer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:45:PM
Well I would have been calling out for her, I wouldn't already be thinking she may be dead and instructing my tracker dog to find her.

I'd maybe also be calling round mutual friends. Then again he didn't even bother calling Jodi that night to see why she never showed, despite caring enough to hang around waiting on her for so long.

His actions just aren't realistic, IMO.
he was fourteen on a dark secluded woodland path. What were her family members doing at this time their actions are more questionable than anyone else's. And for the record, no, I don't think they had anything to do with it. I'm also not accusing them of anything
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:48:PM
maybe because he was fourteen going into the pitch black on a secluded woodland path :)

Why didn't her family bring a torch, they knew where they were going to look for her?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:52:PM
Yes the local drug dealer known to always carry a knife who was sent to the school psychiatrist for violent behaviour was scared to walk through a path he used regularly. Did he always take a torch to walk his Alsatian?

Yeah the fourteen year old drug Barron.. if you are talking about drug dealers who was it that was selling it to a fourteen year old again.. half the people  connected to this case could be accused of having a connection to drugs.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 01:53:PM
I wouldn't bring a torch if I thought I was looking for a living person and not a body on the ground.

Please we were having a good debate till this point
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 15, 2015, 02:00:PM
If I wasn't wanting anyone to find a body, then yes, then I wouldn't take a torch so as no one would see anything or find anything
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 02:32:PM
my big qustion is as far as the family knew jodi was still so why were they looking for her in the woods.

an alive 14 year old girl is hardly likely to be hanging around the woods on her own.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 02:58:PM
Only one person who harrasses anyone on here with utter drivel..
Is this the same information you claim to know but refuse to divulge . Is that because if it came from xxx xxxx xxx xx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxx. ;D
Wonder why?.
Why would anyone believe you? I mean really


As I've stated, it's clear you have a personal agenda and it's clear you don't have the courage to ask Sandra directly..

Instead, you'd rather make false & malicious allegations about me in order to fit with your apparent personal agenda.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 03:01:PM
Because Luke told her "Find Jodi!" on the way back? He already decided they were looking for a dead Jodi at that point? Or did he think she may have been hanging around in the woods in the dark? (and if the latter, why wasn't he calling out her name?)


Good point. It's these numerous clues, especially when added together, that do not assist Luke's claims of innocence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 03:33:PM
if im looking for a 14 year old girl who is late home going the asumption that shes alive and well and if shes only an hour late theres no reason to think she isnt i dont think the woods would be the first place i would like.

her friends houses would be the first place id check then probely the center of town.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 15, 2015, 05:52:PM
I'm serious. If I thought I was looking for a living person I'd be calling her name, not shining a torch onto undergrowth.

But it wasn't Luke who was doing that, it was Kelly. Luke was looking over gaps in the wall and in the crop field because he hadn't seen anything on the path on the way up (That's from the family search trio's statmentts.)

By your argument, Jodi's family members must also have thought they were looking for a dead person, because they set out with torches as well, and they headed to the one place Jodi was (apparently) definitely not going to be that evening. They didn't look for her on the way there - didn't even turn on their torches until they got to the entrance to the path.

And neither Janine or Steven called out Jodi's name either - do you suggest they too were acting suspiciously? Can't have it both ways.

Something I did find strange, though - Janine said, regarding Luke climbing up to shine his torch over the wall, and going into the crop field, "It was as if he was looking for something." What could she possibly have meant by that? They were all looking for something - or rather, someone - Jodi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 06:03:PM
my main qustion what was the search party there for a girls an hour late why go searching for her in a dark wood on the imfortion they had it was a strange thing to do.

i mean you would only look in the wood if you knew that ws the last place they had been at the time they had no way of knowing that.


but they seem convinced she is in the woods even though they havent checked more obvios places.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 15, 2015, 08:14:PM
Because Luke told her "Find Jodi!" on the way back? He already decided they were looking for a dead Jodi at that point? Or did he think she may have been hanging around in the woods in the dark? (and if the latter, why wasn't he calling out her name?)

Another mystery is why, after Luke Mitchell had just walked the entire length of Roan's Dyke path with the family German Shepherd Mia supposedly looking for Jodi, did the entire group then decide to retrace his route instead of looking for her elsewhere?

If the dog really was capable of scenting Jodi, why didn't she react the first time she passed the body when there were no distractions instead of doing so on the return journey when there were numerous distractions? 

All adds to the circumstantial evidence!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 08:17:PM
Another mystery is why, after Luke Mitchell had just walked the entire length of Roan's Dyke path with the family German Shepherd Mia supposedly looking for Jodi, did the entire group then decide to retrace his route instead of looking for her elsewhere?

If the dog really was capable of scenting Jodi, why didn't she react the first time she passed the body when there were no distractions instead of doing so on the return journey when there were numerous distractions? 

All adds to the circumstantial evidence!

Agreed.

Of course someone's again going to post that Mia wasn't in 'tracker mode' at this point  ::)

Luke knew before he set off to meet the trio that Jodi was missing so surely would have been looking for her on his way to meet them? And as you've said - why retrace the route and not look elsewhere?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 08:23:PM
Agreed.

Of course someone's again going to post that Mia wasn't in 'tracker mode' at this point  ::)

Luke knew before he set off to meet the trio that Jodi was missing so surely would have been looking for her on his way to meet them? And as you've said - why retrace the route and not look elsewhere?

It wasn't his idea to recheck the way he had come from.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 08:25:PM
maybe because he was fourteen going into the pitch black on a secluded woodland path :)

A torch wouldn't have made much of a difference. He would still be walking into a pitch black secluded woodland path. The torch would only have allowed him to just about see where he was going. It wasn't like it was some kind of industrial strength light.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 15, 2015, 08:34:PM
...or was it a case of Mia did react when Mitchell passed near to the body the first time but knowing what he did he ignored her as finding the body on his own would have put him firmly in the frame from the off?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 15, 2015, 08:37:PM
It wasn't his idea to recheck the way he had come from.

Alice obviously didn't trust him then...I wonder why?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 08:38:PM
Alice obviously didn't trust him then...I wonder why?


Speaking from her home in Dalkeith, near where Jodi’s body was found, Alice Walker said: “It doesn’t prove anything. He is a lying, cheating murderer. He’s scum It makes me very angry”.

Read more: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/murder-victim-jodi-jones-gran-hits-out-at-killer-luke-mitchell-s-lie-detector-test-video-1-2735193#ixzz3ratRjCUL
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 08:42:PM
my main qustion what was the search party there for a girls an hour late why go searching for her in a dark wood on the imfortion they had it was a strange thing to do.

i mean you would only look in the wood if you knew that ws the last place they had been at the time they had no way of knowing that.


but they seem convinced she is in the woods even though they havent checked more obvios places.

Why was it a strange thing to do? Think your post says more about you and what you'd do, or not do, as the case maybe. .  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 15, 2015, 08:52:PM
my main qustion what was the search party there for a girls an hour late why go searching for her in a dark wood on the imfortion they had it was a strange thing to do.

Actually she was missing for five hours.  She set off around 5pm to meet Mitchell and it wasn't until after 10pm that they found her.

The difficulty for those who advocate on behalf of Mitchell is that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support their claims but much to condemn him including...

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 15, 2015, 09:13:PM
This is one of the reasons the  Luke's website had ot be taken down - I no longer have access to the papers so, if I don't have notes about something, I can't post sources, allowing people to do exactly as Lithium has done here.

Oh come off it Sandra!    We all know why you and Billy Middleton had to remove the Luke Mitchell forum from the WAPO website and it had little to do with any original documents since you never posted any on the website in any event.  How many times did you respond to questions on the forum by saying you had to check the files etc.. ??

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 09:30:PM
Oh come off it Sandra!    We all know why you and Billy Middleton had to remove the Luke Mitchell forum from the WAPO website and it had little to do with any original documents since you never posted any on the website in any event.  How many times did you respond to questions on the forum by saying you had to check the files etc.. ??

I don't buy it either and once again see Sandra's reasonings as nothing more than excuses.

As you've pointed out, original documents were never published anyway plus anything posted in the past on the WWW had already been posted; meaning I can't see it making any difference, especially legally.

There's more to this......

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 09:48:PM

The difficulty for those who advocate on behalf of Mitchell is that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support their claims but much to condemn him including...


I would suggest that the difficulty for those advocating for his guilty verdict is that all they have is circumstantial and there is, for me, a lot of reasonable doubt about all that evidence. Including everything on that list. Plus I don't ever see any explanation for how there is no forensic evidence linking him to such a bloody murder.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 10:14:PM
I would suggest that the difficulty for those advocating for his guilty verdict is that all they have is circumstantial and there is, for me, a lot of reasonable doubt about all that evidence. Including everything on that list. Plus I don't ever see any explanation for how there is no forensic evidence linking him to such a bloody murder.

I would suggest you need to read up on your understanding of the case.

"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat".

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 10:18:PM
I would suggest you need to read up on your understanding of the case.
That isn't much of a rebuttal. Can you be more specific about what I have misunderstood?
Quote
"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm

All circumstantial. All with reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 10:34:PM
That isn't much of a rebuttal. Can you be more specific about what I have misunderstood?
All circumstantial. All with reasonable doubt.

The killer would not have necessarily have been covered in blood.

Cases like these are often riddled with circumstantial evidence. It's about looking at the bigger/whole picture.

So what do you suggest - all killers should be let off because people like you think there's reasonable doubt?

If I were on a jury with someone like you on a case like this I guarantee you I would not give up..  ;D ;D




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 10:47:PM
Quote
The killer would not have necessarily have been covered in blood.

Cases like these are often riddled with circumstantial evidence. It's about looking at the bigger/whole picture.

So what do you suggest - all killers should be let off because people like you think there's reasonable doubt?

If I were on a jury with someone like you on a case like this I guarantee you I would not give up..  ;D ;D

The pathologist said it was unlikely that he wouldn't have been blood soaked.

I understand the need for circumstantial evidence but in this case the circumstantial evidence is riddled with issues that prevent them from building a case that is beyond reasonable doubt, for me.

I think your statement about being on a jury with me says everything. I can't guarantee that and I think the point of a jury is to discuss the evidence and to make your mind up that way. But maybe I've just seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 10:50:PM
the forensisc said the killer would be cobered in blood i belive.


this was incredible bloody murder id say it would be nigh on imposable for the killer not at least some blood on them.

Here are the facts..

You haven't seen the crime scene photos.

Forensics sometimes get things wrong. It happens.

Luke had time to change/clean himself up. 

The prosecutions theory was that his clothes were burnt in the log burner. Jury members did not have to believe the prosecutions theories or agree with them.

As I've said before, if Luke didn't do it, who did?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 10:53:PM
The pathologist said it was unlikely that he wouldn't have been blood soaked.

I understand the need for circumstantial evidence but in this case the circumstantial evidence is riddled with issues that prevent them from building a case that is beyond reasonable doubt, for me.

I think your statement about being on a jury with me says everything. I can't guarantee that and I think the point of a jury is to discuss the evidence and to make your mind up that way. But maybe I've just seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.

thats a lot diffrent from sating the killer would have no blood on him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 11:06:PM
Here are the facts..

You haven't seen the crime scene photos.

Forensics sometimes get things wrong. It happens.

Luke had time to change/clean himself up. 

The prosecutions theory was that his clothes were burnt in the log burner. Jury members did not have to believe the prosecutions theories or agree with them.

As I've said before, if Luke didn't do it, who did?

but when he was taken into custidy hes nails were dirty and so was proving that he hadent had a wash.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:07:PM
The pathologist said it was unlikely that he wouldn't have been blood soaked.

I understand the need for circumstantial evidence but in this case the circumstantial evidence is riddled with issues that prevent them from building a case that is beyond reasonable doubt, for me.

I think your statement about being on a jury with me says everything. I can't guarantee that and I think the point of a jury is to discuss the evidence and to make your mind up that way. But maybe I've just seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.

Imo Luke Mitchell wasn't a 'normal' 14 year old boy.

What reason did the police have for fitting him up?

What is 12 angry men? A fictitious movie?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 11:09:PM
so somone thinking your not normal makes you guilty of murder now does it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:10:PM
but when he was taken into custidy hes nails were dirty and so was proving that he hadent had a wash.

His nails being dirty didn't prove he hadn't washed!

He had time to wash and get dirty again.

He could have worn gloves on his hands or even socks. He could have had a pair of disposable gloves on him. A doggie bag on each hand? Who knows, there are numerous explanations.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 11:12:PM
its hard to get your hair dirty agian in such a short time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 11:13:PM
Quote
Imo Luke Mitchell wasn't a 'normal' 14 year old boy.

What reason did the police have for fitting him up?

I don't think they "fitted him up" in a conscious effort, but more that they believed him to be guilty and tried to find everything they could to prove it rather than an evidence led investigation.

Quote
What is 12 angry men? A fictitious movie?

Yes, a true classic with Henry Fonda. I highly recommend it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:14:PM
so somone thinking your not normal makes you guilty of murder now does it.

Not normal meaning personality disordered.

He even claimed he was violent.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:16:PM
I don't think they "fitted him up" in a conscious effort, but more that they believed him to be guilty and tried to find everything they could to prove it rather than an evidence led investigation.

Why do that? What did they have to gain? Do you think the police would have been happy to convict an innocent boy leaving Jodi's killer at large?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 11:17:PM
bary gorsge and steven kisko colin stag in reality was fairly normal but that not what the proscution made out .

all 3 wrongly acused 2 wrongly convicted.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 11:18:PM
Why do that? What did they have to gain? Do you think the police would have been happy to convict an innocent boy leaving Jodi's killer at large?

Because they thought he was guilty. Certainly not the first time that has ever happened.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:18:PM
its hard to get your dirty agian in such a short time.

Several hours? Is it?  ???
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:28:PM
Because they thought he was guilty. Certainly not the first time that has ever happened.

It was the jury who convicted him. It was the jury who listened to all the evidence presented to them and took just over 5 hours to convict him. Luke had a top lawyer representing him.

I believe LM to be personality disordered.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 15, 2015, 11:32:PM
It was the jury who convicted him. It was the jury who listened to all the evidence presented to them and took just over 5 hours to convict him. Luke had a top lawyer representing him.

I believe LM to be personality disordered.

Well yes, of course it was. But the prosecution is based upon the police investigation.

In this trial they'd probably accept your belief as evidence.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:34:PM
I believe he presented with quite apparent conduct disorders - drugs, knives, sexually active at 12?, into pornography, interests in the occult. Difficulty showing emotion. Etc etc

"It is well known that addiction and mental health problems go hand in hand for youth. While depression, PTSD, anxiety, ADHD, and eating disorders get the bulk of the attention, it might surprise you to find out that Conduct Disorder is by far and away the most common mental health diagnosis in young addicts. It’s not even close. And Conduct Disorder is that very ominous risk factor for developing antisocial personality in adulthood, alternately referred to as sociopathy in the mainstream (I will use antisocial behaviors and sociopathy interchangeably, but some refer to sociopathy as only the very extreme of antisocial tendencies)."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-home-is-not-democracy/201306/is-my-child-sociopath
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 11:35:PM
Several hours? Is it?  ???

that dirty yes sso dirty its mated.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 11:38:PM
I believe he presented with quite apparent conduct disorders - drugs, knives, sexually active at 12?, into pornography, interests in the occult. Difficulty showing emotion. Etc etc

"It is well known that addiction and mental health problems go hand in hand for youth. While depression, PTSD, anxiety, ADHD, and eating disorders get the bulk of the attention, it might surprise you to find out that Conduct Disorder is by far and away the most common mental health diagnosis in young addicts. It’s not even close. And Conduct Disorder is that very ominous risk factor for developing antisocial personality in adulthood, alternately referred to as sociopathy in the mainstream (I will use antisocial behaviors and sociopathy interchangeably, but some refer to sociopathy as only the very extreme of antisocial tendencies)."

one ive never heard of him having an intrest and if its true how is it unuasual for a teenager to look at porn.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-home-is-not-democracy/201306/is-my-child-sociopath
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:42:PM
I would suggest you need to read up on your understanding of the case.

"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat".

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm

"The court heard how Mitchell liked horror films and occasionally read porn magazines and that he had bought the Marilyn Manson DVD The Golden Age of Grotesque two days after Jodi's death"


As I've repeatedly pointed out - it's not a case of looking at these things in isolation, it's about seeing the bigger picture. When you look at all of Luke Mitchell's 'interests' for want of a better word at such a young age, I'd say you are looking at a disordered individual.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 11:44:PM
so agian how is unuasul for a teenager to ocasionaly look at porn.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 15, 2015, 11:45:PM
so agian how is unuasul for a teenager to ocasionaly look at porn.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:53:PM
"However unpalatable the discussion may be, not addressing such important personality traits directly is akin to neglecting poor diet and exercise in a patient with heart disease. Would we avoid a talk on morbid obesity for those struggling with metabolic syndrome to spare the awkwardness? The relationship between sociopathy and addiction is well established and research is equally clear in demonstrating the influence of young antisocial behaviors on various clinical risks, prognoses, and trajectories. Youth with conduct disorder are more likely to have ADHD and future substance abuse and depression and a slew of other negative outcomes."

"While we avoid using terms like conduct disorder and antisocial traits in describing our children with the best of intentions, we should also understand that denying the impact of such behaviors on their course can be folly. Such reasoning comes from the same wishful thinking that assumes all children were whole and "pure" before using drugs, which then leads to the misguided notion that sobriety from drugs alone will restore them to their prior state of innocence. In my clinical duties, I too often field “elephant in the room” questions from fearful parents who rightfully (and secretly) suspected early antisocial behaviors in their child, long before the grips of addiction or other psychiatric complications took hold. They noticed a lack of empathy for siblings, a propensity to be undaunted by consequences, an uncanny ability to manipulate while calmly masking any feelings of remorse or apprehension, and the like."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-home-is-not-democracy/201306/is-my-child-sociopath

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 15, 2015, 11:59:PM
For Nugnug....

Signs of sociopathic tendencies
Misbehavior, immature, reckless, naive; these are the kinds of words that probably pop into your head every time you witness or hear about your minor engaging in an inappropriate behavior. However, that’s not a very valid presumption to make, as some of the things they’re doing may be signs of tendencies and features present in people who are sociopaths.

A couple of notable traits in kids harboring the tendency to develop this personality disorder is the lack of regard for the feelings of others and affinity for violent content. They think little of physically bullying, emotional harassment, spreading rumors, or targeting someone over the Internet. These acts of bullying may rarely, if ever, be followed by remorse. While they are insensitive towards others on one hand, they tend to be hypersensitive on the other, displaying an extremely aggressive reaction when ticked off. They my get involved in physical altercation, or even swearing, thus showing an impulsive behavior and uncontrollable anger. Of course, their affinity for violent content, be it in games, comics, cartoons, of films, would have already made it quite obvious that things such as blood and pain hardly have a cringe effect on them, thus leaving them disassociated with the feelings that the person they are attacking physically or verbally may be experiencing.

http://www.secureteen.com/juvenile-delinquency/sociopathic-tendencies-your-teen-may-be-spiraling-towards-trouble/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 12:29:AM
Sandra there's really no point in you even replying any more if you don't actually want to discuss anything worth while. Almost every response from you to someone pointing out Mitchell acting strangely (seriously, look over your posts) is "well so did *****!", this doesn't support Luke's innocence or help him in any way and it's why your campaign went nowhere. None of these other people were found guilty of the murder, of course it's Luke's behaviour we are putting under analysis. Saying "but the family did it too" isn't an explanation. No point responding unless you're wiling to attempt to actually provide innocent explanations for his strange actions.

I think it's called 'minimising.'
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 16, 2015, 12:30:AM
so somone ocasionaly looks at  porn listens to crap music and watchs horror films and that makes them guilty of murder beyound reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 12:34:AM
Not one mention of his innocence in these letters?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 12:40:AM
so somone ocasionaly looks at  porn listens to crap music and watchs horror films and that makes them guilty of murder beyound reasonable doubt.

No, not someone - a 14 year old boy!

Who was also also into the occult, admitted to violent traits, was clearly obsessed with knives, blood and guts, sold and smoked dope, threatened a 12 year old girl with a knife, came and went as he pleased, apparent shallow emotions, the list goes on...

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 12:48:AM
Luke was utterly silent for almost 10 years in response to his innocence until  that offensive letter Sandra staged so she could send it to a newspaper. Luke swaggered around HMYOI Polmont smirking at people lapping up his notoriety.

This you mean.... http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13057041.Mitchell_tells_of_night_he_found_girlfriend_Jodi_dead/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 12:52:AM
"The letter also addresses claims that Mitchell appeared cold and emotionless after the discovery of Jodi's body. He said a GP had prescribed tablets for anxiety and depression that are not recommended for children."

I don't believe this either. He was a regular weed smoker. Anti depressants usually take several weeks to work and tranquillisers, which he may have been prescribed are indeed occasionally prescribed to children. They don't stop you from showing emotion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 01:00:AM
"He understands that ranting and getting angry is not going to take him anywhere. For such a young man, he's very mature. He knows that the only thing that's going to get this moved forward is sticking with the facts of the case."

Not mature enough to have grown out of his 14 year old Satanic/rebellion phase.

I don't believe he is mature at all. He was a young boy when he went to prison. It's unlikely he's matured much since then; just learned to become more manipulative etc.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 01:22:AM
"In four interviews Mitchell gave to police, he came across as confident and collected.

He even gave a TV interview as Jodi, whose body he had supposedly discovered, was being buried.

Forensic psychologist Ian Stephen, who advised on the television crime dramas Cracker and Prime Suspect, said that was in itself a clue.

He said: "The fact he kept attending school and insisted on trying to maintain as much normality as possible - and his mother insisted on this as well and made a big issue of it - seemed to me almost like a confession of guilt in some way."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 16, 2015, 07:17:AM
A parka Luke was owned disappeared from the face of the Earth regardless of what Sandra says. Why would you believe a woman who had never met Luke before the murder over Luke's own friends and school teachers who confirmed he owned one? Totally illogical.

Ok, let's look a little more carefully at the facts. No-one was asked about a Parka jacket prior to August 14th 2003 - the police were not looking for a Parka jacket, as is clearly evidenced by the interrogation of Luke on that day. The first picture of Luke in a Parka in the media was on August 15th.

According to Dobbie, when the house was searched on April 14th 2004 - 8 months later - police realised the parka was "missing." These are Dobbie's words, not mine. The existence of dozens of pictures of Luke in a Parka for 8 months renders all these statements unreliable - how could anyone be sure when they were "remembering" Luke in a parka? And there is not one single picture of Luke in a parka anywhere before August 15th 2003 - no friends, no relatives, no school pictures - nothing at all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 16, 2015, 07:20:AM
That's sneaky of you. The problem for you is I provided a link showing that those statements had never been written any where else on the entire internet, so stop deceiving readers by implying I'm attempting something dishonest when they can click the link or google the phrases and see for themselves. If Luke got them from games, movies or songs, there would be references to them online. There is absolutely none. You were lying with your "video game." response. The "devil's green blood" is the only quote he plagiarised.

Don't do that again. This is my problem with you.

Oh, I think your problem with me is a lot more than that! I did nothing sneaky - I said you are able to call me a liar beause I am unable to provide a source. Goodle "Shake hands with the Devil" - song lyrics. So, I was mistaken and said "Quote from video game" rather than "song lyric" - I did, however, say in my next post that all of the quotes had come from video games, song lyrics and t shirts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 08:28:AM
"The letter also addresses claims that Mitchell appeared cold and emotionless after the discovery of Jodi's body. He said a GP had prescribed tablets for anxiety and depression that are not recommended for children."

I don't believe this either. He was a regular weed smoker. Anti depressants usually take several weeks to work and tranquillisers, which he may have been prescribed are indeed occasionally prescribed to children. They don't stop you from showing emotion.

Oh, she's a doctor now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 08:34:AM
His hair was matted on the night of the murder? Can you provide a source for that?
I'm sure it was the police who checked him over for cuts bruises and such that determined his hair hadn't been washed for a couple of days.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 08:44:AM
Ok, let's look a little more carefully at the facts. No-one was asked about a Parka jacket prior to August 14th 2003 - the police were not looking for a Parka jacket, as is clearly evidenced by the interrogation of Luke on that day. The first picture of Luke in a Parka in the media was on August 15th.

According to Dobbie, when the house was searched on April 14th 2004 - 8 months later - police realised the parka was "missing." These are Dobbie's words, not mine. The existence of dozens of pictures of Luke in a Parka for 8 months renders all these statements unreliable - how could anyone be sure when they were "remembering" Luke in a parka? And there is not one single picture of Luke in a parka anywhere before August 15th 2003 - no friends, no relatives, no school pictures - nothing at all.

I remember an argument on the old forum about the parka. Where basically it came down to a "yes he did" "know he didn't" type thing.
Eventually one poster said "yes he did, the one in the picture" The shock for me was the poster was a female and turned out to be a close family member of jodis. That said it all for me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 08:54:AM
SANDRA what is it you know about the Mitchell's that you told Stephanie about that is so bad it changed her mind.

You were bound to know that this would happen when you told her anything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 09:51:AM
In your opinion*

Pure speculation.

How can you be satisfied just believing that every single person is simply mistaken? You're smarter than that.

The school teacher confirmed Luke had a parka because staff joked about Luke resembling a hooded monk with it on at school. It's these wee things that stick in your memory. Before the murder. This teacher had left the school before June 30th. Why would his brain conjure up this false memory and why would an educated man involve himself in a murder trial without being 100% sure?

As I previously mentioned is far too easy an explanation to just rubbish every every single witness as easily led/dim witted etc and one that I wouldn't be comfortable just accepting so readily like many of your followers. Just like you rubbished those quotes that appear nowhere else online as song lyrics etc.

Luke's friends all confirmed he had a parka, it would be pretty easy to remember a jacket a friend owned without being confused by a newspaper photograph of a person you'd seen countless times before. No doubt they'd have numerous occasions/locations in their memory of him wearing it. I can picture in my mind what jackets my friends own right now.

There isn't a photograph of him wearing a parka before the murder? I don't believe any of us have seen a picture of Luke before the murder fullstop. And why would there be pictures of him doing such mundane things as being at school or hanging around with mates? I was 14 at the same time as Luke in Edinburgh and can confirm we weren't bringing cameras to school and taking pictures. (This was before camera phones yet - Nokia 3310s etc were considered top of the range)

Luke's friends who actually knew him and witnessed his behaviour unlike you also find it easy to accept that he's guilty. Why is that? Why does Shane find it perfectly possible for his younger brother to be guilty? Does his dad believe him to be innocent?

How many teachers went to court. Did more than one of the staff that joked in staff room confirm this?
I'm sure Luke's friends did say this, there's also a lot who don't think this. And even more sow as time passes. It easy to say things to try and distance yourself from something so horrific, especially at the time. But after all, as you say, they were his friends and you would have to presume were into mostly the same things,went to the same parties, smoked pot together, listened to much the same music. Except they weren't accused of murder. If the shoe was on the other foot , how many of his friends could luke have said exactly the same things about.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 09:57:AM
He's immature. He's done absolutely nothing positive with his time, no trade, no education. Just smoking weed with the other beasts.

This eejit is my age and still trying to be edgy by requesting books on Satanism.

(http://i.imgur.com/N1e3ldf.jpg)

And I'm sure if he hadn't been incarcerated he would have grown out of it. Who knows.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 10:02:AM
Don't expect any clarification. I feel for gordo who was one of the most genuine out of them who stepped away from the case because he was being kept in the dark. Sandra doesn't think these people who put their reputation on the line defending Luke are entitled to answers.

Yeah,I remember gordo
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 12:37:PM
Oh, I think your problem with me is a lot more than that! I did nothing sneaky - I said you are able to call me a liar beause I am unable to provide a source. Goodle "Shake hands with the Devil" - song lyrics. So, I was mistaken and said "Quote from video game" rather than "song lyric" - I did, however, say in my next post that all of the quotes had come from video games, song lyrics and t shirts.

How do you explain this Sandra?


"His fascination with the darker areas of human behaviour was also reflected in his opinions on religion.

His school jotter was covered in Satanic slogans, with the numbers 666 and references to the Devil.

He also wrote an essay questioning God's existence and saying the world needed Satanic people - "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance."

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."

He also admitted stubbing out cigarettes on his hand as a "party trick" and had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm



Below are some of the teaching of satan:



"I ALLOW EVERYONE TO FOLLOW THE DICTATES OF HIS OWN NATURE, BUT HE THAT OPPOSES ME WILL REGRET IT SORELY."
Satan wants us all to be happy individuals. We are all free to indulge our fetishes, personal tastes, preferences, and so forth. This is one of the many reasons we are happier than most.

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/COMMANDMENTS.html
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 12:51:PM
"The letter also addresses claims that Mitchell appeared cold and emotionless after the discovery of Jodi's body. He said a GP had prescribed tablets for anxiety and depression that are not recommended for children."

I don't believe this either. He was a regular weed smoker. Anti depressants usually take several weeks to work and tranquillisers, which he may have been prescribed are indeed occasionally prescribed to children. They don't stop you from showing emotion.

Oh, she's a doctor now.

So what was it Marty?


"Mitchell's cannabis use was said to have escalated after the death and he claimed it doubled to four-and-a-half ounces a week, which was estimated in court to be about 600 joints."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm


Initially he admitted to smoking 600 joints per week after the death, then 10 years later he says he appeared without emotion due to the drugs prescribed to him by a Dr that weren't meant for children?

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/killer-luke-mitchell-breaks-silence-with-letter-in-own-words-1-2279505
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 16, 2015, 02:54:PM
How do you explain this Sandra?


"His fascination with the darker areas of human behaviour was also reflected in his opinions on religion.

His school jotter was covered in Satanic slogans, with the numbers 666 and references to the Devil.

He also wrote an essay questioning God's existence and saying the world needed Satanic people - "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance."

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."

He also admitted stubbing out cigarettes on his hand as a "party trick" and had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm



Below are some of the teaching of satan:



"I ALLOW EVERYONE TO FOLLOW THE DICTATES OF HIS OWN NATURE, BUT HE THAT OPPOSES ME WILL REGRET IT SORELY."
Satan wants us all to be happy individuals. We are all free to indulge our fetishes, personal tastes, preferences, and so forth. This is one of the many reasons we are happier than most.

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/COMMANDMENTS.html

I used to be into Satanic stuff when I was a teen so did allot if my friends, Its just a phase. we never harmed anyone 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 03:00:PM
I used to be into Satanic stuff when I was a teen

That doesn't surprise me  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 16, 2015, 03:16:PM
That doesn't surprise me  ::)

You do realise that Satanism is an atheistic ideology. Luke Mitchell does not actually believe in a devil or any supernatural/fictional deity
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 03:19:PM
You do realise that Satanism is an atheistic ideology. Luke Mitchell does not actually believe in a devil or any supernatural/fictional deity

What is satan if not a deity  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 16, 2015, 04:01:PM
What is satan if not a deity  ::)

Satanism is very different to different people. Some do believe in Satan as a deity and others see it less spiritually and more like a philosophy where Satan is more symbolic.

I have no idea which school of thought Luke comes under.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 04:07:PM
So what was it Marty?


"Mitchell's cannabis use was said to have escalated after the death and he claimed it doubled to four-and-a-half ounces a week, which was estimated in court to be about 600 joints."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm


Initially he admitted to smoking 600 joints per week after the death, then 10 years later he says he appeared without emotion due to the drugs prescribed to him by a Dr that weren't meant for children?

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/killer-luke-mitchell-breaks-silence-with-letter-in-own-words-1-2279505

I was questioning your ability as a doctor to know that what he was prescribed wouldn't stop him from showing emotion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 04:12:PM
You do realise that Satanism is an atheistic ideology. Luke Mitchell does not actually believe in a devil or any supernatural/fictional deity

Good post
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 16, 2015, 05:10:PM
What is satan if not a deity  ::)

Exactly how Baz put it. Satan to many is just a symbolic character of fiction that rejects god. Hence is a role model for those raised in faith who lose faith.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 16, 2015, 05:16:PM

I have no idea which school of thought Luke comes under.

Luke is the Symbolic Athiest type since he is reading the works of Anton Levay.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 05:52:PM
Exactly how Baz put it. Satan to many is just a symbolic character of fiction that rejects god. Hence is a role model for those raised in faith who lose faith.

Especially to a fourteen year old.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 05:59:PM
Boys if you want to solely discuss satan start a new thread  ::)  ::)

It's clear the 3 of you are completely missing the point but that's nothing new  ::)  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 06:01:PM
I was questioning your ability as a doctor to know that what he was prescribed wouldn't stop him from showing emotion.

Don't need to be a Doctor to work that out  ::)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 06:08:PM
Boys if you want to solely discuss satan start a new thread  ::)  ::)

It's clear the 3 of you are completely missing the point but that's nothing new  ::)  ::)
You have been rattling on about satin for the last few pages, now when your posts are shown to be nonsense, we have to start a new thread. Quality
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 16, 2015, 06:09:PM
Boys if you want to solely discuss satan start a new thread  ::)  ::)

It's clear the 3 of you are completely missing the point but that's nothing new  ::)  ::)

We were discussing it in terms of its significance in this case i.e an interest in satanism doesn't make someone a murderer and that there are a lot of misconceptions about satanism as a whole.

What's the point we missed?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 16, 2015, 06:14:PM
We were discussing it in terms of its significance in this case i.e an interest in satanism doesn't make someone a murderer and that there are a lot of misconceptions about satanism as a whole.

What's the point we missed?


Correct, that's what was being implied after all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 16, 2015, 08:01:PM
Boys if you want to solely discuss satan start a new thread  ::)  ::)

It's clear the 3 of you are completely missing the point but that's nothing new  ::)  ::)

The point is peoples misunderstanding of what Satanism is needs to be addressed if one is to make a sound judgment on the case
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 16, 2015, 09:40:PM
The point is peoples misunderstanding of what Satanism is needs to be addressed if one is to make a sound judgment on the case

I disagree totally, and have the suspicion you know this to not be true also  ::)

However, no one needs to understand what satanism is nor does it need to be addressed, but go ahead if it makes you feel better  ;D

The point is, people like you should be looking at the whole picture as opposed to dismissing each apparent individual behavioural problem.

I very much doubt members of the jury at trial knew much about the occult or satanism.

Luke Mitchell need not have been interested in the above at all - the things that came out of his mouth were enough for lay people to be convinced they were dealing with a 14 year old with alarming behavioural problems.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 16, 2015, 11:58:PM

I very much doubt members of the jury at trial knew much about the occult or satanism.


But if his interest in satanism is used against him by people with little understanding then surely that's a bit problematic? We've all heard about satanic panic and the things that have happened because of it.

But I'm not suggesting this was the sole thing he was convicted on and I agree you have to look at the whole picture but I don't think that means you shouldn't scrutinise the individual pieces of the picture.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 12:13:AM
Brother, Shane, have I got it right, did he ever become a suspect, was he ever arrested and interviewed, did he resemble Luke in appearance, and wear similar clothing?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 12:16:AM
Brother, Shane, have I got it right, did he ever become a suspect, was he ever arrested and interviewed, did he resemble Luke in appearance, and wear similar clothing?

How old was Shane Mitchell?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 12:17:AM
Was Shane Mitchells DNA checked against samples recovered from the crime scene?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 12:19:AM
One final question for now, did Luke and Shane have the same biological father?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 17, 2015, 12:42:AM
Brother, Shane, have I got it right, did he ever become a suspect, was he ever arrested and interviewed, did he resemble Luke in appearance, and wear similar clothing?

shane was on the internet they know that from the phone records.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 12:45:AM
shane was on the internet they know that from the phone records.

The fact there was a 'constant internet connection' proves nothing, or does it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 17, 2015, 12:48:AM
Was Shane Mitchells DNA checked against samples recovered from the crime scene?

i dont becouse he was never really a suspect.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 12:59:AM
Well, I think he should have been a suspect. I can't understand why he stabbed his brother in the back (so to speak), unless it was his opportunity to point a finger of suspicion at his brother, to enable him to get away 'scot - free'. I have an uneasy feeling about Shane Mitchell, something doesn't ring true. I am worried...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 01:01:AM
Well, I think he should have been a suspect. I can't understand why he stabbed his brother in the back (so to speak), unless it was his opportunity to point a finger of suspicion at his brother, to enable him to get away 'scot - free'. I have an uneasy feeling about Shane Mitchell, something doesn't ring true. I am worried...

What does anybody know about him?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 17, 2015, 01:03:AM
The fact there was a 'constant internet connection' proves nothing, or does it?

it proves somone was on the internet  shanes computer showed he was looking ar certan websites at that time.

theres was only shane and luke there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 01:46:AM
it proves somone was on the internet  shanes computer showed he was looking ar certan websites at that time.

theres was only shane and luke there.

I can't believe that Luke would say he was at home with his brother present if he wasn't. Maybe, Shane slipped out without his brother knowing, leaving open his internet connection. I can't imagine Luke relying upon his brother to back up his alibi, if Luke wasn't at home, because if it wasn't true, the brother would suspect Luke had got something to lie about. Luke must have confidently been banking on the support from his brother over his alibi, but for some reason the brother refused to go along with it, why? Surely, long before the matter came to trial, Luke would have spoken to his brother Shane to ask him if he could remember the occasion in question, and if Shane said I don't remember you being home on that occasion, would Luke then provide details of such an alibi? Did Shane know Jodi Jones?

Bet he did...

Does anybody know if there had been a fall out between the brothers on the day of the murder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 17, 2015, 01:52:AM
unless you belive somone else was using shanes computer shane couldent of had anything to do with it.

but who would that be only luke shane and corrine lived there and corrine was at work.

if luke had been using the computer hed have a perfect albi so i cant see him not using it.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 17, 2015, 04:00:AM
What does anybody know about him?

In Court he claimed to have a poor memory.

He has never publicly came out in support of Luke which for an older brother is somewhat bizarre to say the least considering the severity of the charges he (Luke) was facing.

His rebuffal of Luke's claim that they were both at home when Jodi was murdererd was the most damning admission however.  If they were both at home all Shane had to do was admit it and hey presto the perfect alibi.  He couldn't do it however, the rest as they say is history.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 17, 2015, 07:18:AM
Shane was never a suspect. He and Luke were not alike in looks or build. He was arrested in April 2014 ten and a half months after the murder) and charged with perverting the course of justice. It was during this interrogation it was claimed he began to say he could not remember if Luke was at home that evening, however, it is clear that the interrogation was intended push Shane's evidence down a particular route which would undermine Luke's defence.

Closing off answers, confusion techniques, bullying, refusal to accept answers, loaded/leading questions, lies, intimidation, threats - the lot. The judges at appeal claimed the evidence elicited by this form of interrogation would have been unlawful if Shane had been a suspect, but it was ok because he was only a witness.

How could they get it so wrong? Shane had been detained for 6 hours without a solicitor present (as was legal in Scotland in 2003), after which he was formally charged - he wasn't a witness to the charge against him, was he?

That's how bad the system is in Scotland (John will vouch for that) - they slipped up, because this comment about Shane being only a witness is an admission that the "perverting the course of justice" charges were nothing but a ploy to allow them to get to the two people providing Luke's alibi in a way that would definitely have been unlawful had they done it any other way.

For completion, the brothers share the same biological father. Shane's DNA was entered into the database just like all of the others from whom samples were taken - no match to any deposit from Jodi or the crime scene was ever identified.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 09:59:AM
it proves somone was on the internet  shanes computer showed he was looking ar certan websites at that time.

theres was only shane and luke there.

How long had the victim been dead by the time the body was discovered?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 17, 2015, 10:42:AM
How long had the victim been dead by the time the body was discovered?

Several hours
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 17, 2015, 10:50:AM
Several hours

According to the alleged time of death
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 11:35:AM
According to the alleged time of death

What is the alleged time of death?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 11:40:AM
How many times was the victim stabbed?

Additionally, which parts of the body sustained stab wound injuries, and at what angle were they inflicted?

Was the killer left handed, or right handed?

How tall was the victim?

How tall was Luke Mitchell?

Did the victim have any defensive wounds, or marks?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 17, 2015, 12:52:PM
What is the alleged time of death?

the proscutions alleged time is between 5 and 530.

though theres no actull evedence to back this up its just when lukes albi is at its weakist.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 17, 2015, 01:26:PM
How many times was the victim stabbed?

Additionally, which parts of the body sustained stab wound injuries, and at what angle were they inflicted?

Was the killer left handed, or right handed?

How tall was the victim?

How tall was Luke Mitchell?

Did the victim have any defensive wounds, or marks?

Her throat was slashed 12 to 20 times
Small nicks on her eyelids, mutilation to the abdomen.
Stripped naked apart from her socks folded down over her toes.
Not sure of exact heights, but jodi was a good few inches taller than luke at the time.
And she had been given a good hiding by all accounts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 17, 2015, 03:08:PM
isnt a bit funny that nobody in the search party admits to seein go into the woods that day but when she was missing that was the first place they went to look.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 17, 2015, 06:56:PM
I disagree totally, and have the suspicion you know this to not be true also  ::)

However, no one needs to understand what satanism is nor does it need to be addressed, but go ahead if it makes you feel better  ;D

The point is, people like you should be looking at the whole picture as opposed to dismissing each apparent individual behavioural problem.

I very much doubt members of the jury at trial knew much about the occult or satanism.

Luke Mitchell need not have been interested in the above at all - the things that came out of his mouth were enough for lay people to be convinced they were dealing with a 14 year old with alarming behavioural problems.

No as usual you disagree for the sake of disagreeing with me.  ::)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 17, 2015, 08:59:PM
My impression is that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi, but I don't know enough about the case to be 100% certain of his innocence...

Where were the victims clothes found?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 17, 2015, 09:15:PM
My impression is that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi, but I don't know enough about the case to be 100% certain of his innocence...

Where were the victims clothes found?
Strewn around the scene
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 17, 2015, 09:19:PM
Strewn around the scene

Her jeans were used to tie her hands behind her back
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 09:44:AM
Her jeans were used to tie her hands behind her back
How old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 18, 2015, 10:50:AM
How old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?

I have written down that he was 23 at the time of the trial so he would have been 21 at the time of the murder, I think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 12:41:PM
How old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?

Mike you've asked a set of questions regarding this case which I can assure you were already investigated.

Luke Mitchell is not serving a life sentence for his brother Shane. I agree with you that the brothers silence over these years is questionable but I do not believe for one minute it's because he's a killer.

If JJ's killer were still at large my opinion is that he'd have struck again by now. I'm not aware of any murders that have been linked to this case and my opinion is that, even at the tender age of 14, Luke Mitchell had motive, means and the opportunity - and was clearly already presenting with behavioural problems.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 18, 2015, 12:51:PM
I have written down that he was 23 at the time of the trial so he would have been 21 at the time of the murder, I think.

yes he was 21 at the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 18, 2015, 02:17:PM
Mike you've asked a set of questions regarding this case which I can assure you were already investigated.

Luke Mitchell is not serving a life sentence for his brother Shane. I agree with you that the brothers silence over these years is questionable but I do not believe for one minute it's because he's a killer.

If JJ's killer were still at large my opinion is that he'd have struck again by now. I'm not aware of any murders that have been linked to this case and my opinion is that, even at the tender age of 14, Luke Mitchell had motive, means and the opportunity - and was clearly already presenting with behavioural problems.

What was his motive?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 03:00:PM
I struggle with opportunity also
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 05:34:PM
The murder of 14-year-old Jodi Jones, and the subsequent conviction of her teenage boyfriend Luke Mitchell, was one of the most high-profile legal cases in Scotland this century.

Luke Mitchell was convicted after weeks of evidence

It was a profoundly disturbing case for a variety of reasons and one that the Frontline team felt should be closely re-examined.

There was shock at the sheer brutality of Jodi's death - she was stripped and then her body was mutilated, either just before or after she was killed.

Her youth and the fact that her murderer was adjudged to be her boyfriend, who himself was only 14 years old, compounded the horror felt by everyone.

And then there was Luke Mitchell's apparent insensitivity and callousness - his reported obsession with Satanism and weird rock music - coupled with the alleged collusion of his mother in covering up his crime.

Circling the case was a hurricane of innuendo, salacious hints, and a febrile clamour from the press and public for 'justice' for Jodi.

Marilyn Manson, Kurt Cobain and even the Devil himself all made fleeting appearances in the court room.

Luke Mitchell found himself at the eye of this hurricane.

Some would argue he was convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion a long time before the jurors in the High Court in Edinburgh had even been sworn in.

Yet right from the outset it was clear this was not going to be an easy case for the prosecution.

Despite the bloody nature of the crime, there was no forensic evidence to speak of.

Nothing physically linked Luke Mitchell to Jodi's murder.

Nevertheless, the prosecution case, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, was compelling.

The jury agreed with that case and Luke Mitchell was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

But worries within the legal and forensic world about the investigation and subsequent conviction have never completely gone away.

And when, late in 2006, sketchy details emerged of a possible new suspect, those worries began to grow.

That was when we decided to take a closer look at the case including the initial police investigation as well as the trial.

It was one of the largest police investigations in recent Scottish history, with more than 3,000 people interviewed. It was also the longest trial of a single assailant.

There were three main planks of circumstantial evidence which convicted Luke Mitchell.

The first was eye-witness testimony - a woman claimed she had seen a man 'similar' to Luke Mitchell near the scene of the crime.

The second plank of evidence were statements from Jodi's family who described Mitchell as having taken them straight to Jodi's body as they searched for her.


The third plank of evidence was Luke Mitchell's character itself. He regularly carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.

It was argued he was so wild and out of control that he was capable of anything - including murder.
   
Many of the points raised are defence issues that were heard in court and vigorously debated in the course of the judicial process. 

Yet our investigations looked again at flaws not only in each of these three key planks of evidence heard in court, but also in part of the initial police investigation which produced that evidence.

Luke Mitchell's mother Corinne also agreed to an interview.

It was her first since her son's trial and conviction.

She was a character with little public sympathy, in fact she became almost as vilified as Mitchell himself during the months before his arrest. Her story was compelling.

We knew we also had to try to track down a man who had come forward with information on this possible new suspect.

After a lengthy search, we managed to find Scott Forbes who had given a statement to police about the disturbing behaviour of one of his friends.

According to Forbes, it was three-and-a-half years before his friend was eventually contacted by the police.

Mitchell is appealing against his conviction.

Scott Forbes's statement is being investigated by Mitchell's defence team and may form part of that appeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 18, 2015, 05:39:PM
Have you posted that as an answer to my motive question?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 18, 2015, 05:42:PM
I struggle with opportunity also

if the last one of the 3 diffrent times given by the police is corect he would of had around 50 minutes.

in that 50 minutes he had meet her knock her down strugle with her then tie her up kill here do all the mutliations to the body then go and clean himself up and go back out agian to dit on the wall.

and that depends n the third time for jodi leaving the house being correct.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 05:43:PM
He doesn't look upset does he, infact quite the opposite imo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 18, 2015, 05:52:PM
when was that taken.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 18, 2015, 06:48:PM
SANDRA what is it you know about the Mitchell's that you told Stephanie about that is so bad it changed her mind.

You were bound to know that this would happen when you told her anything.

Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 07:03:PM
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

You make me laugh Sandra and are full of crap and a lot of people know it - thank goodness!

It had nothing to do with the confession and had everything to do with you telling me about the dysfunction in the Mitchell family. My opinion of Luke Mitchell's innocence changed mainly after what YOU TOLD ME!

Who exactly did I phone to tell them they were misguided? There's only one person I recall talking to and she had already told me she believed her partner to be guilty after all. It's clear you are attempting to suggest it's because of 'sour grapes' on my part. For the record - it's not!

Again, it's based mainly on the things you told me and also your behaviours in the years prior to this.

I already thought Luke Mitchell was guilty prior to the confession of SH - others can confirm this.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 07:14:PM
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

However continue to spread your disingenuous assumptions - I will set the record straight when I am ready.

I just feel sorry for the people you continue to mug off and clearly tell porkies to!



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 07:39:PM
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

Oh and one other thing Sandra -

After the confession of SH I asked you about your book 'No Smoke.' I was of the belief you had done your homework. You told me you had not seen case papers and only took the word of others in order to produce what you did.

You also told me you would be having the book removed from sale, as it's quite clearly misleading. Did you remove it from sale? And if not, why not?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 07:45:PM
I have written down that he was 23 at the time of the trial so he would have been 21 at the time of the murder, I think.

I take it, his brother Shane did not have a regular girlfriend at the time of the murder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 07:46:PM
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

Finally for now, this is pure speculation on your part, something which is now clear, you have mastered over these years.

How can you know what you have written about my thoughts to be fact?

This is another reason I would advise people to not be taken in by your stories, even though you can appear quite convincing. And as I've said before, love a good argument.  ::)




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 07:49:PM
Did Luke Mitchell have a mobile phone he was using on the day of the murder, also did his brother Shane also have use of his own mobile phone at that time?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 07:51:PM
Did Jodi have a mobile phone that she had access to, or use of in the build up to her killing?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 07:57:PM
Does anybody know anything about built in 'GEO SENSORS', inside mobile phones, which log information about the units location, movement, and sounds, on databases kept by Network providers? Did you know that it is possible to not only track a mobile phone, and potentially eavesdrop conversations, but also it is possible to establish whether or not a person carrying a particular mobile phone, is walking, running, standing still, sitting down, falling down, laid down, etc...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 08:02:PM
Does anybody know anything about built in 'GEO SENSORS', inside mobile phones, which log information about the units location, movement, and sounds, on databases kept by Network providers? Did you know that it is possible to not only track a mobile phone, and potentially eavesdrop conversations, but also it is possible to establish whether or not a person carrying a particular mobile phone, is walking, running, standing still, sitting down, falling down, laid down, etc...

This information is kept by a network provider on a series of databases, and depending upon whether or not the victim, the suspect, and anyone else who might be considered to be in the frame, possessed a mobile phone in the lead up to the murder, during the murder, and afterwards, all this information can be elicited to help to solve the identity of the killer..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 08:09:PM
For everyone's information, our family has just received telephone information of this nature, which we are currently using to help establish that my nephew died in a subway in the Sutton area of Nottinghamshire, before 5pm on the 6th May 2014, and that his body was taken in the back of a car to Mansfield, taken into a house, his body staged to make it appear that he had died from a heroin overdose there, but a senior paramedic who pronounced him dead at 7.04am, on 7th May 2014, stated that my 'nephews body' had been in a complete state of collapse for longer than 13 hours prior to his death being confirmed there...

Phone records are helping us as a family piece together the last 24 hours of his life...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 18, 2015, 08:12:PM
I take it, his brother Shane did not have a regular girlfriend at the time of the murder?
[/quote

i really dont know as we have shane  was never a suspect for fairly obvios reasons so not much was reported about him.

i dont see how having a steady girlfriend makes much diffrence to anything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 08:13:PM
Is it possible that this technology could help to solve the mystery of who really did murder Jody Jones?

My guess, is that it wasn't Luke Mitchell...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 08:16:PM
if the last one of the 3 diffrent times given by the police is corect he would of had around 50 minutes.

in that 50 minutes he had meet her knock her down strugle with her then tie her up kill here do all the mutliations to the body then go and clean himself up and go back out agian to dit on the wall.

and that depends n the third time for jodi leaving the house being correct.
and what if it was the original time, 530 ? No answer required.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 18, 2015, 08:18:PM
The phones back then were a bit more primitive. I'm surprised mobile phone tower records weren't checked though. They can give some idea of a persons location at least.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 08:18:PM
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

Sounds about right
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 08:20:PM
I take it, his brother Shane did not have a regular girlfriend at the time of the murder?
[/quote

i really dont know as we have shane  was never a suspect for fairly obvios reasons so not much was reported about him.

i dont see how having a steady girlfriend makes much diffrence to anything.

He visited porn sites regularly, and according to his own account he was watching porn around the time of the murder. My guess, is that he didn't have a girlfriend with him that day, if he had one at all, but it sure seems like he had sex and sexual relief on his mind, at the time Jody was stripped of her clothing, and had her hands tied behind her back, with her own jeans...

Not the sort of thing a 14 year old lad would do, by any stretch of the imagination. No, in my opinion, Jody was killed by an adult person, with a warped (activated) sex drive...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 18, 2015, 08:20:PM
and what if it was the original time, 530 ? No answer required.

the orignal time was 530 giving luke 15 minutes to do it all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 08:22:PM
The phones back then were a bit more primitive. I'm surprised mobile phone tower records weren't checked though. They can give some idea of a persons location at least.

It is a surprise baz, maybe they were, but didn't help the prosecution's case. The defence also should have had this checked. Seems a no Brainer now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 08:27:PM
He doesn't look upset does he, infact quite the opposite imo.

Relevance to topic
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 08:34:PM
Sounds about right

It sounds about right because of your own personal agenda. I guarantee if I were to get you in a court of law you have absolutely zero to back this up!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 08:35:PM
Back what up...dear o dear
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 08:39:PM
Back what up...dear o dear

Your ad hominem attacks are see through  ::) change the record 'Marty'

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 18, 2015, 08:42:PM
He visited porn sites regularly, and according to his own account he was watching porn around the time of the murder. My guess, is that he didn't have a girlfriend with him that day, if he had one at all, but it sure seems like he had sex and sexual relief on his mind, at the time Jody was stripped of her clothing, and had her hands tied behind her back, with her own jeans...

Not the sort of thing a 14 year old lad would do, by any stretch of the imagination. No, in my opinion, Jody was killed by an adult person, with a warped (activated) sex drive...

It's a bit of a leap from watching pornography to being a deviant.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 18, 2015, 08:47:PM
Stephanie, what was the motive you alluded too earlier? I've never found one that feels likely.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 18, 2015, 08:47:PM
a very big leap for a start the police looked at the porn and must of prounced all legal.

and not having a regler girlfriend well a lot of men dont at 21

and the fact he was looking at porn is what gives him an albi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 08:50:PM
Your ad hominem attacks are see through  ::) change the record 'Marty'

Your post don't seem coherent Stephanie, posting newspaper reports to questions you have bee asked. I don't have to attack you, honestly.
You seem a little confused. Posting pictures with no relevance. Maybe if you explained what you were posting it would help. All it seems to me is a personal thing between you and sandra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 08:56:PM
Your post don't seem coherent Stephanie, posting newspaper reports to questions you have bee asked. I don't have to attack you, honestly.
You seem a little confused. Posting pictures with no relevance. Maybe if you explained what you were posting it would help. All it seems to me is a personal thing between you and sandra.

If that's how it appears to people like you, then so be it.  ::)


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 08:56:PM
It is a surprise baz, maybe they were, but didn't help the prosecution's case. The defence also should have had this checked. Seems a no Brainer now.

'GEO SENSORS', have been an integral part of circuit board design inside mobile phones for a long time. Obviously in the first years these may have been in a primitive form compared to today's examples. If prosecution or police pursued such a line of enquiry, and because it didn't suit their case, then the information will have been filed away in one or two locations, (1) Unused material, or (2) withheld under pii...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 09:00:PM
If that's how it appears to people like you, then so be it.  ::)

Without mentioning names I'm not the only person on here who is questioning your posts. Again, you cause others of not giving answers. It's clear you are doing the same.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 09:05:PM
It's a bit of a leap from watching pornography to being a deviant.

If he wasn't watching porn at the time Jody was being killed, I should think it is a huge clue to his culpability. How did he know what time Jodie had actually been killed, to make him introduce his own alibi, and contradict his younger brothers alibi? If phone records were checked, and he had a mobile phone, I reckon its odds on that he was with Jody when she was killed. That's my take on it, anyway. In a nutshell, Shane Mitchell is more likely to be the killer, that his younger brother Luke. If Shane didn't do it, then as sure as hell, neither did Luke...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 09:11:PM
It was a funny time of the day, for Shane to be watching porn, I should think most people watch porn late at night, or during the early hours of the morning. It just seems so obvious to me that the timing of Jody's unnecessary death, should coincide, which an alibi covering himself, which serves to torpedo his younger brothers alibi, and that the motive for the murder had sexual connotations..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 09:13:PM
If he wasn't watching porn at the time Jody was being killed, I should think it is a huge clue to his culpability. How did he know what time Jodie had actually been killed, to make him introduce his own alibi, and contradict his younger brothers alibi? If phone records were checked, and he had a mobile phone, I reckon its odds on that he was with Jody when she was killed. That's my take on it, anyway. In a nutshell, Shane Mitchell is more likely to be the killer, that his younger brother Luke. If Shane didn't do it, then as sure as hell, neither did Luke...

To be fair mike, I think you need to read a good deal more about the case before you come to any conclusions. I do believe Shane is as likely the killer as luke is though, but in my opinion, it wasn't Shane.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 09:18:PM
Without mentioning names I'm not the only person on here who is questioning your posts. Again, you cause others of not giving answers. It's clear you are doing the same.

No need to mention names - I can guess  ;D ;D

I say again, so be it. But these 'people' must be really bored with their own lives if all they can think to do is mock mine! They sound jealous, why would my name randomly come into their heads?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 09:24:PM
To be fair mike, I think you need to read a good deal more about the case before you come to any conclusions. I do believe Shane is as likely the killer as luke is though, but in my opinion, it wasn't Shane.

I do need to read up some more on this case, I agree, I was just giving an insight into my thoughts based on the little I know thus far. To me, Alarm bells ring when I find out one brother introduces an alibi, at the expense of his younger brothers alibi, with little regard for the consequences for his younger brother. From what I have read about the case thus far, I don't like the sound of Shane, what he has said, and the reason for saying what he said. His account is too pat. He appears to have known about the actual time of Jodies death, whereas in contrast, Luke simply has no idea, hence why he maintained he was at home preparing tea, with his mother, and big brother. I believe Luke has told the truth about this, it is true because Luke didn't have any involvement in the attack on Jodie, but his brother Shane, probably did...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 18, 2015, 09:27:PM
My monies on Shane being the culprit, and Luke being the Patsy...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 18, 2015, 09:31:PM
No need to mention names - I can guess  ;D ;D

I say again, so be it. But these 'people' must be really bored with your own lives if all they can think to do is mock mine! They sound jealous, why would my name randomly come into their heads?

I personally haven't been talking to anyone. I am coming to this conclusion from posts on this thread. The only things I know about you ( apart from the obvious) are what I have read here. Not mocking , want logical answers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 18, 2015, 09:42:PM
I personally haven't been talking to anyone. I am coming to this conclusion from posts on this thread. The only things I know about you ( apart from the obvious) are what I have read here. Not mocking , want logical answers.

Fair enough. I'll leave you to debate with Nugnug and Baz  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 18, 2015, 09:59:PM
Fair enough. I'll leave you to debate with Nugnug and Baz  ;D  ;D

Why drag me into it. Least I'm not 'Baz' anymore.

You say you want to discuss the case, but you don't answer a question when it's asked.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 19, 2015, 06:33:AM
Quote
How long had the victim been dead by the time the body was discovered? ...What is the alleged time of death?
ToD claimed to be 5.15pm, body found at 11.30  - 11.35pm. No time of death ever established.

Quote
How many times was the victim stabbed? Additionally, which parts of the body sustained stab wound injuries, and at what angle were they inflicted? Did the victim have any defensive wounds, or marks?
Cut-throat injuries, 12 - 20, claimed to be "bi directional" - alost decapitated. Knife forced into her mouth, piercing a tonsil (but not damaging teeth). 2 severe cuts to the abdomen, one to the left breast, slashed cheek to lip, earlobe, smaller cuts to forehead eyes, bridge of nose, hairline. Defensive wounds to arms were extensive -left arm almost cut right through. Angle of all other injuries apart from throat never ascertained. Bruises to back of hands and knuckles.

Quote
Was the killer left handed, or right handed

Never established.

Quote
Where were the victims clothes found?
Bra, one strap cut through, the other missing, hooks pulled out of shape, pants, t-shirt cut into two pieces, shirt and shoes all within a few feet of the body. Glasses (one lense broken, legs bent outwards) and two one pound coins found a little further away. Hoodie further away still. Other bra strap discarded in some foliage.

Quote
I take it, his brother Shane did not have a regular girlfriend at the time of the murder? If he wasn't watching porn at the time Jody was being killed, I should think it is a huge clue to his culpability. How did he know what time Jodie had actually been killed, to make him introduce his own alibi, and contradict his younger brothers alibi? If phone records were checked, and he had a mobile phone, I reckon its odds on that he was with Jody when she was killed. That's my take on it, anyway.

Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi.

Quote
I do need to read up some more on this case, I agree, I was just giving an insight into my thoughts based on the little I know thus far. To me, Alarm bells ring when I find out one brother introduces an alibi, at the expense of his younger brothers alibi, with little regard for the consequences for his younger brother. From what I have read about the case thus far, I don't like the sound of Shane, what he has said, and the reason for saying what he said. His account is too pat. He appears to have known about the actual time of Jodies death, whereas in contrast, Luke simply has no idea, hence why he maintained he was at home preparing tea, with his mother, and big brother. I believe Luke has told the truth about this, it is true because Luke didn't have any involvement in the attack on Jodie, but his brother Shane, probably did...

As previously, he did not "introduce an alibi" - for 10 months, police accepted that he came home from work around quarter to 5 (fitting with other witness statements regarding when he left after looking at the car), went straight upstairs, washed his hands, and went on the internet (fitting with timings of logs etc) - there was no time for Shane to have been the murderer if Jodi died at 5.15pm.

Phone logs were never sought - it is known that the technlogy existed in 2003 to have tracked movement of phones, but it was not used - the defence was refused funding on the basis that their chosen expert (probably the leading UK expert at the time) was too expensive. Jodi's phone was broken, so she did not have a phone with her. Luke did, as did Janine, and Alice Walker. Kelly said he did not have his phone with him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 19, 2015, 06:44:AM
Quote
If prosecution or police pursued such a line of enquiry, and because it didn't suit their case, then the information will have been filed away in one or two locations, (1) Unused material, or (2) withheld under pii..

Or alternatively, did not pursue because they were afraid it would destroy their case. There were a number of accounts of movements and alibis of others which are questionable - checking the phone mast records of those may have opened a huge can of worms which the police would not have wanted opened.

Also, such checks would, I believe, have shown that Luke's phone did not move out of the Newbattle area that evening until he went up the path at 11 o'clock looking for Jodi, which would also have destroyed the prosecution case that he had gone up the path before 5pm, in order to have met with Jodi at the Easthouses end at 4.54pm, in order to have been her killer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 06:53:AM
I do not ask these questions from some sort of sick desire to spell out all of the details of Jodi's injuries (nor am I blind to the rather obvious crumbs being dropped here in an attempt to lead me down certain paths!) Rather, I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.

Cut-throat injuries, 12 - 20, claimed to be "bi directional" - alost decapitated. Knife forced into her mouth, piercing a tonsil (but not damaging teeth). 2 severe cuts to the abdomen, one to the left breast, slashed cheek to lip, earlobe, smaller cuts to forehead eyes, bridge of nose, hairline. Defensive wounds to arms were extensive -left arm almost cut right through. Angle of all other injuries apart from throat never ascertained. Bruises to back of hands and knuckles.


For anyone genuinely interested - here's a classic example of how Sandra contradicts herself....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 06:55:AM
Or alternatively, did not pursue because they were afraid it would destroy their case. There were a number of accounts of movements and alibis of others which are questionable - checking the phone mast records of those may have opened a huge can of worms which the police would not have wanted opened.

Also, such checks would, I believe, have shown that Luke's phone did not move out of the Newbattle area that evening until he went up the path at 11 o'clock looking for Jodi, which would also have destroyed the prosecution case that he had gone up the path before 5pm, in order to have met with Jodi at the Easthouses end at 4.54pm, in order to have been her killer.

You have no firm evidence of this Sandra - it is pure speculation on your part!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 09:19:AM
I am left in no doubt, that the cost of introducing the telephone technology to support Luke Mitchells alibi affected the outcome of his trial. I am also certain that the police did take this approach, and did obtain phone records, and if they did, there was nothing to incriminate Luke Mitchell, otherwise, the prosecution would have utilised this information. By the same token, that same information would be of significance to the defence case. As I have previously said, if police sought and obtained phone records but chose not to rely upon any of it, these records will have been retained, and could be accessed if requested...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 09:30:AM
Plotting the phone masts of the different network providers insitu in the surrounding area at the time of the murders would be a good starting point. All the different network providers have their own masts, but they piggy back off (from and to) one another. A mobile phones position used to be plotable by use of triangulation, but nowadays it's also done via and with use of satellite technology...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 09:56:AM
I am left in no doubt, that the cost of introducing the telephone technology to support Luke Mitchells alibi affected the outcome of his trial. I am also certain that the police did take this approach, and did obtain phone records, and if they did, there was nothing to incriminate Luke Mitchell, otherwise, the prosecution would have utilised this information. By the same token, that same information would be of significance to the defence case. As I have previously said, if police sought and obtained phone records but chose not to rely upon any of it, these records will have been retained, and could be accessed if requested...

That's an interesting point. Is there anything held under pii in this case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 09:59:AM
That's an interesting point. Is there anything held under pii in this case.
If that law applies in scotland?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 10:03:AM
If the description of the victims injuries have been accurately described, the killer was almost certainly right handed...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 10:05:AM
Was a murder weapon found, or identified as the tool which inflicted all the injuries?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 10:06:AM

Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's

So, he wasn't actually connected to any dedicated porn sites? That's way beyond misleading. Did df point this out?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 10:07:AM
Was a murder weapon found, or identified as the tool which inflicted all the injuries?

No
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 10:44:AM
I'm bothering because people like you, Baz and nugnug (sorry if I've missed anyone) actually seem to want to discuss the case intelligently and respectfully. I'm fairly sure there are others out there who are interested, who read but don't post - I just like to make sure they have as much information as possible so that they can make up their own minds.

Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.

If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me.


SANDRA what is it you know about the Mitchell's that you told Stephanie about that is so bad it changed her mind.

You were bound to know that this would happen when you told her anything.

Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

Sandra it's because of disingenuous statements you make like this -

"Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.
If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me."


that some of us also believe you to be 'sneaky,' as lithium has pointed out in a previous post.

I clearly said it was because of things you had told me about the Mitchell family that my opinion had changed.
 
Marty's question clearly asked you what it was you had said to me about THE MITCHELL'S.

And you clearly IGNORED my previous FACTUAL statement and the question posed by Marty and instead gave a completely different slant on things - YOUR PRESUMPTUOUS, MADE UP VERSION!

YOUR VERSION where you try to convince others of FALSE and MISLEADING EVENTS/INFORMATION.

Hence why you make me laugh...  ::)

Though I say again - I do feel for those people that get taken in by your stories!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 11:11:AM

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

Sandra did answer his question with her point of view. If you deny this why not share what information she told you that changed your mind?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 11:16:AM
So, he wasn't actually connected to any dedicated porn sites? That's way beyond misleading. Did df point this out?

I feel like whether Shane is looking at cars of porn or some mix of the two is sort of irrelevant.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 11:18:AM
Sandra did answer his question with her point of view. If you deny this why not share what information she told you that changed your mind?

One more time just for you Baz.......

Sandra it's because of disingenuous statements you make like this -

"Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.
If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me."


that some of us also believe you to be 'sneaky,' as lithium has pointed out in a previous post.

I clearly said it was because of things you had told me about the Mitchell family that my opinion had changed.
 
Marty's question clearly asked you what it was you had said to me about THE MITCHELL'S.

And you clearly IGNORED my previous FACTUAL statement and the question posed by Marty and instead gave a completely different slant on things - YOUR PRESUMPTUOUS, MADE UP VERSION!

YOUR VERSION where you try to convince others of FALSE and MISLEADING EVENTS/INFORMATION.

Hence why you make me laugh...  ::)

Though I say again - I do feel for those people that get taken in by your stories!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 11:24:AM
One more time just for you Baz.......

One more time for you then.....

You say you changed your mind because of things Sandra said to you... As you have highlighted in bold.

Sandra says she didn't tell you anything to change your mind.... As I highlighted by quoting that part.

So you could clear it up by saying what this information, that Sandra told you, is.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 11:33:AM
Sandra did answer his question with her point of view. If you deny this why not share what information she told you that changed your mind?

Sandra answered his question with her spin, posting it as though it were fact. Tut tut Sandra!

As per my signature:

“Honesty has a power that very few people can handle"

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 11:38:AM
Sandra answered his question with her spin, posting it as though it were fact. Tut tut Sandra!

You've avoided my point yet again. If it is not fact then refute it with facts i.e the information that changed your mind.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 11:46:AM
You've avoided my point yet again. If it is not fact then refute it with facts i.e the information that changed your mind.

I've not avoided your point. I've already stated it was to do with the Mitchell family and dysfunction.

It's up to Sandra to be frank with you and everyone else. She was the person who told me what she had witnessed first hand. She was the one who was upset, and I quote, about the 10 years of her life she had wasted....

She was the one who thanked me for opening up her mind to personality disordered individuals.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 11:55:AM
I've not avoided your point. I've already stated it was to do with the Mitchell family and dysfunction.

It's up to Sandra to be frank with you and everyone else. She was the person who told me what she had witnessed first hand. She was the one who was upset, and I quote, about the 10 years of her life she had wasted....


It all sounds a bit disingenuous to me. You say you're not avoiding my point but then you again offer no details about this groundbreaking information.

Why would she still be spending her time arguing for his innocence if she felt she had information that proved his guilt?! That makes no sense!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 12:01:PM
It all sounds a bit disingenuous to me. You say you're not avoiding my point but then you again offer no details about this groundbreaking information.

Why would she still be spending her time arguing for his innocence if she felt she had information that proved his guilt?! That makes no sense!!

As I've pointed out it is up to Sandra to explain herself not me. She told me things in confidence and while I may have put her on the spot it's up to her if she see fit to publicly reveal the details. That's all I've got to say about the subject.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 12:06:PM
As I've pointed out it up to Sandra to explain herself not me. She told me things in confidence and while I may have put her on the spot it's up to her if she see fit to publicly reveal the details. That's all I've got to say about the subject.

I thought as much.

I guess honesty also has a power that some can't wield either.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 12:24:PM
I thought as much.

I guess honesty also has a power that some can't wield either.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to believe what and who you want to believe.

I have made it clear I believe Luke Mitchell to be guilty and have done for sometime. I have many reasons for my change of stance. I questioned things when I received a letter from Luke Mitchell several years ago but kept this to myself at the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 12:46:PM
Why would she still be spending her time arguing for his innocence if she felt she had information that proved his guilt?! That makes no sense!!

Maybe she is in denial for whatever reason?

Maybe she genuinely believes he is innocent?

Who knows; only Sandra can answer this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 01:37:PM
Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi.

I feel like whether Shane is looking at cars of porn or some mix of the two is sort of irrelevant.

This is where we agree.

But can you see what Sandra has done? It's as though she's suggesting - if 'porn' were taken out of the equation, then Luke had an alibi and/or the police are not being truthful about Shane watching porn and/or the jury were misled in some way by the brother having watched porn?

It makes no difference what he was watching (though I believe Shane suggested he was watching porn and had checked to make sure no one was in the house etc) whether it was the latter or cars or whatever. The fact is the police found Shane had been on the internet at the suggested timings - therefore Luke wasn't in the house when he said he was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 02:12:PM
I feel like whether Shane is looking at cars of porn or some mix of the two is sort of irrelevant.

It's the embarrassment factor. They put him a situation which is degrading at best. Manipulate him into the position they wanted. If they weren't trying to do that then you are right it wouldn't matter what he was watching. But the porn scenario is deliberately trying to belittle him into breaking down Luke's alibi.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 02:14:PM
This is where we agree.

But can you see what Sandra has done? It's as though she's suggesting - if 'porn' were taken out of the equation, then Luke had an alibi and/or the police are not being truthful about Shane watching porn and/or the jury were misled in some way by the brother having watched porn?

It makes no difference what he was watching (though I believe Shane suggested he was watching porn and had checked to make sure no one was in the house etc) whether it was the latter or cars or whatever. The fact is the police found Shane had been on the internet at the suggested timings - therefore Luke wasn't in the house when he said he was.

I haven't read anywhere he checked to see if anyone was in the house. Can you tell us the source for that
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 02:18:PM
It's the embarrassment factor. They put him a situation which is degrading at best. Manipulate him into the position they wanted. If they weren't trying to do that then you are right it wouldn't matter what he was watching. But the porn scenario is deliberately trying to belittle him into breaking down Luke's alibi.

You are speculating and possibly projecting your own feelings...

How do you know how Shane felt? I imagine he already knew it would be mentioned in court. The jury were no doubt made aware by the defence 'that many young men his age watched porn' - or words to that effect. It was about Luke's ALIBI not Shane and what he was doing or watching. He was in court to tell the truth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 02:20:PM
I haven't read anywhere he checked to see if anyone was in the house. Can you tell us the source for that



THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.

Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.

Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.

His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.

The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.

"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.

"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."

Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.

Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this

sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"

"No, " he said.

"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.

"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.

"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"

"Yes, " came the answer.

Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"

"I don't know, " he said.

The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
     
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The trial continues.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.Jodi_trial___brother__apos_alone_in_house_apos__Court_hears_porn_admission/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 02:41:PM


THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.

Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.

Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.

His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.

The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.

"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.

"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."

Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.

Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this

sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"

"No, " he said.

"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.

"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.

"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"

"Yes, " came the answer.

Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"

"I don't know, " he said.

The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
     
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The trial continues.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.Jodi_trial___brother__apos_alone_in_house_apos__Court_hears_porn_admission/

Yet Sandra Says the following?

"Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 02:48:PM


THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.

Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.

Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.

His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.

The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.

"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.

"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."

Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.

Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this

sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"

"No, " he said.

"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.

"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.

"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"

"Yes, " came the answer.

Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"

"I don't know, " he said.

The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
     
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The trial continues.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.Jodi_trial___brother__apos_alone_in_house_apos__Court_hears_porn_admission/

Where does it say he checked to see if anyone was in?
Also when asked if his brother was in,he said," I don't know". He never said he wasn't in.
He may have presumed his brother wasn't in because he never heard music coming from his room. He never said he wasn't in.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 02:53:PM
Surely if he was checking the house, he would have checked Luke's bedroom also
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 19, 2015, 02:57:PM
You are speculating and possibly projecting your own feelings...

How do you know how Shane felt? I imagine he already knew it would be mentioned in court. The jury were no doubt made aware by the defence 'that many young men his age watched porn' - or words to that effect. It was about Luke's ALIBI not Shane and what he was doing or watching. He was in court to tell the truth.

Oh, I think I have a fair idea how he felt along with every other male in the country. As the qc touched upon in your newspaper article.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 02:59:PM
Shane Mitchell failed to corroborate his brothers alibi.

The jury clearly doubted him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 03:00:PM
As the qc touched upon in your newspaper article.

MY newspaper article?  ::)

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 03:09:PM
Surely if he was checking the house, he would have checked Luke's bedroom also

SMALL but vital clues convinced police that Luke Mitchell was Jodi Jones’ killer, the murder inquiry’s leading investigator said today.

But detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said the teenager was nothing more than a witness at the beginning of the investigation.

It wasn’t until inconsistencies emerged in his statements that he became a suspect.

He said they tried to eliminate him from their enquiries but "they just couldn’t".

Mr Dobbie, 53, said more than 3000 statements were taken throughout the course of the inquiry.

"We interviewed everyone possible," he said. "We interviewed every male who had been viewed with general suspicion.

"That group included any males known to Jodi - both relatives and friends.

"Luke was one, and, at first, he was no different from the rest of them. We were just trying to eliminate people from that group.

"It wasn’t until July 3 that our suspicions about Luke increased. We had a degree of suspicion, but not enough to detain him.

"Things were starting to piece together - things his school friends were saying about him carrying knives; the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed; and, most importantly, the difference in the statements given by Jodi’s family about how Jodi’s body had been found and Luke’s version of events.

"However, we still had to be aware that Luke was providing a statement voluntarily and that he may have been deeply traumatised at the time."

The next day, Mr Dobbie asked for Mitchell to be interviewed again - this time under police caution.

"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.

"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."

The next piece of information which gave detectives cause for suspicion concerned the wood burning stove in the Mitchell’s back garden.

Mitchell told police that his mother Corinne and brother Shane were using the stove that night. Corinne said it was not being used and Shane was not able to say either way. "We also had reports from neighbours saying they had smelled burning coming from the Mitchell’s back garden that night," said Mr Dobbie.

"Then there was the parka jacket," he added. "We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket. The eye witnesses had also made references to a long parka style jacket. His mother said he had never owned one.

"When we searched the house, the parka was missing.

"But friends and family were adamant that he owned one. We also had the information about the wood burner and we started to paint a picture."

However, Mr Dobbie did not want to detain Mitchell until the DNA test results had come back from the lab.

"When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer."

Mr Dobbie said: "In August we detained Luke for further questioning. We searched his house again and his father’s house but still there was no evidence of the jacket that we believed to have existed before the murder, or of any knife.

"At this stage, unless Luke gave us a confession or took us to the knife, we did not want to arrest him. We did not want to go down that road unless we were 100 per cent confident the circumstantial evidence we had was correct.

"It wasn’t until October that we believed that we had grounds to report Luke to the procurator fiscal for a circumstantial case.

"After carrying out their own investigations, and interviewing witnesses they supported us and, eventually, a warrant was issued for Luke’s arrest in April, 2004."

It was on this day that Mitchell’s house was searched again and Shane Mitchell admitted he had been looking at porn on the internet on the day of Jodi’s death.

He said he would not have done this if there was other people in the house - which did not support Luke’s alibi that he was at home with Shane at the time Jodi was killed.

Mr Dobbie said: "When we searched the house we also found a knife pouch with the inscription ‘JJ 1989-2003’ and the numbers 666 written on it and one of Jodi’s favourite quotes. It was like some kind of memorial to Jodi.

"We made inquiries and discovered that Mrs Mitchell had bought a knife which came with a pouch identical to this one in December 2003. She said she had bought it for him to go on a camping trip. But why purchase that knife. It seemed bizarre, bearing in mind Jodi had been killed and that her son was a suspect.

"We started to question whether that knife was a replacement to one he had previously."

But today as Mitchell was found guilty, Lothian and Borders Police’s hunch was proved right, although there was severe criticism of their handling of the investigation during the case.


Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-1-959390#ixzz3rx0J4cOV
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 03:43:PM
Jodi trial: brother 'alone in house' Court hears porn admission

Thursday 13 January 2005 / News
     

THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.

Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.

Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.

His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.

The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.

"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.


"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."

Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.

Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this

sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"

"No, " he said.

"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.

"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.

"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"

"Yes, " came the answer.

Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"

"I don't know, " he said.

The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.

     
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The trial continues.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 03:56:PM
Jodi trial: brother 'alone in house' Court hears porn admission

Thursday 13 January 2005 / News
     

THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.

Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.

Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.

His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.

The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.

"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.


"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."

Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.

Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this

sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"

"No, " he said.

"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.

"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.

"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"

"Yes, " came the answer.

Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"

"I don't know, " he said.

The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.

     
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.

The trial continues.

We now find out that according to Luke Mitchells witness statement, he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening...

Does anybody know what the mothers account regarding this is / was?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 04:02:PM
Why did Luke Mitchell kill? His mother holds a clue

AS EVER, the mother is key. Corinne Mitchell is at the heart of the mystery;

the answer to many questions. She is one person who can help explain why Luke Mitchell was able to become the monster he is - indeed, she perhaps understands better than the boy himself, for in her unhealthy relationship with him lies one explanation for his vile and violent actions.

I don't buy this "Luke was evil" stuff.

I think, too, that the focus on Marilyn Manson is to some degree a smokescreen; a frenzy of populist scaremongering about unpleasant teenage culture. Tens of thousands of youngsters adore Marilyn Manson; they don't become murderers. These things are far too facile. No, much of the blame for this tragedy must lie in what went wrong, a long time ago, in the boy's deepest emotional development.

You are what your childhood makes you. If we give credence to the basic psychological tenet that a child's connection with its mother is the biggest inf luence of all in shaping its adult life - as we should - then Corinne Mitchell must bear much responsibility for allowing a 14-year-old boy to become so disturbed that he could kill and maim the way he did. The "why?" is a question many would like her to answer.

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 and an unusual physical intimacy between son and mother. The trial appeared to expose them as people adrift, cut off from normal emotional and behavioural frameworks.

According to the evidence in the trial, Mrs Mitchell, whose husband had moved out when Luke was 11, apparently had abrogated the role of parent. Friends say Luke "replaced his father and became the man of the family". It was exposed in court that this was a house where anything went.

Her elder son sat at home and looked at pornography on the internet during the day. Luke, her younger son and the favourite, was a little emperor. She did not appear to discipline him, or impose any limits on his behaviour.

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.

When the police came to arrest Luke, he was in his mother's bedroom with her. She claimed he was upset and she was comforting him. She betrayed her intense physical closeness to her son whenever they appeared in public: during the interview he gave to Sky News, she constantly stroked his neck and clung to him.

What motherwould publicly allow herself to caress her son's neck and face like that? And what 14-year-old son would, just as publicly, allow it to happen? During their controversial visit to Jodi's grave, the pair stood face to face in intimate embrace. Had you not known they were mother and son, you could almost have confused them for girlfriend and boyfriend.

Ian Stephen, a lecturer in forensic psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University and a criminal psychologist, is quoted as saying: "The whole relationship comes across as something quite different from normal. It is almost over-close. You are left with the impression that the son has almost taken on a partner's role. She is almost more like a girlfriend than a mother."

To witness Mrs Mitchell visiting her son in Polmont, the day after he was found guilty, was to be struck by how inappropriately she was dressed: in tight jeans, thigh-high boots, bare midriff. Again, this seemed a strange choice, given her very public role at the trial. It was hardly maternal.

Her conduct from the time of the murder to the conviction appears to suggest that her son, a mere child, had been handed inappropriate control in their relationship. At a time when a 14-year-old boy needs discipline, standards and a strong moral lead, it would appear Corinne Mitchell offered none of these things. Did her relationship with him tip over into a form of abuse?

No-one is saying that. But we can look at the facts which emerged from the trial and judge that this mother-son relationship was beyond the ken of what we recognise as normal.

Corinne Mitchell's own background is not straightforward. She is adopted; her adoptive parents were said to be from a travelling family who had settled south of Edinburgh and started a caravan business. She reportedly has a reputation for being confrontational and anti-authoritarian;

did she carry emotional scars from her own childhood into parenthood?

What went wrong between her and her younger son is something we will never know for sure. Only psychology can decipher the code of their unusual relationship. Many psychologists have written of the tension between parent and child; the established tenets of the science say that children denied appropriate parenting face difficulties trying to live a normal life or understand normal constraints. This would appear to explain why Luke Mitchell seemed to lack any moral roadmap in his life.

In psychological terms, it is often considered that a healthy, loving and supportive mother-son relationship is the most important thing necessary to provide the world with the historical and emotional foundations of culture, law, civility . . . and decency.

Even if we only accept this in the broadest terms, the theory has resonance in Jodi's murder, where these essential qualities were apparently absent in Luke Mitchell.

The modern theories of analysis say that a child's emotional life is inextricably bound up from the earliest age in a triangular relationship between themselves, their mother and their father. When things go wrong between the adults, or between parent and child, the child suffers anxieties and guilt. They feel at risk, excluded, responsible.

Nobody knows what Luke Mitchell went through as a little boy when his family fell apart. But it seems that something went drastically wrong after his father, an electrician, moved away.

In this way, broken families can create chaotic, fragmented lives. In this age of divorce, psychologists describe children "lost" because of estrangement between parents. "They cannot get on in life, because there is no living relationship in the lee of which they can prosper. Sometimes they stay very still, lest the stasis give way to something far worse, " says Robert Young, from the Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies at Sheffield University. The tragedy is that Luke Mitchell, a boy psychologically severed from decency and appropriate behaviour, did not stay very still. And that "something far worse" did indeed happen.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 04:03:PM
Mike, I know your opinion is that Shane has apparently changed his story to set up his brother because of his own guilt. But for me Shane's changing story is about the only thing that makes me doubt Luke's innocence. It seems to me as if Shane does all he can to BE an alibi for Luke even when he is tripped up/embarrassed on the stand. He refuses to point blank say that Luke wasn't at home even though his testimony makes it sound like he knew he was. It does seem unlikely, to me, that Luke could be home without Shane knowing but it's far from impossible.

I can't speak to why he isn't actively involved in Luke's campaign. Maybe he doesn't think there's anything he could do or maybe it's because he knows Luke is guilty. I have no idea.

But as far as I'm aware as weak as the case against Luke is, a case against Shane is non existent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 05:09:PM
Worth a read imo and relevant to other cases like this...

http://www.alleydog.com/topics/child-psychology.php
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 05:43:PM
Yet Sandra Says the following?

"Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi."

I am interested in the 15 minute window relating to 'the internet connection', do you, or anybody else know, or is there a record when the internet was accessed, and switched off?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 19, 2015, 06:03:PM
Quote
We now find out that according to Luke Mitchells witness statement, he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening...

Does anybody know what the mothers account regarding this is / was?

The power of the half-story. He didn't have dinner with Shane, because Shane took his dinner up to his room - Luke and Corinne ate downstairs.

You'll notice as well from the article that's been posted here a few times now that it says:
Quote
Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.

He's looking at pictures, rather than "watching porn" which appears to confirm the "pop up" nature of the sites in question.

Also "He added that he thought he masturbated at the time" - please! 23 year old guy, on the stand with scores of media waiting to report just casually throws in this piece of information. I have the exact  wording of this part of the evidence in my notes somewhere - I'll look it out and post it verbatim.

It was never suggested that Shane "checked the house" to see if anyone was in - he came in, went straight upstairs to his room, stopping to wash his hands on the way

Baz said
Quote
But for me Shane's changing story is about the only thing that makes me doubt Luke's innocence. It seems to me as if Shane does all he can to BE an alibi for Luke even when he is tripped up/embarrassed on the stand. He refuses to point blank say that Luke wasn't at home even though his testimony makes it sound like he knew he was. It does seem unlikely, to me, that Luke could be home without Shane knowing but it's far from impossible

I understand this - it does seem a bit strange, at first glance. However, first glance doesn't factor in the treatment of Shane at the hands of the police prior to trial. He was threatened that a memory that was not 100% accurate in every detail would see him convicted of perverting the course of justice. He was threatened that, if he could not 100% back up any claim he made on the stand, he was going down. Given that the police repeatedly told him they would not accept "I think so," "to the best of my recollection," "I'm fairly sure that's what happened," "that's pretty much how I remember it," and so on, demanding instead concrete Yes or No answers against this backdrop of dire threats if he got a single thing "wrong," it doesn't really surprise me that Shane was not only utterly confused, but completely intimidated before he even took the oath.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 06:25:PM
I understand this - it does seem a bit strange, at first glance. However, first glance doesn't factor in the treatment of Shane at the hands of the police prior to trial. He was threatened that a memory that was not 100% accurate in every detail would see him convicted of perverting the course of justice. He was threatened that, if he could not 100% back up any claim he made on the stand, he was going down. Given that the police repeatedly told him they would not accept "I think so," "to the best of my recollection," "I'm fairly sure that's what happened," "that's pretty much how I remember it," and so on, demanding instead concrete Yes or No answers against this backdrop of dire threats if he got a single thing "wrong," it doesn't really surprise me that Shane was not only utterly confused, but completely intimidated before he even took the oath.

Yes, agreed. His treatment at the hands of the police makes it difficult to fully rely on any of his statements and, for me, excuses a lot of the issues with this alibi. But what he says on the stand, even though it's high pressure and humiliating, is presumably the truth and it's not a great alibi, is it? "He could have been in." I for one would appreciate his evidence verbatim if you do find those notes.

Did Luke mention Shane being in in his statements? I know that article says that Luke said he ate with his Mother but did he mention Shane eating upstairs? What are Shane's movements after dinner? If the clothes burning happened would he have been in to see it?

I think we should also remember that his Mother's alibi was never disproved. And while I can see a Mum willing to give a false alibi to protect a child, surely not even a Mum would for a crime this gruesome. Maybe I'm wrong.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: maggie on November 19, 2015, 06:29:PM
Why did Luke Mitchell kil

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12402619.Why_did_Luke_Mitchell_kill__His_mother_holds_a_clue/
This is very interesting, thanks Steph.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 07:55:PM
This is one of the reasons the  Luke's website had ot be taken down - I no longer have access to the papers so, if I don't have notes about something, I can't post sources, allowing people to do exactly as Lithium has done here.

From memory, which is the best I can do, as I don't have notes, all of the quotes I commented on were confirmed as having come from song lyrics, computer games or t shirts.

From memory, which is the best I can do, there were a number of topics which students could choose from, of which "The existence of God" was one. It is going to get very wearing if I have to add "from memory, which is the best I can do" to everything that I no longer have paperwork for.

I thought you didn't have notes Sandra? Or was it just on this occasion?  ::)

And the excuse for why Luke's website had to be taken down doesn't make sense either? Surely the same applies when you are asked questions on this forum? Something doesn't sound right? What am I missing?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 07:57:PM
The power of the half-story. He didn't have dinner with Shane, because Shane took his dinner up to his room - Luke and Corinne ate downstairs.

You'll notice as well from the article that's been posted here a few times now that it says:
He's looking at pictures, rather than "watching porn" which appears to confirm the "pop up" nature of the sites in question.

Also "He added that he thought he masturbated at the time" - please! 23 year old guy, on the stand with scores of media waiting to report just casually throws in this piece of information. I have the exact  wording of this part of the evidence in my notes somewhere - I'll look it out and post it verbatim.

It was never suggested that Shane "checked the house" to see if anyone was in - he came in, went straight upstairs to his room, stopping to wash his hands on the way

Baz said
I understand this - it does seem a bit strange, at first glance. However, first glance doesn't factor in the treatment of Shane at the hands of the police prior to trial. He was threatened that a memory that was not 100% accurate in every detail would see him convicted of perverting the course of justice. He was threatened that, if he could not 100% back up any claim he made on the stand, he was going down. Given that the police repeatedly told him they would not accept "I think so," "to the best of my recollection," "I'm fairly sure that's what happened," "that's pretty much how I remember it," and so on, demanding instead concrete Yes or No answers against this backdrop of dire threats if he got a single thing "wrong," it doesn't really surprise me that Shane was not only utterly confused, but completely intimidated before he even took the oath.

Who told you Shane ate his dinner upstairs?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 08:02:PM
I thought you didn't have notes Sandra? Or was it just on this occasion?  ::)

She literally says "if I don't have notes on something" in the thing you have quoted.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 08:04:PM
She literally says "if I don't have notes on something" in the thing you have quoted.

Can't Sandra answer for herself?

Maybe she'll search out her notes with regards the song lyrics, and other quotes she refers to then when she's looking up her notes for Shane's evidence.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 08:16:PM
Why did Luke Mitchell kil

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12402619.Why_did_Luke_Mitchell_kill__His_mother_holds_a_clue/

This is very interesting, thanks Steph.

Yes Maggie it is interesting especially as Sandra talked to me about some of her concerns regarding the Mitchell family and dysfunction - some of those concerns are written in this article.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 19, 2015, 08:17:PM
Can't Sandra answer for herself?

Maybe she'll search out her notes with regards the song lyrics, and other quotes she refers to then when she's looking up her notes for Shane's evidence.

I'm sure she can but the answer was right in front of you. It says she has notes on some stuff and the rest has to be from memory. Seemed fair enough.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 08:20:PM
Why did Luke Mitchell kill? His mother holds a clue

Tuesday 25 January 2005 / News
     
AS EVER, the mother is key. Corinne Mitchell is at the heart of the mystery;

the answer to many questions. She is one person who can help explain why Luke Mitchell was able to become the monster he is - indeed, she perhaps understands better than the boy himself, for in her unhealthy relationship with him lies one explanation for his vile and violent actions.

I don't buy this "Luke was evil" stuff.

I think, too, that the focus on Marilyn Manson is to some degree a smokescreen; a frenzy of populist scaremongering about unpleasant teenage culture. Tens of thousands of youngsters adore Marilyn Manson; they don't become murderers. These things are far too facile. No, much of the blame for this tragedy must lie in what went wrong, a long time ago, in the boy's deepest emotional development.

You are what your childhood makes you. If we give credence to the basic psychological tenet that a child's connection with its mother is the biggest inf luence of all in shaping its adult life - as we should - then Corinne Mitchell must bear much responsibility for allowing a 14-year-old boy to become so disturbed that he could kill and maim the way he did. The "why?" is a question many would like her to answer.

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 and an unusual physical intimacy between son and mother. The trial appeared to expose them as people adrift, cut off from normal emotional and behavioural frameworks.

According to the evidence in the trial, Mrs Mitchell, whose husband had moved out when Luke was 11, apparently had abrogated the role of parent. Friends say Luke "replaced his father and became the man of the family". It was exposed in court that this was a house where anything went.

Her elder son sat at home and looked at pornography on the internet during the day. Luke, her younger son and the favourite, was a little emperor. She did not appear to discipline him, or impose any limits on his behaviour.

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.

When the police came to arrest Luke, he was in his mother's bedroom with her. She claimed he was upset and she was comforting him. She betrayed her intense physical closeness to her son whenever they appeared in public: during the interview he gave to Sky News, she constantly stroked his neck and clung to him.

What motherwould publicly allow herself to caress her son's neck and face like that? And what 14-year-old son would, just as publicly, allow it to happen? During their controversial visit to Jodi's grave, the pair stood face to face in intimate embrace. Had you not known they were mother and son, you could almost have confused them for girlfriend and boyfriend.

Ian Stephen, a lecturer in forensic psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University and a criminal psychologist, is quoted as saying: "The whole relationship comes across as something quite different from normal. It is almost over-close. You are left with the impression that the son has almost taken on a partner's role. She is almost more like a girlfriend than a mother."

To witness Mrs Mitchell visiting her son in Polmont, the day after he was found guilty, was to be struck by how inappropriately she was dressed: in tight jeans, thigh-high boots, bare midriff. Again, this seemed a strange choice, given her very public role at the trial. It was hardly maternal.

Her conduct from the time of the murder to the conviction appears to suggest that her son, a mere child, had been handed inappropriate control in their relationship. At a time when a 14-year-old boy needs discipline, standards and a strong moral lead, it would appear Corinne Mitchell offered none of these things. Did her relationship with him tip over into a form of abuse?

No-one is saying that. But we can look at the facts which emerged from the trial and judge that this mother-son relationship was beyond the ken of what we recognise as normal.

Corinne Mitchell's own background is not straightforward. She is adopted; her adoptive parents were said to be from a travelling family who had settled south of Edinburgh and started a caravan business. She reportedly has a reputation for being confrontational and anti-authoritarian;

did she carry emotional scars from her own childhood into parenthood?

What went wrong between her and her younger son is something we will never know for sure. Only psychology can decipher the code of their unusual relationship. Many psychologists have written of the tension between parent and child; the established tenets of the science say that children denied appropriate parenting face difficulties trying to live a normal life or understand normal constraints. This would appear to explain why Luke Mitchell seemed to lack any moral roadmap in his life.

In psychological terms, it is often considered that a healthy, loving and supportive mother-son relationship is the most important thing necessary to provide the world with the historical and emotional foundations of culture, law, civility . . . and decency.

Even if we only accept this in the broadest terms, the theory has resonance in Jodi's murder, where these essential qualities were apparently absent in Luke Mitchell.

The modern theories of analysis say that a child's emotional life is inextricably bound up from the earliest age in a triangular relationship between themselves, their mother and their father. When things go wrong between the adults, or between parent and child, the child suffers anxieties and guilt. They feel at risk, excluded, responsible.
     
Nobody knows what Luke Mitchell went through as a little boy when his family fell apart. But it seems that something went drastically wrong after his father, an electrician, moved away.

In this way, broken families can create chaotic, fragmented lives. In this age of divorce, psychologists describe children "lost" because of estrangement between parents. "They cannot get on in life, because there is no living relationship in the lee of which they can prosper. Sometimes they stay very still, lest the stasis give way to something far worse, " says Robert Young, from the Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies at Sheffield University. The tragedy is that Luke Mitchell, a boy psychologically severed from decency and appropriate behaviour, did not stay very still. And that "something far worse" did indeed happen
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 08:56:PM
If I had access to the case files, I would be able to sort this matter out to everyone's satisfaction. If police acted unlawfully, and corruptly, there is no one better positioned, with personal experience involving police corruption than myself. I have been involved in many cases where a convicted person has claimed, they were framed by the police, or some person or other, but sadly after my own investigation, this has not proved to have been factual. In this particular case, there are claims that Luke Mitchell has been convicted on a reliance of circumstantial evidence, and that his brother Shane Mitchell, was rail roaded into torpedoing his younger brothers alibi...

Where does the truth lay?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 19, 2015, 08:57:PM
Yes, agreed. His treatment at the hands of the police makes it difficult to fully rely on any of his statements and, for me, excuses a lot of the issues with this alibi. But what he says on the stand, even though it's high pressure and humiliating, is presumably the truth and it's not a great alibi, is it? "He could have been in." I for one would appreciate his evidence verbatim if you do find those notes.

Did Luke mention Shane being in in his statements? I know that article says that Luke said he ate with his Mother but did he mention Shane eating upstairs? What are Shane's movements after dinner? If the clothes burning happened would he have been in to see it?

I think we should also remember that his Mother's alibi was never disproved. And while I can see a Mum willing to give a false alibi to protect a child, surely not even a Mum would for a crime this gruesome. Maybe I'm wrong.

With regards the prosecutions theory about the clothes being burnt in the wood burner - this was a maybe, it was circumstantial - it was up to the jury to decide.

And I believe you are wrong about your assumption that a Mum would not give a false alibi to protect a child for a gruesome crime like this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 09:00:PM
Clothes being destroyed in the family owned burner, may just have easily been attributed to the older brother Shane, than to young Luke Mitchell. Where is the evidence to distinguish, one from the other, or doesn't anybody know?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 09:08:PM
If Luke ate with his mother downstairs, and she confirmed this as being true, and depending upon the time of Jodie's death, Luke surely had a sound alibi. It is irrelevant that his brother has no recollection of seeing him, particularly if Shane ate his tea upstairs, in his own bedroom. Who cooked tea? If Lukes mother confirmed Luke had prepared and cooked tea, irrespective of Shane eating his, upstairs in the bedroom, Shane would presumably have not been in a position to say who had prepared or cooked the tea, he ate...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 09:29:PM
If Luke ate with his mother downstairs, and she confirmed this as being true, and depending upon the time of Jodie's death, Luke surely had a sound alibi. It is irrelevant that his brother has no recollection of seeing him, particularly if Shane ate his tea upstairs, in his own bedroom. Who cooked tea? If Lukes mother confirmed Luke had prepared and cooked tea, irrespective of Shane eating his, upstairs in the bedroom, Shane would presumably have not been in a position to say who had prepared or cooked the tea, he ate...

If Luke had prepared or cooked tea, which Shane ate, the eating of the tea by Shane surely provided Luke with an alibi, depending upon the time Shane ate his tea in his bedroom, as compared to the time the victim was killed...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 09:31:PM
If Luke had prepared or cooked tea, which Shane ate, the eating of the tea by Shane surely provided Luke with an alibi, depending upon the time Shane ate his tea in his bedroom, as compared to the time the victim was killed...

So, what time did Shane say he ate his tea in his bedroom?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 10:50:PM
(1) - http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict

FBI profile of Jodi killer points to wrong verdict

THE FBI has released its secret profile of the killer of schoolgirl Jodi Jones – but all the details are blanked out, adding to speculation that it did not match Luke Mitchell.

By BOB SMYTH
PUBLISHED: 23:03, Sat, Mar 22, 2014

Jodi’s body was found in woods in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in June 2003, and her boyfriend Mitchell, now 25, was later convicted of the brutal slaying and jailed for at least 20 years.

During the investigation, Lothian and Borders detectives flew out to consult experts at the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime in Quantico, Virginia.

They produced a report comparing Mitchell with a psychological profile of the killer, compiled using evidence gathered by police in Scotland.

Profilers at the Behavioural Analysis Unit – made famous by many films and TV series – also took into account their experience?of?similar?murders?in the USA.

The analysis of 14-year-old Jodi’s killer was sent to the former force headquarters at Fettes in Edinburgh in January 2004, 11 weeks before Mitchell was charged.

However, despite all the cost and effort that went into acquiring the document, the report was never produced in court or even disclosed to his legal team.

In fact, Scottish police have never confirmed its existence – and it was only released by the FBI following a Freedom of Information request in the USA.

However, most of the findings have been edited out, apart from a few intriguing details.

The eight-page profile includes a section headed Offender Characteristics followed by a Suspect Assessment, which examines the suspect’s “opportunity”, “ability” and “propensity” to commit the crime.

Mitchell’s mother, Corinne, and campaigners trying to free him say they believe the analysis would not have matched the schoolboy, who was 14 at the time of the murder.

Mrs Mitchell said: “I believe the findings would have pointed to a violent adult, not a schoolboy."

The murder is currently unsolved. However, inquiries have polarised on building a circumstantial case against a prime suspect. Deputy Chief Constable Tom Wood, "They would have already come out if they had reflected badly on Luke – in the same way that other things about him that could be spun negatively somehow found their way into the public domain.”

Other documents released by the FBI show that police were already focusing on a prime suspect when they first made contact with US authorities on October 3, 2003.

In a letter to the US Embassy in London, Deputy Chief Constable Tom Wood wrote: “The murder is currently unsolved. However, inquiries have polarised on building a circumstantial case against a prime suspect.”

Seven weeks later, on November 21, police sent a report to the procurator fiscal which reportedly named Mitchell as the killer.

Retired FBI profiler Mark Safarik said: “It seems like the agency should at least release the name of the analyst who did the report.”

Scottish criminologist Professor David Wilson said there is no particular reason why the report should be kept out of the public domain.

He said: “An analysis like this is merely an investigative tool that may help the police to narrow the field of suspects. It’s not hard evidence that can be used in court.”

Mitchell was charged in April 2004 and convicted the following January. He has already failed in an appeal.

His case is now being considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

Criminologist Dr Sandra Lean, who headed the SCCRC submission, said: “We hope that the Commission will be able to get access to the profile if they feel it is necessary.

“Luke’s lawyers tried to get a copy of it but they didn’t get anywhere. The Crown passed their inquiries on to the FBI, who said they couldn’t release anything to them because the Scottish police were their client.

“It would undoubtedly have been useful for the defence to have seen the profile to determine if they undermined the prosecution case.”

A Police Scotland spokesman said: “Officers will routinely seek assistance from specialists or experts during the course?of?a?serious?criminal investigation.

"Police Scotland will not offer comment on any information gathered during the course of an inquiry or in respect of any individuals.”

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 11:00:PM
"a violent adult, not a schoolboy" - I agree with this analysis...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 11:11:PM
(1) - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-murder-convicted-killer-2261291

Jodi Jones murder: Convicted killer Luke Mitchell's case reopened to re-examine DNA taken from crime scene

07:57, 9 SEP 2013 UPDATED 13:24, 9 SEP 2013
BY JACK MATHIESON

LUKE, who was 15 at the time of the murder, has made several appeal attempts against his conviction.

Luke Mitchell undergoes a lie detector test in the video posted on YouTubeLuke Mitchell undergoes a lie detector test in the video posted on YouTube

MURDERED schoolgirl Jodi Jones’s mum has been left devastated after learning that her killer Luke Mitchell’s case is to be re-examined.

New forensic tests have been ordered on Jodi’s clothing amid continued claims by her boyfriend Mitchell that he was wrongly convicted of her killing.

The teenager’s mum Judy, 48, was yesterday at her home in Easthouses, Midlothian, close to the murder scene, but was too upset to comment.

A family member speaking on her behalf, understood to be Jodi’s brother Joseph, 29, described the new probe as “an unwelcome development”.

A family source said later: “Poor Judy has had to put up with this for years but to hear the case is being reopened is appalling news.

“How much grief can one woman be expected to put up with?”

The Scottish ­Criminal Cases Review Commission, who probe possible miscarriages of justice, believe advances in DNA ­technology could uncover new crime scene evidence.

The discovery of 14-year-old Jodi’s mutilated body in woodland near her home in June 2003 triggered shock and revulsion across Scotland.

Her hands were tied behind her back, her throat had been slashed and there were further cuts to her cheek, breast, abdomen and forearm.

Mitchell, a fourth-year pupil at St David’s High School in Dalkeith, Midlothian, became the focus of the investigation because Jodi had been going to meet him when she was killed.

The murder trial, which began in 2005, heard there was no direct DNA link between Mitchell and the crime scene and no murder weapon was recovered.

But a jury convicted him after hearing a compelling circumstantial case as well as evidence of Mitchell’s cannabis use and obsession with gothic rock music.

Judge Lord Nimmo Smith told Mitchell, then 16, that “it lies beyond any skill of mine to look into the black depths of your mind”, and ordered him to serve at least 20 years behind bars.

The conviction stands despite a series of appeals by Mitchell’s legal team.

Both Mitchell and his mother Corinne – who said in evidence he had been with her at the time of the murder – reportedly passed lie detector tests last year.

Although scores of samples were examined during the original inquiry, the equipment in use now is more likely to yield a profile from smaller samples which were unable to be identified.

PAMurdered teenager Jodi JonesMurdered teenager Jodi Jones
The SCCRC move is believed to be the first time they have ever commissioned fresh DNA tests.

They will ask the Crown Office for access to several items, which will be sent to an independent lab for analysis.

Mitchell’s lawyers believe they will focus on Jodi’s trousers, which were taken off and used to bind her hands.

Male DNA was found in the knot in the right leg of Jodi’s trousers. There was also DNA on the fly button and zip of the jeans, but none of the samples yielded profiles.

The tests are also likely to look at her T-shirt, underwear and shoes.

Forensic scientist Dr Sue Pope said: “The systems used in 2003 required larger samples than we need now to come back with a profile.

“I would say there is a benefit in retesting samples for DNA in a case where investigators were unable to obtain a profile in the past.”

The SCCRC wrote to Mitchell, now 25, in Shotts Prison to say their committee had ordered the forensic tests.

His mum Corinne said yesterday: “Luke’s DNA was never found on Jodi.

“He has no fears about new tests. He knows his DNA won’t be there. We just hope all the forensics have been retained and properly stored over the years.”

Some Mitchell supporters believe Da Vinci rapist Robert Greens, from Dalkeith, who raped and battered a student visiting Rosslyn chapel in 2005, could be responsible for Jodi’s death.

An SCCRC spokesman said: “Once we have accepted a case for review, we are unable to say more.”
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 11:27:PM
(1) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4187007.stm

Killer 'obsessed by occult'

Luke Mitchell denied any involvement in Jodi's death

Luke Mitchell was born in July 1988 and was living in Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, when he began going out with schoolgirl Jodi Jones. Jodi, 14, from Easthouses, Dalkeith, was a pupil at St David's Roman Catholic High School along with Luke.

She had been taking a shortcut along a woodland path to Luke's house on 30 June, 2003 when she was brutally attacked and mutilated by the killer.

Mitchell and Jodi had begun going out in about March 2003.

They saw each other a couple of times a week at first, but before long they were spending time together most nights.

On the evening of 30 June, Jodi had left her family home at about 1700 BST but the alarm was raised later when she failed to get to Mitchell's house or return home.

Jodi Jones was 14 when she was killed in June 2003. Her body was found on the wooded path known as Roan's Dyke at about 2230 BST by Mitchell and members of Jodi's family.

The picture of Mitchell and Jodi which emerged at the trial was one of rebellious teenagers experimenting with drugs, sex and alternative music.

But Mitchell's fascination with the darker side of music and youth culture was also revealed.

The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat".

On the day of the memorial service for Jodi at Gorebridge Parish Church on 3 September, 2003, Mitchell told Sky News he had not killed his girlfriend.

He said: "In all the time we were going out, we never had one argument at all. Never fell out or anything."

Mitchell went on television to deny the murder. Mitchell was arrested the following April and in November 2004 his trial began at the High Court in Edinburgh.

He was charged with repeatedly hitting Jodi, compressing her neck, tying her arms and repeatedly stabbing her before and after she died.

Parallels were drawn in court between Jodi's injuries and death and paintings by Goth rocker Marilyn Manson, one of Mitchell's favourite acts.

The water-colours are based on the death of would-be Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short in 1947.

The pictures of what became known as the Black Dahlia murder showed the woman with massive injuries to her face, breast and torso.

Mitchell's defence dismissed the connection between the two deaths but further evidence of his interest in Manson was brought before the trial.

Jodi's body was found in woods behind a wall. The court heard how Mitchell liked horror films and occasionally read porn magazines and that he had bought the Marilyn Manson DVD The Golden Age of Grotesque two days after Jodi's death.

It included scenes showing two girls tied together near a track and struggling as hoods were placed over their heads.

His fascination with the darker areas of human behaviour was also reflected in his opinions on religion.

His school jotter was covered in Satanic slogans, with the numbers 666 and references to the Devil.

He also wrote an essay questioning God's existence and saying the world needed Satanic people - "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance."

The word Satan was written across the back of a jotter with the phrase: "I have tasted the Devil's green blood."

In another essay, Mitchell wrote: "So what if I am a Goth in a Catholic school? So what if I dress in baggy clothes?

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."

He also admitted stubbing out cigarettes on his hand as a "party trick" and had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass.

But much of what brought Mitchell and Jodi together was focused around their interest in music and their attraction.

Luke and Jodi shared a passion for alternative music
He and Jodi spent a lot of time together and had sex on the Saturday night before she was killed.

Mitchell was accused of going out with another girl at the same time as he was seeing Jodi.

On the day she died, one witness said he saw Jodi and Mitchell smoking cannabis in a hide-away in a wood.

Later, in police investigations of the death scene, the initials LM and JJ were found carved into the bark of a tree and in a search of Mitchell's bedroom a leather knife pouch was discovered with the initials JJ and the dates 1989 to 2003.

Mitchell's cannabis use was said to have escalated after the death and he claimed it doubled to four-and-a-half ounces a week, which was estimated in court to be about 600 joints.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 19, 2015, 11:36:PM
(1) - http://www.scotsman.com/news/police-believe-jodi-s-killer-is-a-local-man-1-885262

Police believe Jodi's killer is a local man

14:37Wednesday 02 July 2003

DETECTIVES hunting the savage killer of 14-year-old Jodi Jones said today they believe they are looking for a local man.

Murder squad officers believe whoever carried out the frenzied attack on the Lothian schoolgirl must have known the tree-lined walkway where the murder took place.

Jodi’s semi-clothed and battered body was discovered by her 14-year-old boyfriend, Luke Mitchell, late on Monday night.The teenager had been repeatedly stabbed and her throat had been cut, but police have found no evidence of a sexual attack.

As the hunt for the murderer continued today, officers at the scene of the killing on the edge of Dalkeith widened their search for the knife used to repeatedly stab the teenager which they believe may have been dumped nearby.

Police today also repeated their appeal for public help to catch the killer, even though they received more than 140 calls in the first 24 hours of their inquiry.

Officers believe the killer’s clothes are likely to have been covered in blood after the attack and that someone may find them.

Detective Inspector Tom Martin, who is in charge of Lothian and Borders Police’s major crime team, said today he believed they were looking for a killer who knew the local area well.

"There has to be an element of local knowledge given the location of the finding of the body," he said.

"It would be perhaps somewhat strange for a complete stranger to happen upon this walkway, which is a shortcut for kids and used by local people. To us, that would depend on some kind of local knowledge."

Mr Martin today repeated warnings to people living in the former mining communities around where the murder took place to be extra vigilant.

"We are mindful that this person is still at large and would ask that if a member of the public has any suspicions, or, with the benefit of hindsight, remembers seeing anyone strange at the time, to come forward.

"We also want to know if somebody has disappeared from the local scene or has shown a marked change in behaviour."

He said officers working on the case - currently more than 40 - were today carrying out door-to-door inquiries and forensic teams were engaged in a more detailed examination of the crime scene.

The area of examination has been extended in the hope of discovering the murder weapon, which has still to be recovered.

Mr Martin added: "The main focus of the search will be the weapon used in the murder. There is a strong likelihood, given previous experience, that this could be found in reasonable proximity to where the body was found."

He said both Jodi’s family and her boyfriend Luke’s family, who live one-and-a-half miles from Jodi’s Easthouses home in neighbouring Newbattle, were "extremely, extremely distressed".

"This has been a massive shock and blow to both families, especially Jodi’s. But they are receiving support from family and friends," he said.

Police say they have had a good response from the public and received more than 140 calls in the first 24 hours. But there have been no sightings of the girl, leading police to believe she may have been killed shortly after she was last seen.

Mr Martin added that the public had responded "extremely well" to the police’s appeal for information, but that as yet there was "no indication" why Jodi was targeted.

The 14-year-old was killed as she went to meet her boyfriend, in what police said was one of the most violent attacks they had come across in decades. The teenager’s family raised the alarm when she did not return after setting out from her home in Easthouses at 5.30pm on Monday.

They realised she was missing when Jodi’s mother, Judy, 38, sent a text message to Jodi’s boyfriend, Luke, saying she had missed her 10pm curfew.

When he replied to say that he had not seen her, the family called the police, and Luke joined members of her family to hunt for the schoolgirl.

Luke found her body just before midnight next to a footpath in woods behind Newbattle High School. The path she had used was a popular shortcut with local people and would have saved her having to walk for an extra half-hour.

Police said the schoolgirl had put up a struggle before being overpowered by her killer.

Detectives are still trying to piece together Jodi’s final movements, particularly between 5pm and 8.30pm - the time directly after she left her home in Parkhead Place.

Jodi is described as 5ft 7in, with shoulder-length light brown hair and wore glasses. She was dressed in jeans, dark blue trainers with a dark sweatshirt top.

Detective Superintendent Craig Dobbie yesterday described Jodi’s murder as "one of the most violent crimes I have experienced in my 28 years as a police officer".

Mr Dobbie said there was a "distinct chance" that the attacker may have bloodstained clothing.

"That’s another thing that people should be aware of - if anyone is aware of anyone with bloodstained clothing, or anything going into dry cleaning with bloodstains."

Asked what advice police would give to parents in the local area, Mr Dobbie said he would urge them to be vigilant about their children - "as they should always be".

And he appealed for any locals who may have been using the walkway on Monday evening to come forward. He said: "People use it for walking their dogs on a regular basis, most evenings and mornings.

"What I’m interested in is anyone who was using it between five o’clock and ten o’clock on Monday night to come forward."

Community councillor Robert Hogg said the killing had left the community in Easthouses and Mayfield badly scarred.

He said: "It could be a long summer if they don’t catch someone for this. Schools break up on Thursday and parents would be afraid to let their kids out to play."

Tributes have been paid to the young teenager, with flowers left at both the entrance to the pathway where she met her death and at Newbattle Community High School, near to where her body was found.

One tribute placed at the school read: "Jodi, Loving angels will be there to catch you".

The floral tributes, which numbered over a dozen, also included a poster with Jodi’s photograph, and the words "Rest in Peace".

And another printed passage summed up the feelings of many in the community. It read: "Beautiful, young and innocent, sadly taken by the scum of this earth. May Jehovah deal with them personally. All our heart and soul’s are with you and your family. May your courage bring you all through this sad time."

Jodi’s mother, brother Joseph, 20, and sister Janine, 17, were being comforted by friends and relatives at the semi-detached family home. The 14-year-old was close to her extended family, particularly her grandmother, who the whole family moved in with for a short time about eight years. Jodi continued to regularly visit her grandmother, who lives near the rest of the family, sometimes spending weekends with her.

Joseph said: "We are all too upset too speak about it right now and have nothing to say."

Another female relative, who did not want to be named, said: "It is just too painful. Nothing we can say or do will bring Jodi back."

The tragedy will be even more difficult for the family because it falls near the anniversary of her dad’s death. James was 39 when he hanged himself in the family home where they stayed nearby in 1998.

Neighbours of the family were last night stunned to hear about the murder of a girl they described as studious and bright.

One 40-year-old, who did not want to be named, said: "This has come as a horrific shock to everyone who lives in the area.

"I saw Jodi on her way back from school on Monday afternoon and she walked past my house looking like she didn’t have a care in the world.

"She was a very friendly girl from a very nice family. She was always at school. I always saw her getting on and off the school bus.

"She seemed very popular. There were always friends of hers calling at the house. She was like any other teenager, she had started dying her hair different colours such as red and purple, and experimenting with clothes. She had a Goth style and so did her boyfriend, who she was with a lot."

An elderly neighbour, who also asked not to be named, said: "This is shocking, considering there is never any trouble here. Lots of people use that path as a short cut and think nothing of it."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 20, 2015, 05:04:AM
Take it from me, they did not apprehend or convict the killer. The person they arrested, and prosecuted, and convicted, was but a boy, not a man. Let me assure everyone that it was not a boy who carried out these atrocities, it was an adult with a warped, evil mind, who had a history of violence, and a hatred of young females. The killer was not Luke. The results from a lie detector test he took, supports his innocence... 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 20, 2015, 05:11:AM
I feel strongly that his elder brother Shane is the killer. I have my reasons for believing and thinking this. I don't buy into the idea that he was tricked, or that he felt trapped by the police / prosecutions approach. I can't understand why Luke said his older brother was at home, and that his older brother declared that he was, but was unaware that Luke was in the house at the same time. It just doesn't add up...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 08:52:AM
Clothes being destroyed in the family owned burner, may just have easily been attributed to the older brother Shane, than to young Luke Mitchell. Where is the evidence to distinguish, one from the other, or doesn't anybody know?

That burner was forensically tested,no evidence funnier enough to show that clothes or anything like that had ever been burnt in the pale,that's basically what it is, or anywhere round about it.
Or did they manage to get all the evidence off of the pale and the surrounding area as well as get rid of all Luke's DNA from the crime scene. Bloody clever
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 08:54:AM
Take it from me, they did not apprehend or convict the killer. The person they arrested, and prosecuted, and convicted, was but a boy, not a man. Let me assure everyone that it was not a boy who carried out these atrocities, it was an adult with a warped, evil mind, who had a history of violence, and a hatred of young females. The killer was not Luke. The results from a lie detector test he took, supports his innocence...

Exactly what I have said from day one
It's no Shane though
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 08:56:AM
I could tell you right now who it was...If you like
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 10:46:AM
I could tell you right now who it was...If you like

Go on....

I wonder if it will be who is top of my suspect list.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 20, 2015, 10:50:AM
I could tell you right now who it was...If you like

Enlighten me, and give your reasons for why you believe, or know, what you believe, or know...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 02:09:PM
 It was.... STOCKY MAN, it's a no Brainer to me
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 20, 2015, 02:18:PM
the people with the best cercumstancel case agianst them are john ferris and gordon dickie for some reason i dont think they did it but i think they know a lot more than they are telling.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 02:20:PM
I have no names, stocky man perhaps?
Personally I think a older more powerfull person than luke. I also don't think it was their first time at a crime of this nature. Only my opinion.

It was.... STOCKY MAN, it's a no Brainer to me

Only your opinion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 02:24:PM
It was.... STOCKY MAN, it's a no Brainer to me

Didn't they find this guy and eliminate him?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 02:24:PM
Well I'm now convinced stephanie
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 02:26:PM
the people with the best cercumstancel case agianst them are john ferris and gordon dickie for some reason i dont think they did it but i think they know a lot more than they are telling.

I'm with you. They're top of my list but I'm still not convinced. Its the moped being spotted where it was, when it was and unattended that sticks with me. And they never explained why.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 02:26:PM
No, they found a guy at the reconstruction which a witness thought was stocky guy but was not. He has never been found.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 02:36:PM
No, they found a guy at the reconstruction which a witness thought was stocky guy but was not. He has never been found.

That does ring a bell. It's not a part of the case I know very well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 20, 2015, 02:37:PM
ferris and dickie were at a crime scene roughly when the police say the crime happend.

then they lied about the time they were on there.

then they couldent say what they were doing when they were there.

surely you have to say thats suspicious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 03:04:PM
The discussion just entered a logic-free zone. My ability or willingness to name the "real killer" (even if I could) has absolutely nothing to do with appallingly poor police and judicial processes (and media processes, just to be absolutely clear that they are all interlinked.)

My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X." Even if I had the photographs, accounts from witnesses who were standing there when the murder occurred, and a statement in blood from the real killer I STILL wouldn't name him publicly. Why? Because I still believe the proper processes of the CJS are the best protection for everyone, and the real killer would be entitled to the full process of the law, from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, through the right to protection against prejudicial information being publicised which might jeopardise his right to a fair trial, all the way through to solid evidence, full disclosure to the defence, and juries properly advised and directed. Then, and only then, can we have some assurance that the correct person has been convicted.

And yes, I would argue - even campaign- that the identity of the real killer be kept out of the media prior to trial, even if I personally knew who he was (which I don't.) Because I would not want to see a real perpetrator of a horrible crime "get off" because the rights to which he, however horrible his crimes, was entitled, were breached - that just gets in the way of true justice. Afford him all of his rights, force the police and the courts to do a proper job, and maybe then we'll end up with much more satisfactory outcomes.

"The report’s author, Sandra Lean, who is helping Mitchell’s defence team, said: “When I realised Greens had apparently been regularly in the vicinity at the time, it sent a shiver through my spine. It’s hard to believe no-one has joined the dots since he became so notorious.”

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/mitchell-team-links-greens-to-jodi-killing-1-2114481

Robert Greens news article:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/da-vinci-rapist-robert-greens-1115102
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 03:21:PM
Well I'm now convinced stephanie

You are entitled to your opinion. But I disagree with you Marty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 03:28:PM
We have had this discussion before about Robert greens. I don't think if I remember correctly she said it was greens, I think she said the possibility was never explored, checked out that it could be him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 03:32:PM
We have had this discussion before about Robert greens. I don't think if I remember correctly she said it was greens, I think she said the possibility was never explored, checked out that it could be him.

Are you referring to the Shirley Mckie forum?

She certainly alluded to him having been a suspect imo.

So you think it was 'stocky man?' So if we are to go along with your belief; Don't you think he would have struck again by now?

No - I don't believe it checked out it could be him (Greens) - plus if you are still suggesting that to be so, is that your 'stocky man?' Or have you got 2 suspects in mind?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 03:46:PM
Are you referring to the Shirley Mckie forum?

She certainly alluded to him having been a suspect imo.

So you think it was 'stocky man?' So if we are to go along with your belief; Don't you think he would have struck again by now?

No - I don't believe it checked out it could be him (Greens) - plus if you are still suggesting that to be so, is that your 'stocky man?' Or have you got 2 suspects in mind?

No it was on the wap.
There could be a whole list of reasons he hasn't struck again.
I don't know who stocky man is, but imo, everything ties in with it being him. Saw the opportunity,took it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 20, 2015, 04:04:PM
funny all the people who were on that path and none cliam to have seen anything and its a well ised path.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 20, 2015, 04:07:PM
the people with the best cercumstancel case agianst them are john ferris and gordon dickie for some reason i dont think they did it but i think they know a lot more than they are telling.

I agree with  this nugnug. Either that , the murder never happened at 515
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 20, 2015, 04:53:PM
I don't believe it has been proved that the attack and murder had occurred at a specific time when Luke Mitchell had an opportunity to be responsible...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 20, 2015, 05:16:PM
your right it hasnt been proved though i think its fairly likely it happend around that time becouse there were no further sightings of jodi after she was seen entring the wood with a lardge man follwing behind her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 20, 2015, 08:13:PM
Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi.


Pop-ups aside, Shane Mitchell agreed under cross examination that this was not an activity he would have engaged in if he thought anyone else was in the house and so he failed to corroborate Mitchell's alibi.

Yet again, Sandra has attempted to play down the reality of the situation and raise doubt in the mind of the uninformed reader. Brings a whole new meaning to her claim to be, "correcting wrong information".



A COMPUTER belonging to Luke Mitchell’s brother was used to access explicit pornography on the day Jodi Jones was murdered.

The High Court in Edinburgh today heard that someone using the computer visited a series of sex websites during the early evening of June 30, 2003.

A password-protected internet account paid for by Shane Mitchell had accessed the pages.

The court heard evidence from Detective Inspector William Cravens from the National High Tech Crime Unit, based at Newbridge, who had been called in by Lothian and Borders Police to examine the device following the killing of the Dalkeith schoolgirl.

DI Cravens said that he had used forensic software to determine that the computer had been used to access the internet between around 4.53pm and 5.16pm on June 30.

He added that 131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session.

Prosecutor Alan Turnbull asked him if the files could be retrieved. DI Cravens replied that he had retrieved the files and they were of a "pornographic nature".

Mr Turnbull asked if there were other pornographic images on the computer. Detective Inspector Cravens replied: "There were a lot of pornographic images."

The court heard that the final image which had been accessed before the internet session was ended depicted a man who had been digitally altered so his lower half was that of a naked female.

Defence solicitor Donald Findlay asked DI Cravens if the image was pornographic. He replied: "To an extent. It’s a very odd picture."

Mr Findlay said the image was a "bad taste joke" and asked for the image to be displayed to the court.

He added that the image had in fact been downloaded from a motoring website and that many of the other websites that had been accessed referred to automobiles.

Mr Findlay said: "Not all the sites were pornographic. Many were car-related."

The police report confirmed that the time on Shane Mitchell’s computer was accurate.

It also stated that an internet connection had been open between 4.53pm and 5.16pm on the day Jodi was killed. DI Cravens explained to the court that the internet files which had been accessed were automatically saved on to the hard drive.

He was able to access these files after obtaining the encrypted password from Lothian and Borders Police.

But Mr Findlay queried whether all the pornographic websites which had been stored on the hard drive had actually been opened by the computer’s user. He said that pop-ups often redirect people to alternative sites which may have contained sexual images.


http://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-to-access-internet-porn-on-day-that-jodi-died-1-957682#ixzz3s44hW4Tw




Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 08:27:PM
Mike. It's ridiculous to conclude that Luke is innocent due to lack of evidence while claiming it was Shane. There is absolutely nothing to support this.

Yes, Ferris and Dickie may know more than they let on, but perhaps being the type of people they were, they didn't want to grass or get involved with the police. Didn't Ferris point the finger at Luke early on? Maybe they did see something after all. Might JF's refusal to come forward with important evidence against Luke be the reason the Jones family hate him and for Joey wanting to beat him up?

2 witnesses claimed to see a stocky man, late teens or early 20's, messy ginger hair following Jodi as she made her way to meet Luke. The thing is though, one of these witnesses claimed to see the same man a week later in the police reconstruction. This man recognised the description of himself and came forward. So why do you place these sightings above others such as those of Luke Mitchell? If it were stocky man currently in jail for jodi's murder with Sandra defending him, no question she'd be totally discrediting this witness for such an error. And would you, being a moj campaigner, be satisfied with such a witness? How does this constitute a "no brainer"?

So the guy at the reconstruction wasn't the stocky guy seen following Jodi? Did they ever find him?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 20, 2015, 08:29:PM
So the guy at the reconstruction wasn't the stocky guy seen following Jodi? Did they ever find him?

It was never even confirmed that the girl was Jodi.

Hard to believe though it is, other than this stocky man report, nobody came forward to say they saw Jodi after she left home.  It isn't known for sure which route she took to get to where she was found murdered.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 08:30:PM
It was never even confirmed that the girl was Jodi.

Did they not describe her clothes or anything?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 08:34:PM
Nope. This guy had just returned from England on the night of the reconstruction so it couldn't have been him a week prior, despite the witness claiming it was him. This is evidence that marty considers a no brainer  apparently.

So who did they see?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 08:45:PM
possibly a teenage girl walking down the street

with a young stocky guy walking down the street a bit behind her

the credibility of at least one of the 2 witnesses can be questioned for reasons stated

(despite what nugnug says nobody was witnessed following Jodi into the woods.)

So they didn't corroborate this at all?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 20, 2015, 09:11:PM
The police were actually very keen to track the guy down and made much of it at the time. Funny for a police force Sandra claims decided it was Luke within a few days.

They probably had a fair idea the very night after Jodi was murdered when they took him into the police station for questioning. It's a real shame we don't have access to the video of the police interview like we had in the Adrian Prout case.  Body language can be a great indicator of guilt to the trained investigator.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 09:19:PM
So, he wasn't actually connected to any dedicated porn sites? That's way beyond misleading. Did df point this out?

Seems he was Marty.

Pop-ups aside, Shane Mitchell agreed under cross examination that this was not an activity he would have engaged in if he thought anyone else was in the house and so he failed to corroborate Mitchell's alibi.

Yet again, Sandra has attempted to play down the reality of the situation and raise doubt in the mind of the uninformed reader. Brings a whole new meaning to her claim to be, "correcting wrong information".



A COMPUTER belonging to Luke Mitchell’s brother was used to access explicit pornography on the day Jodi Jones was murdered.

The High Court in Edinburgh today heard that someone using the computer visited a series of sex websites during the early evening of June 30, 2003.

A password-protected internet account paid for by Shane Mitchell had accessed the pages.

The court heard evidence from Detective Inspector William Cravens from the National High Tech Crime Unit, based at Newbridge, who had been called in by Lothian and Borders Police to examine the device following the killing of the Dalkeith schoolgirl.

DI Cravens said that he had used forensic software to determine that the computer had been used to access the internet between around 4.53pm and 5.16pm on June 30.

He added that 131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session.

Prosecutor Alan Turnbull asked him if the files could be retrieved. DI Cravens replied that he had retrieved the files and they were of a "pornographic nature".

Mr Turnbull asked if there were other pornographic images on the computer. Detective Inspector Cravens replied: "There were a lot of pornographic images."

The court heard that the final image which had been accessed before the internet session was ended depicted a man who had been digitally altered so his lower half was that of a naked female.

Defence solicitor Donald Findlay asked DI Cravens if the image was pornographic. He replied: "To an extent. It’s a very odd picture."

Mr Findlay said the image was a "bad taste joke" and asked for the image to be displayed to the court.

He added that the image had in fact been downloaded from a motoring website and that many of the other websites that had been accessed referred to automobiles.

Mr Findlay said: "Not all the sites were pornographic. Many were car-related."

The police report confirmed that the time on Shane Mitchell’s computer was accurate.

It also stated that an internet connection had been open between 4.53pm and 5.16pm on the day Jodi was killed. DI Cravens explained to the court that the internet files which had been accessed were automatically saved on to the hard drive.

He was able to access these files after obtaining the encrypted password from Lothian and Borders Police.

But Mr Findlay queried whether all the pornographic websites which had been stored on the hard drive had actually been opened by the computer’s user. He said that pop-ups often redirect people to alternative sites which may have contained sexual images.


http://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-to-access-internet-porn-on-day-that-jodi-died-1-957682#ixzz3s44hW4Tw





Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 20, 2015, 09:33:PM
Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 09:38:PM
Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.

It seems you and a few others who post on this thread only look at each aspect of the case at a time, as opposed to putting all the incriminating evidence against Luke together and seeing the whole picture.

I don't think any of us need to see photos to realise the gruesome nature of JJ's injuries as described in court.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 09:51:PM
Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.

And I'm unsure what relevance this has with regards the conviction?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 10:22:PM
They probably had a fair idea the very night after Jodi was murdered when they took him into the police station for questioning. It's a real shame we don't have access to the video of the police interview like we had in the Adrian Prout case.  Body language can be a great indicator of guilt to the trained investigator.

I agree. I'm also inclined to believe a transcript of the police interview alone, isn't the best indicator.

And whilst I know the way a suspect behaves when in a police cell/corridor/yard etc cannot be used as evidence in a court of law - I also believe this behaviour can help the arresting officers. And specifically comments they (The suspect) make whilst not being interviewed.

I think the public should be allowed access to at least parts of a convicted criminals police interview as I believe it would help us see the way these individuals behave under question. Again the Nathan Mathews interview was telling imo - same applies to Shauna Hoare who clearly contradicted herself during her interviews.

Body language, facial expression, tone of voice and other physical behaviours are a helpful indicator imo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 10:36:PM
Normal psychological profile except that he insisted he was innocent, which appeared to confuse them somewhat.

But we only have your word for this and I don't believe you. The forensic psychologists who interview a suspect pre-trial don't concentrate their findings solely on what they learn from the individual they are interviewing. I'm sure they would have given their opinion on the evidence of witness statements and the likes.

Again, I don't believe "it confused them somewhat' as I'm sure most, if not all forensic psychologists are used to hearing claims of innocence, especially if the individual in question has pleaded not guilty. They are hardly going to offer up incriminating evidence to their assessor now are they.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 10:44:PM
I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc...

And I agree, read from the point of view of maintained innocence, it makes sense that he is angry and vengeful, not only against those who have treated him so unjustly, but also against whoever killed Jodi.

I doubt the professional psychologist made a diagnosis on the basis of the one poem alone without considering other information available to them.

You see this it what you continually do. You give your spin interpretation on something like this which is totally misleading.

Yet it's you who makes the suggestion about the "power of the half-story"  ::)

The power of the half-story.

And I don't agree that the poem shows a teenager who is angry and vengeful (At least not in the way you interpret it). It shows a teenager with a disturbed mind, even if you were to read it from the point of view of innocence. I would suggest this young teen needed help and intervention with regards his mental health.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 11:05:PM
Damn fine piece of academic research there. I mean, look, it even says:

Sorry, I digress, no I haven't seen the movie, and it wouldn't affect my thoughts on whether or not computer game violence has an impact on real life violence (any more than the claims that violent movies 20 -30 years ago "caused" specific real life acts of violence) because it's a movie - you know, fictional?????

Why do bodies like the Video Standards Council or British Board Of Film Classification bother to rate these games/movies then?

And of course if you are referring to your own personal thoughts then it would suggest you are bias.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 11:06:PM
I agree. I'm also inclined to believe a transcript of the police interview alone, isn't the best indicator.

And whilst I know the way a suspect behaves when in a police cell/corridor/yard etc cannot be used as evidence in a court of law - I also believe this behaviour can help the arresting officers. And specifically comments they make whilst not being interviewed.

I think the public should be allowed access to at least parts of a convicted criminals police interview as I believe it would help us see the way these individuals behave under question. Again the Nathan Mathews interview was telling imo - same applies to Shauna Hoare who clearly contradicted herself during her interviews.

Body language, facial expression, tone of voice and others physical behaviours are a helpful factor.

He either was a suspect straight away or not, can't have it both ways.

I think the way they treated him that night shows that they did. I think that's worrying.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 11:13:PM
He either was a suspect straight away or not, can't have it both ways.

I think the way they treated him that night shows that they did. I think that's worrying.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say he was a suspect straight away or not and that I can't have it both ways?

From my knowledge and experience I would have thought anyone directly involved with Jodi would have been a suspect. Police usually start eliminating family members/boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wife's etc first.

I'm unsure what it is you find worrying? Worrying for Luke you mean?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 11:16:PM
I'm not sure what you mean when you say he was a suspect straight away or not and that I can't have it both ways?

From my knowledge and experience I would have thought anyone directly involved with Jodi would have been a suspect. Police usually start illuminating family members/boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wife's etc first.

Then why was he the only one taken in?

Quote
I'm unsure what it is you find worrying? Worrying for Luke you mean?

Worrying for the course of justice.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 11:17:PM
Worrying for the course of justice.

How so?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 11:20:PM
How so?

So many of these cases seem to start with the presumption of guilt and that can obviously be an issue for justice. I'm not saying that definitely happened here, I don't know enough about the investigation to be able to. But it does seem like there was a lot of attention placed on Luke immediately, focus no one else seems to have received.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 20, 2015, 11:27:PM
So many of these cases seem to start with the presumption of guilt and that can obviously be an issue for justice. I'm not saying that definitely happened here, I don't know enough about the investigation to be able to. But it does seem like there was a lot of attention placed on Luke immediately, focus no one else seems to have received.

Give me a list of 2 or 3 cases you are referring to.

The police interviewed over 3000 people in this case. And as I've already pointed out, those closest to
jodi would have fallen under the header 'suspect' until eliminated. I also imagine the police saw something or sensed something about Luke that bothered them when they met with him that night. I'm sure  they had their reasons for asking him questions that night.

With regards the course of justice, as a member of the public, I would have expected Luke to have been one of the first questioned - based on the evidence adduced that Jodi was last seen on her way to meet with him on the path.

It would have bothered me if the police hadn't followed this up as soon as they were able.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 20, 2015, 11:36:PM
Give me a list of 2 or 3 cases you are referring to.

The police interviewed over 3000 people in this case. And as I've already pointed out, those closest to
jodi would have fallen under the header 'suspect' until illuminated. I also imagine the police saw something or sensed something about Luke that bothered them when they met with him that night. I'm sure  they had their reasons for asking him questions that night.

With regards the course of justice, as a member of the public, I would have expected Luke to have been one of the first questioned - based on the evidence adduced that Jodi was last seen on her way to meet with him on the path.

It would have bothered me if the police hadn't followed this up as soon as they were able.

I don't have a problem with him being a suspect. Of course he should have been. I do have a problem with a 14 year old being treated that way without supervision.

Also it feels like other suspects did not get the same rigorous investigation.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 21, 2015, 08:14:AM
Police did not interview 3000 people. They originally claimed, via the media, to have taken 2000 statements - this later changed to 3000. Those statements included statements from all of the officers working on the case - e.g. "On Friday 3rd July, I was tasked with completing house to house enquires between X and Y address" is a "statement" for these purposes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 08:20:AM
Police did not interview 3000 people. They originally claimed, via the media, to have taken 2000 statements - this later changed to 3000. Those statements included statements from all of the officers working on the case - e.g. "On Friday 3rd July, I was tasked with completing house to house enquires between X and Y address" is a "statement" for these purposes.

How does this differ? 3000 statements from 3000 people - including police officers? I wasn't suggesting 3000 suspects...

You appear to be being pedantic? How does the above help/support LM's claims of innocence?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SVyeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT104&lpg=PT104&dq=luke+mitchell+murder+3000+statements&source=bl&ots=NVHRihV_uR&sig=QQ311uqrt6SQeXDr48IGGFqR4r8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFjdqLiqHJAhWEthoKHUHWDRgQ6AEIIjAD#v=onepage&q=luke%20mitchell%20murder%203000%20statements&f=false
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 21, 2015, 08:33:AM
One of the witnesses to stocky man gave a description of a girl which was far closer to what Jodi looked like that evening than the one given by Andrina Bryson: very baggy clothing, dark top with what seemed to be a large collar laying across the shoulders, girl's hands in "pouch pockets" at front of top, zip front, brown hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tied back or tucked behind her ears."

Compared to Andrina Bryson's "boot cut blue jeans a shade lighter than a plain blue sweatshirt, no recollection of hair style (originally).

The problem with the more accurate description is that it was timed after 5pm, and the time couldn't be manipulated the way the Bryson one could, because of other, concrete factors. But if this other sighting was of Jodi (and, given that they accepted that Bryson's description "could have been Jodi," then clearly, this other description also could have been Jodi, we have a bit of a problem with the prosecution case:

1. If it was after 5pm, Jodi could not have been murdered at 5.15pm where her body was found, because there is not enough time between the sighting on the Easthouses Road and the location of the body

2. If it was after 5pm, "fishing jacket man" described by Andrina Bryson becomes irrelevant - it couldn't have been Jodi at whom he was gesticulating at 4.54pm, because she was not there.

3. If it was after 5pm, and therefore the murder was, of necessity, later than 5.15pm, Luke could not have been the killer.

Could all of this be the reason police (contrary to Lithium's claims) did not follow up on this witness, even though the witness returned to the police with further details?

Notice, as well, in the newspaper article posted earlier (the one dated 2nd July) police were looking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 8.30pm. Why, so early in the investigation, did they choose 8.30pm as significant? Surely it should have been any time between when Jodi left home and when her body was found at just after 1.30pm? And why, later did 8.30pm change to 10pm, still an hour and a half before the body was found?

We know that a witness reported a scream frm the woodland strip at 8.30pm. The only "significant" thing I can think of for 10pm is that it was Jodi's curfew time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 21, 2015, 08:34:AM
Police did not interview 3000 people. They originally claimed, via the media, to have taken 2000 statements - this later changed to 3000. Those statements included statements from all of the officers working on the case - e.g. "On Friday 3rd July, I was tasked with completing house to house enquires between X and Y address" is a "statement" for these purposes.

From memory, they interviewed less than 200 people.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 08:37:AM
From memory, they interviewed less than 200 people.

I doubt that very much.

Unless you are referring to 200 suspects?  ::)

With all the questions posed to you and the pointing out of misleading information contained in your posts - you choose to respond to this?

There were around 40 police officers involved in initial door to door enquiries - so that could be 40 plus statements there. Some people in cases like this give 2,3, 4 or more statements each. Then there would have been statements from forensic experts, friends, family members and other people of interest.

I'm certain there would have been more than 200 statements in a case like this.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 09:01:AM
One of the witnesses to stocky man gave a description of a girl which was far closer to what Jodi looked like that evening than the one given by Andrina Bryson: very baggy clothing, dark top with what seemed to be a large collar laying across the shoulders, girl's hands in "pouch pockets" at front of top, zip front, brown hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tied back or tucked behind her ears."

Compared to Andrina Bryson's "boot cut blue jeans a shade lighter than a plain blue sweatshirt, no recollection of hair style (originally).

The problem with the more accurate description is that it was timed after 5pm, and the time couldn't be manipulated the way the Bryson one could, because of other, concrete factors. But if this other sighting was of Jodi (and, given that they accepted that Bryson's description "could have been Jodi," then clearly, this other description also could have been Jodi, we have a bit of a problem with the prosecution case:

1. If it was after 5pm, Jodi could not have been murdered at 5.15pm where her body was found, because there is not enough time between the sighting on the Easthouses Road and the location of the body

2. If it was after 5pm, "fishing jacket man" described by Andrina Bryson becomes irrelevant - it couldn't have been Jodi at whom he was gesticulating at 4.54pm, because she was not there.

3. If it was after 5pm, and therefore the murder was, of necessity, later than 5.15pm, Luke could not have been the killer.

Could all of this be the reason police (contrary to Lithium's claims) did not follow up on this witness, even though the witness returned to the police with further details?

Notice, as well, in the newspaper article posted earlier (the one dated 2nd July) police were looking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 8.30pm. Why, so early in the investigation, did they choose 8.30pm as significant? Surely it should have been any time between when Jodi left home and when her body was found at just after 1.30pm? And why, later did 8.30pm change to 10pm, still an hour and a half before the body was found?

We know that a witness reported a scream frm the woodland strip at 8.30pm. The only "significant" thing I can think of for 10pm is that it was Jodi's curfew time.

This would possibly also explain why Ferris and Vickie seen nothing when over the v at 515
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 09:06:AM
Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.

It's f all like the black Dahl is as explained by the pathologist on the documentary , the devils own.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 09:12:AM
I doubt that very much.

Unless you are referring to 200 suspects?  ::)

With all the questions posed to you and the pointing out of misleading information contained in your posts - you choose to respond to this?

There were around 40 police officers involved in initial door to door enquiries - so that could be 40 plus statements there. Some people in cases like this give 2,3, 4 or more statements each. Then there would have been statements from forensic experts, friends, family members and other people of interest.

I'm certain there would have been more than 200 statements in a case like this.

It says interviewed, people were asked to hand in statements not about what they knew, just what they knew about luke mitchell. So they were never interviewed just asked to hand a statement.
Who's misleading here, I can see only one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 09:18:AM
It says interviewed, people were asked to hand in statements not about what they knew, just what they knew about luke mitchell. So they were never interviewed just asked to hand a statement.
Who's misleading here, I can see only one.

You are misleading yourself by the looks of it? The police would have taken statements - the general public would not have written their own!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 09:34:AM
Mike. It's ridiculous to conclude that Luke is innocent due to lack of evidence while claiming it was Shane. There is absolutely nothing to support this.

Yes, Ferris and Dickie may know more than they let on, but perhaps being the type of people they were, they didn't want to grass or get involved with the police. Didn't Ferris point the finger at Luke early on? Maybe they did see something after all. Might JF's refusal to come forward with important evidence against Luke be the reason the Jones family hate him and for Joey wanting to beat him up?

2 witnesses claimed to see a stocky man, late teens or early 20's, messy ginger hair following Jodi as she made her way to meet Luke. The thing is though, one of these witnesses claimed to see the same man a week later in the police reconstruction. This man recognised the description of himself and came forward. So why do you place these sightings above others such as those of Luke Mitchell? If it were stocky man currently in jail for jodi's murder with Sandra defending him, no question she'd be totally discrediting this witness for such an error. And would you, being a moj campaigner, be satisfied with such a witness? How does this constitute a "no brainer"?

The description given of the girl like sandra says is nearly spot on. Better than any other description given of jodi. Then there is all the other witnesses who were wrong about the Times they made there sightings.( changed over time) The time jodi left home, purchases in shops being altered,Ferris and dickie being at the v at alleged time of murder yet seeing less than Stevie wonder. STOCKY man is far more likely.
Know one in saying, or I'm not , than he could be convicted of anything on the two witnesses alone. But he was never found so further evidence or a case could not be built, if he became a suspect.
It wasn't investigated properly imo
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 09:38:AM
You are misleading yourself by the looks of it? The police would have taken statements - the general public would not have written their own!

They were asked to write a statement of what they knew about luke Mitchell, not what they knew about the crime.
A lot of the statements were from school boys.
So I presume the school may have been asked to do this part.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 09:59:AM
They were asked to write a statement of what they knew about luke Mitchell, not what they knew about the crime.
A lot of the statements were from school boys.
So I presume the school may have been asked to do this part.

To quote a previous post of yours:

Phahahaha  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 21, 2015, 10:04:AM
And I'm unsure what relevance this has with regards the conviction?

The prosecution argued that Luke was interested in the Black Dahlia and that there were similarities with both crime scenes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 10:08:AM
The prosecution argued that Luke was interested in the Black Dahlia and that there were similarities with both crime scenes.

It was a theory.....
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 10:10:AM
One of the witnesses to stocky man gave a description of a girl which was far closer to what Jodi looked like that evening than the one given by Andrina Bryson: very baggy clothing, dark top with what seemed to be a large collar laying across the shoulders, girl's hands in "pouch pockets" at front of top, zip front, brown hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tied back or tucked behind her ears."

Compared to Andrina Bryson's "boot cut blue jeans a shade lighter than a plain blue sweatshirt, no recollection of hair style (originally).

The problem with the more accurate description is that it was timed after 5pm, and the time couldn't be manipulated the way the Bryson one could, because of other, concrete factors. But if this other sighting was of Jodi (and, given that they accepted that Bryson's description "could have been Jodi," then clearly, this other description also could have been Jodi, we have a bit of a problem with the prosecution case:

1. If it was after 5pm, Jodi could not have been murdered at 5.15pm where her body was found, because there is not enough time between the sighting on the Easthouses Road and the location of the body

2. If it was after 5pm, "fishing jacket man" described by Andrina Bryson becomes irrelevant - it couldn't have been Jodi at whom he was gesticulating at 4.54pm, because she was not there.

3. If it was after 5pm, and therefore the murder was, of necessity, later than 5.15pm, Luke could not have been the killer.

Could all of this be the reason police (contrary to Lithium's claims) did not follow up on this witness, even though the witness returned to the police with further details?

Notice, as well, in the newspaper article posted earlier (the one dated 2nd July) police were looking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 8.30pm. Why, so early in the investigation, did they choose 8.30pm as significant? Surely it should have been any time between when Jodi left home and when her body was found at just after 1.30pm? And why, later did 8.30pm change to 10pm, still an hour and a half before the body was found?

We know that a witness reported a scream frm the woodland strip at 8.30pm. The only "significant" thing I can think of for 10pm is that it was Jodi's curfew time.

Is this from 'memory?'

Source please.

'WE?' - who are we? Again, source please.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 21, 2015, 10:12:AM
the crime scene looks nothing like black dali elisbeth short was cut in half.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 10:15:AM
To quote a previous post of yours:

Phahahaha  ;D ;D ;D

Asked to write a statement, not all interviewed.
What you on about
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: David1819 on November 21, 2015, 10:19:AM
the crime scene looks nothing like black dali elisbeth short was cut in half.

That's why I said i find it hard to believe. But I have not seen JJ crime scene to make a comparison. From what I understand there are no similarities at all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 10:24:AM
Asked to write a statement, not all interviewed.
What you on about

Did the school boys also draw pictures to go with their statements?  ::)

Why would the school have 'been asked to do this part?'

The police would have taken the witness statements from the school children and teachers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 10:25:AM
That's why I said i find it hard to believe. But I have not seen JJ crime scene to make a comparison. From what I understand there are no similarities at all.

The pathologist said the similarities were superficial at best.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 10:30:AM
Did the school boys also draw pictures to go with their statements?  ::)

Why would the school have 'been asked to do this part?'

The police would have taken the witness statements from the school children and teachers.
Why do you think, so the police didn't have to waste their time interviewing everyone silly. When they were only trying to get info on luke mitchell and not the crime, silly.
They would have " interviewed" the pupils and teachers who came forward with info and taken statements directly from them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 11:10:AM
There were between 2 and 3000 statements taken - not that number of people interviewed. Dozens of kids whose statements started "I have been asked what I know of Luke Mitchell," (one lad's statement begins like that and continues "I don't know why, because I don't know him and have never met him!")

35 statements from neighbours talking about the log burner (none of whom noticed anything "untoward" that night).

Multiple statements from particular witnesses - I recall working out that there were, on average, something like 8 statements for every one of Jodi's family (including extended family members)

Of those statements, literally dozens of them were from police officers simply logging what they did at certain stages of the investigation - i.e. "I was tasked with patrolling the grounds of St David's High School the day the pupils returned" and so on.

There may have been 2 - 3000 statements, but how many of them were actually the result of genuine investigation (rather than simply attempts to gather damning information about Luke?)

For accuracy, Corinne's fingerprints were never found on the form from the tattoo parlour, nor was her signature on it. A single thumbprint from Luke was identified, which would be expected, since he signed the form. I've said before, the only thing Corinne was guilty of in the tattoo episode was being Luke's mother, and she certainly never denied that! Seriously, can you imagine - "I've come for a tattoo, I'm over 18 and I've brought my mum along to prove it" - please!

The males close to Jodi were not "ruled out one by one." Their stories were either accepted at face value, or the police handed them "innocent explanations" - SK and Janine both say, in statements "I have been asked if it is possible the t shirt Jodi was wearing that night belonged to me/Janine." That'll be the T shirt that had Kelly's DNA from bodily fluids on it.

Ferris and Dickie were "ruled out" before police discovered they'd lied, Ferris cut his hair, and before the DNA results had been returned. So, on what basis were they ruled out? The statements from the witnesses that proved they were lying were not taken until two months later - by which time the investigation was hurtling full pelt down the "Luke Mitchell's our murderer" route.

What about Falconer? His condom was found in the early hours of the morning, he lived a stone's throw from the murder scene, police were in his house on the second day of the investigation, and still they didn't connect the DNA from that condom with him - took them another three and a half years. Then they ruled him out again, even though his own story meant he would have literally have had to step over Jodi's body twice, in daylight, on the evening of June 30th.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 12:27:PM
"According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.

On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.

In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone."

http://news.sky.com/story/322561/meeting-with-a-murderer
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 21, 2015, 01:05:PM
"According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.

On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.

In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone."

http://news.sky.com/story/322561/meeting-with-a-murderer

Well if we are going to take detection and reading of  micro expressions as evidence then we surely have to give as much weight to the lie detector. Both pseudo science, both hugely problematic when drawing conclusions.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 21, 2015, 01:34:PM
"According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.

On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.

In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone."

http://news.sky.com/story/322561/meeting-with-a-murderer

Oh, and we're off.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on November 21, 2015, 03:44:PM
Well if we are going to take detection and reading of  micro expressions as evidence then we surely have to give as much weight to the lie detector. Both pseudo science, both hugely problematic when drawing conclusions.

From the point of view of looking at all the circumstantial evidence available, I would suggest LM to have shallow emotions - he may even well be a psycho? On that basis - psychos can pass lie detector tests.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on November 21, 2015, 03:59:PM
From the point of view of looking at all the circumstantial evidence available, I would suggest LM to have shallow emotions - he may even well be a psycho? On that basis - psychos can pass lie detector tests.

Are you qualified to declare someone a psychopath?

Did he not receive any psychological examination?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 21, 2015, 04:13:PM
Crime scenes - I've only read about the dahlia. scene, so may not be accurate- please correct if I get anything wrong- dahlia, found on a piece of open wasteland, body cut in half, no blood (body drained elsewhere) laid out in X position, arms outstretched bove head,  breast removed, face cut from both sides of mouth to ears, creating "grotesque grin" genital mutilation.  Jodi - woodland strip behind a high wall, believed to have been killed where she was found, arms tied behind her back, lying on her side beside a large fallen tree, belongings at scene (none at dahlia?), two slash wounds to abdomen, one to breast, face slashed from one side of mouth to jaw, no genital mutilation, severe injury to arms (not present in dahlia)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 22, 2015, 09:32:PM
Having had time to check out the Dahlia crime scene, for comparison purposes, the single biggest difference is - no cut-throat injuries in the Dahlia scene.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 23, 2015, 12:16:PM
ive studied both crimes there not even vaguely similar.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 23, 2015, 08:50:PM
One of the most enduring mysteries in this case is why Shane Mitchell failed to corroborate his younger brothers alibi when he was facing a murder charge, certainly Sandra Lean has never been able to explain it and mother Corrine has always avoided the question like the plague.  This is what seperates guilt from innocence in many cases, an inability to answer that one really simple but sticky question.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 23, 2015, 09:07:PM
Are you qualified to declare someone a psychopath?

Did he not receive any psychological examination?

ive got a feeling the anser to the first ustion is no.


he would of taken one to see if he was fit to stand trail and he would also take a few in prison.

mind you there genral mental health assements they dont really test or weather your a pscopath or not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 23, 2015, 09:47:PM
The pathologist said the similarities were superficial at best.

alarming that a proscuter can staray so far from what the patholgist actully said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 23, 2015, 11:31:PM
ive neer had one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 24, 2015, 10:55:PM
One of the most enduring mysteries in this case is why Shane Mitchell failed to corroborate his younger brothers alibi when he was facing a murder charge, certainly Sandra Lean has never been able to explain it and mother Corrine has always avoided the question like the plague.  This is what seperates guilt from innocence in many cases, an inability to answer that one really simple but sticky question.

Bumped for Sandra Lean, won't hold my breath though.  :)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 24, 2015, 11:32:PM
I do not believe that JJ died at 5.15pm, I strongly suspect her death to have occurred at around 8pm. If I am right, then the alibi Shane Mitchell did not provide for his younger brother, has no significance. What time did Luke Mitchell say he left home after having his tea with his mother? Is there a time line of his known movements from say 5.30pm, onward, that same evening?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 24, 2015, 11:53:PM
i think she did lardgely becouse there were no sightings of her after that i meean if she was still alive were was she.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 24, 2015, 11:54:PM
Called Jodi's landline from his mobile 5.32 and 5.40. Seen sitting on a wall at the end of his street 5 - 10 minutes later by three schoolboys who knew him Potentially seen in the same vicinity by the witnesses who later claimed they'd seen him at the entrance to the path (original claims were that they saw him "at the entrance to the Abbey" which is opposite the end of his street.)

Hung around waiting for Jodi - sighting of a youth at the entrance to Barrondale cottages (a little way up the Newbattle Road in the direction he would have expected Jodi to approach from) - I don't remember the exact time of this sighting - after 6pm, from memory.

Met up with some friends in the grounds of Newbattle Abbey around 7pm, played on a tarzan swing with them (after calling his mother and telling her to tell Jodi to come to the abbey if she turned up at the house) until 9.30, returned home, took the dog out around 10.30, received the text from Judith at 10.38pm.

Clothing described by the first youths who saw him matched descriptions of clothing given by youths he met around 7pm.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 27, 2015, 07:53:AM
what time was it that jodi was ungrounded
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 27, 2015, 01:38:PM
Depending on which version of events you accept, she was ungrounded wto weeks previously, or at least by Saturday 28th June, when she left Luke's home in a taxi just before 10pm.

If you accept the "ungrounded on the afternoon of June 30th" version, the ungrounding happened a few minutes before 4.34pm - that was the time of her first text to Luke which, it was claimed, was made "immediately" she was ungrounded.

In one statement, Judith said she was sitting on the settee and Jodi was "trying to" talk to her (Judith). the statement says, "I was telling her to be quiet shoo and go out." Later, she said that was her way of telling Jodi she was ungrounded, so it seems, even from judith's own statements, she did not claim that she told Jodi directly that she was "ungrounded" - perhaps because, according to all of the other statements from Judith, Alice and Janine, Jodi's grounding had "petered" out and things had returned to normal two weeks before June 30th. Janine was able to give the exact date of the start of the grounding because it happened on the day of one of her exams. All of them agreed that the grounding ended within 4 weeks, which meant it was over two weeks prior to the murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: mike tesko on November 27, 2015, 02:23:PM
i think she did lardgely becouse there were no sightings of her after that i meean if she was still alive were was she.

Being abused by her killer...
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 27, 2015, 04:05:PM
Depending on which version of events you accept, she was ungrounded wto weeks previously, or at least by Saturday 28th June, when she left Luke's home in a taxi just before 10pm.

If you accept the "ungrounded on the afternoon of June 30th" version, the ungrounding happened a few minutes before 4.34pm - that was the time of her first text to Luke which, it was claimed, was made "immediately" she was ungrounded.

In one statement, Judith said she was sitting on the settee and Jodi was "trying to" talk to her (Judith). the statement says, "I was telling her to be quiet shoo and go out." Later, she said that was her way of telling Jodi she was ungrounded, so it seems, even from judith's own statements, she did not claim that she told Jodi directly that she was "ungrounded" - perhaps because, according to all of the other statements from Judith, Alice and Janine, Jodi's grounding had "petered" out and things had returned to normal two weeks before June 30th. Janine was able to give the exact date of the start of the grounding because it happened on the day of one of her exams. All of them agreed that the grounding ended within 4 weeks, which meant it was over two weeks prior to the murder.

What I don't get, if luke wasn't at home, as is claimed, what was he doing?. He couldn't have been hiding waiting to pounce on jodi as she was grounded as far as he knew.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 27, 2015, 06:59:PM
There are some claims that Luke didn't return home after school, because he went straight to the woodlands strip to "wait" for Jodi. There are several problems with this theory (not least the witnesses who saw him walking his usual route home).

Firstly, either he would have had to be carrying the weapon with which Jodi was killed throughout his day at school, or he had "stashed" it somewhere in advance. It was never the prosecution stance that the murder had been pre-planned - their approach was that a fight had spontaneously erupted when Jodi allegedly confronted Luke about another girl. From all of the forensic and pathology evidence available, the knife used to murder and mutialate Jodi was a large knife - where did Luke "conceal" such a knife on his person throughout the school day?

The claimed spontaneous fight came about because, the prosecution claimed (without a scrap of evidence), Jodi had found out at lunchtime about another girl. So, staying with the "he didn't go home after school, he went straight to the woodland strip" theory,  Luke had no reason to leave the house that morning carrying a large, concealed knife. He didn't go home at lunchtime, so when did he acquire the knife in order to take it straight to the woodland strip after school?

Then there's the point you make, marty - if the ungrounding that day story is true, Luke would then be waiting in a woodland strip for someone who wasn't going to be out of her house that evening.

Next, there's the curious question of why he would have come out of "hiding" to put himself in full view at the Easthouses entrance to the path (as per the Bryson sighting) - why didn't he just wait at the junction of the paths until Jodi happened along there? If he'd hidden for over an hour, why choose to come out of hiding at all... and what a coincidence that he came out of hiding to be at the entrance to the path in the one minute window available to Andrina Bryson to make her sighting!!

(For clarity, the Bryson sighting was timed at 4.49 - 4.54. It could not have been 4.49, because Jodi did not leave her home until 4.50. It could not have been prior to 4.52:40, because the walk from Jodi's house to the Easthouses entrance to the path was timed at 2 minutes and 40 seconds, so there is just 1 minute 20 seconds for the Byrson sighting to have happened, accccording to the official timings.)

And we still have the mystery of the landline making an outbound call at around 4.15pm, and a dinner that cooked itself by 5.15pm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 27, 2015, 10:54:PM
There are some claims that Luke didn't return home after school, because he went straight to the woodlands strip to "wait" for Jodi. There are several problems with this theory (not least the witnesses who saw him walking his usual route home).

Firstly, either he would have had to be carrying the weapon with which Jodi was killed throughout his day at school, or he had "stashed" it somewhere in advance. It was never the prosecution stance that the murder had been pre-planned - their approach was that a fight had spontaneously erupted when Jodi allegedly confronted Luke about another girl. From all of the forensic and pathology evidence available, the knife used to murder and mutialate Jodi was a large knife - where did Luke "conceal" such a knife on his person throughout the school day?

The claimed spontaneous fight came about because, the prosecution claimed (without a scrap of evidence), Jodi had found out at lunchtime about another girl. So, staying with the "he didn't go home after school, he went straight to the woodland strip" theory,  Luke had no reason to leave the house that morning carrying a large, concealed knife. He didn't go home at lunchtime, so when did he acquire the knife in order to take it straight to the woodland strip after school?

Then there's the point you make, marty - if the ungrounding that day story is true, Luke would then be waiting in a woodland strip for someone who wasn't going to be out of her house that evening.

Next, there's the curious question of why he would have come out of "hiding" to put himself in full view at the Easthouses entrance to the path (as per the Bryson sighting) - why didn't he just wait at the junction of the paths until Jodi happened along there? If he'd hidden for over an hour, why choose to come out of hiding at all... and what a coincidence that he came out of hiding to be at the entrance to the path in the one minute window available to Andrina Bryson to make her sighting!!

(For clarity, the Bryson sighting was timed at 4.49 - 4.54. It could not have been 4.49, because Jodi did not leave her home until 4.50. It could not have been prior to 4.52:40, because the walk from Jodi's house to the Easthouses entrance to the path was timed at 2 minutes and 40 seconds, so there is just 1 minute 20 seconds for the Byrson sighting to have happened, accccording to the official timings.)

And we still have the mystery of the landline making an outbound call at around 4.15pm, and a dinner that cooked itself by 5.15pm

It's good to see that you are at last considering these questions Sandra instead of blindly claiming that Luke Mitchell is innocent without the slightest scrap of evidence to support it.  All those elements you raise above are indeed very possible and if he is guilty would have come together as the prosecution suggested.

Luke Mitchell was not seen going into his house after school neither was he seen leaving it the entire day.  That in itself is just a tad surprising given that his house was near to the entrance of the housing estate and would have been passed by many residents at various times.  When I visited the Mitchell estate some years ago I carried out several observations and took many photographs.  My conclusion was that Luke Mitchell could not have returned home or departed again unseen unless he was intentionally avoiding attracting attention.

You and I know very well that there is a secluded route across a stream which runs from the end of Roan's Dyke to a point very near the Mitchell home.  A route which coincidentally exits at a field gate on the main road where two women in a car saw a youth matching Mitchell's description loitering suspiciously a matter of minutes after Jodi's murder.  A route which was mentioned at trial having been the subject of some searching by a local resident with some gun dogs.  So the mystery of how Mitchell got home and managed to reemerge back out onto the main road again by 4.50pm is not really a mystery after all.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on November 28, 2015, 12:33:AM
Luke called the premium rate speaking clock from his mobile phone at 16:54 only a minute before he was spotted arguing with a female at the east end of Roan's Dyke path. It's safe to say he wasn't at home at this time.

Sandra seems to think he was at home burning the pie while an apparently deaf unobservant Shane sat upstairs watching porn and car videos while listening for someone arriving home.

Just a thought, if there was indeed a burned pie could it be that it was burned because there was nobody in the house to watch it? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 28, 2015, 01:26:PM
Depending on which version of events you accept, she was ungrounded wto weeks previously, or at least by Saturday 28th June, when she left Luke's home in a taxi just before 10pm.

If you accept the "ungrounded on the afternoon of June 30th" version, the ungrounding happened a few minutes before 4.34pm - that was the time of her first text to Luke which, it was claimed, was made "immediately" she was ungrounded.

In one statement, Judith said she was sitting on the settee and Jodi was "trying to" talk to her (Judith). the statement says, "I was telling her to be quiet shoo and go out." Later, she said that was her way of telling Jodi she was ungrounded, so it seems, even from judith's own statements, she did not claim that she told Jodi directly that she was "ungrounded" - perhaps because, according to all of the other statements from Judith, Alice and Janine, Jodi's grounding had "petered" out and things had returned to normal two weeks before June 30th. Janine was able to give the exact date of the start of the grounding because it happened on the day of one of her exams. All of them agreed that the grounding ended within 4 weeks, which meant it was over two weeks prior to the murder.

strange how many versions there are.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 28, 2015, 09:05:PM
Quote
Luke called the premium rate speaking clock from his mobile phone at 16:54 only minutes before he was spotted arguing with a female at the east end of Roan's Dyke path. It's safe to say he wasn't at home at this time.

No, not "only minutes before" - in the exact 1 minute 20 second window for the Andrina Bryson sighting - and guess where Mrs Bryson said the male's hands were? Stretched out in front of him, gesticulating at the female ... not clamping a phone to his ear.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 28, 2015, 09:18:PM
Quote
Not going to be more specific than "large knife"?

No.

Quote
The blade only had to be large enough to reach her tonsils, not a bowie or fixed blade hunting knife by a long shot. Likely a 4 inch blade at the most. I haven't seen anyone suggest the injuries were caused by what most of us would consider a "large knife"

Why the mention of a Bowie knife? It was the police interrogators who first introduced the suggestion that a Bowie knife might have been involved in the murder, a suggestion they maintained for several months. And "fixed blade hunting knife?" Where did that come from?

I would sort of agree that the knife which pierced Jodi's tonsil (singular) could, at minimum, have been a 4 inch blade (the pathologist demonstrated such a scenario, to show how difficult it would have been for such a blade to have been the weapon which damaged the tonsil without chipping or damaging the teeth, gums or lips), but what of the other injuries? Are you seriously suggesting that those were inflicted by a "4 inch blade at the most"?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 08:45:AM
Are we forgetting the texts they exchanged?

Not surprised Sandra didn't correct you here though.

Think she did
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 30, 2015, 08:51:AM
Quote
The failed decapitation...

You make an assumption here that I do not believe can safely be made - i.e. that it was an attempted decapitation.

You speak only of the cut-throat and eyelid injuries, concluding that both were inflicted with the same weapon. What about the others?

The pathologist dempnstrated that the murderer would have to have held the knife at the end of the handle(were it a 4 inch blade) with the tips of his fingers - do you accept this as the probable method used to inflict this injury?

I don't believe it was ever ascertained what knife was used to carve the initials in the tree. They were carved before the murder at a spot Jodi and Luke were known to hang out, so I don't see the relevance of the distance from the murder scene.

The skunting knife bought after the murder was handed to the police, and bore no forensic evidence of the murder. The other lock knife claimed to have belonged to Luke was handed to police by Ferris, who in turn claimed to have stolen it from Luke, even though other witnesses insisted it was always Ferris's knife. Other knives retrieved from Luke were a swiss army toolkit (broken) and a pen knife. An old decorative sword (completely blunt and rusty) was taken from his bedroom wall, along with an array of kitchen  knives, stanley knives from the garage etc,  from the Mitchell household. The evidence of Luke's "fondness" for knives is of the same calibre as his "obsession" with Manson.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 12:53:PM
You say this after listing several knives he owned, and that's just the ones you know about. Owning several knives isn't normal for a 14 year old boy. Again, I'm Luke's age and from the surrounding area so don't try and tell me what was and wasn't normal for 14 year old boys in 2003. Ferris was legal age for owning a knife, which in 2003 I believe was 16.

The relevance of the tree carving is that it shows this "law abiding teenager" carried knives on Roan's Dyke. Near where his girlfriend who was going to meet him there was murdered, with a knife.

Looks to me he carried a tool kit or a penknife as you are not disputing Ferris knife was his own. Obviously the pen knife for cutting pot imo. When was it ever said he met jodi in the woods, New one on me. Thought he was spotted at (supposedly )at easthouses end.
You also can not speak for every fourteen year old in the area or anywhere only yourself, the rest is speculation. We have all been fourteen at some point and had our own ways.






Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 30, 2015, 01:58:PM
My girls were round about Luke and Jodi's age. Their friends (male and female) were the same age. My nephews ditto. And we are all local, so I do know a bit about 14 year old boys in 2003!

 "Legal age for owning a knife?" From the government guidelines on the sale of knives to under 16s in 2010:

Quote
LACORS have also recognised that a sale to someone buying on behalf of someone that is  too young to make the purchase themselves, or so-called proxy selling, is not illegal. This reflects the fact that many young people have perfectly legitimate need for the use of knives and knife blades
http://www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/documents/guide%20to%20knives%20scotland%20-%20july%202010.pdf

So no, the legal age for owing a knife in Scotland in 2003 was not 16.

Quote
The relevance of the tree carving is that it shows this "law abiding teenager" carried knives on Roan's Dyke. Near where his girlfriend who was going to meet him there was murdered, with a knife.

According to her mother, she and Luke were intending to muck about "up here" - i.e. Easthouses/Mayfield. According to her mother, right up to trial, there should have been no reason for Jodi to be anywhere near Roan's Dyke path that evening. Judith's evidence was inconsistent - she said if Jodi was going to Newbattle. Luke would meet her at the Easthouses entrance to the path (not the path itself) but remained adamant that, on June 30th, Jodi was not intending to go down to Newbattle. According to Luke's evidence, Jodi was coming down to Newbattle - there was no arrangement to meet on Roan's Dyke path or in the woodland strip.

None of this even suggests that the arrangement was for Jodi to meet Luke on the path or in the woodland strip, far less sets it in stone as fact.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 03:41:PM
Legal age for buying a knife then.

How petty, and it doesn't change my point about Ferris having knives at all.

I wonder who if not her boyfriend she climbed a wall into a secluded area with.
Your deliberately posting false information.

She climbed over the wall to get away from stocky man > ;)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 03:53:PM
Did she realise she was being followed before she entered the path?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 03:56:PM
If it was someone she knew which I doubt, he could have called out to her. Why wouldn't she go over the wall with them if she knew them
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 03:59:PM
The path she entered goes on for quite some distance before she would reach the break in the wall. You saying she realised while on the path someone was following her and decided to climb the wall to avoid him instead of getting out of the area asap? Who would do that?

To try and get a look at who it was perhaps. She maybe felt no reason to be afraid. From what I have read about the girl she didn't seem the type to scare easily. Only an opinion though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 04:03:PM
what false information's that? Surely you don't mean the buy/own thing...

Why would she swap a pathway out in the open view for a secluded woodland if she was running from someone, this isn't a b-rated horror movie. 

And if Stocky man was someone she knew why would she run?

Is this the same secluded woodland that you found it strange for luke to walk up in the pitch black...and use a torch?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 04:05:PM
But you just said she climbed over the wall to get away from a stranger following her. This is an uncommon theory can you provide more information which leads to you believe this?

Either or is possible, both scenarios work whether she knew him or not
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 04:08:PM
no not at all he walked up the path. Please research the scene.

The woodland is on the opposite side of the wall.

And the paths under streetlights? No, it's in the dark.
I've been to the scene
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 04:11:PM
Well I've seen Stocky Man being pinned on Joey Jones and S. Kelly

I don't believe a 14 year old girl would climb a wall into the woods with her big sisters boyfriend or her own big brother. I also don't believe she'd try and run and hide from them if she encountered them behind her on the path.

I don't believe it was either of them.
Why wouldn't you climb a wall with your brother?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 04:36:PM
So where did this stocky stranger come from and when did he decide he was going to kill Jodi? She would have only been out of her house for a few minutes before reaching the path. He encountered her in these minutes, decided he was going to follow her and murder her and to his luck happened to be carrying a knife? And even luckier for him, she climbed a wall into a secluded area to make everything so much easier for him? And this maniac who can't control his murderous impulses has never struck again?

I find it far easier to assume she was over the wall by choice and with someone she trusted. This person killed her. And if they left the path in the opposite direction, they'd be exactly where Luke was spotted hanging around acting suspiciously. It really is a "no brainer" for me.

If luke mitchell can carry a knife why can't anyone else,Ferris did.
Maybe if it hadn't been jodi that evening it could have been someone else. Obviously someone  who is capable of this and in that frame of mind, second guessing what they would and wouldn't do is impossible. As was said before there could be a number of reasons why he hasn't struck again, death,prison, whatever that means little really.
The police said themselves there were no positive sightings so I don't believe many if any of the so called sightings, which are credible? Only one witness gave a reasonable description of any of the two of them that was the witness who seen stocky man imo.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 04:48:PM
I'm not saying she definitely didn't know her killer just tend to go with she didn't.  Maybe your right, luck was on the killers side that night. Maybe she went over the wall because she thought the moped two were there and would be safe. Just an idea
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 30, 2015, 07:49:PM
Quote
I wonder who if not her boyfriend she climbed a wall into a secluded area with

Interesting point. There was no evidence that Jodi climbed through the V break. That may, of course have been because the V was accessed by so many people that night that evidence was lost or destroyed.

But it's interesting because Alice Walker inserted into the narrative very early the assertion that Jodi would only have gone over the wall with someone she knew, but how could she possible know that? What if she was forced to climb over (maybe by someone threatening her with a large knife?) It's certainly a possibility investigating officers considered - there were a number of references to Jodi being "forced" over the wall, before they were dropped iin favour of the "she went over the wall with Luke" claims.

But Alice's statement appears to demonstrate that she accepts Jodi would have gone behind the wall - why, then, did she claim to find it strange that Luke would think of going over the wall when the dog reacted? She said she would "never have thought" Jodi would be "over there."

If as claimed by Dobbie, Luke and Jodi went behind the wall for "Privacy" to have their argument about the "other girl", why didn't they go behind the wall at the big break at the junction of the paths? If Jodi was going to "confont Luke abouot another girl" surely she'd want to do that at the earliest possibility, rather than walking 500 yards down a path to climb over into the same woodand strip they coulld have accessed at the top?

Then there's the wire fence at the opposite side of the woodland strip, where the barbs had been pushed aside to make a gap so that it was easy to get in and out of the woodland strip from there without getting caught on barbs. It's at least a possibility that Jodi entered the woodland strip from here (perhaps intending to meet someone to pick up cannabis and then climb through the V onto the path to continue her journey to Luke's?) This is the place (in the woodland strip beside the fence with the moved barbs)  where an area of grass had been trampled, and was flagged up as a potential escape route for the killer... then never followed up.

So it's really not a case of askiing "who else, apart from Luke, would she have climbed through the V with?" The questions are, did she climb through the V or not? If she did, did she do so willingly or was she forced? If willingly, with whom, and why?  If she did not go through the V, how did she come to be iin the woodland strip, and why?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 09:35:PM
it is entirely possible that she was forced over the wall. And a big ass knife would do it, stranger or not. Quite simple when you think about it. That's like you say,if she went over the wall.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 30, 2015, 09:39:PM
Ok, so she accepts Jodi would have gone over the wall in daylight. But now, after 11 o'clock at night, she knows Jodi has not been where she was supposed to be since before 5pm. She thinks Jodi might be "lying hurt somewhere," no-one has seen her, Luke didn't find her on the path on the way up, none of the 4 of them found her on the way back down - why not, knowing Jodi may have gone over the wall in daylight, consider she may have become hurt whilst over the wall, and been unable to attact attention?

Given that they all knew Jodi used the path, given that Alice knew Jodi would go over the wall in certain circumstances (remember, she said jodi would have gone over the  wall with someone she knew, not specifically Luke), given that the search trio had headed straight for the path even though they had no reason to do so, isn't the possibility of Jodi lying hurt on the woodland side of the wall the most obvious consideration?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L 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?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 09:52:PM
To meet someone for pot is the most likely scenario
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 10:00:PM
That would provide a possible explanation for her being behind there, but wouldn't she tell Luke she was picking up cannabis before coming to his?
Hard to say really
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 30, 2015, 10:03:PM
Quote
Well that's easily explained despite how suspicious you attempt to make it sound.

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?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 30, 2015, 10:13:PM
For me, the alternative means that there are unanswered questions which could have (or could have had) perfectly reasonable explanations, but because of the way the police railroaded the entire investigation, those questions were never even asked, and now, we're left wondering why.

Was it too much trouble to ask why the search trio headed straight to the path, when by all accounts Jodi was never supposed to be anywhere near the path that night? Or to ask why they didn't search anywhere else? Or did it suit the police not to ask, because the answers might have got in the way of the case they were already building against Luke?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 10:14:PM
Was the path renowned as a place where certain illegal or bad activity took place. I presume so with the suggestion that jodi wasn't allowed to use it on her own. It also being the first place to look.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 10:16:PM
Had she been caught hanging around there before when she wasn't meant to be?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on November 30, 2015, 10:18:PM
That would be a possible explanation as to why they went there first
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 30, 2015, 10:32:PM
The path didn't have a particularly bad reputation - it was used by a lot of dog walkers, cyclists, etc. Alice spoke of walking the path with the children when they were younger (she didn't clarify whether she meant her own children or the grand children).

Since the junction of the paths was directly behind a school with over 900 students, some of whom used the woodland just inside the big break at the junction of the paths as a hang out, it wasn't a place considered especially "dangerous."

The evening Jodi was murdered, there were at least 12 people on the path or in the woodland strip around 5pm - a teenage couple, 2 sets of dog walkers, a couple of kids playing in the woods, a cyclist, Ferris and Dickie, and Dickie senior - those are the people we know of.

There was nothing in the statements to suggest Jodi had been caught there when she wasn't supposed to be there - the place Jodi was caught on a few occasions was Yvonne Walker's flat, where she'd been banned from going because she'd skipped school and hidden out there, and had failed to return home to her Gran's one evening due to smoking cannabis at Yvonne's - if anywhere shoud have been the first port of call, in my opinion, it should have been Yvonne's, especially as she'd lied to cover for jodi before.

But no, there was nothing to suggest Jodi had been "caught" using the path - Janine admitted on the stand that her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used it. That could have been the reason for heading straight there, except that, as far as the family was aware, Jodi was not going to Newbattle that evening, Luke was coming to Easthouses/Mayfield. That was the information they had when they left Alice's house. It also doesn't explain why they didn't look anywhere else on the way.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on December 01, 2015, 02:36:AM
Jodi set out to meet Luke after having her grounding lifted, it was only natural that when she didn't turn up that they search the shortest route between Easthouses and Newbattle.

What is revealing however is that the Mitchell's German Shepherd called Mia failed to scent Jodi on the first pass according to Luke Mitchell yet did so on the return journey with Alice, Janine and Stephen in tow.  Any dog handler will tell you that such a thing would never happen which only means one thing and that is that Luke Mitchell lied.  He knew exactly where Jodi lay but pretending to find her on his own would have attracted suspicion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on December 01, 2015, 02:41:AM
There are some claims that Luke didn't return home after school, because he went straight to the woodlands strip to "wait" for Jodi. There are several problems with this theory (not least the witnesses who saw him walking his usual route home).

Firstly, either he would have had to be carrying the weapon with which Jodi was killed throughout his day at school, or he had "stashed" it somewhere in advance. It was never the prosecution stance that the murder had been pre-planned - their approach was that a fight had spontaneously erupted when Jodi allegedly confronted Luke about another girl. From all of the forensic and pathology evidence available, the knife used to murder and mutialate Jodi was a large knife - where did Luke "conceal" such a knife on his person throughout the school day?

The claimed spontaneous fight came about because, the prosecution claimed (without a scrap of evidence), Jodi had found out at lunchtime about another girl. So, staying with the "he didn't go home after school, he went straight to the woodland strip" theory,  Luke had no reason to leave the house that morning carrying a large, concealed knife. He didn't go home at lunchtime, so when did he acquire the knife in order to take it straight to the woodland strip after school?

Then there's the point you make, marty - if the ungrounding that day story is true, Luke would then be waiting in a woodland strip for someone who wasn't going to be out of her house that evening.

Next, there's the curious question of why he would have come out of "hiding" to put himself in full view at the Easthouses entrance to the path (as per the Bryson sighting) - why didn't he just wait at the junction of the paths until Jodi happened along there? If he'd hidden for over an hour, why choose to come out of hiding at all... and what a coincidence that he came out of hiding to be at the entrance to the path in the one minute window available to Andrina Bryson to make her sighting!!

(For clarity, the Bryson sighting was timed at 4.49 - 4.54. It could not have been 4.49, because Jodi did not leave her home until 4.50. It could not have been prior to 4.52:40, because the walk from Jodi's house to the Easthouses entrance to the path was timed at 2 minutes and 40 seconds, so there is just 1 minute 20 seconds for the Byrson sighting to have happened, accccording to the official timings.)

And we still have the mystery of the landline making an outbound call at around 4.15pm, and a dinner that cooked itself by 5.15pm

It's good to see that you are at last considering these questions Sandra instead of blindly claiming that Luke Mitchell is innocent without the slightest scrap of evidence to support it.  All those elements you raise above are indeed very possible and if he is guilty would have come together as the prosecution suggested.

Luke Mitchell was not seen going into his house after school neither thereafter was he seen leaving it later that day.  That in itself is just a tad surprising given that his house was near to the entrance of the housing estate and would have been passed by many residents at various times.  When I visited the Mitchell estate some years ago I carried out several observations and took many photographs.  My conclusion was that Luke Mitchell could not have returned home or departed again unseen unless he was intentionally avoiding attracting attention.

You and I know very well that there is a secluded route across a stream which runs from the end of Roan's Dyke to a point very near the Mitchell home.  A route which coincidentally exits at a field gate on the main road where two women in a car saw a youth matching Mitchell's description loitering suspiciously a matter of minutes after Jodi's murder.  A route which was mentioned at trial having been the subject of some searching by a local resident with some gun dogs.  So the mystery of how Mitchell got home and managed to reemerge back out onto the main road again by 4.50pm is not really a mystery after all is it?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on December 01, 2015, 12:42:PM
Jodi set out to meet Luke after having her grounding lifted, it was only natural that when she didn't turn up that they search the shortest route between Easthouses and Newbattle.

What is revealing however is that the Mitchell's German Shepherd called Mia failed to scent Jodi on the first pass according to Luke Mitchell yet did so on the return journey with Alice, Janine and Stephen in tow.  Any dog handler will tell you that such a thing would never happen which only means one thing and that is that Luke Mitchell lied.  He knew exactly where Jodi lay but pretending to find her on his own would have attracted suspicion.

If "any dog handler will tell you" and it's important in showing Luke's guilt..... Did the prosecution call a dog handler to the stand to show this?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 01, 2015, 07:23:PM
Jodi set out to meet Luke after having her grounding lifted, it was only natural that when she didn't turn up that they search the shortest route between Easthouses and Newbattle.

What is revealing however is that the Mitchell's German Shepherd called Mia failed to scent Jodi on the first pass according to Luke Mitchell yet did so on the return journey with Alice, Janine and Stephen in tow.  Any dog handler will tell you that such a thing would never happen which only means one thing and that is that Luke Mitchell lied.  He knew exactly where Jodi lay but pretending to find her on his own would have attracted suspicion.

What a lot of crap
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 01, 2015, 07:29:PM
Why didn't the defence call on a dog handler to prove a trained sniffer dog would walk past a dead body uncaring but react to it when passing it a second time?

Mia not alerting Luke to the body on the way there is a huge problem. In his 14 year old mind he thought being with the family as they discovered the body would make him look innocent (imo).

The dog wasn't looking for jodi on the way up the path. The dog was looking for jodi on the way down the path when it had been told to..
Do you think a dog reacts every time it recognises a scent, it may well have recognised the scent but as far as it was concerned it was out for a walk, nothing more.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 01, 2015, 07:33:PM
If "any dog handler will tell you" and it's important in showing Luke's guilt..... Did the prosecution call a dog handler to the stand to show this?

As far as I know, an expert was called in and he agreed that the dog was partially trained in tracking scents. The prosecution didn't use this, not surprised there. I am surprised that the defence never called this expert though, extremely surprised. I'm sure it was filmed as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 01, 2015, 07:36:PM
Why didn't the defence call on a dog handler to prove a trained sniffer dog would walk past a dead body uncaring

That's cadaver dogs that find blood and dead bodies. Not sniffer,trackers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 09:11:AM
Oh, so Mia couldn't have found Jodi?

Do I have to reply to that 😂😂😂
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 09:14:AM
Sandra, am I right about the dog expert. I'm not 100 percent exactly what happened.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 02:50:PM
Did Mia have cadaver training?

cadaver scent is detectable for dogs within 2 hours of death.

I thought you just said a tracker (like Mia) wouldn't find blood or dead bodies?

As far as I am aware, mia, had tracker which is your own personal smell from clothes, nothing to do with blood.
So when she smelled anything on the way back down it would have been jodi personal smell from clothes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 03:11:PM
It goes against every dogs natural instinct to ignore the smell of blood on the way up the path. I've always owned dogs, if you ever walked a dog near where a dead animal lays, watch its reaction. Just try and get it to ignore it and keep walking. It would be easier to accept Mia ignoring this instinct if we weren't expected to believe the same scent drove her crazy and caused her to scrabble at the wall on the way back. I'd really like to hear a handler's opinion of this inconsistency/contradiction.

To me it leaves 2 options, none which look good for Mitchell.

1. Mia didn't detect the body the first time, so wouldn't have detected it on second passing - Luke lead her to the body.

2. Mia did find the body, so it's only logical she must also have alerted Luke to it upon first passing - Luke ignored this because discovering the body with the family looks less suspicious than discovering it alone and leading them to it.

A dog passing next to a dead animal is completely different. Who says the dog is smelling blood. Dogs are fascinated by other animals smells and add to that a lot of the time the dog thinks there's food there. Your right they refuse to leave it alone.
A dog out for a walk on the other side of a six foot wall, May have picked up on a smell it recognised, May not have. I doubt though it would try and leap the wall (for what reason)Then it's told to look for jodi, the dog has been trained so knows this command. It knows jodis smell so is then actively searching for her. It reacted on the way back down as confirmed by the search party (original statements). It's not the blood it smells its jodi and her clothes.
Who knows it may have smelt something and tugged on the lead on the way up the path, though , doubt it. Even if it did, there's a good chance it tugged half a dozen times between home and the path.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 03:15:PM
Training aside, all dogs would follow the scent of blood. It's nature. My dog hasn't received any training and would sniff out a dead animal or butcher meat only meters away from where it was walking. (I apologise for these comparisons)

Was Mia given an item of Jodi's clothing to smell from one of the search party? I don't buy the "seek Jodi!" Lassie scenario that apparently resulted in a complete 360 of the dog's behaviour.

Or are you saying it was Jodi's clothing and not Jodi that Mia detected... because this was strewn all over.

Your dog would also do this with a packet of biscuits

Yes it would be jodis clothing the dog smells and her body which gives the clothes their smell.
I don't think mia was given an item of clothing as they didn't have anything of hers with them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 03:27:PM
Whether his lack of emotion changed their minds or not. They changed their statements from the truth to otherwise.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 03:36:PM
Sorry, I give up.

The biscuits scenario is identical, it's food.
Don't think your reading the posts properly mate.
It's only my opinion of course, but it's a pretty educated one.

Your dog reacting in the park can also see as well as smell someone it knows.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 03:37:PM
Who says their later statements weren't more accurate? Are you saying hindsight isn't a thing?

Their original statement simply outlined, without question, the dog scenario as it was presented to them by Luke. (if my opinion of his actions are true) Of course they believed that originally if it was Luke's intention to deliberately deceive them like this.

Is he a mind controller now as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 03:41:PM
Nope dogs don't recognise appearances. Try tricking your dog if you have one by walking in your gate with a hood up, slowly, differently from your normal walk. They'll bark at you like a stranger.

Be sensible,did your friend have his face covered in the park.
I know my dogs can spot me a mile off. If you have your face covered you are trying to deceive them which would work for a few seconds that's all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 03:42:PM
No but if what I think is right, he successfully deceived them. His "find the body with the family and say it was the dog" plan worked initially.

He was fourteen, not Hannibal lecter
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 02, 2015, 03:45:PM
No it's not a good point.

My dog would smell biscuits on the way up.

my dog would smell raw meat on the way up.

my dog would smell someone it knew on the way up.

my dog would smell blood on the way up.

You aren't refuting my argument at all lol.
That's pathetic and anyone reading this will realise it. I was enjoying a debate, but clearly your losing so reverting to games. I'm off for now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on December 02, 2015, 06:24:PM
First off, how could Luke have planned to "find the body with the family" when he didn't know he was going to meet the family en route? When the family couldn't explain to anyone - even Judith herself- that they were heading straight to the path?

Judith said, in her statements, she had no idea why they headed to the path, or how they "all met up." She had no idea prior to 11.18 where the trio were searching or intending to search. Luke left his home at 10.50. There were no calls to Luke from anyone other than Judith, so how could he know he would meet family members to carry out his "cunning plan?"

There were various reports from "dog experts" involving smoke bombs (to "visualise" where scent would have been carried by the wind), a couple of police dog handlers who carried out a "test" with one of them hiding behind the wall and the other walking the dog up the path - they claimed the dog walked straight past the hiding officer, proving therefore, that Mia would not have reacted. (Or proving the god wasn't trained, or proving it was given an instruction to walk on without reacting, since there was no-one else there to veryiify their "aaccount?" Imagine taking that dog to the scene of a natural disaster to find dead or injured people - sorry, folks, he only reacts to things he can actually see!

I don't remember all of the reports, but they were all inconclusive - from memory, there was some prosecution evidence presented at trial, but it was very weak, and quickly discredited. The defence report did state that while not at "expert" level, Mia had clearly had some tracker training, and reacted to tracking commands as would be expected of any dog trained to that level.

Luke asked for something of Jodi's for Mia to scent (don't take my word for it, Alice, Kelly and Janine all said he did) - Alice said it was "too far" to go back for something - a whole 2 minute 40 second walk.) He told the police that Mia was "highly excited" going up the path - he put it down to her getting an unexpected extra walk. he said she was pulling hard the whole time and "jumping about" - i.e. being an excitable dog (which I can attest, she was.) He said Mia coud have "reacted" on the way up, but he would just have pulled her away, assuming it to be partof her excitement - without putting her into tracking mode, he wouldn't have been looking for a tracking "signal" from the dog.

The "seek Jodi, find Jodi" command is one that was used in her training - Luke would hide, and Corinne would say "Seek Luke, find Luke, Luke's hiding," or the trainer would hide, and Luke would give the same commands using the trainer's name, and so on, so it was a command with which she was very familiar.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on December 02, 2015, 08:46:PM
I'm curious as to why Luke would ignore the dogs reaction on the way up, or indeed wait until meeting the search party before putting her in tracker mode.

No not "that he would ignore the dog's reaction" - he interpreted the dog's behaviour as her simply being excited.

He put her into tracker mode after Alice suggested they "double check" - i.e conduct a second check in case Luke had somehow missed Jodi on the way up. Putting the dog in tracker mode would have widened the area able to be searched because the dog could smell farther than the humans could see.

Quote
He was looking for Jodi from the second he left the house with a torch. He originally stated that he set up the path to look for her, and only if he couldn't find Jodi would he head to the Jones household, so why no "seek Jodi, find Jodi"  before stepping foot on the path to look for her with the dog?

He was 14 years old, it was dark, he set off very quickly after Judith's call - by that stage, like the others, he was obviously worried but, like the others, not thinking "the worst." He probably thought, on the way up, there was no need to put Mia in tracker mode (if he thought about it at all - he took the dog for his own protection as it was late and dark).

Quote
Instead he ignores the dogs unusual behaviour

No, please read my last post - not unusual behviour at all, excitable behaviour from an excitable dog who was very happy to be getting an extra walk

Quote
, heads straight for the Jones household where he is met by the search party

no, he arranged with Judy to make his way to the Jones house if he didn't find Jodi on the way - he wasn't met there by the search perty, he was intercepted by the search party before he got to the house

Quote
who had made their own way to the path

Might want to decide which it was - either they met him at the Jones house, or they met him at the path?

Quote
and makes a point to ask them for an item of Jodi's clothing for Mia to smell (even though she doesn't need this to track Jodi and hasn't been trained this way) just to make it clear he's about to put Mia into tracking mode.  ::)

No, she didn't need an item of Jodi's to scent - playing the "seek/find" game (as she would understand it) meant she would have sought a scent of someone or something she recognised who/which was not in view. But your assertion
Quote
and hasn't been trained his way
is wrong. The command for a specific scent from an article would have been a different command, (for which the dog had also been trained) and would have set the dog sniffing for a particular, more specific scent. Why did Luke suggest this? I don't know - because he could? Because Alice suggested a double check of a path he'd only just checked which would have been a bit of a waste of time unless there'd been something added to the search (i.e. something other than four of them looking at the same empty path Luke had just traversed). Because the situation had changed, since it was now clear that Jodi was not anywhere on the path, nor was she anywhere else that any of her family knew of - after all, it was Alice who suggested they go back down the path.

If Luke had planned the "finding Jodi with the family" scenario, he left a heck of a lot to chance - firstly, he couldn't know he would meet family members on the way, secondly, he could not possiby have known Alice would suggest they go back down the path - what if she'd accepted Luke's account that he hadn't seen Jodi, and ordered the lot of them, quick smart, to Judith's house to talk to the police? No chance Luke couldd have "led them to the body" then, was there?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on December 02, 2015, 10:55:PM
where he was met by = the place he was met by = the Jones household, according to your previous post - the addition of "who had made their own way to the path" was confusing and misleading, but all of this is of little relevance.

You haven't answered how Luke could have masterminded his plan to be with the family when Jodi's body was found, when he had no way of knowing he would meet up with family members on his way to Easthouses, and even if he did, would have to come up with a clever way of getting them to go back down the path (which, as it turns out, was taken care of for him by Alice so conveniently suggesting they go back down the path to double check.)

You've made no comment on the fact that Mia was trained in a number of tracking "disciplines," in spite of your previous claims that she wasnt "trained in [this]way"

And, for what it's worth, we've all been 14 (referring to your post today at 3.46pm (I don't know how to do the post number thing)
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on December 03, 2015, 02:00:AM
What a lot of crap

No, the crap is your belief that Mitchell is innocent actually.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on December 03, 2015, 02:02:AM
The dog wasn't looking for jodi on the way up the path. The dog was looking for jodi on the way down the path when it had been told to..
Do you think a dog reacts every time it recognises a scent, it may well have recognised the scent but as far as it was concerned it was out for a walk, nothing more.

The dog wasn't looking for anyone period.  The dog scented cadaverine which would have put her at some unease, she would have reacted exactly the same on the first pass.

Luke Mitchell wasn't to know where he would meet Alice, Janine and Stephen but he made damn sure that he wasn't alone when he found Jodi regardless.  Had he been the sweet innocent lad that Sandra Lean would have us believe then he would have followed Mia to the body on the very first pass. 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on December 03, 2015, 02:22:AM
If Luke had planned the "finding Jodi with the family" scenario, he left a heck of a lot to chance - firstly, he couldn't know he would meet family members on the way, secondly, he could not possiby have known Alice would suggest they go back down the path - what if she'd accepted Luke's account that he hadn't seen Jodi, and ordered the lot of them, quick smart, to Judith's house to talk to the police? No chance Luke couldd have "led them to the body" then, was there?

It didn't matter one iota where he met them but when Alice Walker decided that they would recheck the path then Mia's reaction to the cadaverine originating from Jodi's remains couldn't be hidden and he had to go along with him finding the body.  No doubt his masterplan involved someone else discovering the body while he was back home safetly tucked up in bed and had Alice not insisted in rechecking the path then that was what would have happened.

No wonder Jodi's relatives were suspicious of Luke Mitchell when he had effectively walked past Jodi's body but conveniently was able to find it when accompanied by them.  Bad timing for him really.  Just like when the two ladies saw him after he crossed the road just minutes after Jodi had been murdered.  Bad luck there too!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on December 03, 2015, 07:28:AM
I see, so Luke actually came up with the cunning plot not to be the one who found the body alone at precisely the point where Alice suggested they double check? Isn't that a different argument to the one we've already spent so much time on? And how does this new one work?

Surely the best way to avoid being the one to find the body alone would have been to not go out looking at all - he was 14 years old, it was coming up to 11pm - his mum could have put the foot down and said, "No way - Judith's called the police, they'll know what to do. You're not going out there on your own at this time of night."

He could have chosen not to put the dog in tracker mode and then, as Findlay pointed out, they would all have "walked right past" Jodi's body - as Mia was so excitable, the family wouldn't have known if she'd "reacted" to something.

"Safely tucked up in bed?" This lad's got superpowers! He didn't know he was going to meet the family en route, so he was heading for Judith's house. how could he (a) have known how long he would be there and (b) when Jodi's body would be found?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 03, 2015, 08:07:AM
Mia never smelled Jodi she smelled her clothes that were scattered around the scene, despite the unwashed shirt being Janine's. Oh deary me.

Mia detected the clothes, not blood. Despite the clothes being covered in blood...
That's how trackers work
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 03, 2015, 08:08:AM
The dog wasn't looking for anyone period.  The dog scented cadaverine which would have put her at some unease, she would have reacted exactly the same on the first pass.

Luke Mitchell wasn't to know where he would meet Alice, Janine and Stephen but he made damn sure that he wasn't alone when he found Jodi regardless.  Had he been the sweet innocent lad that Sandra Lean would have us believe then he would have followed Mia to the body on the very first pass.

He also wasn't to know they were going back down the path
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 03, 2015, 08:24:AM
I've been 14. It wouldn't take a boy genius to realise finding a body would immediately point fingers at you. I'd probably have had the same idea as LM.

What age were Venables and Thompson when they had the idea of disguising their crime as a train accident?

And what's pathetic about that? Your comment about a dog smelling biscuits was irrelevant and contradictory when you were arguing the point that Mia wouldn't have detected a familiar scent behind a 6ft wall on the way up the path.

But we are going round in circles and my suspicion regarding Mia apparently only detecting the scent on the way back won't shift so yea we can end it here.

No silly , my comment about biscuits was that dogs react to what they see as potential food ie dead animals. That's why you find it so hard to get your dog to pass a dead animal. 1 it's an animal smell so that fascinates them. 2 . Potential food source . The point I made was your dog would pull you to one side if it smelled something like biscuits cos it's a food source and dogs are scavengers. Read it again. Everything I said was correct as you will have read.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 03, 2015, 08:40:AM
Why?

Changed your mind? You said in a previous post that's how it worked.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on December 03, 2015, 03:05:PM
When I'm walking my dog if she smells something and wants to go and investigate, well it's tough because I'm in charge. She's on a lead and she goes where I go. So if I'm in a hurry to get somewhere (as Luke presumably was) she's not going to get a proper chance to try and investigate scents etc and if she does I'm carrying on and therefore so is she.
Then on the return journey Luke has passed control to the dog and is following her instead.

I'm not saying that is definitely what happened as only Luke can know what happened on the journey to meet the search party. But it's really not complicated to understand how either versions could be true.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Baz on December 04, 2015, 02:58:PM
You're right. Alone it isn't compelling enough to suggest guilt or innocence. Wouldn't leave something like that up to a dog's behaviour.

Baz what do you make of Luke telling the police Jodi was wearing a red scrunchie in her hair when she died when this was demonstrably near impossible to see at the murder scene?

It's kind of tough to draw any concrete conclusions from it. The crime scene was so poorly managed, body moved etc. And didn't the grandmother cradle the body, presumably moving it. Over all, it doesn't seem like solid evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on December 05, 2015, 06:50:PM
An interesting article which explains why forensic evidence can be open to the same subjectivity that affects other types of evidence, something I've been banging on about for years.  I have never been able to find out what "instructions" went to the labs, although one report refers to samples belonging to Luke Mitchell and Jodi Jones being the only samples submitted and tested, which is what made me suspect that the forensic testing was not only far from rigorous, but biased from the off.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cr...is-1.2451578#.VmJu5Nz-Abg.twitter



There are few certainties in a criminal trial – witnesses forget, barristers spin and defendants lie. So thank heavens for forensic experts, those objective specialists whose evidence is based in science and presented as irrefutable fact.

What though if the experts are as biased as the rest of us? According to a growing number of studies, forensic evidence is vulnerable to the same subjectivity that plagues other types of evidence such as eye-witness testimony.

Experts in the field of cognitive bias believe forensic scientists are subconsciously influenced by many factors which can affect the decisions they come to and the evidence they give in court. The main problem is that when an examiner receives a piece of evidence, they are also given details about the crime such as how violent it was, whether there were eye-witnesses or if a suspect has confessed.

Such information can subconsciously prejudice even the most experienced of scientists. Facts as basic as which side the evidence comes from, the prosecution or defence, can influence the findings.

Dr Itiel Dror, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, was one of the first people to raise the problem 10 years ago. Since then he has worked with forensic labs and police services around the world, including the FBI and London Metropolitan Police, in an effort to mitigate this bias.

“Rather than looking at the evidence alone, forensic scientists are influenced by expectations and information provided by the context of the case which makes them see things differently and not see things at all,” he says. “So really, we’re contaminating their minds and not enabling them to look at the evidence impartially.”

According to Dror, one of the biggest problems is that forensic evidence is usually treated in court as beyond reproach and frequently not even challenged by the defence. It is so powerful it can force defendants to plead guilty in the hope of a lesser sentence, even if they are innocent.
“Often forensic examiners overstate the evidence and they rarely present the limitations and uncertainty.

“Every science has uncertainties, but they forget their role. They think they’re there to help the prosecution or defence, rather than presenting the evidence of what they’ve done, what they know and what they don’t know. Their evidence comes across as impartial, objective and very strong and it’s taken as that by the jury and the judge. The examiners are playing a game which is not scientific, which is actually anti-scientific.”

In one of Dror’s most famous studies, he took sets of fingerprints which had been examined by forensic scientists five years before and found to be matching. He gave the same prints to the same unsuspecting experts and this time told them they needed to examine them because the FBI had mistakenly identified them as matching.

Four out of the five experts changed their previous conclusions and said they did not match. The only thing that changed between the two examinations was the information about the FBI findings and with it the clear suggestion the prints did not match.

Dror and his colleagues have since completed dozens of studies which have enforced the view that seemingly innocent bits of information can have a massive influence on findings, even with those gold standards of forensics, DNA and fingerprinting.Juries are rarely told that matching a crime scene DNA sample often comes down to a judgment call. DNA at crime scenes is frequently mixed together with other people’s biological material, meaning that matching it becomes much more complicated and subjective than matching two pristine lab samples.

The same goes for fingerprints. Pairs of prints taken in the calm surrounds of a police station are easy to compare, but criminals are rarely so obliging. Crime scene prints can differ due to elasticity of the skin, the angle the print is left at and the material it is left on. They can also be smeared or mixed with other prints.

“People say the fingerprint doesn’t lie, I say the fingerprint doesn’t talk,” Dror says. “The problem is prints can be very similar and the examiner has to decide if they’re similar enough to come from the same person. That’s where the subjectivity comes in.”
The most infamous recent example of forensic bias is the case of Brendan Mayfield, an American lawyer who converted to Islam and represented clients accused of terrorism activities.

Following the Madrid train bombings in 2004, the FBI matched prints taken from a bag of detonators found at the scene to those of Mayfield, despite the fact that he hadn’t left the US in over a decade. The prints were even confirmed as a match by an independent examiner. The FBI maintained the prints were a 100 per cent match, right up until the Spanish authorities arrested the real suspect, an Algerian national.
According to Dror, Mayfield is just the tip of the iceberg. “How big it is under the water we don’t know. With the Mayfield example, we only found out about it because of very special circumstances; because the Spanish police found the real man.”

It is a fairly terrifying prospect, but Dror believes there are ways we can stop it happening. First, ensure forensics examiners receive only the information that is absolutely necessary to do their jobs. A forensic case manager can be put in overall charge of the evidence and given all the details. They could direct what work needs to be done and by who without contaminating the examiners.

Second there is linear sequential unmasking (LSU). Dror describes this is a system of examining evidence in the order least likely to cause bias. Instead of examining two samples simultaneously and looking for a match, the examiner looks at the sample from the crime scene, categorises it and then moves on to the suspect’s sample and categorises that. Only then are the two samples compared.

When Dror first started suggesting that forensics were not infallible, he ran into a lot of resistance. One lab director wrote that stripping out the gruesome details of a case would make a forensic examiner’s job too boring. Others sent the doctor hate mail.

So how does Ireland compare? Dr Sheila Willis, the director general of Ireland’s Forensic Science Laboratory, says the laboratory is aware of the issue and some measures are in place to mitigate cognitive bias. “It is a subject that any thinking forensic scientist would have given thought to as they aim to produce objective findings,” she says. “That said, bias is unavoidable and the important thing is to be conscious of it and put measures in place to reduce its effect.”

The lab uses a form of LSU similar to that outlined by Dror. Furthermore, DNA samples are generally produced by one person and examined by another and scientists also cross-check each other’s work.
Willis herself has recently led a Europe-wide initiative to standardise the language used in how forensic examinations are reported to investigation parties. The aim is to make the reports more precise and to allow for uncertainty to be expressed in findings.
Willis believes making examiners work without context could do more harm than good. “In my opinion, it is more dangerous to produce results in a blind fashion without context.”
Blind testing is “science 101”, according to Dror. “This is done in any scientific domain. In the medical domain, we use placebos, for example, because we know people are affected by bias. Except for some reason it has escaped forensic science for a century and now we’re trying to put it in.”
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on December 08, 2015, 02:33:AM
If anything, the limited forensic results gathered from the Jodi Jones murder scene assisted Luke Mitchell's defence so I cannot see why you are complaining about it?  It wasn't the forensic evidence which put Luke away for twenty years but it was the circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 08, 2015, 05:24:PM
I see, so Luke actually came up with the cunning plot not to be the one who found the body alone at precisely the point where Alice suggested they double check? Isn't that a different argument to the one we've already spent so much time on? And how does this new one work?

Surely the best way to avoid being the one to find the body alone would have been to not go out looking at all - he was 14 years old, it was coming up to 11pm - his mum could have put the foot down and said, "No way - Judith's called the police, they'll know what to do. You're not going out there on your own at this time of night."

He could have chosen not to put the dog in tracker mode and then, as Findlay pointed out, they would all have "walked right past" Jodi's body - as Mia was so excitable, the family wouldn't have known if she'd "reacted" to something.

"Safely tucked up in bed?" This lad's got superpowers! He didn't know he was going to meet the family en route, so he was heading for Judith's house. how could he (a) have known how long he would be there and (b) when Jodi's body would be found?

im still rather baffeled what the search party were doing there in the first place.

they shouldent of had any clue that jodi had been there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 08, 2015, 06:18:PM
You're right. Alone it isn't compelling enough to suggest guilt or innocence. Wouldn't leave something like that up to a dog's behaviour.

Baz what do you make of Luke telling the police Jodi was wearing a red scrunchie in her hair when she died when this was demonstrably near impossible to see at the murder scene?

id like to know how the could say for a fact it wasn't viable from the murder seen.

and theres also the fact he has seen her at school that day.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on December 10, 2015, 08:04:PM
If anything, the limited forensic results gathered from the Jodi Jones murder scene assisted Luke Mitchell's defence so I cannot see why you are complaining about it?  It wasn't the forensic evidence which put Luke away for twenty years but it was the circumstantial evidence.

I'm "complaining" (although I posted the article because I thought the subject was both interesting and pertinent) that junk science is allowed to pass as evidence in our courts, with absolutely devastating consequences. As John knows, my interest is in justice, not in one single case. I have seen convictions obtained where the so-called science is literally unbelievable - a biologist unable to say whether sperm heads on a victim's body came from a man who was vasectomised 14 years previously, selective interpretation of "results" which studiously ignore information which would make those "results" a laughing stock ... it goes on and on.

As for the last part of John's post, our justice system is supposed to be based on the right to be presumed innocent until proven[/i guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Luke was never afforded the right to be presumed innocent, from the moment the body was found. The SCCRC determined that he was a suspect from the moment he was "medically" examiined in the police station in the early hours of July 1st, and arguably from the point where he was separated from the other searchers. As for beyond reasonable doubt, where does one begin? Unidentified male DNA, not Luke's, on the victim's clothing and at the crime scene. Claimed alibis for others which, on closer inspection are nothing of the sort - or, at least. were nothing of the sort until opportunities were offered to changes stories and statements. Failure to follow up critical evidence (including identification evidence, plausible and corroborable evidence which shed others in suspicious lights), leading questioning and selective recording of statements and interviews... all of that before we get to the questionable forensic evidence!

As is always the way with these cases, it's as much what was not done as what was done that raises the doubts and questions.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on December 10, 2015, 08:13:PM
Quote
Baz what do you make of Luke telling the police Jodi was wearing a red scrunchie in her hair when she died when this was demonstrably near impossible to see at the murder scene?

Like the "oak tree" evidence, this is not as straightforward as it appears- from memory, Luke did not mention a red scrunchie initially (or any scrunchie for that matter), but I would have to check my notes for the details.

I've not forgotten my promise to look out the stuff about Shane's evidence, I just haven't had time to do so yet - I have some holiday time coming up, so will look for what notes I have on both of these subjects in the next few weeks.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on December 17, 2015, 01:10:AM
I'm "complaining" (although I posted the article because I thought the subject was both interesting and pertinent) that junk science is allowed to pass as evidence in our courts, with absolutely devastating consequences. As John knows, my interest is in justice, not in one single case. I have seen convictions obtained where the so-called science is literally unbelievable - a biologist unable to say whether sperm heads on a victim's body came from a man who was vasectomised 14 years previously, selective interpretation of "results" which studiously ignore information which would make those "results" a laughing stock ... it goes on and on.

As for the last part of John's post, our justice system is supposed to be based on the right to be presumed innocent until proven[/i guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Luke was never afforded the right to be presumed innocent, from the moment the body was found. The SCCRC determined that he was a suspect from the moment he was "medically" examiined in the police station in the early hours of July 1st, and arguably from the point where he was separated from the other searchers. As for beyond reasonable doubt, where does one begin? Unidentified male DNA, not Luke's, on the victim's clothing and at the crime scene. Claimed alibis for others which, on closer inspection are nothing of the sort - or, at least. were nothing of the sort until opportunities were offered to changes stories and statements. Failure to follow up critical evidence (including identification evidence, plausible and corroborable evidence which shed others in suspicious lights), leading questioning and selective recording of statements and interviews... all of that before we get to the questionable forensic evidence!

As is always the way with these cases, it's as much what was not done as what was done that raises the doubts and questions.

I will happily agree about the junk science Sandra with the polygraph being top of the list.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on January 03, 2016, 04:07:PM
I've not forgotten my promise to look out the stuff about Shane's evidence, I just haven't had time to do so yet - I have some holiday time coming up, so will look for what notes I have on both of these subjects in the next few weeks.

Look forward to it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on January 23, 2016, 07:50:PM
Yeah, would be interesting to be fair
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Michaela on January 23, 2016, 11:28:PM
there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides.  What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on January 24, 2016, 01:35:AM
there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides.  What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?

Not so much really, the evidence might be circumstantial but it certainly adds up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on January 25, 2016, 10:35:PM
Still waiting on Sandra Lean to rush back with her version of Shane's evidence.  You  know, the bit where he states his brother wasn't in the family home otherwise he would have heard him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 01, 2016, 02:45:PM
there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides.  What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?

i agrea.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on February 03, 2016, 01:40:AM
there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides.  What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?

No need, that has already been acomplished.  What's left is the bullshit!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 11, 2016, 12:27:PM
id rather hear that from her.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 11, 2016, 07:19:PM
Looking for a reaction I would say
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on February 11, 2016, 08:53:PM
So I've just discovered Sandra now believes Luke is guilty.

Oh dear.

Would explain her sudden silence when she said she was coming back to answer John.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 15, 2016, 06:42:PM
I believe Luke Mitchell to be 100% innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones, that has not changed.

There was no "sudden silence" - I said on December 10th I would come back once I'd had a chance to look through the notes I still have during my up-coming holidays, which were from December 23rd to January 5th.

However, for the first time in years, I used those holidays as... holidays. Yup, took some time out to relax and do a whole lot of nothing before going back to work.

Sorry I didn't use more of my own precious time to provide the documented evidence I've provided over and over again for years - just felt time for myself was more important this time.

If I get around to pulling out the boxes of papers, I'll post what I have, but I'm no longer prepared to drop everything and put the rest of my life on hold because some stranger on the internet demands information I've provided dozens of times before.

For those who are genuinely interested in Luke's case, I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, I hope you understand.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on February 15, 2016, 08:53:PM
I believe Luke Mitchell to be 100% innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones, that has not changed.

There was no "sudden silence" - I said on December 10th I would come back once I'd had a chance to look through the notes I still have during my up-coming holidays, which were from December 23rd to January 5th.

However, for the first time in years, I used those holidays as... holidays. Yup, took some time out to relax and do a whole lot of nothing before going back to work.

Sorry I didn't use more of my own precious time to provide the documented evidence I've provided over and over again for years - just felt time for myself was more important this time.

If I get around to pulling out the boxes of papers, I'll post what I have, but I'm no longer prepared to drop everything and put the rest of my life on hold because some stranger on the internet demands information I've provided dozens of times before.

For those who are genuinely interested in Luke's case, I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, I hope you understand.

Ignore xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx as usual. Thanks for clearing up your position on the case, hopefully Lithium takes their post back - or posts their reason for why they made that claim in the first place.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 16, 2016, 04:58:PM
Ignore xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx as usual. Thanks for clearing up your position on the case, hopefully Lithium takes their post back - or posts their reason for why they made that claim in the first place.

Wonder who lithium has been listening to.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 16, 2016, 09:09:PM
im guessing nobody just a wild guess.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on March 01, 2016, 03:39:AM
What I am wondering and I assume others will be wondering is will there be an explanation for leaving?
I have been reading the WAP forum for a long time and this sudden departure seems suspicious.
It makes me wonder has Sandra Lean found out something she did not know before?
I think a statement as to why this relationship has broken down so badly should be forthcoming.
Its not fair to just up and leave and say nothing.

?

You asked the same questions about me!?

It's referred to as the rinse, spin and repeat pattern.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on March 01, 2016, 03:02:PM
?

You asked the same questions about me!?

It's referred to as the rinse, spin and repeat pattern.

What I am wondering and I assume others will be wondering is will there be an explanation for leaving?
I have been reading the WAP forum for a long time and this sudden departure seems suspicious.
It makes me wonder has Sandra Lean found out something she did not know before?
I think a statement as to why this relationship has broken down so badly should be forthcoming.
Its not fair to just up and leave and say nothing.

But you couldn't afford to pose this one question - you knew I'd found out something I didn't know before - I'd found out lots of things I didn't know before and you helped me find those things out.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: John on March 04, 2016, 01:01:AM
I believe Luke Mitchell to be 100% innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones, that has not changed.

There was no "sudden silence" - I said on December 10th I would come back once I'd had a chance to look through the notes I still have during my up-coming holidays, which were from December 23rd to January 5th.

However, for the first time in years, I used those holidays as... holidays. Yup, took some time out to relax and do a whole lot of nothing before going back to work.

Sorry I didn't use more of my own precious time to provide the documented evidence I've provided over and over again for years - just felt time for myself was more important this time.

If I get around to pulling out the boxes of papers, I'll post what I have, but I'm no longer prepared to drop everything and put the rest of my life on hold because some stranger on the internet demands information I've provided dozens of times before.

For those who are genuinely interested in Luke's case, I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, I hope you understand.

I think you are just a tad naive to claim to know that Mitchell is 100% innocent given everything which has been established in the case and in particular the fact that Luke and Shane's respective evidence was poles apart. By the way, how do you explain this?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 09, 2016, 06:52:PM
so if there was skin under jodis fingernails and lukes the killer how comes hes unmarked when examend that night.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on April 20, 2016, 07:01:PM
so if there was skin under jodis fingernails and lukes the killer how comes hes unmarked when examend that night.
Was there skin found? I didn't anything was found under her nails. To be honest though, can't really remember.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 20, 2016, 07:09:PM
well at the appeal markkane was
dismissed as a suspect on the grounds his dna dident match the dna under jodis fingernails

the only dna you can get under your fingernails is skin.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on April 20, 2016, 07:37:PM
So obviously it wasn't Luke's either. Was it a full profile
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 20, 2016, 07:50:PM
well you would think that wold be the obvios conclusion.

i cant rember with it was a full profile or not but if it wasnt close to one i cant see how they could clear kane.


it would of had to have been at least a near full profile.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on April 23, 2016, 10:27:PM
well at the appeal markkane was
dismissed as a suspect on the grounds his dna dident match the dna under jodis fingernails

the only dna you can get under your fingernails is skin.

Not sure where this came from nugnug, but it's not correct. MK was never eliminated on these grounds. There was no full DNA profile identified from the samples taken from Jodi's fingernails. The results that were officially recorded were that fingernail scrapings from her left hand were inconclusive - there were never any results for her right hand - the one it was argued she "fought to the death" with.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2016, 11:10:AM
i defentatly remember this being said though at the time i was a bit suprised becouse i couldent see how it dident clear luke as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 26, 2016, 07:41:AM
I don't remember it, Nugnug, but to be honest, the contortions which allowed both Kane and Falconer to be eliminated, both at the time and after the fact, are pretty shocking.

Dobbie set the parameters for the house to house enquiries to stop the house before Falconer's. Then his brothers brought themselves to police attention by pointing out a hoodie that belonged to one of them - even though they were in the house discussing the hoodie, the police didn't ask questions about anyone else in the household, even though Falconer would later claim to have masturbated behind a tree within the police cordon the morning after Jodi was found.

When he was finally brought to their attention by a police DNA database check 3 years later, he lied about pretty much everything (and was caught doing so), but they let it go because the case was "closed."

Kane gave them the story about "going to the press for £50k" which, when you think about it, is one helluva risky strategy - you go tell the cops it was you, then, when they eliminate you, we'll go to the press and split the money. What if they'd believed him? The Crown accepted his story at face value (there was nothing whatsoever to substantiate it), and ignored the fact that others had witnessed Kane acting strangely the day after the murder. One witness told police Kane had told him just after the murder that he had been spoken to by police because he had been seen running on the Newbattle Road - according to the case papers, Kane was never spoken to at all - he was on the list to be interviewed, but they never managed to trace him.

I'm not suggesting either of these people was involved in Jodi's murder - what I'm saying is the original investigation was very, very poor, in that it focused almost entirely and exclusively on Luke, and failed /o cast more than the merest glance/ in any other direction.

The Advocate Depute at appeal actually claimed there was "no [DNA] match whatsoever" to either Kane or Falconer, which is ludicrous, since it was the Crown which alerted the defence to the full profile match with Falconer* being found during another investigation.

John said
Quote
I think you are just a tad naive to claim to know that Mitchell is 100% innocent

Misquote - I said I believe Luke to be 100% innocent - just keeping the record straight

* post corrected to amend error SL 19/07/16
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on July 19, 2016, 06:40:AM
Apologies, full match with Falconer, my error, I've amended the previous post.

Source of other comment - police statement.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 11, 2017, 02:41:AM
The police always maintained the time of death to be around 17:15 and at the time of trial it was hard to refute, Jodi was seen heading towards the entrance to a series of paths that led from easthouses to newbattle and would have been at the place she was found about 7/8 mins from that entrance. The fact that there appears to have been no other sightings of Jodi afterwards leads investigators to believe she did indeed meet her death early on. It becomes far more plausible that she didn't meet her death that early from events afterwards mainly the connection of James falconer to the case, he maintains he was in the area at around 19,15 doing what we all know he did and his story seems to have been believed by investigators completely except we know by his statements of events that night he would have had to have stepped over the body on his way to and back from that area. This leads us to perceive that possibly Jodi wasn't there and not dead at this time, where was she and why no sightings?
This case has been beset by the lack of sightings and witnesses mainly because so many of the people involved were of such a close connection to the victim and each other. There are instances of credible witnesses being cajoled into changing testimonies as well as simply not followed up.
I think when all the pieces are put together then a better picture emerges and the truth comes out.
We have many samples of DNA in this case and many unexplained anomalies that have had me baffled but now and again something comes along and things fall into place.
The t-shirt Jodi wore had many samples of both seamen and blood on it but a long with singular sperm heads at different concentration levels from a single one to 4/5/6 together on a certain portion of the t-shirt.
These single sperm  heads prove a problem , how did they get there, why were they still prevalent at the time of death and why have they been over looked by the investigating authorities.sperm heads in their natural state are preserved by seminal fluid from a male, when that fluid breaks down by means of natural degradation of the fluid or by means of washing with a strong detergent make them very volatile to being broken down and they tend not to be attached to clothing or the body, they are very easily detached from outside garments such is the reason why every murder case does not involve them, we have a case where their concentration has to be looked at. In what environment would we expect singular spermheads to be present? Well this leads me on to a case in the US where a jogger was found murdered and singular sperm heads were found on the vest she wore , no sexual activity had occurred but their presence was investigated. It was found that the woman had been in her lovers bed where an argument ensued and she had left .
The bed is the perfect environment for dead singular sperm to exist and sweat on the vest made the sperm  stick to the top.
Was Jodi in bed with someone prior to her murder? There are a few things that might account for the lack of sightings if she had indeed been with another man then the clothes she chose to wear would have been perfect the black baggy cords and hoodie would have helped conceal her movements and when we know the original description being blue hoodie and light blue jeans then it would have been harder to remember seeing someone with an opposite description . I also wonder where else Jodi could have ventured to, the road towards the entrance to the paths heading to newbattle may have led elsewhere, was it a thoroughfare to many different estates, was she heading somewhere else and not to the paths, was this the reason why stocky man was following her and had waited for her to leave the other place and again follow her to Luke's at a later time where he saw the chance to murder her at a later time and at the place we know she was found
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 11, 2017, 01:23:PM
gordo nice to see you agian..
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 11, 2017, 01:37:PM
Hi mate.

It looks from google maps that walking from parkhead place to the entrance to the paths could also be a way to mayfield can anyone confirm
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 11, 2017, 02:16:PM
Jodi was never claimed to have been seen in the entrance to the path, only on the pavement in front of the entrance. If she had, in fact, walked a few yards past the entrance and crossed the road, she would have been able to take the exact route to Mayfield that it is claimed the family search trio took (in the opposite direction, obviously) later that night.

That route was also secluded and isolated to a fair degree; both entered and exited by paths through woodland, and including playing fields and some open ground all surrounded and shielded from view by trees.

Strangely, the search trio did not look for Jodi on that part of their journey later that night, even though they were told Jodi was supposed to be hanging around "up here" - her mother explained to police that "up here" meant Easthouses/Mayfield (rather than Newbattle, where Luke lived), and said when Jodi and Luke were hanging out "up here" they would often meet "at the school" (not at the junction of the paths) and walk up to Mayfield, where Jodi's Gran lived, together.

Stranger still, the police investigation never looked at the Mayfield route, except to attempt to confirm the timings of the search trio's journey.

Jodi's Gran later claimed that the reason they went straight to Roan's Dyke path, without looking anywhere else at all (including the entrance to the path, and the waste ground to the right of the entrance) was because she thought Jodi could be lying somewhere on the path, hurt.

But how could anyone have known at that point which direction Jodi took that night? She wasn't believed to be going to Luke's house, the search trio were told Jodi was expected to be hanging around "up here" - how could they have known she wasn't lying somewhere on the route to Mayfield, hurt? In fact, given their knowledge about where Jodi was supposed to be that evening, why did they consider looking at the path at all? Their areas of concern should have been Mayfield/Easthouses, and the route in between the two that Jodi was known to take.

Jodi's mother also told police that sometimes, when they were hanging around "up here" they went to Scotts caravans. The search trio also walked straight past there without looking.

(Interestingly, in the same way the family claimed Jodi was "not allowed" to use the Roan's Dyke route as a short cut, they claimed she was also "not allowed" to take the Mayfield route I'm discussing here. On both points, they conceded that everyone knew perfectly well that Jodi used both routes on her own.)

If you enter "Easthouses Road" into google earth, you will see "Mayfield/Easthouses Complex Pavilion - that is where this route is entered/exited for the Mayfield route. Pan South East and you will see the Shell Petrol Station and Scott's Caravans - you can see where the path enters the woodland at the back of the Shell Station - this is the other end of the entrance/exit to the Mayfield route. Pan slightly south east again (just across the road) and you will see the houses where the family search trio left from that night (the houses in the lighter section, where it says "St Luke's Way" were not built at the time).

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 11, 2017, 02:47:PM
Quote
I also wonder where else Jodi could have ventured to, the road towards the entrance to the paths heading to newbattle may have led elsewhere, was it a thoroughfare to many different estates, was she heading somewhere else and not to the paths, was this the reason why stocky man was following her and had waited for her to leave the other place and again follow her to Luke's at a later time where he saw the chance to murder her at a later time and at the place we know she was found

The sighting/description of the girl and the youth given by AB is not credible and, in my opinion, the mistaken description of clothes, etc, coupled with the early pictures of Jodi aged five and eight, seriously hampered the search for witnesses who may have seen Jodi.

The police could easily have questioned Stocky Man - he was identified to them by a witness within 9 weeks of the murder.

Places Jodi could have gone? A lot depends on the time she actually left her home. If it was much earlier than 5pm (and there is some evidence that this may, in fact, have been the case - her mother telling her to "be quiet," "shoo," and "go out" appears to have happened shortly after she came in from school. What reason could there have been for her mother apparently trying to keep her quiet and get her out of the house so soon after arriving, especially since Jodi was supposed to be grounded?) If she left then, she would have been far too early to meet Luke, so may have headed towards her Gran's to kill time.

DG and JF were well known to her, but there is nothing to suggest she would have gone to GD's house to kill time - by 4.38, she and Luke had exchanged texts, and the arrangement had been made to meet in Newbattle "later." The texts were never recovered, either from Luke's phone records or Jodi's mother's.

Jodi was known to have met JF before to pick up cannabis - JF and GD were messing around on the moped from around 4.20 to 5.15pm - their bike was propped, riderless against the wall at the V break at 5.15, but they couldn't say where they were. There has never been any confirmation of what time they moved the bike from the wall and returned to GD's house (the back garden of which opens onto Lady Path, which joins Roan's Dyke path at right angles at the junction of the path.)

I'm not saying JF, GD or anyone else had anything to do with what happened to Jodi - what I am saying is that the police investigation was shockingly bad, when you realise that thirteen and a half years later, these questions still remain unanswered.

The road on which Jodi was walking is a fairly busy road - from there she could have taken the Mayfield route I described earlier, or walked towards Newtongrange (but there is nothing to suggest she had any connection with/reason to go to Newtongrange.) This route could also have taken her on a circuitous route either to Mayfield or Newtongrange, but that's about it - it's not a route that gives access to a large number of places
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 11, 2017, 03:16:PM
If we take the witness who identified the stocky man and assuming her testimony was correct and she did indeed see that man at Jodi's funeral would Jodi not have been aware of him following her?  Would he frighten Jodi enough for her to go somewhere else from her original destination. Did she go to someone else's house that was closer . It would have been a while before she reached her destination could she have been followed on that road without her knowing?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 11, 2017, 04:36:PM
The walk from Jodi's house to the entrance of the path was timed at 2 mins 40 seconds - possibly not long enough for her to realise she was being followed? Interestingly, there are two routes from Jodi's house to the main Easthouses road, so it's possible she would only have become aware of being followed (if she did become aware) once she was on the main road - that narrows the time down to 2 minutes, from when she reached the Easthouses Road to the entrance to the path. The witnesses who saw Stocky Man must have seen him within the first minute, given where on the road they saw him.

The problem with the identification of Stocky Man and AB's sighting is that both can't be correct. How could Jodi be at the entrance to the path between 4.49 and 4.54 having the possible altercation with Shaggy from Skooby Doo if she wasn't even on the Easthouses Road until 12 minutes later when she was seen being followed by Stocky Man?

Where would she have gone for sanctuary? Apart from GD (which would have still been quite a way to go from the entrance to the path, and an unlikely place for her to go) she didn't have other friends whose homes she frequented in the immediate area at that time.

There was, however, a "hideaway" under the road, accessed from the complex area - if she had been able to slip Stocky Man for just a moment or so, she could have ducked in there and would, to all intents and purposes, have "disappeared." But, and this is a big but, this would be based on the assumption that Stocky Man knew nothing about the hideaway. It is known that his closest friend at the time knew about it.

If Stocky Man sighting is correct (whether or not the identification is), Jodi did not leave her home at 4.50 (to be at the entrance to the path by 4.49 to fit with the AB sighting). If she did not leave her home at 4.50, but instead left after 5pm, she could not have been murdered at 5.15 and, because of all the other timings, Luke could not have been the killer.

It wouldn't have been "a while" before she reached her destination if, by destination, you mean the entrance to the path. Could she have been followed through the entrance to the path, and onto the path without her knowing? Possibly - at that time of the year, maybe even probably, since there were dog walkers, etc, about.

However, if Stocky Man did follow Jodi onto the path without her knowing, he was taking one hell of a risk trying to attack her on an open path and bundle her through a break in the wall. There are a couple of other possibilities - a person following Jodi along the entrance to the path could have ducked behind the big break in the wall at the junction of the paths, made his way down behind the wall, and been waiting for her at the V break. She would not, in those circumstances, have known she was being "followed." Or, on the other hand, she may have become afraid that she was being followed, and ducked out of sight behind the same break in the wall, her follower carrying on down the path before realising he had lost her, and climbing over the V break to see if she was hiding in the woodland strip.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 11, 2017, 05:00:PM
if we assume that jodi wasnt heading to the paths at all but elsewhere what are the possible destinations she could have been heading to going in that direction.

given the identity oif the stocky man surely she must have been aware that he was there if not just to wonder where he was going
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 11, 2017, 06:07:PM
if we assume that jodi wasnt heading to the paths at all but elsewhere what are the possible destinations she could have been heading to going in that direction.

Mayfield, via the route I explained earlier, Mayfield by the circuitous route, the takeaway at the end of the Easthouses Road (unlikely - the family used the takeaway in the centre of the Easthouses road and often had their food delivered), Newtongrange, or Newbattle by the circuitous route. She could have cut through the street where GD lived on the circuitous route to Newbattle, or gone through the school grounds and across the school playing fields towards where GD lived - in short, the only person she is believed to have known in that direction is GD and there is nothing of any substance to suggest she would have planned to go to GD's house. If she was heading towards Mayfield, she generally took the route through the complex - she would have gone to her Gran's or her cousin YW's flat, just across the road from her Gran's, where JF said he was when he saw the search trio leaving to look for Jodi.

Quote
given the identity oif the stocky man surely she must have been aware that he was there if not just to wonder where he was going

Firstly, it's a claimed identity, and that's as far, I think, as we can go definitively with that. Secondly, (and I recommend Google streetview, Parkhead Place for this next bit) he was behind her - if she had come up onto the main Easthouses road at the junction with Maryburn Road, and her follower had not wanted her to know he was following, he could have gone up the first set of steps onto the Easthouses Road, emerging behind her without her knowing he was there. It's a busy road at that time of the evening - I don't imagine she would have heard someone walking in trainers behind her over the noise of the traffic - unless she'd specifically looked behind, she would have had no reason to know there was anyone behind her, "following" or not.

If Stocky Man had, for example, said he was going to the takeaway for food, he would have headed for the top set of steps onto the Easthouses Road, as those are the nearest steps to the takeaway. From that point, Jodi emerging onto the Easthouses Road further down, either at the second set of steps, or the junction with Maryburn Road, would have been in clear view. One of the witnesses said Stocky Man was just before the bus stop (presumably the one on the same side of the road as Jodi and Stocky Man)- for that to be the case, he had to have been on the Easthouses Road prior to the bus stop.

Witness statements purportedly outlining Jodi's movements that night claimed she must have gone up the second set of steps, or onto the Maryburn junction because she "didn't pass the window" of her house. That always struck me as strange - what reason would Jodi have had to walk in the opposite direction to where it was claimed she was headed (passing the window of her house would have meant she had to turn left, leaving her garden). Even if it had been claimed that Jodi was believed to be heading for Woodburn that night (which was never claimed, but just for completion), she still would not have "passed the window" - she would have turned right, up the steps (2nd set), and waited for the bus at the same bus stop Stocky Man was seen following her.

Bottom line, whether she was going to YW's, her Gran's, Luke's or Woodburn there would have been no reason for her to "pass the window" - so why did the witnesses make such a big deal about that?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 12, 2017, 08:52:AM
I thought that stocky man had never been identified. I thought that the person who was identified at the funeral had turned out that it couldn't have been him so he had never been identified?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 12, 2017, 11:26:AM
I think you may be mixing up two separate stories about Stocky Man, Marty.

On the day of the reconstruction of Jodi's last known movements, a week after the murder, one of the witnesses who had seen Stocky Man the previous week thought he saw him again in the crowd at the reconstruction. It turned out he was mistaken - the man he thought was Stocky Man had just returned from England and had a cast iron alibi for the previous Monday.

The identification of Stocky Man we're discussing here was never made public, and never, to my knowledge, followed up by police investigators. It was discovered by the SCCRC investigation, almost 10 years later,  that one of the witnesses to Stocky Man on the day of the murder saw a person on TV on the day of Jodi's funeral, and recognised him as the man she'd seen following Jodi. She returned to the police with this information, but no further action was taken on her up-dated statement.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 12, 2017, 12:51:PM
she wasnt the slightest bit bothered by the fact this man was walking behing her that sort of leads me to suspect she knew him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 12, 2017, 02:00:PM
She may well have done, nugnug, and they may both have started out on their respective journeys on the same bit of road, one going one way, one going another further on.

But if that was the case, why did he never come forward? He would have been the very last person to have seen Jodi alive (apart from her killer). In fact, even though he remains (officially) unidentified, according to the evidence, he is the last known person to have seen Jodi alive, and that was 5.05pm, not 4.49-4.54

These were solid witness statements, unlike the bizarrely manipulated statements of AB - why didn't the police make more of an effort to properly track him down? And why, when they were given a possible identification (the witness may of course, have been mistaken, just like the witness at the reconstruction was mistaken), did they not follow up to find out if there was any possibility that her identification was not mistaken?

They did so with the man at the reconstruction, which is why he was eliminated as Stocky Man. However, this is another example of the double standards in this case - they accepted "positive" identifications of Luke from descriptions which were so far removed from Luke as to be almost laughable, but when a witness for the "other side" of their argument comes along and says quite positively - "That is the man I saw following Jodi," they dismiss her without a second thought?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 12, 2017, 02:41:PM
Reading through this thread again to catch up a bit I saw you list the police failings and one you said they failed to take the body temperature, I remember discussing this years ago and I always thought they had but said it was inconclusive because of the environment that night.

Do you remember how soon the autopsy took place after jodi was found?
Rigor mortis is always established at autopsy and is accurate up to 30 hours or so afterwards.

Was there any entomology assessment done also?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on February 12, 2017, 03:23:PM
Has any of the sperm recovered been subjected to DNA testing?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 12, 2017, 03:41:PM
It all was but only a few ever yielded a match all to one person, the rest were either unidentified males or contaminated.

Those that were unidentified risk the problem were the full matches with no match to the DNA database or were the partial so couldn't be attributed to any singular person

No sample were matched to luke
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 12, 2017, 03:43:PM
As part of the sccrc investigation the clothing (at what level I don't know) were retested and two further samples found on the zip of Jodi's jeans these were never put through the data base
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on February 12, 2017, 03:53:PM
As part of the sccrc investigation the clothing (at what level I don't know) were retested and two further samples found on the zip of Jodi's jeans these were never put through the data base
It seems that Jodi was pretty active sexually, and could have been involved in group sex.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 12, 2017, 04:03:PM
That's conjecture as of course all samples could relate to one individual and if you believe the transferrance theory then she may only have had one sexual partner.

There is other evidence to suggest otherwise but its whgwhgen you bring it forward we get abuse for discussing it, which I don't mind to be honest.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on February 12, 2017, 04:19:PM
That's conjecture as of course all samples could relate to one individual and if you believe the transferrance theory then she may only have had one sexual partner.

There is other evidence to suggest otherwise but its whgwhgen you bring it forward we get abuse for discussing it, which I don't mind to be honest.
It must have been discovered at autopsy that Jodi was not a virgin.
I thought it was said on here that the sperm samples were not from one person.
I am not implying that Jodi was not a decent girl, but she could have generated a lot of male admirers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 12, 2017, 04:24:PM
The DNA analysis is a shambles, labelling,instructions and so forth its impossible to say what they meant , the samples that proved a match swere all to one person but the other samp!es cannot be ruled out as his either.

Jodi was having sex with Luke so no need to establish her virginity.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 12, 2017, 04:27:PM
Reading through this thread again to catch up a bit I saw you list the police failings and one you said they failed to take the body temperature, I remember discussing this years ago and I always thought they had but said it was inconclusive because of the environment that night.

From memory, body temperature was not taken at the time the body was found, nor was it taken when the local doctor officially pronounced death at around 2am. Again from memory, I  believe the excuse for the temperature not being taken was that it would have been worthless because of the environment not only in which Jodi's body had lain for (what at the time of finding was claimed to be) six and a half hours, but for the environment in which her body was left by investigators for a further 8 - 8.5 hours. In my opinion, body temperature within six and a half hours could have yielded significant evidence, including evidence which may well have contradicted the official line that Jodi died at 5.15pm. Although it rained that evening, it was not cold - it had been a warm summer day, and was what I would describe as quite a "muggy" evening.

Quote
Do you remember how soon the autopsy took place after jodi was found?
Rigor mortis is always established at autopsy and is accurate up to 30 hours or so afterwards.

Yes, the post mortem began just after 3pm on the afternoon of July 1st, a fraction under 22 hours after it was claimed Jodi died.

Quote
Was there any entomology assessment done also?

Not to my knowledge. Insects/eggs were found in Jodi's nostrils, but I have never seen any report regarding these being examined, or what the outcome of such an examination was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on February 12, 2017, 04:30:PM
The DNA analysis is a shambles, labelling,instructions and so forth its impossible to say what they meant , the samples that proved a match swere all to one person but the other samp!es cannot be ruled out as his either.

Jodi was having sex with Luke so no need to establish her virginity.
I agree the DNA was a shambles. If luke was sexually involved with Jodi, I can see no reason
to kill her!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on February 12, 2017, 04:35:PM
I don't believe the stocky theory.
I think Jodi was gang raped, and she was going to spill the beans.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 12, 2017, 04:39:PM
Quote
The DNA analysis is a shambles, labelling,instructions and so forth its impossible to say what they meant , the samples that proved a match swere all to one person but the other samp!es cannot be ruled out as his either.

Two full DNA matches were recovered from the scene - one was SK, and was found on Jodi's T shirt. The other was JaF and was found in the condom found "within a 50 yard radius of the body." Neither can be ruled out as contributors to the partial/mixed samples, neither can they be claimed to be contributors.

The condom was initially recorded as having been found "20 yards from the body" (although no direction was given) - how this morphed into such an ambiguous phrase as "within a 50 yard radius" is anybody's guess.

I believe the SCCRC only re-tested the trousers, and found further DNA (which was missed during the investigation) on the zipper and inside of the button hole. What the SCCRC does not appear to have sought is any sort of explanation for the dozens of tests which came back "inconclusive" or "no reportable result." Unless it is known what they were asked to report about it can never be known if there would have been reportable results for other factors - contrary to popular belief, the lab are not given samples and asked to "test for everything" - samples are sent with specific instructions.

For example, there was one report in the case papers regarding hair analysis. The report states that the lab had received hair from Jodi Jones and Luke Mitchell. All that report could say was that the hair attributed to Jodi appeared, in fact,  to be Jodi's, and none of the hairs found on her "matched" Luke's. What it did not (and could not) say was whether the hair that was not Jodi's "matched" anyone else's hair - the question was simply not asked.

I realise "matching" hair samples is not a technically correct term, but I have been pulled up before for responses which have been too technical, so have kept this simple.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 12, 2017, 04:40:PM
That's strange that eggs were found in such small quantity and only reported in one area, this is not the best topic but relevant as most flies lay eggs in wounds because of the natural moisture and around eyes,mouth and nostrils but in small quantity that would suggest a later death possibly before sunset as certain insect are only active during light.

What time was sundown on that day around 10pm?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 12, 2017, 04:51:PM
Sandra have you seen anywhere mainly in the autopsy or pathologists reports any estimate for time of death even if it was roughly taken
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 12, 2017, 05:04:PM
That's strange that eggs were found in such small quantity and only reported in one area, this is not the best topic but relevant as most flies lay eggs in wounds because of the natural moisture and around eyes,mouth and nostrils but in small quantity that would suggest a later death possibly before sunset as certain insect are only active during light.

What time was sundown on that day around 10pm?

Yes, just after 10pm. Blowflies/bluebottles do not fly or lay eggs after dark, but are one of the first fly species to lay eggs on dead bodies (sometimes arriving within minutes and usually within half an hour of death occurring.) It is odd, though, that eggs were found only in the nose, but not in any of the other areas they would be expected to be found unless, as you say, death occurred (or at least, the body was exposed to the elements) at a later time than claimed. However, Jodi's body was left out, uncovered, until well after sunrise the following morning, so one would have expected eggs to have been laid in that period, when flies were active. Of course, it may be that there were eggs elsewhere that were either not recorded, or the records were lost?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 12, 2017, 05:15:PM
Sandra have you seen anywhere mainly in the autopsy or pathologists reports any estimate for time of death even if it was roughly taken

From memory, the autopsy accepted the police contention that Jodi had died in the "late afternoon/early evening"  of June 30th, but could not accurately (or even roughly) estimate any better than that due to lack of other supporting evidence, and the conditions in which the body had lain between finding and being transported to the morgue. The pathologist's evidence at trial was that no time of death could be ascertained.

I don't remember any other documents referring specifically to time of death. However during the first two weeks, police were appealing for anyone who had been on the path between 5pm and 10pm to come forward - did they, initially, believe Jodi had been killed later than 5.15pm? (They must have done, because they initially believed Jodi had left home at 5.30pm!)

I have hundreds of pages of notes, but these are a packed away, and would take quite a bit of time to pull out and search through.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 12, 2017, 07:17:PM
from what i rember the paholgist couldent give a time of death even a guess its much to harder
 detrimine than is comonely thought.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 13, 2017, 03:00:PM
I don't think I realised just how important the management of the crime scene was as no pathologist would have put his name to a time of death under the circumstances.

Body temperature having the body lying in the open for so long left a large margin for a safe time although possible the extent of the differential would be futile.

Forensic entomology is 90% crime scene assessed and the removal of the body to a plastic sheet meant it was impossible to establish anywhere near a credible time, although again any eggs could have been incubated and brought to a condition where there could be a relative time of death ascertained.

Rigor would prove accurate but with out the other variables to back it up no pathologist would allow themselves to be put on the spot to determine a time.

We all know the crime scene management was a joke but to me it was criminal , all other aspects of that evening upon discovery if the body were perfect to establish tod and were lost .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 13, 2017, 03:17:PM
rigour can take place in 5 minutes or 12 hours so its hard to setermine from that alone.

stomache contents isnt reliable on its own ethere.


ithink the flys and magots are probelythe most relaible but even that can vary.

jodie could of died at more or less anytime bettween her last being seenn and the body being found.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on February 13, 2017, 05:56:PM
We all know the crime scene management was a joke but to me it was criminal

Well said, what were the police thinking leaving that poor girl out all night. They should hang thier heads in shame.

This whole saga is a mess. Once again a theory is believed by the jury. I keep on saying it but its who tells the best story at the time!!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 13, 2017, 05:58:PM
Quote
Forensic entomology is 90% crime scene assessed and the removal of the body to a plastic sheet meant it was impossible to establish anywhere near a credible time, although again any eggs could have been incubated and brought to a condition where there could be a relative time of death ascertained.

No soil samples appear to have been taken from the area at the bottom of the wall (where it is claimed Jodi's throat was cut), or from under where her body was found - again, absolutely criminal, since insects/eggs in blood soaked soil could also have yielded critical evidence.

This, however, raises another question for me. I do not believe that the "blood spray" discovered low down on the wall is, in fact, arterial spray from a cut-throat injury. Without being too graphic, there is not enough of it, and it is far too finely misted to have been deposited with the force arterial spray would involve.

Other bloodstains raise further questions - the branch found several meters (sorry, I don't remember exactly how many) beyond Jodi's body, towards Newbattle which, it was claimed, could have been used to strike Jodi, but had characteristics of having been moved after the blood was deposited on it - was this branch used to strike Jodi beyond the point where she was found? (The prosecution claim has always been that she went over the V break in the wall, and all of her injuries occurred between there and the point, 16.3 metres west, where her body was found.)

A poster on one of the newspaper sites, claiming to be a relative, made reference to a branch being found in the wasteland at the Easthouses end, in the entrance to the path area. Was this a case of mistaken labelling, or did the attack on Jodi begin before the junction of the paths, and before the V point, and carry on well beyond the point where Jodi's body was found? If that is the case, and Jodi's throat was not cut at the wall, the prosecution case of an argument gone wrong begins to fall apart (inasmuch as it ever held together) - in this new potential scenario, Jodi was hunted for an extended period of time in that woodland strip.

The horrific defence injuries to her arms were, according to the pathologist her final, desperate attempts to fight for her life - his point was that they were "peri-mortem" - at or near the time of death. Had these been before her throat was cut, they would have bled profusely - if they were inflicted as the cut throat injuries were being inflicted, they would not, as the rapid blood loss from the cut-throat injuries would very quickly reduce the amount of blood, and the pressure of it, circulating in her body. Does the pathologist reference to them as "peri-mortem"  suggest the latter? If so, does that cast doubt on the prosecution claim that her throat was cut from behind - was she actually facing her attacker, trying to shield herself from a bladed attack to her neck, with her arms?  The other injuries - the extensive bruising to her face, head and hands, the potential teeth marks on her hand, the clumps of hair pulled out by the roots, the non-fatal strangling (either manual or by ligature) all point to a prolonged attack. The distance from the body of the lens from one side of her glasses and the bra strap, along with blood stains found in other parts of the woodland strip point to an attack which was moving from place to place (i.e. did not all happen in the small area claimed by the prosecution).

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 13, 2017, 06:55:PM
its one of those aspects you dont want to think about just how long jodi had to endure before death took her from that horrendous time.

personally im trying to take this from the start and i really dont think jodi was heading at that point to meet luke, again we have a problem with calls and not knowing what they contained.

we have no sighting of jodi on any of ther paths heading towards Newbattle but sightings of her heading there, nothing to establish time of death but i do remember the toxicology reports saying she had smoked canabis around the time she was reported to have left home or later was that right?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 01:20:PM
The nature of the wounds meant that the attack was prolonged but just how long is anyone's guess, branch close to the crime scene could have been a branch cut down to aid photographers and somehow been discarded or lost in another section , the branch at the clearing remember wasn't this the place where Luke had claimed he and Jodi did spend time over the months they were together and the one place he knew about?
I also feel that if true the possibility that the killer had left it there on his way back to easthouses is a very real possibility.

One big problem with a prolonged attack is th lack  of noise, Jodi fought her attacker and fought for her life wouldn't she have screamed for it also! The lack of any credible witnesses to noise from any area that night is really strange, if the crime was later than 5:15 were getting to the time when dog owners were taking their dogs for their last evening walk someone had to have heard something
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 01:45:PM
If the attack happened so early on as she entered the path why would she run further into the woodland area when she was so close to safety going the other way, this wasn't a wood but a woodland area that was mature the opportunity for any attack being witnesses was very real and the woodland area wasn't wide enough for Jodi to let's say run and hide
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 14, 2017, 02:33:PM
If the attack happened so early on as she entered the path why would she run further into the woodland area when she was so close to safety going the other way, this wasn't a wood but a woodland area that was mature the opportunity for any attack being witnesses was very real and the woodland area wasn't wide enough for Jodi to let's say run and hide

thats a bloody good point.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 14, 2017, 05:40:PM
Quote
the branch at the clearing remember wasn't this the place where Luke had claimed he and Jodi did spend time over the months they were together and the one place he knew about?
I also feel that if true the possibility that the killer had left it there on his way back to easthouses is a very real possibility

Sorry, should have been clearer about this. The clearing you speak of here is the one at the large, top to bottom break in the wall at the junction of the paths. The area where the branch was claimed to have been found is before this - the entrance to the path, or rather to the junction of the paths, was bordered on the right hand side by rough waste ground (it's now a housing estate) - it's in this waste ground that the blood stained branch was claimed to have been found, before Jodi had even reached the beginning of Roan's Dyke path. Hope that makes sense.

Quote
If the attack happened so early on as she entered the path why would she run further into the woodland area when she was so close to safety going the other way, this wasn't a wood but a woodland area that was mature the opportunity for any attack being witnesses was very real and the woodland area wasn't wide enough for Jodi to let's say run and hide[/uote]

Apologies again - I forget that not everyone is as familiar with the area as I am. If the attack began on the entrance to the path, before the big break in the wall at the very top of Roan's Dyke path, where it joined Lady path, Jodi could not have run back along the entrance track to the main road, because the attacker was behind her. She would have had three options - try to outrun him down Roan's Dyke path (it's a long run for a young lady who wasn't very athletic), try to outrun him along Lady Path (a shorter run, but still a long run) of the third option, which only a local would know about.

Jodi could have run into the woodland strip through the big break in the wall. Here, she would have had two choices - turn left and try to make her way to Newbattle behind the wall, or run straight ahead along a track through the woodland that would bring her out at the back of the Easthouses estate.

If you imagine a letter T, the "leg" of the T is Roan's Dyke path. The right-hand portion of the top line (as we look at it here) is Lady Path, the left hand portion, through the break in the wall, is the track leading to the back of the Easthouses estate. If you extend the leg of the T upwards, you get a plus sign + - the bit you've just extended is the entrance to the path area, where the branch is claimed to have been found.

I would reckon, if Jodi was attacked prior to the junction of the paths, her instinct would be to try to get home - it was the nearest place of safety for her. The only way to get there, with the attacker cutting off the route she had just come, would have been the track through the woodland strip.

If her attacker was local, he, too, might have known about the track - he could, for example, have cut across the waste ground and cut Jodi off on the track before she got to the back of the Easthouses estate, forcing her back into the woodland strip to escape him. Confusingly, there is also a wall running along the side of this track, but there were at least three breaks in it - two opening onto the wasteland itself towards Easthouses, the third opening onto the back of the estate.

Quote
this wasn't a wood but a woodland area that was mature the opportunity for any attack being witnesses was very real and the woodland area wasn't wide enough for Jodi to let's say run and hide

I agree - the possibility of the attack being witnessed on the entrance to the path, Roan's Dyke path, or in the woodland strip was extremely high for any of these places. Also, the cyclist who heard a noise when he was cycling up Roan's Dyke path (between 5 and 5.30, from memory) heard what he believed were kids playing in the woodland strip. Those kids were found and interviewed - they were, indeed, playing the woodland strip behind the wall at around that time. A couple of dog walkers reached the junction of the paths in the same time period, but decided not to take their usual walk through the woodland strip because the dogs had already had a long run earlier in the day. Crucially, if Jodi was, indeed, at the junction of the paths or on her way down Roan's Dyke path, these dog walkers would have seen her. They didn't see anybody, and didn't hear anything untoward. (The moped, silent by 5.15pm would have been too far down the path for them to have seen it from the junction of the paths.)

I also don't believe the attack took place in silence, all of which, for me, suggests the attack did not take place behind the wall between approximately 5.10 and 5.15pm (the time it would have taken Jodi to get there from the AB "Sighting").

There was a report of a scream later in the evening - around 8 or 8.30pm, from a witness in perhaps the closest proximity to the path, without actually being on it. Again, that report was simply noted - I've never seen anything suggesting that others were asked if they heard anything similar.

Coincidentally, this was around the time DD and his dogs were in the woodland strip, according to one account (before the waters got extremely muddy and nobody could remember anything about where they were or when.


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 05:51:PM
Wow 8 pm was roughly the time I was thinking for Jodi making her way towards Lukes, still early enough for her to see him before getting home before curfew and after the timing of JF being there. I can't help feeling that Jodi had stumbled upon something and someone she knew on her way to Luke's when she decided to make her way there. She wasn't going there at 5 but later on, it's where was she and what was she doing that's the problem and the DNA available is speaking volumes I just don't know what the hell its saying
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 14, 2017, 05:55:PM
Quote
we have no sighting of jodi on any of ther paths heading towards Newbattle but sightings of her heading there, nothing to establish time of death but i do remember the toxicology reports saying she had smoked canabis around the time she was reported to have left home or later was that right?

Yes, from memory, within two to two and a half hours before she died. Since we know she was in school until 3.30, so in reality, there's only an hour and a quarter of this time period in which Jodi could actually have smoked - it's possible she smoked cannabis before getting on the bus home - she couldn't have smoked on the bus - between getting off the bus and walking home (a very short distance as you can see from streetmaps, at home (where it was claimed she was for approximately one hour), or between the sighting by AB and when she died.

Critical to all of this is her other's statement that Jodi did not smoke in the house.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 06:04:PM
Once again it ties in with a possible 8 pm time of the murder if she did indeed walk to somewhere else maybe to have a smoke around the 5:30 /6:00 then leave around 7:30 pm to walk to Luke's. is there any possible sightings around this time
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 14, 2017, 06:49:PM
if she had been killed around 5 pm or so i find it hard to beleve then body would of stayed undiscovered that long i mean a fair number of people used that path and the amount of blood around the scene someone walking up there in daylight would find it hard not to notice.

and theres all the people who used to walk there dogs down there im sure the dogs would of smelt somthing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 06:52:PM
If DD was indeed walking his dogs in the woodland strip we have had dogs abuse (pun intended) about why Mia hadn't detected the body on the way up as dogs react to these things so why didn't DD's dogs not do the same thing , is this another reason that the body wasn't there at that time or simply that it had just been around this time that death occurred
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 14, 2017, 07:22:PM
Wow 8 pm was roughly the time I was thinking for Jodi making her way towards Lukes, still early enough for her to see him before getting home before curfew and after the timing of JF being there. I can't help feeling that Jodi had stumbled upon something and someone she knew on her way to Luke's when she decided to make her way there. She wasn't going there at 5 but later on, it's where was she and what was she doing that's the problem and the DNA available is speaking volumes I just don't know what the hell its saying

Ever since I learned of the "shoo... be quiet... go out" comments, I've thought there might have been a reason Jodi had to leave far too early for meeting Luke. The vague text about meeting "later" also concerns me. In the weeks leading up to the murder, they had a fairly reliable routine of sorts - a group of them would meet up around 6pm. (Even Jodi's mother said so.) That week was different because some of the group they usually met had gone off on a school trip.

From memory, Luke texted Jodi at 4.34 to ask if she was coming out that evening, she responded that she was, where would she meet him, Luke responded saying she could come down to Newbattle after tea, she responded that she'd be down "later." Did that mean later than "after tea" (which, up until then, had been 6 o'clock?) Of course, we can't know any of this because, the texts were deleted from both phones, but that was Luke's earliest recollection, on the night. He called the house at 20 to six to say that was him finished his tea and "out" (not, as has been repeatedly reported, to find out where she was) - he was told she'd "left" (not "left to meet him" as was later claimed). he says he waited about half an hour (the time he would have expected Jodi to take to get to Newbattle if she'd only just left home at 20 t0 6), then went to the Abbey and hung around there, after telling his mum if Jodi turned up at the house to tell her he was in the Abbey.

All of this suggests Luke originally was expecting Jodi later than 6pm, that expectation only changing with the 5.40 call - when Jodi didn't show, he wouldn't necessarily have thought anything of it - the "later" text would have suggested she had something else in mind before getting to Newbattle.

When I very first met him, three and a half months after the murder, he told me he wasn't sure what Jodi might be doing "in between" and didn't want to call her house again  in case he got her into trouble.

I've never seen anything to suggest there were sightings of Jodi after 5.05pm but the public was never asked about seeing someone who could have been Jodi anywhere else except the Easthouses Road and Roan's Dyke path - I said this at the time, and have been saying it ever since - the very young pictures of Jodi and the decision to concentrate on one small area, instead of areas Jodi was known to frequent meant that witnesses who may have thought they saw someone who could have been Jodi in, say, the Mayfield area would never have come forward, because that wasn't what police were looking for. Also, it was three days before up-to-date pictures of Jodi were circulated, just adding to the confusion.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 14, 2017, 07:30:PM
If DD was indeed walking his dogs in the woodland strip we have had dogs abuse (pun intended) about why Mia hadn't detected the body on the way up as dogs react to these things so why didn't DD's dogs not do the same thing , is this another reason that the body wasn't there at that time or simply that it had just been around this time that death occurred

A sample from the sole of DD's boot tested positive for the presence of blood. Now, to be absolutely clear, the positive presumptive test is meaningless without further testing to ascertain that the substance is actually blood (and human blood at that) rather than, say, horseradish sauce, which gives the same result initially. but can you imagine how that would have been used had it turned up on the sole of Luke's boots?

We only have DD's word that his dogs didn't react. He took his dogs diagonally across the farmer's field to the V break in the wall, then gave the command "over" - seven of the dogs scrambled through the V break, he had to lift the eighth one through because it was old - why? Why didn't he just take the dogs along Lady path and into the woodland strip at the big break - no need for dogs to jump through a break in a wall more than 4' from the ground, and no need to lift an old dog through either.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 14, 2017, 07:36:PM
As we know, hardly a single word of JaF's statement can be believed - we know it was his condom and that's about it. But interestingly, he claimed it was getting "grey dark" and he thought it was about 9 - 9.30. It didn't start getting dark until around 10.30 that evening, but even if he was mistaken about the level of darkness, what can we make of the time? Another mistake? An outright lie? Or the truth, in which case, either he did, in fact, step over Jodi's body, or she wasn't there.

JaF and the D's lived in the same street, not far from each other - I didn't know for a long time whether they knew each other or not, but have since found out they did. I don't know if that is of any relevance, or just a neutral fact - just putting it out there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 07:53:PM
At what time on that night did DD put the dogs through the v break, is this the same break in the wall that jodi's body was in situ? Ok you said around 8 pm sry but these dogs were Spanials and beagles of my memory is correct , traditionally cadaver dogs.
Was DD investigating the scream around 8 pm did his Dogs find the body as wasn't there leaves and soil found on the abdomen area of the body is this testimony of dogs finding a body , could he have discovered the murderer performing the post mortem mutilations? ( ok clutching at straws a bit there but not totally unreasonable)

Spell check has been a pain sry
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 08:00:PM
That's a hard one as we can place him at the scene that day and we have to believe that the sensitivity of why he was there was far more important to him than what time , if he says it was getting dark then 9-9:30 seems too late for me and the murder occurring. I was always under the impression it was after 7 pm that he was there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on February 14, 2017, 08:18:PM
I'm getting a bit lost here who is doing and jaf , sorry.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 08:29:PM
I'm sry we always abbreviated the names as there are so many people involved in the case we would be writing them constantly.

DD is David dickie father to Gordon dickie the youth on the motorised bike, he lived closest to the scene.
JaF is James falconer the owner of the condom found at the scene but only discovered a match 3 years later due to another crime that led to his DNA being on the data base. He had convictions before the murder and should have been flagged up in this case before but for some reason he never was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on February 14, 2017, 08:40:PM
I'm sry we always abbreviated the names as there are so many people involved in the case we would be writing them constantly.

DD is David dickie father to Gordon dickie the youth on the motorised bike, he lived closest to the scene.
JaF is James falconer the owner of the condom found at the scene but only discovered a match 3 years later due to another crime that led to his DNA being on the data base. He had convictions before the murder and should have been flagged up in this case before but for some reason he never was.

thanks , good god the more I learn about this case the more I begin to think this has been one massive set up.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 14, 2017, 08:49:PM
It gets worse mate but I hope to finally get an idea of what went on that night backed up with what real evidence there is, some of it might have to be fitted into a context away from the official line but there is a need for this case to be kept in the public domain.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 14, 2017, 08:54:PM
The use of abbreviations is in part because the names and connections get way too confusing, but also to avoid naming private individuals who have the right to both privacy and the same presumption of innocence as everyone else. Makes it a bit difficult to discuss the case in any sort of detail, though

Just wanted to take this opportunity (again!!!!) to point out that nobody here is making, or attempting to make, allegations about anyone - except perhaps... no definitely... Lothian and Borders Police, whose handling of the case was so inept as to be open to derision from every direction.

However, since Lothian and Borders Police no longer exists as a unit, I guess there can be no harm done there.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 14, 2017, 09:26:PM
At what time on that night did DD put the dogs through the v break

Who knows? From an original statement (backed up by an independent witness) it was between 8 and 8.30pm. By the time it got to court, it was anywhere between 4.45 (impossible for the witness who gave this statement to have known, because, by his own admission, he wasn't there) and "some time that evening" from other witnesses who were proven to have lied repeatedly.

Quote
is this the same break in the wall that jodi's body was in situ?
According to the official line, yes, with the proviso that Jodi's body was, in fact, 16.3 metres west of the break in the wall

Quote
Ok you said around 8 pm sry but these dogs were Spanials and beagles of my memory is correct , traditionally cadaver dogs.
Spaniels, eight of them, all claimed to be "working" dogs, but not cadaver dogs as such - game dogs, sniffing out and bringing back rabbits, pheasants, etc


Quote
Was DD investigating the scream around 8 pm did his Dogs find the body as wasn't there leaves and soil found on the abdomen area of the body is this testimony of dogs finding a body , could he have discovered the murderer performing the post mortem mutilations? ( ok clutching at straws a bit there but not totally unreasonable)

Interesting Gordo30. Leaves and soil on the abdomen area? Wouldn't there have been leaves and soil everywhere on Jodi's body? Please forgive me here, but there were so many wounds on her body, leaves and soil would have clung to all of them. I'm not sure how dogs finding her would have altered that?


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 15, 2017, 01:41:PM
i find it hard to belive that the spaneils wouldent of sniffed out the body but that goes on the assumption that there was a body there at the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 15, 2017, 02:21:PM
That's what's so frustrating nugnug - far too many changed stories to pin anything down with any certainty. For example, there was a witness who was adamant s/he saw DD go across the fields and behind the wall with his dogs sometime between 8 and 8.30pm. This was based on the timings of television shows the witness watched that evening. Why was that not accepted as a credible account - all it needed was a quick check of the tv times.

Then, at least, there would have been a fixed time - all that needed to be ascertained after that was - was Jodi there at that time or not? Of course, if she wasn't, the whole police case collapses right there - not meaning to sound cynical, but could that be the actual reason the witness statement was ignored?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 15, 2017, 02:41:PM
did DD ever say he had taken the dogs out at a later time that night or more simply again, going on the premise that dog owners like to give their dogs a last run out before they themselves would be soon to bed and his dogs are of a very active sort?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 15, 2017, 03:58:PM
To my knowledge, he never claimed to have taken the dogs out again that evening. It does seem quite early for a "last walk," especially for eight of them - can't imagine it would have been very practical to let 8 dogs out in a small garden for their last pee before bed-time.

He referred to them as "working dogs" so I'd assume they had to be kept active even when they weren't working.

When all the statements changed, GD couldn't remember if his dad was out with the dogs when he and JF got back from their moped shenanigans. The actual time they got back appears to be around 5.30pm - GD said he texted his girlfriend when he got in, to see if she was coming down later that evening - (the text was timed at 5.35, and we know the moped was still propped against the wall at 5.15) That's just half an hour before JF was supposed to return to JoJ's house to smoke cannabis with him, but somehow, he forgot to go.

JF claimed to have left either 9 or 9.30pm - he couldn't remember if DD was in the house or not when he (JF) left.

It's all very confusing.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 15, 2017, 05:03:PM
lets look at the time frame between 17:00 and 17:45 this is when jodi was both entering the paths towards lukes,meeting someone,crime taking place and perpetraitor/s making their way out of the area.

1,we have two people possibly at an earlier time about to travel one of 3 possible routes as witnessed by AB there included because if they were going to newbattle they may well have been on the paths during this time.

2, a cyclist on the route either entering or leaving by the easthouse end, he would have been only a short time on a bike on Roans dyke path but there non the less.

3, boys playing in the very strip of woodland where the attack took place, the length of time they were there is negligable and the amount of the woodland they covered.

4, two other dog walkers on the path

5, young woman pushing buggy

6,two indentified males on motorised bike

7, many people paying attention to the bike and who witnessed it proped up against the V in the wall, what was it about this bike that made people notice it? could we also say that had anything like jodi being forced over the wall or indeed anyone around that break in the wall would have been noticed and brought to the police attention?

all this happening and in the middle of it a young girl is subjected to a terrible ordeal and murder and no one sees anything or hears anything !!

is there anyone out there who still believes jodi was on that path and the crime being committed at this time......
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 15, 2017, 09:04:PM
lets look at the time frame between 17:00 and 17:45 this is when jodi was both entering the paths towards lukes,meeting someone,crime taking place and perpetraitor/s making their way out of the area.

1,we have two people possibly at an earlier time about to travel one of 3 possible routes as witnessed by AB there included because if they were going to newbattle they may well have been on the paths during this time.

2, a cyclist on the route either entering or leaving by the easthouse end, he would have been only a short time on a bike on Roans dyke path but there non the less.

He came in from the Newbattle end at, he reckoned, between 5 and 10 past 5 - therefore, he should have seen the moped propped against the wall, or the moped being pushed up the path, Jodi on the path or being bundled over or climbing over the wall. He saw none of this. However, his guesstimate was based on how long the cycle route usually took him to cycle (he had a training route that he used regularly) and it's not clear if he meant he arrived between 5.05 and 5.10,  or if that was the time he thought he was travelling along the path. If he got to the Newbattle end a few minutes before 5, the moped wasn't there, and Jodi would have been at the top of the path or on the entrance to the path - he didn't see her. If he was later by 5 or 10 minutes, he may not have seen anything. His account was that he heard a noise behind the wall and stopped to listen. Interestingly, he said he was extremely nervous talking to the police (even though he went to them immediately) because he felt like they were treating him "as a suspect."

Quote
3, boys playing in the very strip of woodland where the attack took place, the length of time they were there is negligable and the amount of the woodland they covered.

Do we know this for sure? They were traced and police spoke to them, but I haven't seen anything that clarifies how long they were there, or how much of the woodland area they played in

Quote
4, two other dog walkers on the path

5, young woman pushing buggy

6,two indentified males on motorised bike

7, many people paying attention to the bike and who witnessed it proped up against the V in the wall, what was it about this bike that made people notice it? could we also say that had anything like jodi being forced over the wall or indeed anyone around that break in the wall would have been noticed and brought to the police attention?

all this happening and in the middle of it a young girl is subjected to a terrible ordeal and murder and no one sees anything or hears anything !!

The bike was extremely noisy and looked "hand built" so it drew attention to itself. The witness who noticed it propped against the wall had already seen it earlier, both running noisily, and being pushed after it cut out.

I think it's fair to say that with so many people in the area in that time, someone would have noticed something. Bearing in mind JF and GD were not with the bike when it was seen at 5.15 against the wall, they had to get back from wherever they were to retrieve the bike and get it home. Their account is that they got it going again and rode it back to GD's house, but where were they in between?

GD gave an account of a "yellow framed push bike" against the school railings at the junction of the paths - no-one else - not the dog walkers, the cyclist, the young couple walking earlier, or even JF himself mentioned this bike. I'll continue this n my next post.

Quote
is there anyone out there who still believes jodi was on that path and the crime being committed at this time......

You missed Stocky Man - that sighting was on the main Easthouses Road at around 5.05pm, meaning Jodi wasn't on Roan's Dyke path at all (if that was where she headed after this sighting) until around 12 minutes past 5 - she still has to get to the V point, taking it, by the police's own timings, to almost 25 past 5. She'd still have had to run into JF and GD and possibly the cyclist. So essentially, taking all of the other witness statements into account, between 5pm and 5.30, there's barely a moment that there wouldn't have been someone to witness Jodi on that path.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 15, 2017, 09:28:PM
Push bikes!

Push bikes featured with an almost ridiculous amount of significance in the early investigation, and it was literally years before I discovered why.

The police were running around asking all and sundry what they knew about Luke and push bikes. In their earliest statements, JF and GD "volunteered" stories about Luke and various pushbikes. An account attributed to JoJ spoke of Luke swapping one bike for another. GD tried to throw Luke and JF under the bus by claiming JF had stolen a bike, and then swapped it with Luke for one of Luke's bikes. The police took Luke's bike (flat tyres and all) from the wall of the garage at his home for testing. AW spoke of a bike JF had kept in the hallway at her house - JF said it was a rubbish bike, he'd chained it to the railings at the local college and left it there. GD threw in the "yellow framed bike" in his account of his and JFs movements on the path that day. JuJ told the police Luke would come to the house for Jodi either on foot or on his bike.

Why? Why so much focus on push bikes?

Well, it turns out that JuJ told police Luke had told her on the phone, just before 11pm, that he was at the Newbattle entrance to the path and was coming up on his bike. What he actually said was he was coming up with his dog. The search trio was already at the top of the path when Luke arrived - did they too expect him earlier because he was on his bike? AW expressed surprise that he had the dog with him.

I can see the earliest investigators thinking,, hang on, there's something not right here - what's he done with the bike, since, from the moment they left JuJ's house at 23.18, they were already suspicious of Luke, believing he had left JuJ's house with Jodi at tea-time and was now claiming not to have seen her all evening. One officer believed Luke was "galloping about behind the school" when he (Luke), and the others, hadn't moved from the V point, and another claimed Luke had "led his officers a merry dance."

\Where did that early misinformation, and the suspicion about bikes come from? And more to the point,, why? Who, in reality, could mistake "on my bike" for "with my dog"? For clarity, JuJ corrected this herself, but not until some weeks later - in between times, everyone was still under the impression that either Luke was on his bike that night, or that for some reason, he had lied to JuJ about it. Neither was true, but nobody except JuJ knew that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 15, 2017, 11:06:PM
theres also the fact that the kiler would of had a fair bit of blood on them and if they had down it in broad daylight about  tea time unless they lived very near by they would of had a very slim chance of not being noticeid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 16, 2017, 09:37:AM
There are a number of ways the killer could have escaped without coming out onto either  of the paths, but this was never even a police consideration - in order to shoe-horn everything into their chosen theory, the initial claims that the killer would be heavily bloodstained, and appeals for anyone who'd witnessed someone disposing of their usual clothing, changing appearance, etc were dropped by trial - by then they were claiming the killer would "not necessarily" have been blood stained at all.

Even thought Busuttil, the pathologist, later stated it would have been impossible for the killer not have been contaminated with Jodi's blood, the ridiculous prosecution contention still stands today.

One of the routes through woodland runs around the outside of the golf course - there were two reports of suspicious behaviour in that area - one golfer saw a man emerging from the woods holding a "bundle" before stepping quickly back out of sight. Another saw someone at the river, possibly washing something in the river.

None of those other potential escape routes, however, makes it possible to get to Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where Luke lived, and to his front door, without emerging onto a main road, and a wide residential street.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 16, 2017, 10:07:AM
Luke's next door neighbour told police that he saw Luke out on the street, heading for his house at "about 10 o'clock or a little after." I've never quite worked out where the police were trying to go with this - I think it was in some way trying to frame an opportunity for Luke to have disposed of the weapon or clothing.

Here are the known facts - Luke returned home at 9.30pm (based on testimony from the other boys he was hanging around with that night.) He took Mia out for her last walk at around 10.20 - 10.30 - it was during this walk that he received JuJ's text intended for Jodi.

If we insert neighbour's sighting into that, the prosecution case is that Luke, having escaped unnoticed, cleaned up and been identified sitting, perfectly normal,  on a wall at the end of his street by 5.45pm, messed around in the woods with his mates, returned home, went out again to be seen returning half an hour later (having disposed of the weapon - the clothing part was dropped when they decided Corinne had burned it in the garden), went out again 20 - 30 minutes later to take the dog for a walk.

Really? Luke normally returned home after 10, having seen Jodi home for her curfew of 10pm. Interestingly, the neighbour's wife could not back up her husband's claim of seeing Luke "at or a little after" 10pm - it's equally possible the neighbour assumed Luke was returning at his normal time because that was what he (the neighbour) was used to seeing.

If Luke really was the cunning mastermind they tried to paint him as, wouldn't it have made more sense to "dispose of the weapon" under the cover of taking the dog for a walk, rather than drawing attention to himself with all that toing and froing?

Aside from the ludicrous scenario above, the prosecution would have us believe Luke returned home, cleaned up (without leaving any forensic traces in the house), left his blood stained clothing with his mother to burn while he went out to be seen at the end of his street. His mother then waited an hour and a quarter before trying to burn the clothing. An hour later, it rained heavily, presumably putting the fire out, because it was lit again (these are prosecution claims, remember) an hour and a half to two hours later, with no accelerants, and burned so fiercely that it destroyed every single forensic trace - zips, metal studs, melted synthetic fabrics, threads, everything. The neighbour didn't have to close the window to keep the smoke from this inferno out - he "liked" the smell of woodsmoke.

Meanwhile, Jodi had been "missing" - at least from her parents' perspective, for more than 4 hours - her body could have been found at any time. There was no time to dispose of the ash from the burner and replace it with "innocent ash" - Luke and Corinne were in the police station from half past midnight to 7am the following morning, and were under police surveillance from then on.

How people actually believed  this nonsense is beyond me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 10:17:AM
The misinformation you talk about is clearly a mother who didn't know the basic things about her daughter because she was preoccupied with something, the daughters appearsnce, where she was going and with who, it was a series of guesses about these factors given what happened that evening it's not unusual for someone to want to provide information that may help find her daughters killer.
It did however start the police down a route that made them lose sight of the case objectively.

The case of Sian Jenkins where he was convicted on microscopic bloodless says it all for me, this is what any killer is up against when it comes to DNA , this case was very much about blood and the thought that someone could perform those injuries to Jodi and not be contaminated is rediculous. There was blood on branches that would have transferred, blood on the ground, blood from contact with the body and blood from creating or being in contact with the wounds.

The escape routes are something I will need to leave to you Sandra as I have no real knowledge of the area so can't translate any of the information into how this case panned out or the possibilities .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 16, 2017, 12:20:PM
Quote
The case of Sian Jenkins where he was convicted on microscopic bloodless says it all for me, this is what any killer is up against when it comes to DNA , this case was very much about blood and the thought that someone could perform those injuries to Jodi and not be contaminated is rediculous. There was blood on branches that would have transferred, blood on the ground, blood from contact with the body and blood from creating or being in contact with the wounds.

There was a crime scene picture of someone holding a measuring square against the wall (to demonstrate the size of an area of bloodstaining). The hand holding the measuring square was wearing one of those latex forensic gloves, and here's the shocker - in the picture, the glove appears to be both soil and blood stained.

Two points here - (1) if even investigating officers are picking up traces of blood hours after the murder, it becomes impossible to maintain that the killer did not pick up such traces at the time of the attack and (2) how much cross-contamination was actually allowed to occur in the so-called forensic examination of this case?

By the time the forensics officer got there, items had been moved, items of clothing had been "gathered up" (allowing for cross contamination of those items to each other), Jodi's body had been not only moved onto a plastic sheet, but rolled over to allow for both front and back of her body to be photographed - this is before the forensics officer got there, and before the pathologist had examined the body in situ. What were they thinking? Or was it a case of, because of their over confidence from the off that Luke was the killer, they didn't think they had to wait?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 12:38:PM
we know the ground was such  that footprints were cast and wasnt it DD that suggested one was heading in the direction of Newbattle? luke wore very destinctive shoes ones that would have an almost unique footprint, there would have been other forms of organic forensics that may have put the killer at the crime scene so not all blood it was impossible to be forensically free of that crime and have commited it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 16, 2017, 01:42:PM
There are a number of ways the killer could have escaped without coming out onto either  of the paths, but this was never even a police consideration - in order to shoe-horn everything into their chosen theory, the initial claims that the killer would be heavily bloodstained, and appeals for anyone who'd witnessed someone disposing of their usual clothing, changing appearance, etc were dropped by trial - by then they were claiming the killer would "not necessarily" have been blood stained at all.

Even thought Busuttil, the pathologist, later stated it would have been impossible for the killer not have been contaminated with Jodi's blood, the ridiculous prosecution contention still stands today.

One of the routes through woodland runs around the outside of the golf course - there were two reports of suspicious behaviour in that area - one golfer saw a man emerging from the woods holding a "bundle" before stepping quickly back out of sight. Another saw someone at the river, possibly washing something in the river.

None of those other potential escape routes, however, makes it possible to get to Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where Luke lived, and to his front door, without emerging onto a main road, and a wide residential street.

theres was blood all over the scene i would find it hard to belive that blood could spray in all directions exept were the killer was standing also jodi faught back pretty hard and so i certan the killer would of had marks on or scratches on him. probely wouldent be noticied be a a casual observer but probely would of been by anybody who knew them
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 02:01:PM
I'm not totally sure that anyone would have had scratches as that's based on a number of variables.

This is just my opinion but most women when faced with a possible violent situation would be submissive to a point, not wanted to incite a possible attacker to the point where they won't run or shout. That is until that point where they believe their life to be in danger and every effort would have been made to get away or fight back.
The lack of noise might have meant she knew her killer and the actual attack could have came out of nowhere, she wasn't prepared or expecting the course of action from her killer, that said there was time when she did fight back , the bruises on the hands would suggest she hit back but where she hit would prove a problem concerning marking the killer.

The prosecution said that Jodi had discovered Luke had another girlfriend well I don't know many women who would be subdued enough in that situation where they wouldn't have made a noise , she would have been arguing with Luke for the whole duration they were together and of course we have no witness to any argument .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 16, 2017, 02:10:PM
not ncasarly scratches but they would of been marked in some way im sure theyre would be some sighns of a struggel on them i know it was a man struggeling with a 14 year old girl but she was big for her age and the forensics show she put up a fight.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 16, 2017, 02:25:PM
we know the ground was such  that footprints were cast and wasnt it DD that suggested one was heading in the direction of Newbattle? luke wore very destinctive shoes ones that would have an almost unique footprint, there would have been other forms of organic forensics that may have put the killer at the crime scene so not all blood it was impossible to be forensically free of that crime and have commited it.

Why would the police even have needed DD to tell them such a thing? When Luke went over the wall and turned left, in the direction Mia had alerted on the other side of the wall, guess what direction his boot prints would have been heading... you got it! Newbattle.

If Luke had been at the actual scene, i.e. where Jodi's body was found, as you say, the very distinctive tread marks would have been obvious. But Luke didn't approach the body - he stopped at the large tree several feet from the body, as did SK.

The shoe/boot prints recovered did not match Luke's boots (I've never seen anything that conclusively says they did not match SK's, even though the first (and only) item requested from any of the family search trio that night was SK's trainers.) Again, bizarrely, this was several hours later and, instead of the police collecting alternative footwear from his home, SK was allowed to go home, change his shoes, and return with his trainers to give to the police.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 16, 2017, 02:28:PM
This is the same SK who said he was wearing a green top on the evening of the murder, but, over a week later, handed in a grey top when asked to hand in the clothing he was wearing that night. All of his clothes, and JaJ's and AW's had been washed by then
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 02:39:PM
Sandra bruising needs blood pressure for a bruise to become visible so after say 10 secs after death I.e no pulse a bruise wouldn't come through, the bruising on the hands were they pronounced , was there anything suggesting that Jodi had been gagged?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 03:16:PM
I'm also guessing that all of Luke's footwear were taken by the police a long with clothes and such, so why didn't none of his footwear not match? Footwear tends to be something you wear consistently more so males.
So not only do we have the perceived parka jacket that everyone shouts about but also a pair of shoes going missing, I expect friends would and could have said Luke owned this type and that type of shoes and would have been harder to explain why he no longer had them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 16, 2017, 03:50:PM
Bruising on Jodi's hands, head and face was visible - it's not possible to say whether she was gagged or not.

Police took the clothes he was wearing when Jodi was found immediately (including the boots with the distinctive treads) and the remainder of his belongings on July 4th.

The reason I think they didn't go down the "missing footwear" route to explain why none of Luke's footwear matched the recovered prints was because they were a different size to Luke's shoe size.

They didn't even bother to take casts of some of the footwear imprints, so convinced were they that Luke was their man.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 04:00:PM
Bruising on Jodi's hands, head and face was visible - it's not possible to say whether she was gagged or not.

Police took the clothes he was wearing when Jodi was found immediately (including the boots with the distinctive treads) and the remainder of his belongings on July 4th.

The reason I think they didn't go down the "missing footwear" route to explain why none of Luke's footwear matched the recovered prints was because they were a different size to Luke's shoe size.

They didn't even bother to take casts of some of the footwear imprints, so convinced were they that Luke was their man.

wouldnt that work the other way though? there so sure that early on that they would take the casts, even although they were the wrong size which of course puts luke out the frame.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 16, 2017, 04:17:PM
You could be right - I think they were so convinced the DNA results were going to come back positive for Luke that they really weren't bothered about anything else.

Remember in the first week  they were saying that DNA results expected "within a week" (i.e 2 weeks after the murder) would "prove or disprove their main line of investigation." They'd been telling people since July 2nd they "knew" Luke was the murderer, so maybe they just thought boot print casts and preserving the crime scene weren't necessary?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 04:32:PM
Sry again not the best subject but you say there were bruises to the face and head were these likely caused by assault i.e area marked or cut,swollen or was it caused by levidity as if at some point Jodi was face down and moved, were their levidity bruises elsewhere that could point to the way she was left?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 16, 2017, 06:29:PM
The bruising I was talking about earlier was "in life" bruising, for want of a better way of putting it.

The difficulty with lividity is it can be altered up to six hours after death by movement of the body and (sorry, there's no other way to say this) there was so little blood left in the body to "pool" that it's really hard to say. Also, the crime scene photographs were of quite poor quality, so it was difficult to say whether marks were shadows, over exposure making areas seem discoloured, etc. What was surprising, though, was a complete lack of any apparent lividity on her back - that was the largest area in contact with the ground when she was found, yet there were no imprints, no discolouration, no leaves or soil staining. Her front, on the other hand, from the rib-cage to her knees, was soil stained and had leaves, twigs, etc clinging to it (although strangely, the uppermost part of her front did not have any of these, apart from some loose soil.)

However, there are a couple of other things that I find concerning. The front of both of Jodi's thighs appear to have been in contact with the ground after death - the skin was discoloured (possible lividity) there was soil staining and leaves on both, and her right thigh had what appeared to be "imprints" (as did her upper left arm and shoulder and left thigh).  The problem with this is that the front her right thigh was not in contact with the ground when she was found - this could suggest that at some point, she had been on her front (or at least the lower part of her body had), but had been moved into the position in which she was found.

That got me thinking about rigor. If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm on June 30th, it would be expected that, by 5.15am on July 1st, her body would have been in the full "rigid" state. But the photographs showed Jodi's head and left arm in different positions between the frontal photographs, and those taken from the back. How could that be possible?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 16, 2017, 07:22:PM
Was there any signs of blood still flowing when her body was found. Did anyone state that they seen this or was it all stopped
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on February 16, 2017, 07:32:PM
Hi sandra

I know it's a bit off topic, I'm really interested in what's being g posted at the moment but do you know what the general feeling g regarding luke and his guilt or innocence is within the local community now.?

Surely there is doubt and if so is it spoken about at all.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 10:27:PM
The bruising I was talking about earlier was "in life" bruising, for want of a better way of putting it.

The difficulty with lividity is it can be altered up to six hours after death by movement of the body and (sorry, there's no other way to say this) there was so little blood left in the body to "pool" that it's really hard to say. Also, the crime scene photographs were of quite poor quality, so it was difficult to say whether marks were shadows, over exposure making areas seem discoloured, etc. What was surprising, though, was a complete lack of any apparent lividity on her back - that was the largest area in contact with the ground when she was found, yet there were no imprints, no discolouration, no leaves or soil staining. Her front, on the other hand, from the rib-cage to her knees, was soil stained and had leaves, twigs, etc clinging to it (although strangely, the uppermost part of her front did not have any of these, apart from some loose soil.)

However, there are a couple of other things that I find concerning. The front of both of Jodi's thighs appear to have been in contact with the ground after death - the skin was discoloured (possible lividity) there was soil staining and leaves on both, and her right thigh had what appeared to be "imprints" (as did her upper left arm and shoulder and left thigh).  The problem with this is that the front her right thigh was not in contact with the ground when she was found - this could suggest that at some point, she had been on her front (or at least the lower part of her body had), but had been moved into the position in which she was found.

That got me thinking about rigor. If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm on June 30th, it would be expected that, by 5.15am on July 1st, her body would have been in the full "rigid" state. But the photographs showed Jodi's head and left arm in different positions between the frontal photographs, and those taken from the back. How could that be possible?

Rigor starts between 2-4 hrs after death and full rigor will have set in as early as 12 hrs, only factors that would change that would be temperature and high concentration of lactic acid in the muscles. The temperature was perfect that night for the normal advancement of the on set of rigor, Jodi fought and sustained a great deal of trauma so lactic acid would be present in her muscles but not enough as say someone who had ran a marathon.
I haven't seen the photos so it would depend on how natural the positioning of the arms and head were but certainly a later time of death would aid a more natural positioning of the body.
The problem is that even if it was as late as 10 pm then rigor starting at 12 am then by say 7 am when the photos are taken rigor would be at an advanced stage, the smaller muscles affected first then shoulder early on. No expert but doesn't make much sense.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 16, 2017, 11:03:PM
The bruising I was talking about earlier was "in life" bruising, for want of a better way of putting it.

The difficulty with lividity is it can be altered up to six hours after death by movement of the body and (sorry, there's no other way to say this) there was so little blood left in the body to "pool" that it's really hard to say. Also, the crime scene photographs were of quite poor quality, so it was difficult to say whether marks were shadows, over exposure making areas seem discoloured, etc. What was surprising, though, was a complete lack of any apparent lividity on her back - that was the largest area in contact with the ground when she was found, yet there were no imprints, no discolouration, no leaves or soil staining. Her front, on the other hand, from the rib-cage to her knees, was soil stained and had leaves, twigs, etc clinging to it (although strangely, the uppermost part of her front did not have any of these, apart from some loose soil.)

However, there are a couple of other things that I find concerning. The front of both of Jodi's thighs appear to have been in contact with the ground after death - the skin was discoloured (possible lividity) there was soil staining and leaves on both, and her right thigh had what appeared to be "imprints" (as did her upper left arm and shoulder and left thigh).  The problem with this is that the front her right thigh was not in contact with the ground when she was found - this could suggest that at some point, she had been on her front (or at least the lower part of her body had), but had been moved into the position in which she was found.

That got me thinking about rigor. If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm on June 30th, it would be expected that, by 5.15am on July 1st, her body would have been in the full "rigid" state. But the photographs showed Jodi's head and left arm in different positions between the frontal photographs, and those taken from the back. How could that be possible?

The area where the body was found was in a clearing right? but the area the initial assault and murder was further on towards Newbattle, where the blood spray and smear were found on the wall. Wouldn't the movement of the body have created the debris on the thighs and lower part of the body?
Still trying to remember what i can but weren't the clothes spread around where the body was found mainly with a few exceptions (bra strap) being further away. If so would that suggest she was clothed when moved.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 17, 2017, 06:13:AM
Was there any signs of blood still flowing when her body was found. Did anyone state that they seen this or was it all stopped

There were no reports of blood still flowing, as such, but there was some evidence of "wet" blood which was never reported officially. I'm going to have to look out those notes - I'm doing most of this from memory, so don't have all the details.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 17, 2017, 06:17:AM
Sry Sandra but this happens when your on call and up all night so more questions.

You were pretty sure that the footprint casts that were taken weren't the same size as Luke's can you remember what size they were .

The jeans were twisted and used to bind the hand around the back but only one hand was tied in a knot around the wrist, which wrist? Could the jeans be used to aid the movement of the body from where the initial attack took place to where Jodi was found?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 17, 2017, 06:25:AM
Hi sandra

I know it's a bit off topic, I'm really interested in what's being g posted at the moment but do you know what the general feeling g regarding luke and his guilt or innocence is within the local community now.?

Surely there is doubt and if so is it spoken about at all.

Doubt about his guilt or his innocence? For years, daring to speak out about the possibility of Luke being innocent was a pretty risky thing to do - feelings ran high for a very long time, and the media (fed by the police) had done a sterling job of convincing  the public that Luke was guilty.

That's changed over time and people are more likely, locally, to ask questions, rather than stick rigidly to the "he dunnit" approach. I'd say it's still a majority opinion that Luke is guilty, but there's no longer that blanket certainty - I think being able to put out so much information between 2008 and 2014  that had never been in the public domain helped, especially when it could be stated categorically that it all came from the case papers - until then there had been nothing for the general public to go on, other than the extremely negative media coverage. The lie detectors helped as well - it's a shame a lot of that information is gone now
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 17, 2017, 07:36:AM
Sorry, I can't remember the sizes of either Luke's shoes or the boot prints - I only remember that they were different sizes. I probably have a note of that somewhere as well. Looks like I really am going to have to dig out those notes - I'll try to do that I the next couple of days - problem is, I have to empty a whole room to get to them!

The jeans were knotted round Jodi's left wrist, wrapped around her right wrist. I'd say it was possible that the jeans could have been used to drag her body - her right arm was angled slightly outwards from her body, rather than being by her side, like her left arm.

Quote
The area where the body was found was in a clearing right? but the area the initial assault and murder was further on towards Newbattle, where the blood spray and smear were found on the wall. Wouldn't the movement of the body have created the debris on the thighs and lower part of the body?
Still trying to remember what i can but weren't the clothes spread around where the body was found mainly with a few exceptions (bra strap) being further away. If so would that suggest she was clothed when moved.

There were blood stained branches, etc, further towards Newbattle, but the blood spray on the wall was only about 3' or so from where Jodi was found. Most of the clothes were found in a trail over about 15' between the V break and Jodi's body - i.e. in the Easthouses direction - in order, they were found, from furthest away from the body to nearest - bra strap and two pound coins (these were found "later?"), hoodie to the right in some shrubs, glasses (missing one lens) and T shirt  midway, bra, underwear  and shoes nearest the body.  By nearest the body, I mean less than 5' away. Jodi was claimed to have been fully clothed when she was murdered, her throat cut while she was in a sitting position at the wall where she was found, and stripped afterwards.  Yet the bra was pure white, the laces and trims on the shoes were pure white, there was no visible blood staining on either. Is that possible?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 17, 2017, 09:14:AM
Not possible with how saturated the front and back of jodis t-shirt were, was there any blood on the hoodie?

The bindings of the trousers had no blood on the inside suggesting they were tied when the throat was cut but the t-shirt was cut up the back and the arms weren't cut to allow the t-shirt to be taken off the body , there's so much that doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 18, 2017, 12:54:PM
can anyone remind me what the name of the army cadet leader who gave evidence against luke was.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 18, 2017, 02:25:PM
I'm not sure if he was even called to give evidence mate, can't remember his name though.

Is there anyone who remembers the colour of the trainers that were found at the crime scene?

Did Jodi always wear her glasse's?

I know the messages sent around 4:36 between Jodi and Luke but did Luke ever say who sent the 1st message?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 18, 2017, 02:28:PM
yes i think her glases were found near the scene.

eveery photo ive seen of her shes wearing them so i think its safe to say she wore them all the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 18, 2017, 04:48:PM
The dog trainer has never been publicly named, nugnug.

Jodi's trainers (DCs) were dark blue with white piping and laces .

Jodi always wore her glasses, yes.

From memory, Luke sent the first message, but I'm far from sure on that, and would have to check. JuJ seemed to think Jodi "must have" texted Luke (since, according to JuJ, she had just ungrounded Jodi), however, for that to be the case, there would have had to be three texts - one from Jodi saying "Hey, I've just been ungrounded, are you coming out tonight" one from Luke saying "Cool, you want to come down here after tea?" and a third from Jodi saying, "Sure, I'll be down later."

But the official line is that there ere only 2 texts, from memory, Luke saying, "Are you coming out tonight, fancy coming down here after tea" and the response from Jodi "Yeah, I'll be down (or see you there) later."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 18, 2017, 04:55:PM
DC's? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 18, 2017, 05:16:PM
The dog trainer has never been publicly named, nugnug.

Jodi's trainers (DCs) were dark blue with white piping and laces .

Jodi always wore her glasses, yes.

From memory, Luke sent the first message, but I'm far from sure on that, and would have to check. JuJ seemed to think Jodi "must have" texted Luke (since, according to JuJ, she had just ungrounded Jodi), however, for that to be the case, there would have had to be three texts - one from Jodi saying "Hey, I've just been ungrounded, are you coming out tonight" one from Luke saying "Cool, you want to come down here after tea?" and a third from Jodi saying, "Sure, I'll be down later."

But the official line is that there ere only 2 texts, from memory, Luke saying, "Are you coming out tonight, fancy coming down here after tea" and the response from Jodi "Yeah, I'll be down (or see you there) later."

no I don't mean the dog trainer
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 19, 2017, 10:10:AM
Sorry, nugnug, I was rushing yesterday and didn't read your post properly.

The army cadets guy's name was Matthew Mouraska. Interestingly, his evidence was that he saw another cadet "passing something to Luke" - at no point did he say the knife belonged to Luke. Yet another little sleight of hand that was allowed to slip by un-noticed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 19, 2017, 10:11:AM
DC's?

The brand of trainers!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 19, 2017, 10:26:AM
Yeah sry I looked them up after I posted, didn't know that type before but seem to be popular with skateboarders types.

I'm wondering that blue trainer no matter how dark would an articulate teenager wear them with baggy black cords? Trainers are one of the few things we wouldn't pick if they weren't the right size as opposed to a t-shirt that may be m,l or xl depending on how you want it to look. I remember the cords being described as baggy , why were they baggy, were they too big for Jodi or simply her style?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 19, 2017, 11:32:AM
That seems a bit cryptic. I'm wondering how the police established that the cords were baggy as I don't see them reclothing the body to find out if they were indeed baggy. I suspect that Jodi would have been say a size 10,12 and the cords were a size bigger does that make sense?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 19, 2017, 01:14:PM
 the teachers who gave evdence agianst luke there were 2 of thrm wernt there i know gerldine mckie but the other ones name escapes me.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 19, 2017, 08:38:PM
Sorry, I can't remember the sizes of either Luke's shoes or the boot prints - I only remember that they were different sizes. I probably have a note of that somewhere as well. Looks like I really am going to have to dig out those notes - I'll try to do that I the next couple of days - problem is, I have to empty a whole room to get to them!

The jeans were knotted round Jodi's left wrist, wrapped around her right wrist. I'd say it was possible that the jeans could have been used to drag her body - her right arm was angled slightly outwards from her body, rather than being by her side, like her left arm.

There were blood stained branches, etc, further towards Newbattle, but the blood spray on the wall was only about 3' or so from where Jodi was found. Most of the clothes were found in a trail over about 15' between the V break and Jodi's body - i.e. in the Easthouses direction - in order, they were found, from furthest away from the body to nearest - bra strap and two pound coins (these were found "later?"), hoodie to the right in some shrubs, glasses (missing one lens) and T shirt  midway, bra, underwear  and shoes nearest the body.  By nearest the body, I mean less than 5' away. Jodi was claimed to have been fully clothed when she was murdered, her throat cut while she was in a sitting position at the wall where she was found, and stripped afterwards.  Yet the bra was pure white, the laces and trims on the shoes were pure white, there was no visible blood staining on either. Is that possible?

im sure if any footprints near the crime scence matched lukes shoe size the proscution would of mentioned it as ive heard no such mention from reading the courts i think its safe asume they dident.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 19, 2017, 08:40:PM
Sorry, nugnug, I was rushing yesterday and didn't read your post properly.

The army cadets guy's name was Matthew Mouraska. Interestingly, his evidence was that he saw another cadet "passing something to Luke" - at no point did he say the knife belonged to Luke. Yet another little sleight of hand that was allowed to slip by un-noticed.

are thankyou hes the one guy ive never done any reaserach on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 11:21:AM
Does anyone remember what jodi wore to school that day? I'm not sure if the schools in the area were strict when it came to wearing uniforms but being the last week and a lot of kids away on a trip they might have been relaxed on what you were allowed to wear. Luke certainly wore casual clothes but was wondering if that was normal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 12:11:PM
Does anyone have links to the diagrams curious made about the DNA?
There were a lot of samples of semen found but there were others like possible sweat, saliva and hairs but is there anything to suggest if ameligenin test were performed to determine wether or not these samples were male or female?

Also we know SK's profile was either taken or they had it as he went over the wall but were the DNA from the other members of the search party taken?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 02:19:PM
The dog trainer has never been publicly named, nugnug.

Jodi's trainers (DCs) were dark blue with white piping and laces .

Jodi always wore her glasses, yes.

From memory, Luke sent the first message, but I'm far from sure on that, and would have to check. JuJ seemed to think Jodi "must have" texted Luke (since, according to JuJ, she had just ungrounded Jodi), however, for that to be the case, there would have had to be three texts - one from Jodi saying "Hey, I've just been ungrounded, are you coming out tonight" one from Luke saying "Cool, you want to come down here after tea?" and a third from Jodi saying, "Sure, I'll be down later."

But the official line is that there ere only 2 texts, from memory, Luke saying, "Are you coming out tonight, fancy coming down here after tea" and the response from Jodi "Yeah, I'll be down (or see you there) later."

Jodi never had her phone so why would Luke know which phone to text, different if he was texted first then he would just respond to the number he was texted on. I don't see him just text JuJ in case she was nowhere near Jodi at the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 03:59:PM
The bra strap was found furthest away from the body but closer to the V break, did Jodi try and get away from the attack and run to the V for safety but was grabbed by her attacker by the bra, it was found with the hooks and plastic fastening all stretched out of place .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 21, 2017, 04:24:PM
Does anyone remember what jodi wore to school that day? I'm not sure if the schools in the area were strict when it came to wearing uniforms but being the last week and a lot of kids away on a trip they might have been relaxed on what you were allowed to wear. Luke certainly wore casual clothes but was wondering if that was normal.

Nobody knows for sure, Gordo. Her mum couldn't remember, but said she went upstairs to get changed. Luke remembered she was wearing her baggy trousers, but couldn't remember what she was wearing on top, and nobody else who was asked had any idea.

The school tried to be strict about uniform, but there were some kids who rebelled against it and, as you say, it was the last week, some of the kids were away, so they'd likely have been more relaxed about it. However, it's not a question I've ever seen having been asked of the teachers/head teacher.

BTW the reference to "baggy trousers" referred to the width of the legs (a different version of "flares" or Boot-cuts," if you get understand what I mean.) It didn't mean they were "too big" in terms of fit.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 04:45:PM
The deftones were formed in 1988 a year before Jodi was born but they had anew album out in 2003 so that might account for a rise in their popularity with younger people, their logo was a horse with their name underneath in red and sometimes orange was this the logo that was on the hoodie?

We wondered why AB hadn't seen it when she witnessed the people she saw but what about the two independent witnesses at 15:05? In fact how did they describe what jodi was wearing at that time?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 21, 2017, 04:46:PM
Does anyone have links to the diagrams curious made about the DNA?

Shoe
http://i.imgur.com/gr9cb.png

Underwear
http://i.imgur.com/K3apn.png

Trousers
http://i.imgur.com/pSctL.png

Body-front
http://i.imgur.com/uVNOy.png

Body-back
http://i.imgur.com/AmPsW.png

Jacket
http://i.imgur.com/9CToK.png

T-shirt
http://i.imgur.com/uzKcB.png

Bra
http://i.imgur.com/Tcnqq.png

A helpful map
http://i.imgur.com/8g52b.jpg

Quote
There were a lot of samples of semen found but there were others like possible sweat, saliva and hairs but is there anything to suggest if ameligenin test were performed to determine wether or not these samples were male or female?

Some were not tested - just listed as "believed to be....(e.g. saliva). Others (e.g. the "white/colourless hairs) were simply listed as "no reportable result" - not very helpful when we don't know what they were testing for, and others still just disappeared from the investigation - we have them logged, but there's no paper trail to say where they went or what was done with them.

Quote
Also we know SK's profile was either taken or they had it as he went over the wall but were the DNA from the other members of the search party taken?
Yes, but it's not clear when - there are statements several days later saying "I was asked to give a sample for DNA purposes" but it doesn't say if that was on the day the statement was taken, or if they forgot to take the statement at the time,, and went back for it later.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 21, 2017, 04:53:PM
Jodi never had her phone so why would Luke know which phone to text, different if he was texted first then he would just respond to the number he was texted on. I don't see him just text JuJ in case she was nowhere near Jodi at the time.

Very good point, Gordo! So where is the other text? It's not as if Jodi texted to say, "I'll meet you at such and such a place" and Luke just texted back to say "OK."

JuJ said she'd just ungrounded Jodi - if that was the case, Jodi couldn't have known if Luke had made alternative plans for the evening, so would have to have said "Can we meet up tonight?" or something similar. Luke would then have texted back with the suggestion that she come to Newbattle, but she would have had to reply to that, so that he knew she was coming down.

Alternatively, Luke's story is that he suggested Jodi come down, and she said she would be down "later" - as you point out, the suggestion that Jodi come to Newbattle had to be in response to an initial text from Jodi, otherwise, how would he have known which phone to text her on?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 04:59:PM
Very good point, Gordo! So where is the other text? It's not as if Jodi texted to say, "I'll meet you at such and such a place" and Luke just texted back to say "OK."

JuJ said she'd just ungrounded Jodi - if that was the case, Jodi couldn't have known if Luke had made alternative plans for the evening, so would have to have said "Can we meet up tonight?" or something similar. Luke would then have texted back with the suggestion that she come to Newbattle, but she would have had to reply to that, so that he knew she was coming down.

Alternatively, Luke's story is that he suggested Jodi come down, and she said she would be down "later" - as you point out, the suggestion that Jodi come to Newbattle had to be in response to an initial text from Jodi, otherwise, how would he have known which phone to text her on?

If luke had also taken it upon himself to just text JuJ out of the blue the chances are that JuJ would have read it and im guessing it would have been the only text she had had from luke so might have remembered or should have been clear as to what it said.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 05:02:PM
Some were not tested - just listed as "believed to be....(e.g. saliva). Others (e.g. the "white/colourless hairs) were simply listed as "no reportable result" - not very helpful when we don't know what they were testing for, and others still just disappeared from the investigation - we have them logged, but there's no paper trail to say where they went or what was done with them.

I just want to be certain Sandra none of these samples found on the clothing were ever tested specifically to determine if they were male or female?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 05:07:PM
Another random question sry ;D

Who all smoked between jodi's family and lukes?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 21, 2017, 05:14:PM
The bra strap was found furthest away from the body but closer to the V break, did Jodi try and get away from the attack and run to the V for safety but was grabbed by her attacker by the bra, it was found with the hooks and plastic fastening all stretched out of place .

But that would have to mean, presumably, that she was not wearing her t shirt and  hoodie at that point - I'd imagine it would be well nigh impossible to tear off a bra strap through two layers of clothing, and then have that bra strap drop independently of the other clothing.

I'd always assumed the two pound coins had fallen out of Jodi's hoodie pocket- now that I think about it, they could have fallen from the pocket of her trousers, but why were they with the bra strap?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 05:30:PM
The initial fight may have occurred at the same point but jodi could have tried to escape by that same route at a different time during the fight, she certainly was not fully clothed at some point during the assault.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 21, 2017, 11:45:PM
I wish i hadn't asked for the diagrams now they just confuse everything.

Why is every item contaminated by singular sperm cells!! we can produce up to 200 million in one ejaculaton so why just singular ones dotted around every item of clothing apart from the hoodie?and why not on the body where we know they are on the bra and inside cups of the bra specifically. Ok being left out overnight in the rain may account for it to a point but then fine hairs were there also and not dislodged.

The combination of brown and colourless hairs may suggest someone with highlights? did anyone have hair like that connected to this crime?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 22, 2017, 06:09:PM
Part of the problem with the sperm heads, I believe, is the information that "items were gathered up" before the forensics team got there. What was transferred in that one action, and from what, to what?

The sperm heads on the upper front of the T shirt, for example, could  have been deposited by folding one side onto the other after the items were gathered up, giving the impression of two smaller samples where, there may, originally, have been one larger sample.

Alternatively (and please forgive me, there is no more delicate way of putting this). hands/fingers which had been in contact with semen could account for the transfer of single, or small numbers of sperm heads had those hands/fingers come into contact with the items of clothing.

The bit I really don't understand is the recovery of sperm heads from inside the padding of the bra. Surface level, fair enough, could have been contact transfer, but inside the padding?

The brown hairs were mostly described as "long," (I remember one being 7" long), the colourless/white hairs described as "short" - some as small as 1cm.

One of the forensic hair reports, I have never forgotten. It stated that two long brown hairs had been recovered, cut at both ends. One of them had a root. I may not be forensically qualified, but I even I know that a hair cut "at both ends" can't still be attached to its root!!

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 22, 2017, 07:07:PM
I can't help thinking inside padding was due to maybe old washing transferral or something similar, it's also plausible with what you have written that these were transferred via contact with other clothes or fingers but what about the hoodie? It's could of course been processed correctly by someone else. In true form with this case though it throws up problems when you think you have answers as wasn't there a single sperm head found on the vaginal swab also.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 23, 2017, 01:20:PM
The whole clothing angle where we have the police asking SK about the possiblities that jodi shared/took JaJ's clothes was put to SK in the first interview is that right?
We also have Jodi's aunts giving out details that jodi was always using JaJ's clothes sometime before that? or after?
AW doing the washing the very day after the body was discovered.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on February 23, 2017, 01:44:PM
I can't help thinking inside padding was due to maybe old washing transferral or something similar, it's also plausible with what you have written that these were transferred via contact with other clothes or fingers but what about the hoodie? It's could of course been processed correctly by someone else. In true form with this case though it throws up problems when you think you have answers as wasn't there a single sperm head found on the vaginal swab also.
Gordo, it is possible that Jodi was performing oral sex, and the semen got into the bra padding
that way. It seems that quite a lot of semen was on Jodi's front, and the semen on the hood was
from a standing male.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on February 23, 2017, 03:24:PM
Gordo, it is possible that Jodi was performing oral sex,
maybe unwillingly and the semen got into the bra padding
that way. It seems that quite a lot of semen was on Jodi's front, and the semen on the hood was
from a standing male.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 23, 2017, 04:10:PM
Were not talking semen or ejaculate though were talking 1 single spermhead
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 23, 2017, 07:16:PM
Jodi never had her phone so why would Luke know which phone to text, different if he was texted first then he would just respond to the number he was texted on. I don't see him just text JuJ in case she was nowhere near Jodi at the time.

Was jodies phone not broken, would luke not have known this from school. It may have been a ploy to try and get jodi ungrounded as teenagers would do. Put the thought in jujs head as they would have known that jujitsu would have read it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 23, 2017, 07:41:PM
A bit of a long shot though, Luke still couldn't have been sure where JuJ was or even that any text to JuJ phone would ever have got to Jodi. Why would Luke bother as jodi's grounding meant that she was out at 6 anyway and he had put Jodi off till later in those texts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 23, 2017, 08:26:PM
He would have known when he got a reply, jodi surely would have told him what phone he could get her on and what the number was. Did he know juj phone number before that day? If Joe is phone had been broken more than a day then they will have discussed how he could get in contact with her the easiest.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 23, 2017, 08:31:PM
Jodi smashed her phone against a wall sometime the week earlier, its just that the texts started around 4:35 and in the texts it appears Luke put Jodi off coming down to his until later s0 if that scenario was true it meant they did all that for her to be out approx 15 mins early.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 23, 2017, 08:37:PM
Sorry I may be picking it up wrong. By jodi being un grounded early I wasn't aware that she was going to be un grounded that night. The way I understood it, it was an off the cuff thing by juj to unground her that evening.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 23, 2017, 08:42:PM
I thought that was always part of Luke's defence or should have been. How could he be waiting prepared to pounce on her when he never knew she was un grounded.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 23, 2017, 08:42:PM
Yes your right but grounding in the Jones household meant Jodi could go out at 6pm after chores so not the normal grounding we all assumed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 23, 2017, 08:46:PM
I'm confused  ???
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 23, 2017, 09:01:PM
Was jodies phone not broken, would luke not have known this from school. It may have been a ploy to try and get jodi ungrounded as teenagers would do. Put the thought in jujs head as they would have known that jujitsu would have read it.

One of the most confounding aspects of this case was trying to work out the mobile phones. I don't remember the exact configuration any more, but it went something like this:

JuJ bought identical phones for JoJ and Jodi (but not for JaJ) for Christmas, but they got mixed up and the one that was intended for Jodi went to JoJ and vice versa. JoJ gave his old phone to his mum, then decided he didn't like the new phone, so used his old sim card in his mum's phone (i.e. his own, old phone) "sometimes." Jodi sometimes carried her sim card from her broken phone, in order to be able to put it in friends' phones. Somewhere in the six months between Christmas and June, JoJ took his old phone back from his mum, or maybe he didn't, and she went back to using her old phone, or maybe the new one she'd bought for JoJ. JaJ's phone was a contract phone, but it was registered in JuJ's name. A statement attributed to JoJ gave his phone number to police but it turned out it wasn't the number from his old phone, or the new phone his mum had bought him for Christmas. Another statement attributed to JoJ said he didn't know why he'd given that number, and didn't know whose number it was.

Still with me?

Then the police labelled the phones wrongly, and maybe the phone registered as Jodi's was actually the one they'd been told was JaJ's - the one registered to her mother - or maybe not.

GD's phone was registered to his dad. JF ... well, he had a phone, but sometimes he didn't, and just like his bikes, he swapped his phones too, but the phone he thought he had at the time belonged to someone else entirely (just like the gloves found hidden in YK's house.)

Everybody keeping up here? Jodi's sim card was never recovered, but a sim card is recorded in the evidence all on its own - nothing to identify where it came from, or to whom it belonged.

AW had a mobile phone, JuJ claimed to have called it repeatedly on the night of June 30th, but no calls from JuJ to AW's mobile were found on AW's phone logs until (from memory) about 2 o'clock in the morning. That means that after AW left her house with the search trio (prior to the police arriving at JuJ's house to take the missing person's report), JuJ could have had no idea where her mother was, what she was doing, or with whom. JuJ told the police that night "My mum's out looking for Jodi" - no mention of anyone else. In a later statement, she said "Somehow, they all met up."

JaJ claimed she spoke to her mum on her mobile phone at 23:18, when the search trio were "still in the complex" (i.e. had not met up with Luke yet). The timing of this call from phone logs is verified because JaJ said her mother was saying the police had just arrived - we know the police radioed in their presence at JuJ's house at 23:18.

Sk had a phone, but it had no credit in it. He took it with him anyway, and was able to make the 999 call to police telling them the search party had found a body. The number logged by police as having made this call did not match the numbers of any of the phone details passed to the defence.

My head hurts!

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 23, 2017, 09:13:PM
good god
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 23, 2017, 09:24:PM
I'm confused  ???

According to various members of the family, when Jodi was first grounded (on any occasion she was grounded, not only the period leading up to her murder), she wasn't allowed out at all (except to go to her grandmother's house). Then, the grounding was relaxed a little, and she was allowed out between 6pm and 9pm, but only to hang out "up here" (e.g between Easthouses, where she lived, and Mayfield, where her Gran lived.)

An "ungrounding" meant she could go out before 6pm, return at her usual curfew of 10pm, and go wherever she wanted - she didn't have to stay in the local area.

There are a number of questions about this version of the grounding, its relaxation and final lifting.

Firstly, her sister and Gran gave statements that it was nothing like as structured and strictly monitored as eventually claimed - more a case of a couple of days restriction, then freedom (i.e. go out when and where you like, be home for 10) in return for "extra chores" to be done, according to JuJ's own statements, at times that suited Jodi.

Secondly, we know she didn't see Luke as much on the weekends because he went to his dad's, so Jodi could do her extra chores when Luke was away, in order to give her maximum free time when he was home.

Thirdly, Jodi and Luke were together until after 10pm on the Saturday before she died (Saturday 28th June). She was definitely with him before 6pm, and definitely missed her curfew of 10pm (Luke had to call a taxi to get her home when they realised it was after 10 o'clock). So she wasn't "grounded" by the claimed definition (or any version of it) two days before she was murdered.

Fourthly, JuJ gave an account of what she believed Jodi's most "recent" patterns had been when she went out of an evening - Jodi went to an area that was well outside the "up here" area - an area  apparently proscribed by the grounding, and got a bus home for 10 - Jodi would call or text if the bus was late.

Finally, and perhaps crucially, regarding all the talk of a sudden ungrounding, on Monday 30th June, both her sister and her Gran said in statements that all elements of "grounding" had "worn off" and it was business as usual, at least a week before the murder. JaJ was even able to give specific dates, based on exams she was sitting at the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 24, 2017, 09:43:AM
The whole clothing angle where we have the police asking SK about the possiblities that jodi shared/took JaJ's clothes was put to SK in the first interview is that right?
We also have Jodi's aunts giving out details that jodi was always using JaJ's clothes sometime before that? or after?
AW doing the washing the very day after the body was discovered.

No, The police went back to SK to ask about Jodi borrowing JaJ's clothes 10 days - 2 weeks later. It was at this time that JaJ said she had two identical t shirts - she had one, but couldn't find the other, and thought it could have been the one Jodi was wearing when she was murdered. Reading that statement, however, it looks like JaJ was specifically asked the question "Could Jodi have been wearing your T shirt," rather than JaJ spontaneously offering that possibility.

The aunts made their public appeal on 15th July (just after Sk and JaJ's statements make reference for the first time, to Jodi borrowing JaJ's clothes.) they said:

"She borrowed her sister's clothes, was untidy at times and liked to tease her brother"

We know, from all of the statements, that  the bit about "teasing her brother" is not true.

The aunts' public appeal is quite odd in a number of ways - I'll deal with that in my next post.

AW said she started doing the whole family's washing (even though they lived in different houses) when Jodi died (not after Jodi died, but when she died.) May just have been her way of speaking, of course
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 24, 2017, 10:08:AM
The aunts' public appeal:

Quote
The only thing helping the family through its grief was the hope that her killer might be caught.

Might be caught? The entire community by then was in "Get the b**tard" mode - no ifs, buts or maybes - the killer was definitely going to be caught, it was only a matter of time.

Quote
"Obviously this is a very difficult time for the family but we hope that by making this public appeal someone who may know what happened to Jodi or has information for the police will come forward

They knew what happened to Jodi. By then, everybody did. The information they were seeking was who did it, and why?

Quote
"The family is asking everyone to examine their conscience and share with the police any doubts about someone they know who has been acting strangely, or out of character."

This is 10 days after JF claimed his Gran (the mother of the two aunts making the appeal) told him not to go to the police and tell them he had been on the path. The same JF who, by then, had hacked off his own hair. People had already given statements to the police about JF "acting strangely" immediately after the murder.

Speaking on JuJ's behalf, they said (for her)

Quote
"I believe someone at this time is still in turmoil over doubts they have about someone close to them. They just do not accept that this person, someone they know, is capable of such a thing. You have to break through that non-acceptance and come forward for the protection of other children.

It was only a few days before this that AW and JuJ gave accounts of JoJ's movements on June 28th, 29th and 30th. Until then, he had not featured in any statements, other than his name being mentioned as a family member. Corinne claimed JuJ said, when she came to see Luke "Thank God they didn't find out about JoJ's illness." Other members of the Mitchell family have confirmed this, although JuJ has always denied it. (How would Corinne have known about JoJ's illness?) Two days after Jodi's murder, JuJ is afraid police may "jump to the wrong conclusion" because of JoJ's illness - is that why he wasn't even mentioned to police by anyone for 9 days? And why it wasn't until another couple of days later that there was any mention of his illness?

If nothing else, it demonstrates that JuJ understood the reasons why some people might be reluctant for the police to have certain information - even she had hesitated in fear of her son being placed under suspicion because of his illness.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 24, 2017, 12:54:PM
I remember years ago while talking about the t-shirt there was something odd about the label but what was it? I'm hoping your going to say that it was clean!! I think the t-shirt was identified at court by the label suggesting to me that it was clean and free of blood is this correct?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 24, 2017, 01:09:PM
I'm sure it was reported that it smelled of soap powder or detergent.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 24, 2017, 01:13:PM
note the emphasis on borrowing her sisters clothes at the press confrence anyone else think tats a bit of a funny coincedence.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 24, 2017, 01:46:PM


Marty's right - it was noted that the t shirt smelled of detergent, the implication being that it had been freshly laundered when Jodi put it on.

The label was red with the logo "LOGG" on it. When SK was asked to describe the "identical" T shirts belonging to JaJ, it was the description of this label that he gave. They were both supposed to be plain black t shirts - it could be that this was the only thing that stood out about them. But I'm pretty sure my ex wouldn't have been able to tell you what labels were on which of my t shirts!

It just seemed to me at the time to be an odd thing to focus on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 24, 2017, 01:53:PM
note the emphasis on borrowing her sisters clothes at the press confrence anyone else think tats a bit of a funny coincedence.

Even more-so when it comes hot on the heels of the swapped t shirt story (which, of course, wasn't in the media at the time)

The "teasing her brother" bit is also hot on the heels of the first information about the brother's movements being revealed to police.

I guess the question about this whole appeal thing, for me, is the timing. This was just before the search trio's stories about what happened at the V break started to change to incriminate, rather than support, Luke's version of events. Up to then, they all told the same story.

So three things happen - the "swapped T shirt" story emerges, police realise they've overlooked a critical member of Jodi's family for almost a fortnight, and the search trio start to change their accounts, and bang in the middle is the aunts' public appeal.

In spite of a reconstruction and a public appeal, Lothian and Borders did not take the next, obvious step, and accept the offer of Crimewatch to cover the case. Why not?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 24, 2017, 06:44:PM
in fact ive never realy seen a press conference iike it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on February 24, 2017, 07:39:PM
What was JoJ's illness?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 24, 2017, 07:41:PM
He had personality disorders and was at the time on trial drugs or new drug for his condition
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 24, 2017, 09:57:PM
I want to put a different slant on this case, a theory that fits the best with what we know but is beset with a few problems that the readers may be able to help with.

We know the initial assault may have been quite prolonged as we have bruises to jodi's hands,head and face and defence wounds. The crime scene itself is pretty confined when you think of where the body was found and the spread of the clothes around it. The bra strap being furthest from the body towards the V break point to her possibly being forced back by the strap meaning she was most probably semi naked at this point but very much alive. This is backed up with the fact jodis bra was clearly not contaminated with the blood from the throat wounds so placing her at a point where she was naked when the fatal injuries occur. We do however have her t-shirt saturated with her blood suggesting she was indeed clothed when she was killed, trouble is if her bra isn't then we know she couldn't have been, no bra no t-shirt when she was killed.
This leads me to believe that the t-shirt present at the scene may well be the t-shirt the killer wore and left behind so they could exit the scene without being covered in blood by wearing the t- shirt Jodi was wearing initially. This has many implications but would account for why the t-shirt didn't need to be cut at the arms to take it off the body that had her hands tied behind her back. It could also account for the samples that were discovered.
This also brings a few problems! Just what clothes were indeed the clothes Jodi wore at the point of the crime, the bra and trainers have to be jodi's as these are defined by size and had they been anyone else's then they also would need to have been the same size as Jodi which although not being unusual would be harder to believe.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 25, 2017, 11:58:AM
if jodi wasnt killed at the time the prscutin cliamed and i think thers ever increasing evdence she wasnt were was she.

she wouldent of been hanging around the woods on her own she would f had to have been with somone.

or around somones flat or house.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on February 25, 2017, 06:05:PM
Where are the documents to support any of the claims regarding this case? Why should we take the word of Sandra Lean and the slant she had chosen to put on this case?

If the police believed JJ's was murdered by a family member or any of the others mentioned on this thread and alluded to, they would not have pursued Luke Mitchell.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 25, 2017, 06:06:PM
Nugnug, you may have hit on something there.

YW, Jodi's cousin, lived just across the street from Gran. She lied about Jodi being in her flat on at least two occasions previously (the time Jodi skipped school and the time JaJ was sent looking for Jodi at silly o'clock in the morning because she hadn't returned to her Gran's by 10 o'clock... that was the time there was no instant search). Gran also lied to JuJ about Jodi being in YW's flat (and also to Corinne who was led to believe they were all staying over at the Gran's).

If Jodi left her own house too early to see Luke, she could have taken the same route through the complex, but gone to YW's, rather than her Gran's. YW's statements were not taken seriously by anyone (she was described as "not too bright".)

JF rubbished YW's claim that he had told her on July 1st that he was going to go to the police in the morning to tell them he had been on the path, on the moped.

YW's was the main place they all hung out to smoke weed, because they could. She was a young single mother with her own flat - no adults around to tell them what to do.

Instead of going to his Gran's, where he was supposed to be staying the night of the murder, JF left GD's ridiculously early (GD said it was because his gran was an early bedder and liked him in before she went to bed - utter nonsense, according to all of the other statements) - he went to YW's where he watched  the search party leaving from the gran's house. How many people are gazing out of the window at after 11 at night?

Anyway, I digress, there is a plausible theory of where Jodi could have been if she had to "be quiet...shoo...go out" way to early to meet Luke. Looking at it now, it is the most likely place she would have gone. It is also the most likely place where the cannabis that was still in her bloodstream when she was murdered, was ingested.

Why would YW say nothing if Jodi had been in her flat? Fear? Threats? Told not to tell? (Remember, JF claimed his gran told him not to go to the police because he was on the path at the "wrong time" - the only reason he was forced to come forward, in the end, was because he and GD had been seen by more than half a dozen witnesses.)

If there were no witnesses to Jodi being in YW's flat and she was never asked the question, she may have been convinced by others that it was not important. For the record, I have never seen any statement outlining what YW did the day of the murder (who was in her house throughout the day, for example). From what I know, she was vulnerable and suggestible.

For example, she didn't know what to do about the gloves, and she didn't report them to the police. A friend, when she found out about them, told the police, and only then were questions asked about them. If the friend hadn't found out, or hadn't bothered to say, that would have been another piece of information known to the family, but not to the investigators.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on February 25, 2017, 06:07:PM
He had personality disorders and was at the time on trial drugs or new drug for his condition

Do you not think Luke Mitchell displayed early signs of psychopathy/personality disorder?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 25, 2017, 06:14:PM
Where are the documents to support any of the claims regarding this case? Why should we take the word of Sandra Lean and the slant she had chosen to put on this case?

If the police believed JJ's was murdered by a family member or any of the others mentioned on this thread and alluded to, they would not have pursued Luke Mitchell.

Bullsh*t! The police believed from the minute they left JuJ's house that Luke had something to do with Jodi's disappearance, and within half a hour of that, that he was her killer. Don't take my word for it - check out what the SCCRC had to say about it - Luke was treated as a suspect from the minute he was treated differently to the other searchers - so, like, instantly. And, of course, we know that no-one else was ever treated as a suspect - no other houses were ever searched, no one else was detained - they didn't get as far as "believing" anyone else might be responsible - they didn't even think about it.

Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything. You're well aware that in Scotland it's an offence to share case materials with "third parties" - don't much feel like getting arrested for a case I'm no longer involved with. So, like everybody else here, I'm just discussing the case and looking at the anomalies.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 25, 2017, 06:18:PM
Do you not think Luke Mitchell displayed early signs of psychopathy/personality disorder?

i don't think he was diagnosed with such and we are not qaulfied to diagnose him.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 25, 2017, 06:22:PM
Do you not think Luke Mitchell displayed early signs of psychopathy/personality disorder?

Already ruled out by the real psychologists and psychiatrists over and over and over again.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 25, 2017, 06:38:PM
Nugnug, you may have hit on something there.

YW, Jodi's cousin, lived just across the street from Gran. She lied about Jodi being in her flat on at least two occasions previously (the time Jodi skipped school and the time JaJ was sent looking for Jodi at silly o'clock in the morning because she hadn't returned to her Gran's by 10 o'clock... that was the time there was no instant search). Gran also lied to JuJ about Jodi being in YW's flat (and also to Corinne who was led to believe they were all staying over at the Gran's).

If Jodi left her own house too early to see Luke, she could have taken the same route through the complex, but gone to YW's, rather than her Gran's. YW's statements were not taken seriously by anyone (she was described as "not too bright".)

JF rubbished YW's claim that he had told her on July 1st that he was going to go to the police in the morning to tell them he had been on the path, on the moped.

YW's was the main place they all hung out to smoke weed, because they could. She was a young single mother with her own flat - no adults around to tell them what to do.

Instead of going to his Gran's, where he was supposed to be staying the night of the murder, JF left GD's ridiculously early (GD said it was because his gran was an early bedder and liked him in before she went to bed - utter nonsense, according to all of the other statements) - he went to YW's where he watched  the search party leaving from the gran's house. How many people are gazing out of the window at after 11 at night?

Anyway, I digress, there is a plausible theory of where Jodi could have been if she had to "be quiet...shoo...go out" way to early to meet Luke. Looking at it now, it is the most likely place she would have gone. It is also the most likely place where the cannabis that was still in her bloodstream when she was murdered, was ingested.

Why would YW say nothing if Jodi had been in her flat? Fear? Threats? Told not to tell? (Remember, JF claimed his gran told him not to go to the police because he was on the path at the "wrong time" - the only reason he was forced to come forward, in the end, was because he and GD had been seen by more than half a dozen witnesses.)

If there were no witnesses to Jodi being in YW's flat and she was never asked the question, she may have been convinced by others that it was not important. For the record, I have never seen any statement outlining what YW did the day of the murder (who was in her house throughout the day, for example). From what I know, she was vulnerable and suggestible.

For example, she didn't know what to do about the gloves, and she didn't report them to the police. A friend, when she found out about them, told the police, and only then were questions asked about them. If the friend hadn't found out, or hadn't bothered to say, that would have been another piece of information known to the family, but not to the investigators.

her cousen was also the only person jodi knew who had there own everyone else lived with there parents so im of the mind she must f been there becouse if she was with anybody else there mum or dad might of noticied.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on February 25, 2017, 06:56:PM
So who is going to ask YW if Jodi went there instead. I find it very difficult to believe she was killed at the time they stated. It just fitted with the police timeframe. If they had done their job properly i.e. Hadn't left jodi's poor body laying outside, moving her etc I'm sure they would have got to the truth in the right way.

Was the gran ever called up on her lies? Did her lies come out in court.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 25, 2017, 07:11:PM
Oh dear, monthly allowance of internet time again
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 25, 2017, 07:34:PM
It would be difficult, all these years later, to ask YW directly, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, it means legitimate ways of doing so have to be found.

Gran's lies were not called out in court. Evidence of JF and GD's lies consisted almost entirely of cross-examination of their lie about the time they were on the path. Their reasons for not coming forward sooner were pretty much skipped over at trial - they were asked, mumbled the usual "I don't remember" and then things moved on. JF was quizzed about cutting his hair, but that line of questioning ended up going round in circles.

It's almost impossible to believe - if the defence QC had pushed the question "why did you not come forward before the police television appeal?" whatever answer JF had given, the opportunity would have been right there to read out his police statement about his Gran telling him not to.

None of the information about Jodi's previous "disappearance" two months earlier, and the complete lack of concern on that occasion, came out in court. None of the family's tendency to cover things up from each other came out (I'm not casting any negative aspersions there - the absolute truth is that they did cover for each other prior to Jodi's murder - from each other, from the authorities, from the medical profession.) It took 8 years for me to find out the truth about these matters, and then to face the utter disbelief that none of it made it into the trial.

This is from memory, so the timings may be out a little bit:

JuJ's claim was that JF was with JoJ the whole afternoon until "sometime after 3.30pm" - she couldn't say for sure, because she didn't hear him leave. BUT, JuJ called the doctor at either 3.05 or 3.20pm that day (really sorry, I don't remember which) to cancel JoJ's regular home visit (for his mental health conditions) which was scheduled for 5pm. When she was asked why, she said it was because JoJ wanted to smoke cannabis, and the doctors had said he should not because it negatively impacted both his medication and conditions.

Let's just break that down. According to the statements, JoJ and JF had been smoking cannabis since "lunchtime." It could be that JuJ was wrongly quoted when she said "wanted to smoke " rather than "had been" smoking.  But if JuJ was in the living room, calling the doctor between 3.05 and 3.20pm, how did she not hear JF leaving? He would have to have walked past the room where she had just called the doctor, the room where she sat in silence (doing some paperwork) until just before 4pm, when she went into the kitchen to start preparing dinner. More to the point, she is quite clear it was sometime after 3.30 - how did she know? In one statement, she suggests that JF is there when JoJ asks her to call the doctor, but according to JF and a statement attributed to JoJ, JF was long gone by then.

And why, of all days, was the appointment cancelled that day? It was clearly not an issue prior to that day - doctors' visits when JoJ had been smoking were not unheard of.

If the statement is accurate, and the appointment was cancelled because JoJ "wanted to (continue to) smoke", and JF was there when the request to call the doctor was made, did it not occur to JuJ that it was a little strange that JF left so soon afterwards? If the request was so that the smoking session could be extended (as JuJ seemed to be implying), why did JF leave almost as soon as the arrangement had been made?

It's important to understand, in terms of the timings here, that Jodi walked through the door no later than 4.05pm. There has never been any suggestion that JF was still in the house when Jodi arrived home from school.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 25, 2017, 10:01:PM
It would be difficult, all these years later, to ask YW directly, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, it means legitimate ways of doing so have to be found.

Gran's lies were not called out in court. Evidence of JF and GD's lies consisted almost entirely of cross-examination of their lie about the time they were on the path. Their reasons for not coming forward sooner were pretty much skipped over at trial - they were asked, mumbled the usual "I don't remember" and then things moved on. JF was quizzed about cutting his hair, but that line of questioning ended up going round in circles.

It's almost impossible to believe - if the defence QC had pushed the question "why did you not come forward before the police television appeal?" whatever answer JF had given, the opportunity would have been right there to read out his police statement about his Gran telling him not to.

None of the information about Jodi's previous "disappearance" two months earlier, and the complete lack of concern on that occasion, came out in court. None of the family's tendency to cover things up from each other came out (I'm not casting any negative aspersions there - the absolute truth is that they did cover for each other prior to Jodi's murder - from each other, from the authorities, from the medical profession.) It took 8 years for me to find out the truth about these matters, and then to face the utter disbelief that none of it made it into the trial.

This is from memory, so the timings may be out a little bit:

JuJ's claim was that JF was with JoJ the whole afternoon until "sometime after 3.30pm" - she couldn't say for sure, because she didn't hear him leave. BUT, JuJ called the doctor at either 3.05 or 3.20pm that day (really sorry, I don't remember which) to cancel JoJ's regular home visit (for his mental health conditions) which was scheduled for 5pm. When she was asked why, she said it was because JoJ wanted to smoke cannabis, and the doctors had said he should not because it negatively impacted both his medication and conditions.

Let's just break that down. According to the statements, JoJ and JF had been smoking cannabis since "lunchtime." It could be that JuJ was wrongly quoted when she said "wanted to smoke " rather than "had been" smoking.  But if JuJ was in the living room, calling the doctor between 3.05 and 3.20pm, how did she not hear JF leaving? He would have to have walked past the room where she had just called the doctor, the room where she sat in silence (doing some paperwork) until just before 4pm, when she went into the kitchen to start preparing dinner. More to the point, she is quite clear it was sometime after 3.30 - how did she know? In one statement, she suggests that JF is there when JoJ asks her to call the doctor, but according to JF and a statement attributed to JoJ, JF was long gone by then.

And why, of all days, was the appointment cancelled that day? It was clearly not an issue prior to that day - doctors' visits when JoJ had been smoking were not unheard of.

If the statement is accurate, and the appointment was cancelled because JoJ "wanted to (continue to) smoke", and JF was there when the request to call the doctor was made, did it not occur to JuJ that it was a little strange that JF left so soon afterwards? If the request was so that the smoking session could be extended (as JuJ seemed to be implying), why did JF leave almost as soon as the arrangement had been made?

It's important to understand, in terms of the timings here, that Jodi walked through the door no later than 4.05pm. There has never been any suggestion that JF was still in the house when Jodi arrived home from school.

1 thing that struck me in jodis text to luke was she said I don't know what time ill get there now if she was going straight to lukes I think she would have a rough what time she would get there by that suggests to me that she was planning to go somewhere else before going to lukes.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on February 25, 2017, 10:31:PM
i don't think he was diagnosed with such and we are not qaulfied to diagnose him.

What about Luke Mitchell's 'unusual' relationship with his mother https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TZc3cMSB-3wC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=luke+mitchell+murder+psychopath&source=bl&ots=64iYzHi9cq&sig=wttR-FkwIGfKisGInYAV35nnm4c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlwLGipKzSAhVlLsAKHaQ3CgcQ6AEISDAI#v=onepage&q=luke%20mitchell%20murder%20psychopath&f=false

And why wont't Sandra Lean acknowledge this to be true publicly?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on February 25, 2017, 10:39:PM
It would be difficult, all these years later, to ask YW directly, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, it means legitimate ways of doing so have to be found.

Gran's lies were not called out in court. Evidence of JF and GD's lies consisted almost entirely of cross-examination of their lie about the time they were on the path. Their reasons for not coming forward sooner were pretty much skipped over at trial - they were asked, mumbled the usual "I don't remember" and then things moved on. JF was quizzed about cutting his hair, but that line of questioning ended up going round in circles.

It's almost impossible to believe - if the defence QC had pushed the question "why did you not come forward before the police television appeal?" whatever answer JF had given, the opportunity would have been right there to read out his police statement about his Gran telling him not to.

None of the information about Jodi's previous "disappearance" two months earlier, and the complete lack of concern on that occasion, came out in court. None of the family's tendency to cover things up from each other came out (I'm not casting any negative aspersions there - the absolute truth is that they did cover for each other prior to Jodi's murder - from each other, from the authorities, from the medical profession.) It took 8 years for me to find out the truth about these matters, and then to face the utter disbelief that none of it made it into the trial.

This is from memory, so the timings may be out a little bit:

JuJ's claim was that JF was with JoJ the whole afternoon until "sometime after 3.30pm" - she couldn't say for sure, because she didn't hear him leave. BUT, JuJ called the doctor at either 3.05 or 3.20pm that day (really sorry, I don't remember which) to cancel JoJ's regular home visit (for his mental health conditions) which was scheduled for 5pm. When she was asked why, she said it was because JoJ wanted to smoke cannabis, and the doctors had said he should not because it negatively impacted both his medication and conditions.

Let's just break that down. According to the statements, JoJ and JF had been smoking cannabis since "lunchtime." It could be that JuJ was wrongly quoted when she said "wanted to smoke " rather than "had been" smoking.  But if JuJ was in the living room, calling the doctor between 3.05 and 3.20pm, how did she not hear JF leaving? He would have to have walked past the room where she had just called the doctor, the room where she sat in silence (doing some paperwork) until just before 4pm, when she went into the kitchen to start preparing dinner. More to the point, she is quite clear it was sometime after 3.30 - how did she know? In one statement, she suggests that JF is there when JoJ asks her to call the doctor, but according to JF and a statement attributed to JoJ, JF was long gone by then.

And why, of all days, was the appointment cancelled that day? It was clearly not an issue prior to that day - doctors' visits when JoJ had been smoking were not unheard of.

If the statement is accurate, and the appointment was cancelled because JoJ "wanted to (continue to) smoke", and JF was there when the request to call the doctor was made, did it not occur to JuJ that it was a little strange that JF left so soon afterwards? If the request was so that the smoking session could be extended (as JuJ seemed to be implying), why did JF leave almost as soon as the arrangement had been made?

It's important to understand, in terms of the timings here, that Jodi walked through the door no later than 4.05pm. There has never been any suggestion that JF was still in the house when Jodi arrived home from school.

How can this not be perceived as unkind when you are choosing to give a one sided account? What about the lies told by the Mitchell's and all the anomalies regarding their behaviours and statements made?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 25, 2017, 10:53:PM
1 thing that struck in jodis text to luke was she said I don't know what time ill get there now if she was going straight to lukes I think she would have a rough what time she would get there by that suggests to me that she was planning to go somewhere else before going to lukes.

Exactly Nugnug. These were 14 year olds, getting up to stuff they shouldn't have been, trying to keep the oldies out of the equation. They had their own code ... "later" could have meant "I'm going to try to pick us up some stuff on the way down, don't know how long that'll take, see you when I get there."

It would also have explained Luke's reticence about why he didn't call JuJ back to find out where Jodi might be - he said, in his very first police interview "I didn't want to get her into trouble." By the time the interrogators were done with him, six weeks later, he was on the receiving end of a barrage of demands  to come up with an "acceptable" reason why he hadn't called back (because they wouldn't accept any of his perfectly reasonable explanations) this was the interrogation, by the way, in which the appeal court concluded that the interrogation officers had "lost it" and their behaviour was "deplorable" -
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on February 25, 2017, 10:57:PM
Already ruled out by the real psychologists and psychiatrists over and over and over again.

This is not evidence that it didn't or doesn't exist...


"Left largely to his own devices he became defiant, violent and brooding with an unhealthy fascination with knives, the occult and drugs. He was first brought to the attention of the mental health profession aged just 11, following a fight at King’s Park Primary in Dalkeith. Although the incident was just a minor skirmish with another pupil, Mitchell’s attitude was sufficiently troublesome to warrant a referral to a school psychiatrist. However, there appears to have been little further action taken by the education authorities or his parents to curb his behaviour. When he was 12 he threatened his then girlfriend with a knife because she refused to have sex with him. The incidents went on. When he moved to St David’s High, a music teacher found him trying to throttle another pupil and he was sent to an educational psychologist. He refused the expert’s help. Instead Mitchell became a rebellious, mysterious teenager who was heavily into cannabis and supplied his Goth friends with the drug.

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 25, 2017, 11:21:PM
Apologies to all concerned.

None of the pseudo-psychologists, whose opinions of Luke appeared in the media, ever actually spoke to him.

The original claim about an "unusual" relationship came from the liaison officer (referred to in court as the "Vixen in the henhouse") - she was totally and completely aware that Luke was sleeping on a settee in the living room, because the medication he had been given for trauma made him dopey, sleepy, and potentially a danger to himself going up and down stairs.

Corinne slept on a sofa at the other side of the room, ready to direct him back to his sofa if he started wandering in the night.

The liaison officer, who knew about this arrangement, wrote in her report "We found the suspect and his mother sleeping in the same room"

That's it - unusual relationship explained. Sorry for my lack of restraint earlier.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 26, 2017, 12:29:PM
Exactly Nugnug. These were 14 year olds, getting up to stuff they shouldn't have been, trying to keep the oldies out of the equation. They had their own code ... "later" could have meant "I'm going to try to pick us up some stuff on the way down, don't know how long that'll take, see you when I get there."

It would also have explained Luke's reticence about why he didn't call JuJ back to find out where Jodi might be - he said, in his very first police interview "I didn't want to get her into trouble." By the time the interrogators were done with him, six weeks later, he was on the receiving end of a barrage of demands  to come up with an "acceptable" reason why he hadn't called back (because they wouldn't accept any of his perfectly reasonable explanations) this was the interrogation, by the way, in which the appeal court concluded that the interrogation officers had "lost it" and their behaviour was "deplorable" -

if she was going to get some canabis where would she have gone i asume to see jof but  was anywhere else she culd of got it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 26, 2017, 12:43:PM
If my theory is correct and the t-shirt belonged to the killer it leaves the possibility that other items were to.

This would explain a lot.

Definitely explain.
1. The change in description from the initial blue jeans/blue hoodie to the clothes found at the crime scene.
2. Why the bra was not contaminated by Jodis blood.
3. Why no one was ever seen covered in blood from the crime scene.
4. The over emphasis on the borrowing of clothes between siblings.
5. The DNA samples of blood and semen from an identified male.
6. The t-shirt not being cut at the arms to allow removal.
7. The lack of blood on the torso if the killer realised that had the victim worn the t-shirt then front and back would be covered in blood so possibly used the t-shirt to clean the body.

Potentially explain.
1. Why AW took to washing the day after her granddaughter was murdered and some of those clothes that were washed belonged to Jodi .
2. Why Jodi was intent on seeing Luke earlier than was their normal routine.
3. Why all the clothes at the crime scene appear to be linked by singular sperm cells.
4.

Loosely explain.
1. If there was a clear and present danger to Jodi could stocky man have been sent to protect Jody and not as thought be a threat to her.

Can anyone add to this?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 26, 2017, 06:17:PM
what was the normal time for Jodi and luke to meet
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 27, 2017, 02:53:PM
If my theory is correct and the t-shirt belonged to the killer it leaves the possibility that other items were to.

This would explain a lot.

Definitely explain.
1. The change in description from the initial blue jeans/blue hoodie to the clothes found at the crime scene.
2. Why the bra was not contaminated by Jodis blood.
3. Why no one was ever seen covered in blood from the crime scene.
4. The over emphasis on the borrowing of clothes between siblings.
5. The DNA samples of blood and semen from an identified male.
6. The t-shirt not being cut at the arms to allow removal.
7. The lack of blood on the torso if the killer realised that had the victim worn the t-shirt then front and back would be covered in blood so possibly used the t-shirt to clean the body.

Potentially explain.
1. Why AW took to washing the day after her granddaughter was murdered and some of those clothes that were washed belonged to Jodi .
2. Why Jodi was intent on seeing Luke earlier than was their normal routine.
3. Why all the clothes at the crime scene appear to be linked by singular sperm cells.
4.

Loosely explain.
1. If there was a clear and present danger to Jodi could stocky man have been sent to protect Jody and not as thought be a threat to her.

Can anyone add to this?

jodi was heading towards roans dyke now everybody assumed that she was on thr way to see luke but who else did she know that lived near there i can think of 2 people.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 28, 2017, 08:20:AM
if she was going to get some canabis where would she have gone i asume to see jof but  was anywhere else she culd of got it.

This was the day of the 8 bar - JF and JoJ walked down from AW's to JuJ's before lunchtime with 8 oz of cannabis. I imagine that was something of an event for those who got their supplies from JF. (It appears never to have been recovered by police).

At some point that afternoon (from the statements, I'd say between 12 and 2pm) JF cut a piece to take "to his mother and her partner." Because his statements are all over the place, there is one that suggests he went to his mother's from YW's, not from JuJ's house - could he have left some cannabis at YW's to be picked up later?

Also, this is the evening JF "forgot" to go back to see JoJ at six o'clock. He forgot there were 8 ozs of cannabis there, within 4 - 6 hours of leaving it there? The 8oz wasn't for JoJ's personal use, because JF cut a piece to take to his mother and her partner. What, exactly was going on with that?

I don't use cannabis, never have, so I've no idea how much 8oz of cannabis resin would have been worth in 2003. But Jof, GD and JoJ were all on benefits, so not rolling with cash. I'm assuming they got it "on tick" to sell, but from whom? JF continued to sell cannabis right under the noses of police for another 10 months - Luke's conviction for cannabis should have been chucked out as entrapment - the police were watching his every move, they knew from early July 2003 that he and other teenagers got their cannabis from JF, and not once, in all that time, was he ever charged for being involved with drugs.

Six o'clock was Jodi's regular meeting time with Luke and other friends.(Luke couldn't get there much before 6 because he cooked dinner for his mum coming in at around 5.15pm every day, then had to eat and get to Woodburn or Easthouses.)

Coincidentally, that was the time JF was supposed to go back to see JoJ.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on February 28, 2017, 09:12:AM
If my theory is correct and the t-shirt belonged to the killer it leaves the possibility that other items were to.

This would explain a lot.

Definitely explain.
1. The change in description from the initial blue jeans/blue hoodie to the clothes found at the crime scene.

This was AB's initial description, which JuJ appeared to agree with because she had no idea what Jodi was wearing. But it's also close to the description of the school uniform colours for Newbattle High, which was literally a few yards away from AB's claimed sighting - there's really nothing to say this sighting was of Jodi.

Quote
2. Why the bra was not contaminated by Jodis blood.

That's an odd one, I agree. There was a "contact" stain on the clasp area of the bra - I can't remember if this was claimed to be Jodi's blood or a "no reportable result" but I think we'd have to conclude that it wasn't Jodi who deposited that stain, especially given the pristine nature of the bra when it was found. Also, and this has always seemed strange to me, the other clothes (underwear, t shirt, hoodie) were "strewn around" - basically just thrown down wherever they landed, but the bra was neatly folded.
 
Quote
3. Why no one was ever seen covered in blood from the crime scene.
It would be one explanation, yes. But the network of tracks and cycle paths in the area mean the killer could have travelled a fair distance without ever emerging onto "public" areas. Rape Kit man Allan Roberts, for example, was claimed to have admitted to Jodi's murder while he was on remand awaiting trial for an attack on another woman in Musselburgh. It is possible to get from Easthouses to Musselburgh without emerging onto proper roads or paths, simply by following the river.

Quote
4. The over emphasis on the borrowing of clothes between siblings.
Again, the whole borrowed clothes thing is very strange and definitely seems contrived.

Quote
5. The DNA samples of blood and semen from an identified male.
There's something intrinsically wrong about the way this was explained away - what police force, in a massive murder investigation, tried to come up with "innocent explanations" for this? Some of the other recovered partial DNA matches, however, do not fit this individual's profile, so there would have to be an explanation for their presence.

Quote
6. The t-shirt not being cut at the arms to allow removal.
Not sure what you mean by this- I can't remember exactly how the t shirt was cut, but from memory, it was an upside down L shaped cut - again a strange thing to do  if the cutting of the t shirt was intended to aid removal.

Quote
7. The lack of blood on the torso if the killer realised that had the victim worn the t-shirt then front and back would be covered in blood so possibly used the t-shirt to clean the body.
Yes, but I'd have expected smears to be left behind - there were none. The torso was completely blood free.

Quote
Potentially explain.

1. Why AW took to washing the day after her granddaughter was murdered and some of those clothes that were washed belonged to Jodi
Potentially, yes. AW doing the washing meant that SK, JF and JoJ's clothes were all being bundled together with all of the females in the family, so any cross-contamination of any items would have an innocent explanation.

Quote
2. Why Jodi was intent on seeing Luke earlier than was their normal routine.
We don't know that she was. According to JuJ, she was telling Jodi to be quiet, shoo and go out around 4pm, just after Jodi came in from school. But she also said originally that Jodi left around 5.30, before changing the time to 4.50. Luke said Jodi texted that she would be down "later."

Quote
3. Why all the clothes at the crime scene appear to be linked by singular sperm cells.
Not all the sperm cells have been proven to originate from the same source, though.


Quote
Loosely explain.
1. If there was a clear and present danger to Jodi could stocky man have been sent to protect Jody and not as thought be a threat to her.
Depends who stocky man was. If he was unpredictable, that might not have been the best idea?

These are just my immediate thoughts on your points - as always, I'm open to any new thoughts or ideas that might lead to some understanding of what really happened.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 10:36:AM
If my theory is correct and the t-shirt belonged to the killer it leaves the possibility that other items were to.

This would explain a lot.

Definitely explain.
1. The change in description from the initial blue jeans/blue hoodie to the clothes found at the crime scene.

This was AB's initial description, which JuJ appeared to agree with because she had no idea what Jodi was wearing. But it's also close to the description of the school uniform colours for Newbattle High, which was literally a few yards away from AB's claimed sighting - there's really nothing to say this sighting was of Jodi.

Ok I think this can be moved to loosely explain as the police believed the AB sighting was that of Jodi and if JUJ agreed then surely Jodi must have owned clothes of a similar description and again surely JuJ must have looked to see if these posssible clothes were still in the house or not, in light of the possibility that the sighting could have been Jodi then I feel it's still relevant to my theory.

What was the description that the two independent witnesses that saw Jodi later on give to what she was wearing?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 28, 2017, 10:54:AM
If it was the killers t shirt, surely you would have to have the killers dna
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2017, 11:09:AM
if it was the killers t shirt wouldent the killer have to be roughly the same size her in order for it to be mistaken for her hers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2017, 11:10:AM
If it was the killers t shirt, surely you would have to have the killers dna

i would of thought so to.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 11:12:AM
Without knowing who all the samples belong to there's no way of knowing if the killers DNA is there or not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2017, 11:17:AM
im sure it actully is there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 12:33:PM

Quote

    2. Why the bra was not contaminated by Jodis blood.


That's an odd one, I agree. There was a "contact" stain on the clasp area of the bra - I can't remember if this was claimed to be Jodi's blood or a "no reportable result" but I think we'd have to conclude that it wasn't Jodi who deposited that stain, especially given the pristine nature of the bra when it was found. Also, and this has always seemed strange to me, the other clothes (underwear, t shirt, hoodie) were "strewn around" - basically just thrown down wherever they landed, but the bra was neatly folded.


This is the main reason I feel that the t-shirt is the killers, theres no way the  bra  was worn when the throat injuries were performed, If she wasnt wearing her bra then she couldn't have been wearing a t-shirt also.
The bra being folded is strange but there does appear to be two modes of action at the crime scene, one where we have anger and violence and one more methodical where we have bra's folded, shoes being placed neatly together and accurate post mortem injuries.
Theres also the possiblity that the killer never handled the bra and shoes as no blood was transferred from the hands that surely would have been covered in blood.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 12:52:PM

Quote

    3. Why no one was ever seen covered in blood from the crime scene.

It would be one explanation, yes. But the network of tracks and cycle paths in the area mean the killer could have travelled a fair distance without ever emerging onto "public" areas. Rape Kit man Allan Roberts, for example, was claimed to have admitted to Jodi's murder while he was on remand awaiting trial for an attack on another woman in Musselburgh. It is possible to get from Easthouses to Musselburgh without emerging onto proper roads or paths, simply by following the river.


I agree that it was possible but the probablity that the killer was someone who didn't know Jodi or whp lived outside the area is remote, most of the people Jodi knew stayed in the area housing developments and would have had to emerge into a public thoroughfare at some point. If faced with being able to get there without being seen and the choice of changing clothes to enable to get home then im sure they would choose to do so.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 12:57:PM
if it was the killers t shirt wouldent the killer have to be roughly the same size her in order for it to be mistaken for her hers.

Exactly mate but thats not too far out when you consider Jodi liked to wear things baggy so many of her clothes would fit someone relatively the same size as her. The reason why the bra and shoes couldn't be anyone else's apart from Jodi's is there defined by size.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2017, 01:01:PM
well it would her mothers incorrect description of the t shirt she was wearing.

but if that was the killers t shirt what happend to her t shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 01:10:PM
Mate the killer wore it
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 28, 2017, 01:32:PM
I would have thought there would be a complete DNA sample on the t shirt if it was the killers. All the ruff stuff, sweating, saliva and so on. Probably numerous samples.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2017, 01:50:PM
dont forget the weather and the police mishandeling of the crime scene.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 01:55:PM
I would have thought there would be a complete DNA sample on the t shirt if it was the killers. All the ruff stuff, sweating, saliva and so on. Probably numerous samples.
We have them, everything you have posted and more were there, including hairs. The fact the t-shirt was reported to have been laundered recently may add to the fact that little defined DNA was available plus the fact it was saturated with blood would contaminate a lot of the DNA that was there .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2017, 03:01:PM
why would the killer do this though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 06:39:PM
Quote

    5. The DNA samples of blood and semen from an identified male.

There's something intrinsically wrong about the way this was explained away - what police force, in a massive murder investigation, tried to come up with "innocent explanations" for this? Some of the other recovered partial DNA matches, however, do not fit this individual's profile, so there would have to be an explanation for their presence.


I don't agree if the t-shirt is Jodi's then yes all DNA must be accounted for and should lead to the killer and what happened that evening.
If the t-shirt is the killers then any DNA is pertinent to them, who they met,what and where they were and what they did but that wouldn't always be linked to the crime, although it would help identify the killer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 07:07:PM

Quote

    6. The t-shirt not being cut at the arms to allow removal.

Not sure what you mean by this- I can't remember exactly how the t shirt was cut, but from memory, it was an upside down L shaped cut - again a strange thing to do  if the cutting of the t shirt was intended to aid removal.


The t-shirt was cut up the back in whatever way but we were always led to believe that both arms weren't cut to allow the t-shirt to be removed if Jodi's hands were tied behind her back at the time of death,  the jeans didn't contain blood in the bindings but to the surface, is this correct?
If so then there was no need to cut the arms if Jodi wasn't wearing it!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 07:23:PM
One other thing, why didn't the police establish a source for the motive they followed that of Luke and another girl were in a relationship and Jodi had found out about it?
It appears everything was as normal during school hours so sometime after lunch during class that they didn't share Jodi was suppossed to have found this out! surely the source of that would have came forward in light of what happened that night and certainly after the suspicion fell on Luke and the community started to fall in the same way to the rumours that would have surfaced around those early days.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 08:08:PM
Quote

    5. The DNA samples of blood and semen from an identified male.

There's something intrinsically wrong about the way this was explained away - what police force, in a massive murder investigation, tried to come up with "innocent explanations" for this? Some of the other recovered partial DNA matches, however, do not fit this individual's profile, so there would have to be an explanation for their presence.


I don't agree if the t-shirt is Jodi's then yes all DNA must be accounted for and should lead to the killer and what happened that evening.
If the t-shirt is the killers then any DNA is pertinent to them, who they met,what and where they were and what they did but that wouldn't always be linked to the crime, although it would help identify the killer.

If i can take this a bit further here wouldn't you expect any partial DNA profiles to match people Jodi knew? wouldn't these profiles be easily attributed to people she was with that day! I mean if JuJ is to be believed then she was sat down and made to listen to a song with her brother, shouldn't his full or partial DNA be on a t-shirt or any garment she was still wearing from her daily routine. I know were told she went and changed but was there a need to change all clothes, anyway the point still stands anyone she came into contact with should have been partial DNA from people she knew.
The same couldn't be said for the killers t-shirt though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 28, 2017, 09:08:PM
Partial DNA profiles don't match anyone whether she could possibly know then or not
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 09:13:PM
I agree but then why would we need to discount them as being there? im just defending the theory here.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 28, 2017, 09:20:PM
So if your theory is correct. The one full DNA profile from blood and semen, he either has to be the killer, knows him or associated with him in some way that day.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 09:25:PM
yip i guess thats what im saying
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on February 28, 2017, 09:30:PM
You know what, I think you could be right about that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on February 28, 2017, 09:35:PM
Its no more than an explanation mainly for the fact we have anomolies at the scene that don't make sense but this does however explain them to a point, there are many problems with this theory but thats why putting these things out on a forum like this helps, getting other view points on the information we know.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on February 28, 2017, 10:17:PM
the only problem i can with this theory is why would they do it everything else about it makes sense.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 01, 2017, 10:30:AM
Do what
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 01, 2017, 12:07:PM
leave his t shirt there and wear the vicems.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 01, 2017, 01:37:PM
The killers t-shirt would have been covered in blood while the victims if she wasn't wearing it would have been clean.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 01, 2017, 02:01:PM
its would certanly explian why the description of jodis clothes given by jodis mother was completly wrong.

what about the hoody.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 08, 2017, 12:28:AM
One problem I have is that the bra being clean of blood proves that it wasn't worn by Jodi at the time of her death but It had been touched,handled and possibly moved so why wasn't there blood from that handling?
Why is it both sets of items namely the bra and shoes were handled methodically and placed neatly folded bra and shoes placed together?
I have always felt that a second person was at that crime scene at some point and that certain aspects of it were staged to a degree, does this prove that these items were being handled by that 2nd person who couldn't contaminate with blood because their hands were clean?
This leads to other problems as why handle two sets of items pertinent to a female! what possible interest could there be in these items, why choose them ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 08, 2017, 12:12:PM
to move the body or stage the crime scene would of taken some time how long do you think.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 08, 2017, 02:14:PM
That's a hard one as we know time was taken after the murder to perform post mortem injuries so I'm guessing 10/15 mins or slightly more , the post mortem injuries appear to be important to the crime that's why whoever was there spent time without worrying how long it would take .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 08, 2017, 02:42:PM
if the body was moved was it necasrly by the killer or could it of been somone else.

the patholgist said he thought the body had been moved and he wouldent of said that without good reason.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 09, 2017, 10:35:AM
There are a number of reasons to think the body had been moved, and possibly more than once. For example, the claim was that Jodi was killed at the wall, facing it. Her body was discovered approximately 6 feet out from the wall at right angles to it (feet nearest the wall). So there's one move.

There were leaves and soil on the front of both of Jodi's thighs, and on her stomach, but one thigh and most of her stomach were not in contact with the ground - had she initially been face down, and someone partially turned the body over?

Then, of course, we have the utterly incompetent "investigators" gathering up items and placing Jodi's body onto a plastic sheet before the forensics officers got there - they moved the body twice - once onto the plastic sheet facing upwards, and then rolling it over to photograph the back.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 09, 2017, 11:28:AM
if the body was moved was it necasrly by the killer or could it of been somone else.

the patholgist said he thought the body had been moved and he wouldent of said that without good reason.

What was done at the crime scene was enough to have the desired  effect, the police when seeing a naked teenager thought that it was sexually motivated until the autopsy report came back with no evidence to support that, imagine their dismay a few weeks later when the DNA came back with all those semen samples!!
The movement, stripping and post mortem injuries all compose a staging of the crime scene to a point.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 09, 2017, 01:40:PM
what do you think the motive would be for staging the crime scene.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 09, 2017, 05:28:PM
Ritualistic, Fantasy, fetish. Something like that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 09, 2017, 05:38:PM
or possibly someone trying to make like a different kind of murder.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 09, 2017, 09:40:PM
That's what I was thinking, Nugnug. The thing is, I can't quite get it all to fit together in my head.

Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.

Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads.  Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theories?

But, if this was a crime staged to look like a sexually motivated attack, it failed fairly quickly, since police dropped that as a possibility by mid July.

The very clean bra, I agree with Gordo - Jodi could not possibly have been wearing it when the cut-throat injuries were inflicted - apart from anything else, the blood saturation of the t-shirt makes the cleanliness of the bra a physical impossibility, if it was being worn under the t-shirt at the time those injuries were inflicted. But the transfer stain on the clasp area means someone with some level of contamination of Jodi's blood touched (or undid) that clasp. The only other possibility (please forgive me, I include this only because it's the only other plausible explanation) is that a bleeding Jodi undid the clasp herself.

The pathology reports, and the forensic evidence from the scene (drips and splashes of blood on foliage, branches etc) suggest that Jodi had bleeding injuries before the fatal cut-throat injuries were inflicted - her lip was burst, for example.

But here's something that might throw even more confusion into the mix (sorry!) Jodi's hands were filthy - caked with dirt, embedded right under her fingernails - if it was Jodi who undid the clasp, she had to have done so before her hands got so dirty, or the clasp area would have been heavily dirt stained. It wasn't.

So, if we're turning this around and Jodi was not stripped after death (again, something I've been arguing for years), how do we explain the known evidence, and how does Gordo's hypothesis fit with alternative explanations?

The cut t-shirt was "heavily bloodstained" around the neck area. If Jodi was killed in a sitting position, facing the wall, I'd have expected the t-shirt to be heavily bloodstained definitely down the whole of the front, at the very least, over the shoulder areas, and potentially down the back. If the hoodie was being worn at the time, then I'd expect the t-shirt to be possibly less stained, but the hoodie to be saturated. It wasn't - it was bloodstained on one side of the hood.

I never understood the bloodstaining in the armpit of one of the sleeves of the hoodie- there were no injuries on Jodi's body that could account for that heavy staining, and no cuts in the hoodie to suggest an injury inflicted through it. There were also no "matching" cuts in the t-shirt

Which brings me to the "defensive wounds" on Jodi's arms. She couldn't have been wearing the hoodie when these were inflicted - no cuts to the hoodie sleeves in the areas of these injuries, no bloodstaining to match with those injuries, either directly or indirectly (e.g. sleeves rolled up when the injuries were inflicted.) So, what about the t-shirt? Could that have been still worn when the arm injuries were inflicted? Again, I'd be inclined to say no. These were horrific injuries. If Jodi had done the instinctive thing when they were inflicted and drawn her arms towards her body to shield them I'd have expected to see extensive blood staining on the t-shirr around the chest or stomach area, most probably soaking through to the bra. If she was flailing her arms, trying to fend off further blows, then I'd have expected to see splashes of blood from those injuries on the front, back and sleeves of the t-shirt, as well as the jeans, and again, because of the level of blood loss, where those splashes landed on the t-shirt, I'd expect to see soak-through onto the bra.

I have no idea where all of this might lead - I'm just thinking out loud, all these years later, about the anomalies, the things that just don't add up, and never have.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 09, 2017, 10:57:PM
Sandra was the blood in the hoodie and the armpit as well as the injury to the mouth on the same side, if so it's consistent with someone bleeding from a wound on the face while lying on their side arm extended above their head and the head nestled into the arm pit.
The hoodie wouldn't need to be over the head it would naturally fall to that side.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 10, 2017, 09:53:AM

Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.


I find this a little misleading as any deviant sexual assault could only be acertainted once the culprit is caught, it would not be wise for the police to assume any crime could have a deviant aspect to it. Some people gain sexual gratification throught simply stealing from shops and other obscure activities.
What the police were saying is that the crime wan't of an "A" sexual nature as opposed to a pseudo
sexual crime.


Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads.  Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theories?


Thats what im saying there is a third theory where these samples were placed innocently on the garment/s if the garment/s belonged to someone else. This is the point where the police were banging their heads between sexual/non sexual crime but I can't believe they looked for an explanation that discounted these samples from being linked to the crime and not simply being used to solve the crime.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 10, 2017, 10:03:AM
But, if this was a crime staged to look like a sexually motivated attack, it failed fairly quickly, since police dropped that as a possibility by mid July.


The police were always going to get something right, at the start when faced with fogged up information regarding Jodi where she was,when,times and with who they would have been forgiven if thinking this was sexually motivated, it wasn't.
It did however help to lead them to thinking the boyfriend, the staging could never be enough to put them off the right track for long but they simply took another wrong route.
Thats why I suggest that the staging had the desired effect.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 10, 2017, 02:24:PM
Sandra was the blood in the hoodie and the armpit as well as the injury to the mouth on the same side, if so it's consistent with someone bleeding from a wound on the face while lying on their side arm extended above their head and the head nestled into the arm pit.
The hoodie wouldn't need to be over the head it would naturally fall to that side.

Armpit and face injury were opposites sides - not entirely sure about the hoodie - from memory, the hood was stained on the same side as the armpit, which would put that at the opposite side to the face injury as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 10, 2017, 02:33:PM

Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.


I find this a little misleading as any deviant sexual assault could only be acertainted once the culprit is caught, it would not be wise for the police to assume any crime could have a deviant aspect to it. Some people gain sexual gratification throught simply stealing from shops and other obscure activities.
What the police were saying is that the crime wan't of an "A" sexual nature as opposed to a pseudo
sexual crime.

Never my intention to mislead, Gordo! Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough - in my opinion, the police decision that the attack wasn't sexually motivated was premature, given that a 14 year old girl was found naked and her body mutilated, and that sperm heads and semen were found on her clothing. At the time they ruled out a sexual motive (on the basis of no evidence of a sexual assault or injury), they dismissed the fact that stripping Jodi naked and leaving her body out in the open was, in itself, a sexual assault. They did not have all the DNA results back when they changed their minds about it being sexually motivated, so, again, they were discounting evidence without, at that specific time, any justifiable reason to do so.

Again, in my opinon, investigators should not have been ruling out any possibilities that early in the investigation. I was not arguing so much that they should have assumed it was sexually motivated, more that they should have left open that possibility on the basis of other evidence available to them at that time.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 10, 2017, 02:42:PM
misleading was the wrong choice of word sry.

I meant that at the early stage of the enquiry with what they knew there was a specific route to investigate , when at that point there was no concrete evidence of sexual assault then they proceeded to not interview known sex offenders and other proceedures relating to a sexual offence. Im not sure if they really ever lost sight of that possiblity though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 10, 2017, 03:01:PM
Quote
Thats what im saying there is a third theory where these samples were placed innocently on the garment/s if the garment/s belonged to someone else. This is the point where the police were banging their heads between sexual/non sexual crime but I can't believe they looked for an explanation that discounted these samples from being linked to the crime and not simply being used to solve the crime.

So, the garments we're talking about have to be the bra and the t-shirt, since the hoodie was definitely Jodi's, and the trousers appear to be the ones Luke described Jodi wearing at school that day.

The police had a perfect opportunity to bolster their innocent transfer theory - JaJ had two identical t-shirts, one of which she and SK claimed Jodi "might have been" wearing, and which forensics officers reported appeared to have been freshly laundered. They could have taken the other, identical t-shirt, freshly laundered, and checked for a full DNA profile for sperm heads, etc on that. They never did. Partly because at one point JaJ claimed to have been wearing the identical t-shirt the night they found Jodi, and as we know, the search trio didn't hand in their clothes until more than a week later, when they'd all been washed. I've never seen test results for any of those items of clothing.

But there was another opportunity - a pair of trousers found in Jodi's washing pile (unwashed) were claimed to have been borrowed (without permission?) from JaJ. Would those have yielded innocent transfer sperm heads?

My point is, although it would have proven nothing of significance, I'm surprised they didn't use it to back up their "innocent transfer" claim although, god knows, the DNA results were confusing enough, without throwing another identical t-shirt into the mix.

It is one of the most confounding decisions I've ever come across - a murder case where police actively discount, and come up with "innocent explanations" for DNA at the crime scene. As a general rule, you'd expect them to be all over that instantly, rather than trying to explain it away.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 10, 2017, 03:10:PM
misleading was the wrong choice of word sry.

I meant that at the early stage of the enquiry with what they knew there was a specific route to investigate , when at that point there was no concrete evidence of sexual assault then they proceeded to not interview known sex offenders and other proceedures relating to a sexual offence. Im not sure if they really ever lost sight of that possiblity though.

I'm fairly sure they didn't lose sight of it - they were just doing everything in their power to weave it into the "boyfriend dunnit" story. In August 2003, they threw the most vile sexual accusations at Luke (who, remember, had just turned 15), including a claim that a "partial DNA match" from semen was found on Jodi's bra. There are two problems with their "partial match" claim - firstly, a partial can never be claimed to be a "match" and secondly, there were markers in those samples that did not appear in Luke's profile - if all of the markers present in the samples were assumed to be from one contributor, those samples actually ruled Luke out.

I would also assume the use of the FBI profilers was expected to throw up some sort of sexual deviancy possibility which could be linked to Luke, but it didn't, hence the reason they tried to bury it, and then, when it was finally released, it was redacted so much it was unreadable. Had there been anything in that report to even hint at Luke, I'm pretty sure the media would have got hold of it "somehow."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 10, 2017, 04:11:PM
blood on the bra strap now cant see why somone under violent atack would suddenly stop and take there bra so i belive the killer must of undone the bra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on March 10, 2017, 06:40:PM
Hi sandra

forgive me but are the clothes allowed to be tested by the defence?

can they be tested again now? Can his defence team get hold of all forensic evidence and have it re tested

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 10, 2017, 07:36:PM
Technically, notsure, the answer is yes and no!

They could have had second opinions run at the time of, or prior to trial, had they known the significance of the various bits and pieces as they related to the prosecution case. But the prosecution didn't run its case on forensics, (i.e., they didn't rely on forensics to prove their "chosen scenario(s)") because it would have sunk their case before they started.

One of the legal technicalities the defence faced was that it was very difficult for them to then bring in all the DNA/forensic anomalies, except as they related to the prosecution case. To a large degree, the defence can only respond to what the prosecution has claimed - if the prosecution doesn't claim (or doesn't appear to claim) X,Y or Z, then the defence can't really raise it, because they're only there to defend their client against the claims made by the prosecution.

I know that goes against everything we believe about the fairness of our justice system, and I was shocked to the core when I found out, but that's the way it is.

If the defence were to try to say, for example, but there's forensic DNA evidence pointing here, here and here, the judge's response would be, "It is not unknown persons on trial here today, but the defendant in the dock - the prosecution case against him is ......, is your point addressing any part of that case?"

Two of the prosecution's forensics experts were nailed to the floor by Findlay - one who claimed a profile on a pair of Luke's trousers "could have been" linked to the murder was forced to admit she had zero evidence on which to make that claim, and another, who stated Luke "could not be eliminated" as a contributor to a sample was forced to admit that one in every 2 males "could not be eliminated." But that's as far as it could go - Finlay couldn't then take it further and say, "What do you think explains these contact stains?" That's just not allowed.

The defence is not there to prove their client is innocent - by bringing in all of the DNA etc (even if that had been possible), the defence would have been seen to be trying to prove Luke's innocence, rather than demonstrating that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt.

The appeals process is not a re-run of the trial, so re-testing of the DNA/forensic evidence would only be allowed if a technical, legal argument could be made that the significance of evidence of this sort was over-stated or mis-represented to the jury (such as the cases of Barry George, Sion Jenkins and all of the mothers jailed for the tragic deaths of their babies on the discredited evidence of Roy Meadow). But the jury in Luke's case never convicted on such evidence (so it could never be claimed they'd been misled by it) so it doesn't count.

The biggest hope was that the SCCRC's re-testing would show that accurate forensic tests  critically undermined the prosecution case from the off - unfortunately, the Commission was not prepared to go that far.

The chances of an independent group in Scotland being able to obtain the samples for independent testing is slim (but not impossible) - that is now Luke's only hope in this respect, unless a full DNA profile, matching one from the crime scene, should come up in another similar case, but even then, the state is under no obligation to release that information, because Luke's case is closed, and has no live proceedings pending. The only reasons they were forced to release the information about JaF's DNA turning up three years later, in relation to another crime,  was because Luke's appeal was pending.

Depressing, isn't it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 11, 2017, 12:18:AM
That's what I was thinking, Nugnug. The thing is, I can't quite get it all to fit together in my head.

Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.

Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads.  Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theories?

But, if this was a crime staged to look like a sexually motivated attack, it failed fairly quickly, since police dropped that as a possibility by mid July.

The very clean bra, I agree with Gordo - Jodi could not possibly have been wearing it when the cut-throat injuries were inflicted - apart from anything else, the blood saturation of the t-shirt makes the cleanliness of the bra a physical impossibility, if it was being worn under the t-shirt at the time those injuries were inflicted. But the transfer stain on the clasp area means someone with some level of contamination of Jodi's blood touched (or undid) that clasp. The only other possibility (please forgive me, I include this only because it's the only other plausible explanation) is that a bleeding Jodi undid the clasp herself.

The pathology reports, and the forensic evidence from the scene (drips and splashes of blood on foliage, branches etc) suggest that Jodi had bleeding injuries before the fatal cut-throat injuries were inflicted - her lip was burst, for example.

But here's something that might throw even more confusion into the mix (sorry!) Jodi's hands were filthy - caked with dirt, embedded right under her fingernails - if it was Jodi who undid the clasp, she had to have done so before her hands got so dirty, or the clasp area would have been heavily dirt stained. It wasn't.

So, if we're turning this around and Jodi was not stripped after death (again, something I've been arguing for years), how do we explain the known evidence, and how does Gordo's hypothesis fit with alternative explanations?

The cut t-shirt was "heavily bloodstained" around the neck area. If Jodi was killed in a sitting position, facing the wall, I'd have expected the t-shirt to be heavily bloodstained definitely down the whole of the front, at the very least, over the shoulder areas, and potentially down the back. If the hoodie was being worn at the time, then I'd expect the t-shirt to be possibly less stained, but the hoodie to be saturated. It wasn't - it was bloodstained on one side of the hood.

I never understood the bloodstaining in the armpit of one of the sleeves of the hoodie- there were no injuries on Jodi's body that could account for that heavy staining, and no cuts in the hoodie to suggest an injury inflicted through it. There were also no "matching" cuts in the t-shirt

Which brings me to the "defensive wounds" on Jodi's arms. She couldn't have been wearing the hoodie when these were inflicted - no cuts to the hoodie sleeves in the areas of these injuries, no bloodstaining to match with those injuries, either directly or indirectly (e.g. sleeves rolled up when the injuries were inflicted.) So, what about the t-shirt? Could that have been still worn when the arm injuries were inflicted? Again, I'd be inclined to say no. These were horrific injuries. If Jodi had done the instinctive thing when they were inflicted and drawn her arms towards her body to shield them I'd have expected to see extensive blood staining on the t-shirr around the chest or stomach area, most probably soaking through to the bra. If she was flailing her arms, trying to fend off further blows, then I'd have expected to see splashes of blood from those injuries on the front, back and sleeves of the t-shirt, as well as the jeans, and again, because of the level of blood loss, where those splashes landed on the t-shirt, I'd expect to see soak-through onto the bra.

I have no idea where all of this might lead - I'm just thinking out loud, all these years later, about the anomalies, the things that just don't add up, and never have.
Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads.  Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theo
I thought that if the t shirt had been washed as suggested smelled of detergent " then there would be no chance of a full profile to be obtained from blood as it would have been totally destroyed by the washing of the shirt. Am I right in saying that?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 11, 2017, 09:25:AM
Yes - the argument has been made elsewhere that the blood was "deposited over" an existing DNA sample already on the t-shirt after fresh laundering, and was Jodi's blood.

I think this suggestion was put because the sample was claimed to be a "mixed" sample with male and female DNA, but it is not reported in the results as such.

Where a mixed male/female sample is indicated, the first column shows:

XX
XY

If it was, for example, a full profile from Jodi, with a partial sample from a male, the "numbers" for Jodi's sample would be recorded at each marker (as the XX, or female markers) and the "unknown" male markers would be placed in brackets to differentiate them.

Like this:
XX
     |1,2|3,4 (22)|5,6 (23,24)|7,8|9,10|11,12(25,26)|13,14|15,16|17,18 (27)|19,20|Jodi Jones& unknown male
XY

In this example, the numbers in bold are the "full match" female profile, the numbers 22 - 27 in brackets are the additional, male components in the sample.

The sample we're talking about is labelled simply XY - a male sample. There are additional markers, which should indicate that this is a mixed male sample, yet it is entitled SK and JJ.
However, some of the additional markers (or partial markers) are in brackets - the usual way of differentiating male/female - and some are not. (Doesn't need me to say the DNA results were a shambles!)

Two points to be made about this - of the additional markers, outwith Kelly's own, (there are ten of them out of the 20 required for a full profile), if they were female in origin, then JaJ (9/10), JuJ (6/10), YW (6/10) and AW (3/10) "could not be eliminated" as contributors.

Therefore, the existence of those other indicators means the blood cannot be claimed to originate from Jodi, especially if the "deposited over" theory is being used. The t-shirt was claimed to be JaJ's, AW did her washing, she spent time with YW, and JuJ is her mother - DNA from any of these other females could be innocently explained as being left over on the T shirt after washing (or even deposited there after washing) - what it cannot do is indicate decisively, that the blood on the t-shirt, in which these markers were found, was Jodi's.

Looking at these, I've just found something very interesting with the possibilities (apart from probably every male closely associated with the case (including police officers and the pathologist himself) coming out "could not be eliminated") - that, in itself shows how careful we have to be a about claiming matches from mixed profiles.

There is a particular marker in this sample that appears in only 4 of the profiles in the defence papers. Two of those are definitely eliminated as suspects for other credible reasons. Which leaves 2 - we know SK is one. The other is DD. It's interesting that this "unusual" marker (unusual in the sense that it only appears in four profiles whereas a "common" marker from the same batch of profiles appears 48 times, another appears 58 times, etc).

Of the 3 unbracketed indicators in the "additional" profile, DD's profile could be claimed to account for two of them. The remaining bracketed indicators may be female in origin, simply because they are bracketed.

If we look at those two profiles in combination, they share identifiers at 9 places. So, technically, this sample has a claimed full match to SK, but could also be claimed to match DD at 11/20 points (two of those showing as "additional" markers in the original profile). Of course, we could never claim a "match," nor should we, but the existence of this one unusual marker in the DNA profiles available, the fact that it turns up in the only full DNA profile connected to the crime (at the time), and then appears in the profile of someone else closely connected to the case, whose movements, explanations, etc, left a lot to be desired should, at the very least, have had investigators looking a little more closely, I would have thought.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 11, 2017, 05:31:PM
does anyone think its a bit funny that jodi borrowing her sisters clothes is mention a fair while before the dna results came back long before theres any reall reason for it to be mentioned.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on March 11, 2017, 07:04:PM
Very depressing sandra. Do you think defence teams have a disadvantage from the off . Why are some things with eld from the defence.? I think the law should change
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 11, 2017, 07:51:PM
There were loads witheld from the defense in this case but not everything is as sinister as it appears, the law requires proper corroboration and i feel he police have their hands tied to a point. I also think its easier for us to see how things may help with hindsight.
This doesn't excuse the proceedural problems with this case that got to the point where almost nothing could be relied on and very basic mistakes were made.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 12, 2017, 08:19:AM
does anyone think its a bit funny that jodi borrowing her sisters clothes is mention a fair while before the dna results came back long before theres any reall reason for it to be mentioned.

On the surface, what you say here is true nugnug, but behind the scenes it was a little different. The "statements" (clearly led) by SK and JaJ about the possibility of Jodi "borrowing" JaJ's t shirt are dated exactly the same day as the aunts mention borrowing her sister's clothes in their appeal to the public.

Up to that point, there had been no mention, publicly or otherwise,  of borrowing clothes- the investigation, until that point had not considered that possibility because, it would appear, there was no reason to consider it. And nowhere, in any statement, is there any mention of it - not JuJ, JaJ, AW, YK - no-one.

It's not just borrowing, either, it's borrowing without permission that emerges on this date, and that really muddied the waters - did Jodi or didn't Jodi wear certain articles of her sister's clothes? And of course, the answer is "maybe."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 12, 2017, 08:44:AM
Very depressing sandra. Do you think defence teams have a disadvantage from the off . Why are some things with eld from the defence.? I think the law should change

From all the cases I've seen, the defence teams are always disadvantaged from the off. For example, in Luke's case, the defence wanted to get an expert analysis on the mobile phone data - that would have shown whether Luke's phone moved from the Newbattle area to the Easthouses area and back that evening, or did it stay in Newbattle the whole evening? (It couldn't, of course, have pinpointed exactly where Luke was at any given moment, but that didn't matter - as long as it showed that he didn't travel in those directions, the "sighting" at Easthouses, and the prosecution claims about all of his comings and goings would have been discredited.) Also, that could have allowed for the missing texts to be recovered.

Here's what went wrong. Firstly, Luke wasn't arrested until April 2004, nine and a half months after the murder. The trial started on 15th November that year - almost exactly 7 months later. During those 7 months, the defence team had to gather whatever it could. It applied to the legal aid board for funding for the mobile phone analysis. The application went back and forth a couple of times, the last communication being the Legal Aid board saying the expert the defence had found was "too expensive" and they should try to find a more local and cheaper alternative. (The expert they found was, at the time, one of the best in the field.)

Not only were they struggling to get the funding, time had run out in the process - back then, the records they needed were only kept for 12 months - by the time Luke was arrested (and therefore actually had a defence team) there were only two and a half months left to get those records.

The court can instruct organisations not to destroy certain data, if it is thought to be central to a case, but in this example, by the time all the necessary paperwork was in place (i.e. the defence would have had to make an application to the court to have the data preserved, the court would have to decide whether to make the order or not, etc), it would have been too late anyway.

The law did change in 2005 - previously, the "disclosure officer" (working for the police/crown) decided what got released to the defence and what didn't. That decision originally was based on what the disclosure officer thought might help the defence case (yes, really!) In 2005, the law was changed so that they had to release anything that might help the defence or undermine the prosecution case.

There was something (I don't remember what, now) that the defence argued later should have been released because it could have been shown to undermine the prosecution case - the appeal judges responded that it would not have been released because the law hadn't changed in 2004, when Luke's trial began, and that was the end of that.

The other disadvantage for the defence is the way the unused evidence is listed - items will be listed as  "hairs," "piece of fabric" etc - how in the name of all things sane is a defence team supposed to know what might be significant evidence from a list like that? If they want to see what an item actually is, they not only have to ask for it specifically, but to give "good reason" for doing so. If they don't know how the prosecution is going to run the case, they can't know, in advance, what they might need, that might be on that list.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 12, 2017, 08:48:AM
There were loads witheld from the defense in this case but not everything is as sinister as it appears, the law requires proper corroboration and i feel he police have their hands tied to a point. I also think its easier for us to see how things may help with hindsight.
This doesn't excuse the proceedural problems with this case that got to the point where almost nothing could be relied on and very basic mistakes were made.

I agree that not everything is sinister, however, the real point is that the police/crown can't know what might be significant for the defence in every instance, especially as they are viewing the case, from the off, from the perspective of "what do we need to prove our case?"

Without any sinister intent, that question alone makes it far more likely that they will overlook, ignore or discount anything that doesn't serve a purpose in proving their case.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on March 12, 2017, 06:05:PM
I agree that not everything is sinister, however, the real point is that the police/crown can't know what might be significant for the defence in every instance, especially as they are viewing the case, from the off, from the perspective of "what do we need to prove our case?"

Without any sinister intent, that question alone makes it far more likely that they will overlook, ignore or discount anything that doesn't serve a purpose in proving their case.

I don't get it, why can't both sides see everything. How each side use that is up to them then. Second guessing defence teams can't be on a level playing field.

OK the law changed in 2004 , why can't they backdate on cases where evidence would have helped the d e fence.

very unfair in my opinion. How can we trust the crown and polie when non disclosure is the most prominent thing in MOJ's

I know one thing it would save a he'll of a lot of money .
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 13, 2017, 07:09:AM
Ironically, the claimed reason for not disclosing everything is money - it would cost too much!

The backdating thing absolutely infuriates me. Luke's was a cut and dried Cadder case - he was interviewed not once, but  three times as a suspect without a solicitor - when the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that this was unlawful, the Scottish courts spat the dummy and said firstly that they would only backdate cases where there were live proceedings. There were in Luke's case - his appeal against sentence was still outstanding - after months of sitting on it, they made their decision the day after Luke's team got his Cadder application in. Then it was decided that appeals against sentence didn't count as "live proceedings" and refused permission for him to apply to the Supreme Court.

At that time, it was possible to apply directly to the Supreme Court, who ruled that Luke's case was closed (because the Scottish courts had just closed it), so they couldn't accept his application.

I know of another case where, as a result of the Cadder ruling (which also applied),it was the decided  the new evidence which proved he wasn't the killer (and proved who really was) had come "too late" - this was because, after the Cadder ruling, the Scottish courts resurrected an old doctrine of certainty and finality. What it means, basically, is that the Scottish courts can rule, arbitrarily, on when a case is "final" (to allow for certainty for victim's families and the public in general), and therefore new evidence or legal arguments won't be allowed. The case I'm talking about meant he, also, couldn't go to the Supreme Court under the Cadder ruling, because his case was now "closed." - Talk about a catch 22.

This is at the same time as cold case reviews are being allowed years later, and the double jeopardy protection has been removed.

So it's not too late to convict, on the basis of "new evidence", someone who was acquitted by a jury ten years ago , but it's definitely too late to overturn a wrongful conviction on the same basis. That's not justice.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 18, 2017, 09:54:PM
I have learned so much about the justice system that you would not believe was possible on this forum and others.
You wouldn't think it was possible in a noble country like ours.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 19, 2017, 06:16:PM
Very depressing sandra. Do you think defence teams have a disadvantage from the off . Why are some things with eld from the defence.? I think the law should change

to stop them wining the case or mounting a credible appeal.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 20, 2017, 10:40:AM
wasnt there another blue hoody found near the rime scene 1 that was suposed to have belonged to jafs brother.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 20, 2017, 01:42:PM
There was, nugnug - it was a really odd part of the case.

JaF's younger brother had given his hoodie to a pal the week before, because the pal was cold, but the pal didn't want it, and threw it away in the waste ground behind Reed Drive (the opposite end of Lady Path from where it meets Roan's Dyke Path.) Or, at last, this is what the mother told police later.

On the morning of July 1st, the younger brother "found" the hoodie and pointed it out to police. Bit of a problem here - the hoodie was within the police cordon. This is the same morning JaF said he went behind a tree and masturbated (again!) ... within the police cordon.

I'm thinking it wasn't much of a cordon, really, when two members of the same family were wandering around within its boundaries.

Anyway, I digress, brother has pointed hoodie out to police by lunchtime, mother then calls the police around midnight to say her son pointed out a hoodie to investigators earlier in the day, but there's an innocent explanation for it.

The hoodie was blue, in the style of a baseball/ basketball top, with a number in white on one side of the front chest area.

Sometime later (much later), JuJ tried to claim on a forum that Jodi had borrowed a blue hoodie from Luke, and may have been wearing it on the evening of June 30th, which may have explained the "wrong description" of clothes attributed to the girl who could have been Jodi. JuJ also claimed that Luke had a "missing" hoodie (alluding to the fact that the hoodie found behind Reed Drive may have been the "missing hoodie.")

Problems!
(1)The hoodie belonging to JaF's brother was light blue with a white number on it - description of girl-who-could-have-been-Jodi hoodie was navy blue, plain.
(2) Even if it had been navy, JuJ was asking us to believe that Jodi was somehow wearing a navy hoodie over the top of her very baggy Deftones hoodie (to account for AB not noticing the bright orange Deftones logo)
(3) Police knew from the 1st day of the investigation that that hoodie didn't belong to Luke.

When the blue hoodie was photographed, the grass beneath it was withered and yellowed, so it had been there for some time.

However, another hoodie and joggers were found behind Roan's Dyke (wall) in the woodland strip. These were never photographed in situ, but what I always found interesting was that the hoodie was in the school colours of St David's High School uniform. Remember, although Jodi and Luke attended St David's, Jodi was found behind Newbattle High School (the two schools are about a mile apart, as the crow flies.) Maybe there's nothing in it - we'll never know now, because nothing was done about this hoodie and joggers.

We don't even know if it was a school hoodie (i.e. with a school badge) or it just happened to be the colour of St David's uniform - my question has always been, what was the equivalent of a St David's school uniform doing behind the wall near Newbattle High School, to whom did it belong, and why did L&B think it was unimportant?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 20, 2017, 01:46:PM
I have learned so much about the justice system that you would not believe was possible on this forum and others.
You wouldn't think it was possible in a noble country like ours.

Fourteen years ago, nothing would have convinced me that all of this was going on, right under our noses. Sometimes, I look back and wish I didn't know - there are so many cans of worms opened by this stuff, it's pretty terrifying if you think too long about it.

It's possible, I think, because so many people just can't accept that this could be happening - they think there would be a huge outcry, or the media would be all over it (I know that's what I would have thought, back then).
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 20, 2017, 05:21:PM
There was, nugnug - it was a really odd part of the case.

JaF's younger brother had given his hoodie to a pal the week before, because the pal was cold, but the pal didn't want it, and threw it away in the waste ground behind Reed Drive (the opposite end of Lady Path from where it meets Roan's Dyke Path.) Or, at last, this is what the mother told police later.

On the morning of July 1st, the younger brother "found" the hoodie and pointed it out to police. Bit of a problem here - the hoodie was within the police cordon. This is the same morning JaF said he went behind a tree and masturbated (again!) ... within the police cordon.

I'm thinking it wasn't much of a cordon, really, when two members of the same family were wandering around within its boundaries.

Anyway, I digress, brother has pointed hoodie out to police by lunchtime, mother then calls the police around midnight to say her son pointed out a hoodie to investigators earlier in the day, but there's an innocent explanation for it.

The hoodie was blue, in the style of a baseball/ basketball top, with a number in white on one side of the front chest area.

Sometime later (much later), JuJ tried to claim on a forum that Jodi had borrowed a blue hoodie from Luke, and may have been wearing it on the evening of June 30th, which may have explained the "wrong description" of clothes attributed to the girl who could have been Jodi. JuJ also claimed that Luke had a "missing" hoodie (alluding to the fact that the hoodie found behind Reed Drive may have been the "missing hoodie.")

Problems!
(1)The hoodie belonging to JaF's brother was light blue with a white number on it - description of girl-who-could-have-been-Jodi hoodie was navy blue, plain.
(2) Even if it had been navy, JuJ was asking us to believe that Jodi was somehow wearing a navy hoodie over the top of her very baggy Deftones hoodie (to account for AB not noticing the bright orange Deftones logo)
(3) Police knew from the 1st day of the investigation that that hoodie didn't belong to Luke.

When the blue hoodie was photographed, the grass beneath it was withered and yellowed, so it had been there for some time.

However, another hoodie and joggers were found behind Roan's Dyke (wall) in the woodland strip. These were never photographed in situ, but what I always found interesting was that the hoodie was in the school colours of St David's High School uniform. Remember, although Jodi and Luke attended St David's, Jodi was found behind Newbattle High School (the two schools are about a mile apart, as the crow flies.) Maybe there's nothing in it - we'll never know now, because nothing was done about this hoodie and joggers.

We don't even know if it was a school hoodie (i.e. with a school badge) or it just happened to be the colour of St David's uniform - my question has always been, what was the equivalent of a St David's school uniform doing behind the wall near Newbattle High School, to whom did it belong, and why did L&B think it was unimportant?

seems strange to me that he had to point the police if it was within the cordon im suprised they hadent allready found it.

im also puzzeled why he pointed it out to the police as he knew it was noting to do with the murder

and why dident he explian this all to the police at the time pointed it out.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on March 20, 2017, 06:58:PM
What we need is a tv programme like the avery one.get people talking about it
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 20, 2017, 09:21:PM
sandra did the lad who jafs brother supposedly lent the hoodi to confirm his story.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 21, 2017, 08:51:AM
seems strange to me that he had to point the police if it was within the cordon im suprised they hadent allready found it.

im also puzzeled why he pointed it out to the police as he knew it was noting to do with the murder

and why dident he explian this all to the police at the time pointed it out.

It was quite early in the morning, nugnug - they were concentrating on the actual crime scene - the cops at the Reed Drive end were busy diverting kids arriving for the school day away from Lady Path. Since the forensics officer didn't get there until 8am, I'm not really surprised they were "late" finding things.

It was strange the way it was pointed out and the giving of the explanation - why did the mother call the police at midnight? If her son came in and said, "I pointed out my hoodie to the police" and she knew he hadn't explained why, why didn't she just call them there and then to explain?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 21, 2017, 08:54:AM
What we need is a tv programme like the avery one.get people talking about it

Working on it , nottsure. It could never be as compelling as Making a Murderer, because there's so much that couldn't be broadcast under Scots Law, but that doesn't make it impossible.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 21, 2017, 08:56:AM
If people are now suggesting Jodi wasn't on her way to meet Luke, who was he hanging around waiting for at the other side of the path?

I think you may have misunderstood, Lithium. What people are discussing is that Jodi may not have been heading to meet Luke at the time the prosecution claimed she was. And that's important, because if she didn't die at 5.15pm, hen Luke wasn't her killer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 21, 2017, 08:58:AM
sandra did the lad who jafs brother supposedly lent the hoodi to confirm his story.

I'm not sure, nugnug, the statements attributed to this family were very confusing - it was a re-constituted family, so there were different surnames - it was hard to tell if they were talking about family members or not.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 21, 2017, 09:02:AM
Hoodies have never been a part of St. Davids school uniform. No idea why you're making that leap.

Apologies, the police used the terms hoodie and sweatshirt interchangeably - I've just made the same error. Maroon sweathshirt and black joggers - amazing how easily one tiny detail can unintentionally mislead.

So, the garment found at the Reed Drive end was a hoodie, light blue, with a white number on the front and a hood, the garment found behind the wall was a maroon sweatshirt and that's all we know about it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 21, 2017, 09:06:AM
Are you seriously asking us to believe that such small traces of semen suggest the perpetrator ejaculated on Jodi at the crime scene?

What was that you were just saying about it never being your intention to mislead?

No, I haven't said or suggested that anywhere. The quote you've posted here came from a longer post, pointing out that the attack as a whole should have at least alerted the police to the possibility of a sexually motivated attack.

Sometimes, quoting things out of context can be misleading - it's also time consuming because posters then have to re-clarify what they said initially.

I didn't ever suggest the attacker ejaculated on Jodi, therefore, I can't have been trying to mislead anyone with such a suggestion, can I?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 21, 2017, 11:36:AM
No, I haven't said or suggested that anywhere. The quote you've posted here came from a longer post, pointing out that the attack as a whole should have at least alerted the police to the possibility of a sexually motivated attack.

Sometimes, quoting things out of context can be misleading - it's also time consuming because posters then have to re-clarify what they said initially.

I didn't ever suggest the attacker ejaculated on Jodi, therefore, I can't have been trying to mislead anyone with such a suggestion, can I?

Of course you didn't Sandra just a method used to Undermine what we're talking about, throw people of track. It's good he got through all the new pages and that's the only thing he could find to use though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 21, 2017, 01:58:PM
i was thinking considring that siblings will have simaler dna in those days when testing wasnt as advanced and allways use a 10 point testing method could it be posble for your dna to be mistaken four bother or sisters dna.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on March 21, 2017, 02:09:PM
I was just about to post something similar mate . If we had two siblings, same sex and same parentage then they would have very similar DNA ! In the absence of unique markers then wouldn't they be explained away as Jodi'? Just thinking in the absence of DNA from JaJ considering it was her t-shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 21, 2017, 02:33:PM
yes thats the thing if its her t shirt her dna should be on there and its not that means ethere its not her t shirt and sk has some serious explianing to do or her dna has been mistaken for jodis

but i was also thinking is could jafes brother dna have been mistaken for his could that have been his condom

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 21, 2017, 04:29:PM
I was just about to post something similar mate . If we had two siblings, same sex and same parentage then they would have very similar DNA ! In the absence of unique markers then wouldn't they be explained away as Jodi'? Just thinking in the absence of DNA from JaJ considering it was her t-shirt.

Yes! There's one sample with only one marker, but it's labelled "Jodi Jones" even though two female members of her family have the same marker in the same place. There were three full profiles with extra female markers which matched JaJ's profile (although, of course, they would also match any female with those "numbers" at those parts of their DNA profile).

But here's the interesting bit - there were at least 20 incomplete profiles, all labelled "Jodi Jones". Of those, a fairly large proportion could have been JaJ's DNA, AW's DNA, or a combination of any two or three of them - so, Jodi and JaJ, Jodi and AW, JaJ and AW or Jodi, JaJ and AW. How did they ever get away with claiming all of those samples originated from Jodi alone?

Here's another interesting anomaly - there are three sample labelled "Semen, underpants" - the DNA profile is ... ready? ... female, Jodi Jones. Yes, really. Another is labelled Cells - semen- Inside back left T shirt sleeve and its profile is ... you guessed it - female, Jodi Jones.

One more - blood, outside shirt - male and female DNA - the entire reported profile is female, and it's Jodi's. How can that be?

No sorry, last one I promise - Semen - outside upper left front t shirt - male DNA, partial profile (4 markers) - result - Jodi Jones + unknown male. What? There is no female DNA - it is clearly and unequivocally noted as a male DNA sample.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 21, 2017, 04:34:PM
yes thats the thing if its her t shirt her dna should be on there and its not that means ethere its not her t shirt and sk has some serious explianing to do or her dna has been mistaken for jodis

but i was also thinking is could jafes brother dna have been mistaken for his could that have been his condom

I don't think so, nugnug - it was a full DNA profile - had it been the brother's DNA, some of the markers would have been different. Mind you, since it took the 3 years to actually identify JaF as the contributor of that particular DNA it's not much of a comfort to know they at least got  that bit right!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 21, 2017, 08:25:PM
I thought it was a bit unlikely I was just checking if it was possible.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on March 23, 2017, 04:26:PM
Sorry if it has already been asked, but what would have been the motive for Luke to murder  Jodi?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 23, 2017, 04:46:PM
According to the prosecution, Luke went into a frenzied rage (fuelled by cannabis... yes, I know!) because Jodi challenged him about two-timing her with another girl.

According to everyone else, there was no motive. According to Jodi's family, she was the happiest she'd been for a long time. According to friends who knew them both, they were quite besotted with each other. The "other girlfriend" story is a nonsense - she was a girl he'd met on holiday the previous summer when they were both 13, and they'd kept in touch by phone - hard to see how he could have been "two-timing" Jodi with a girl who lived more than 50 miles away, his only mode of transport was a pushbike, and he was with Jodi nearly every night, except when he was at his dad's for the weekend.

He had seen the other girl at New Year 2003 (before he started going out with Jodi) as part of a family get-together. A story circulated that he was planning to stay with her the week after Jodi was murdered (remember, these were 14 year olds) - the truth is, the family had originally been planning to holiday in the same place, but had changed their minds, so the plans for the holiday were simply abandoned. Luke, Jodi and some other friends had plans for a sleep-over (as part of a birthday celebration) the Friday after Jodi was murdered, so again, no plans for Luke to be anywhere other than with Jodi that week.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: buddy on March 23, 2017, 05:03:PM
I appolgise again if this has been asked.
Were Jodi's family happy with the result of the court case?
I can see no compelling case against Luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 23, 2017, 06:55:PM
Yes, Jodi's family believe that he is guilty, although they did not think that way in the beginning. Jodi's mum went to visit Luke two days after Jodi was murdered to comfort him, and many of her family members told police Luke was a "nice lad" in their earliest statements.

It seems, however, they were told many lies, and led, by police investigators, to believe that the police had a rock solid case against Luke (when, right from the beginning, they had nothing). For example, Jodi's brother told me repeatedly that there were "strands of Luke's DNA all of her body." I told him it wasn't true, I told him I had the DNA results right there in my house and I could show him - he called me a liar and repeated his claims about the DNA. I offered to meet Jodi's mum and show here everything I had uncovered - initially, she agreed, but then cancelled.

When Corinne received information about a credible suspect very early in the case, she called Judith to alert her. The call went to the answering machine. Judith called the police, who came and set up recording equipment on her phone, not to capture Corinne's information about this person, but to try to gather evidence against her and Luke. It's no wonder Jodi's family are so convinced - they were fed a relentless diet of assurance by police, who were simply not in a position to be giving them such assurances.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 23, 2017, 07:11:PM
Quote
I can see no compelling case against Luke.

That's because there isn't one, sadly. How they managed to convince a jury with the cobbled-together nonsense they called "evidence" is beyond me. Even given the 17 months almost relentlessly negative media coverage - they were forced to stop reporting between April 14th, when Luke was arrested and July 24th, when he turned 16, for the "legal reason" that he was a minor. Didn't stop them in the previous nine and a half months, and they were on it like vultures again the minute he turned sixteen and was, legally, and adult.

The courts ruled that the media had done nothing wrong reporting before his arrest because he wasn't the subject of "legal proceedings" - i.e. they could report what they wanted, right up to the point of arrest. There were never any legal proceedings examining the coverage between the July, when he turned 16, and November, when his trial began.

Lord Nimmo Smith, in his wisdom, ruled that jurors would most likely have "forgotten" about the media coverage, and anyway, he gave them a direction to disregard it, so that made it ok. Who was he kidding? It was, as I said, relentless, and the media were allowed to report in the 3 months directly prior to the trial.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 28, 2017, 09:58:AM
Challenge accepted, give me a minute to read everything.

ill be reading them as well.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2017, 11:48:PM
There was no blood DNA sample. Ask Sandra to provide her source for this.

gordo allready knows the source.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2017, 11:49:PM
(http://i.imgur.com/1liU1wa.jpg)
 :o

are you indulging your sezual fantasys agian.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on March 31, 2017, 10:35:AM
I like how JF "hacked off all of his hair!" rather simply "just had a haircut"

You should be a journalist, Sandra.

Was he known to cut his own hair?
As far as the community being happy the right person has been caught. I know numerous people from the community and a fair few think the opposite to be fair.
As far as the dog is concerned, Luke's dog was never over the v, seven spaniels were.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 31, 2017, 03:06:PM
Do you have a source confirming that he cut his own hair on this occasion?

Ferris himself, in his statements to police. Other family members in their statements.

Quote
Not sure what point you're trying to make about the dog. My point is that Mia apparently lead Luke to the body just by passing the V in the wall, despite having already passed it on the way up. How do you explain that inconsistency?

Yes, firstly, JaJ and SK both said the dog started jumping about at the wall, just past the V point, standing on her hind legs, scrabbling at the wall and noticeably sniffing. The first inconsistency is that, by the time of the trial, they'd forgotten seeing that (even though they remembered seeing it for a whole month after the murder.)

The dog may very well have reacted on the way up - by Luke's own admission, she was "highly excited" but he would have just pulled her away from the wall - his mission was to get up the path and to Judith's house. At that stage, he was only looking for Jodi on the path itself - he was 14, his girlfriend was missing, and he was on a secluded path in the dark. He also believed JuJ was waiting for him at the other end, with or without Jodi. The dog was not "working" at that stage - she had been given no working commands, and Luke was not looking for "alerts" from her.

Secondly, he could not possibly have known they would want to double check the path, yet when it was suggested, he didn't try to avoid it, he actually asked if anyone had anything of Jodi's so the dog could get a scent from it. AW said she would have "gone back" for something of Jodi's, but it was "too far." The entrance to the path was a 2 minute 40 second walk from Jodi's home - SK or Luke could have sprinted round and back in a few minutes to get something of Jodi's.

Thirdly, if we're talking inconsistencies, JaJ stated in court that the one and only place the family search trio had any intention of looking was the path itself - they didn't look anywhere on the way there, and had no intention of carrying on towards Newbattle if Jodi wasn't on the path. Yet all of the evidence shows the information they had was that Jodi was going to be "mucking about up here" - up here being Mayfield/Easthouses - they should have had no reason whatsoever to head straight for the path. Having gone there, it made no sense for them not to "double check" the Newbattle Road as well, if Jodi was not on the path - after all there are dozens of places a young girl could have been snatched off the pavement into woodland on the Newbattle Road.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 31, 2017, 03:16:PM
Quote
Quote
But how could anyone have known at that point which direction Jodi took that night? She wasn't believed to be going to Luke's house

Yes she was. Even Luke was at home waiting on her, or was he not?! Oops. 


The search trio had no reason to believe she was going to Newbattle. Judith insisted she was not going to Newbattle. The only person who did know she was going to Newbattle was Luke himself,

Quote
Quote
why did they consider looking at the path at all?


Why did Luke? He brought a torch/sniffer dog and everything...

They had no reason to. Luke was going up the path Jodi would have used to come to Newbattle - the very place here entire family believed she was not going to be.

Quote
Quote
Jodi's mother also told police that sometimes, when they were hanging around "up here" they went to Scotts caravans. The search trio also walked straight past there without looking.


Considering she had just spoken to Luke on the phone who confirmed he wasn't with Jodi, it would be obvious she wasn't at Scotts Caravans with him. Don't let that obvious explanation get in the way of attempting to making Judy sound guilty (of God knows what) though.

Nope, wrong again. The search trio was told Jodi had not been with Luke, but that they were expected to have been mucking about "up here." Since she'd failed to meet up with Luke five to five and a half hours earlier, it would surely have made sense to have checked the places she might have headed for, in case something had happened to her along the way which prevented her from meeting Luke? Nobody's trying to make Judy "look guilty" of anything - the truth is simply the truth.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 31, 2017, 03:36:PM
Quote
Quote
The sighting/description of the girl and the youth given by AB is not credible and, in my opinion, the mistaken description of clothes, etc, coupled with the early pictures of Jodi aged five and eight, seriously hampered the search for witnesses who may have seen Jodi.

Why is it not credible? Who did AB see and why have they disappeared off the face of the Earth?

All of the other evidence! Wrong descriptions, wrong times, claims that it was her husband who saw a youth (no female), failure to identify Luke, failure to identify the parka jacket... there's a mountain of evidence demonstrating that this sighting was not credible. Oh yes, and as for disappearing off the face of the earth, none of the 10 witnesses known to be on the path saw them.


Quote
Quote
A lot depends on the time she actually left her home. If it was much earlier than 5pm (and there is some evidence that this may, in fact, have been the case

I would love to see what evidence you have of that. Please.

Judith's early statements about Jodi coming in from school, trying to talk to her mum, and Judith telling her to "be quiet, shoo and go out." Judith herself suggested in some statements that this was as early as 4.30pm


Quote
Quote
What reason could there have been for her mother apparently trying to keep her quiet and get her out of the house so soon after arriving, especially since Jodi was supposed to be grounded?)

You tell us. Don't make accusations and expect us to answer them for you.

That's a question, not an accusation.

Quote
Quote
The road on which Jodi was walking is a fairly busy road - from there she could have taken the Mayfield route I described earlier, or walked towards Newtongrange (but there is nothing to suggest she had any connection with/reason to go to Newtongrange.) This route could also have taken her on a circuitous route either to Mayfield or Newtongrange, but that's about it - it's not a route that gives access to a large number of places

There's absolutely no evidence to suggest she did any of this, but hey lets give this priority over the independent sightings.

Because nobody bothered to look for any evidence that she did. I already said there was no reason for her to go to Newtongrange, but she could have headed for Mayfield - the "independent sightings" do not preclude this.

Quote
Quote
ver made public, and never, to my knowledge, followed up by police investigators. It was discovered by the SCCRC investigation, almost 10 years later,  that one of the witnesses to Stocky Man on the day of the murder saw a person on TV on the day of Jodi's funeral, and recognised him as the man she'd seen following Jodi. She returned to the police with this information, but no further action was taken on her up-dated statement.

So why wasn't this mentioned in the SCCRC submission?

Oh dear, It was discovered by the SCCRC investigation, almost 10 years later, - the SCCRC found it.

Quote
Quote
jodie could of died at more or less anytime bettween her last being seenn and the body being found.

Yes thanks for that nugnug, I think we can all agree that Jodi died between her last sighting and the discovery of her body.

I think nugnug was making reference to the claimed 5.15pm time of death not necessarily being reliable, since there was zero evidence for that being the time she died.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 31, 2017, 03:55:PM
Quote
Quote
One big problem with a prolonged attack is th lack  of noise, Jodi fought her attacker and fought for her life wouldn't she have screamed for it also! The lack of any credible witnesses to noise from any area that night is really strange, if the crime was later than 5:15 were getting to the time when dog owners were taking their dogs for their last evening walk someone had to have heard something

Likewise wouldn't she be screaming if she was being stalked/pursued through the woods as Sandra suggests?

Unless of course she was over there with someone she knew, by choice.

Ah! Something on which we can agree. The question then would have to be, who would that someone be? There were two people known to her, at the V point, at the exact time it was claimed she was murdered. There are witnesses to this, both people admit they were there and both people lied to try to cover up the fact that they were there. Neither of them was Luke.


Quote
Quote
As we know, hardly a single word of JaF's statement can be believed - we know it was his condom and that's about it. But interestingly, he claimed it was getting "grey dark" and he thought it was about 9 - 9.30. It didn't start getting dark until around 10.30 that evening, but even if he was mistaken about the level of darkness, what can we make of the time? Another mistake? An outright lie? Or the truth, in which case, either he did, in fact, step over Jodi's body, or she wasn't there.

He wouldn't have had to "step over Jodi's body", why do you keep saying this? It's an insult to the intelligence of anybody who has ever seen the crime scene. Why can't he have just walked past/been near it? In reality, he would have no reason to step as close to the wall as where Jodi lay.

Anyone who has seen the crime scene knows you have just blatantly tried to mislead people. The pathway behind the wall, from the V point, runs along the front of the wall. Jodi's body was lying out from the wall with her feet closest to the path. Unless he was scrambling through bushes, this was the only route (the one he, himself, claimed to have taken) by which he could reach the point he said he reached before turning back after doing what he did.

Quote
Quote
i find it hard to belive that the spaneils wouldent of sniffed out the body but that goes on the assumption that there was a body there at the time.

But you don't find it hard to believe Luke's dog never sniffed out the body when they walked directly past it on the way up the path... Different story on the way back though in front of the search party. That's what I find hard to believe.


The spaniels were behind the wall, in the woodland strip, not on leads. I've already explained that the dog may have reacted on the way up, that reaction being perceived as her being "excitable." The official line is that Luke went to extraordinary lengths to "cover up" then led the family directly to the body - isn't that kind of hard to believe?

Quote
Quote
That's just half an hour before JF was supposed to return to JoJ's house to smoke cannabis with him, but somehow, he forgot to go

Or simply changed hid mind? But hey don't let a chance to point suspicion at anyone but Luke go to waste. Luke's family can completely forget seeing him in the house and being served dinner by him but that's fine I suppose.

Or simply changed his mind, except, that's not the reason he gave. Luke's mother never "forgot" seeing him, Shane could not remember if he'd seen Luke or not, initially - not quite the same thing, is it? Again, no pointing fingers of suspicion, just the facts.

Quote
Quote
is there anyone out there who still believes jodi was on that path and the crime being committed at this time......

Yes. Nobody heard any struggle because she was over there with her boyfriend...

Who left not a trace of himself on her, at the crime scene, or anywhere along the "escape route," in his home, anywhere.


Quote
Quote
Hi sandra

I know it's a bit off topic, I'm really interested in what's being g posted at the moment but do you know what the general feeling g regarding luke and his guilt or innocence is within the local community now.?

Surely there is doubt and if so is it spoken about at all.

There isn't. The only people who believe Luke is isn't is the small few you'll see posting on forums like this.  The local community is comfortable that the right person is behind bars, supported by the complete absense of any other similar attacks since Luke's incarceration.


Interesting claim. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ (another point of agreement!)

Quote
Quote
Why is every item contaminated by singular sperm cells!! we can produce up to 200 million in one ejaculaton so why just singular ones dotted around every item of clothing apart from the hoodie?

Because this reinforces the fact that innocent transfer explanation is by far the most likely. Nobody ejaculated at the murder scene.

It reinforces the fact that transfer is a plausible explanation, not "innocent" transfer. I suppose JaF filled that condom by transferring drop by drop, did he? No-one has ever tried to suggest anyone ejaculated on Jodi or on her clothing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on March 31, 2017, 03:57:PM
I like how JF "hacked off all of his hair!" rather simply "just had a haircut"

You should be a journalist, Sandra.

Just had a haircut which he did by himself so neatly and professionally that he had to get a barber to fix it because he made such a mess of it. That better?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 01, 2017, 10:57:AM
he was in rather a hurry to have it cut.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on April 01, 2017, 11:40:AM
Couldn't wait for an appointment at the barber's apparently!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 04, 2017, 12:54:PM
i can only he must of got somthing in his hair that couldentbe easly washed out.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 04, 2017, 05:29:PM
haha

like what

hahah like glue :))
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 04, 2017, 05:55:PM
haha

like what

or he could somone gave him a diy hair cut laugh.

or could posbly of taking some ilcit subsantance and thought it might be a good idea to hack his own hair off.

somties people do.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 04, 2017, 08:52:PM
hahah like glue :))

could of been good thinking.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: susan on April 04, 2017, 08:55:PM
could of been good thinking.
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 17, 2017, 12:04:PM
at the end of the day somone who had long all there life suddenly decided they wanted a new hairstyle the day after there cousin murdered yes that could be coincidence but a few people might say it was a bit suspicious.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on April 17, 2017, 05:41:PM
JF cut his hair to put himself st the crime scene as witnesses said both people on the bike had short hair. JF had long hair so couldn't have been on that bike.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 17, 2017, 07:00:PM
JF cut his hair to put himself st the crime scene as witnesses said both people on the bike had short hair. JF had long hair so couldn't have been on that bike.

why would he do that why would he want to put himself at a crime scene.

surelly you would be trying to do the reverse wouldent you.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on April 20, 2017, 04:18:AM
I thought that he cut his hair because he matched a description put out by the police. Was this not before they came forward?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 20, 2017, 11:51:AM
i think the fact somone who had the same haicut all there life suddenly decides they want a diffrent sstyle the day is suspicious whatever the given reson.

sandra refrsh my memory did jof give a reason for the change of hairstyle.


and gordo if it wasnt jof in the bike then who was it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on April 23, 2017, 09:40:AM
It's a strange one - the witnesses all described the youth on the front as wearing a baseball cap and the youth on the back as having short dark hair. GD had short dark hair but said he was wearing a baseball cap, so the youth on the back didn't fit a description of JF. It cOuldn't have been JF on the front, cause he wasn't wearing a baseball cap - very odd. JF said he cut his hair because he didn't like curly hair - seems he just had a bad hair day. The description of stocky man wasn't released until 11 days after JF spoke to police, but  the family probably knew about him before then
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 23, 2017, 11:49:AM
well im pretty sure wasn't the stocky man.

from pictures of seen of him I wouldn't describe him as stocky.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on April 23, 2017, 07:47:PM
I agree, nugnug, but he seemed to think people might "mistake" him for stocky man on the basis of them both having curly hair - which means he must have known the description of stocky man before it was released in the media.

One of the reasons he gave for cutting his hair was fear of being wrongly accused. One of the reasons he   gave for not coming forward sooner was fear of being wrongly accused. One of the reasons he gave for lying about the time he was on the path was fear of being wrongly accused - why was he so obsessed with the fear of being wrongly accused.?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 23, 2017, 08:39:PM
hmm but why would having long hair lead to him being falsely accused

at the time he cut his hair no witness descriptions would of been published.


which leads to another question if he wasn't on the bike with gd why did gd say he was.

and why did the real passenger on the bike not come forward.

.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on April 24, 2017, 09:00:AM
I didn't suggest anyone who he may have been covering for, in the end it's not far fetched to suggest that it wasn't JF on the bike due to the description of the two people who were there.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2017, 10:57:AM
Actually he had short curly hair, but don't let the truth get in the way of you stating your far fetched theories as facts. JF has never had "long hair" and indeed has been totally bald since his 20's. Also nowhere near the size or build of the person you're suggesting he was covering for. Fancy sharing that with everyone?

at the time of te rime he was 16 so what he likes like now is totaly irlvant.

so if hes never had long hair could you explian why donald findley cliamed he did in a court of law and whhy he dident deny it and why sevral nationel newspapers reported it.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2017, 11:16:AM
I didn't suggest anyone who he may have been covering for, in the end it's not far fetched to suggest that it wasn't JF on the bike due to the description of the two people who were there.

could it possible be the jof wering the helmet and not gd and the staements got mixed up somehow.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on April 24, 2017, 11:37:AM
Smoke and daggers a bit here in the end JF was described as having light curly hair, by definition curly hair would suggest longer than say short dark hair as per witness statements
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2017, 12:00:PM
who did the moped belong to jof or gd.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 06, 2017, 11:50:PM
Hello!

I lost my password and couldn't post for a bit - thanks to admins, I'm back!

There are a few questions which have arisen since I was last able to post - will get onto them tomorrow!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 07, 2017, 09:47:AM
who did the moped belong to jof or gd.

Apparently, the bike belonged to JoF but was kept at GD's. From what I was able to gather, a few of their crowd were into "scrambling" or dirt bikes - I know, for example that JoJ had a "motor bike" (no further description) but, according to his mother, he didn't have one on June 30th.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 07, 2017, 10:05:AM
could it possible be the jof wering the helmet and not gd and the staements got mixed up somehow.

Not really, nugnug, because it was GD himself who said he was wearing a baseball cap (JoF didn't mention wearing anything on his head.)

But the description of the two youths (one wearing a baseball cap, the other with short dark hair) was included in the police appeal for them to come forward. So when they eventually came forward having "recognised themselves" from the police appeal (or rather, Dickie's mother having "recognised" them), they did not match the description given by the witnesses - if they did, the description would have to have been "one wearing a baseball cap, the other with reddish brown curly hair.)

The witnesses were well close enough to have seen the difference between hair colours and styles - they were messing around on the bike "like lunatics" in the yard of Basically Tools and were "chased" off.

Bearing in mind these two were perfectly happy to lie their heads off when they spoke to the police on June 5th and 6th, did Dickie claim to be wearing the baseball cap simply to further muddy the waters, and if so, why would he do so?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 07, 2017, 11:04:AM
where were they going with this moped if i rember rightlyi think jaf was mentioned were they going to his hous.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 07, 2017, 03:48:PM
They were just "mucking about" with it - after JoF picked up GD from the jobcentre, they messed about in the woods for a bit on it, then headed back to GD's. JoF claimed he was working on the bike when GD was at the jobcentre because it wasn't running properly - I don't think there was a plan to go to JoF's house with it. (According to other statements, by then, JoF was living with AW, not his mother).
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 07, 2017, 04:39:PM
They were just "mucking about" with it - after JoF picked up GD from the jobcentre, they messed about in the woods for a bit on it, then headed back to GD's. JoF claimed he was working on the bike when GD was at the jobcentre because it wasn't running properly - I don't think there was a plan to go to JoF's house with it. (According to other statements, by then, JoF was living with AW, not his mother).

so if the bike was stored at gds for jof to be working on it he would of had to have been at gds before he picked gd up from the jobcentre but thats asuming it was jof on the moped wich we now think it wasnt this is all geting rather confusing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 07, 2017, 07:26:PM
Like everything in this case!

According to JuJ, JoF was in her house with JoJ until after 3.23pm. GD claimed to have left his house around 3.15pm, his mother taking him to Dalkeith for his Jobcentre appointment.

Somewhere in all of this, Jof apparently called GD from his (JoF's) mother's house and was in GD's house before 3pm, in order to be working on the bike. (If he didn't arrive until after 3.15pm, GD couldn't have seen and spoken to him there.)

There is one irrefutable, undeniable fact in all of this - JoF could not have been in two (or maybe three) places at once. So where was he? JuJ's house or GD's house?

If he wasn't in JuJ's house, the reason for the cancellation call to the doctor (that JoF and JoJ were going to be in JoJ's room smoking cannabis) cannot be correct, leaving the question, what was the real reason for the cancellation call?

If he was in JuJ's house, the only way for him to have been the other youth on the moped is for him to have left JuJ's house on receipt of a call from GD from the Jobcentre at 4.20, gone round to GD's house and picked up the bike, then set off for Dalkeith.  That would have meant the timing of their sighting at the Tool Hire place ruled out their story of "mucking about in the woods on the bike for a bit" - by the time JoF got to GD's house, got the bike, got to Dalkeith and picked up GD, there would be very little time left for "mucking about" before they emerged in the Tool Hire grounds.

Or, alternatively, he went to GD's house, even though GD was not there, worked on the bike in GD's garden and was coincidentally, right there when GD called at 4.20pm. Nobody ever suggested that was what he did and the only person who would have been able to verify it would have been GD's dad (since his mum was already out and the other friend who was in the house that afternoon left with her and GD).

What I've never been able to get my head around is why the police didn't go back to all of them and say, this can't be right - between 2.30pm and 3pm, JoF was, according to all of your statements, in two places at once. Nope, accepted all of the statements as "fact" even though, as I've just shown, someone had to be mistaken ... or lying.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 07, 2017, 08:10:PM
is jof an only child or did he have a brothe or sister.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 07, 2017, 08:14:PM
Like everything in this case!

According to JuJ, JoF was in her house with JoJ until after 3.23pm. GD claimed to have left his house around 3.15pm, his mother taking him to Dalkeith for his Jobcentre appointment.

Somewhere in all of this, Jof apparently called GD from his (JoF's) mother's house and was in GD's house before 3pm, in order to be working on the bike. (If he didn't arrive until after 3.15pm, GD couldn't have seen and spoken to him there.)

There is one irrefutable, undeniable fact in all of this - JoF could not have been in two (or maybe three) places at once. So where was he? JuJ's house or GD's house?

If he wasn't in JuJ's house, the reason for the cancellation call to the doctor (that JoF and JoJ were going to be in JoJ's room smoking cannabis) cannot be correct, leaving the question, what was the real reason for the cancellation call?

If he was in JuJ's house, the only way for him to have been the other youth on the moped is for him to have left JuJ's house on receipt of a call from GD from the Jobcentre at 4.20, gone round to GD's house and picked up the bike, then set off for Dalkeith.  That would have meant the timing of their sighting at the Tool Hire place ruled out their story of "mucking about in the woods on the bike for a bit" - by the time JoF got to GD's house, got the bike, got to Dalkeith and picked up GD, there would be very little time left for "mucking about" before they emerged in the Tool Hire grounds.

Or, alternatively, he went to GD's house, even though GD was not there, worked on the bike in GD's garden and was coincidentally, right there when GD called at 4.20pm. Nobody ever suggested that was what he did and the only person who would have been able to verify it would have been GD's dad (since his mum was already out and the other friend who was in the house that afternoon left with her and GD).

What I've never been able to get my head around is why the police didn't go back to all of them and say, this can't be right - between 2.30pm and 3pm, JoF was, according to all of your statements, in two places at once. Nope, accepted all of the statements as "fact" even though, as I've just shown, someone had to be mistaken ... or lying.

theres something else wrong who the bloody hell that as excuse for cancelling an appointment.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 07, 2017, 08:32:PM
Sorry, should have clarified - the "official excuse" (the one given to the doctor's receptionist) was that the family were away for the day and wouldn't be home in time (made from the family landline... oh dear).

The reason given to the police was the smoking cannabis in the bedroom one.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 07, 2017, 08:35:PM
is jof an only child or did he have a brothe or sister.

YW, Jodi's cousin, was JoF's half sister - I don't know about any other siblings.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 07, 2017, 10:32:PM
asuming he wasnt on the moped did he place himself there to save his own skin or somone elses.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 08, 2017, 10:20:AM
I don't understand any of it! He doesn't fit the description of the youth with "short dark hair" but a couple of days later, he gets his hair cut really, really short. Next, according to him, he says AW told him not to go to the police because he was on the path "too early." If AW didn't tell him that, he was taking a hell of a risk - it would only have taken the police asking AW and the other relative if they said this, them denying all knowledge, and boom! The police are now thinking, "Why did he lie to us about that?" Then he lied about the time he was on the path, blaming a clock "at the wrong time."

Another reasonable interpretation is that he didn't "know" what time he was at GD's, he didn't "know" what time the bike was on the path (all that could be proven was that he took a call from GD at 4.20pm) and he didn't "know" he should go to police because he wasn't there at all.

But why would anyone place themselves at the scene of a brutal murder ... unless, of course, everybody knew there was only ever going to be one "suspect" and one conviction?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 08, 2017, 12:28:PM
When we were talking about the hoodie one thing been bothering me, with th eblood on inside of hood and under arm same side I believe the only explanation was that Jodi was lying on her side arm extended and bleeding from an injury. The problem I have is that it was likely that Jodi was unconscious at this point as it would have taken time for blood to flow to the areas it was found.
The thing is I always thought the clothes were taken of during the initial fight but it would seem that wasn't the case then, so at what point are they removed and the defender wounds inflicted? Was she possibly stripped when she was unconscious but then would she be able to put up the fight she did having just gained consciousness ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 08, 2017, 12:29:PM
the only I can think is he was even closer to the murder scene and thought the bike story would be better than the real one or he was covering for the person who really was on the moped.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 08, 2017, 01:20:PM
When we were talking about the hoodie one thing been bothering me, with th eblood on inside of hood and under arm same side I believe the only explanation was that Jodi was lying on her side arm extended and bleeding from an injury. The problem I have is that it was likely that Jodi was unconscious at this point as it would have taken time for blood to flow to the areas it was found.
The thing is I always thought the clothes were taken of during the initial fight but it would seem that wasn't the case then, so at what point are they removed and the defender wounds inflicted? Was she possibly stripped when she was unconscious but then would she be able to put up the fight she did having just gained consciousness ?

well that's fairly easy to determine if the were riped they were taken of in the strugel if they wernt they were taken of after or before.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 11, 2017, 10:18:AM
When we were talking about the hoodie one thing been bothering me, with th eblood on inside of hood and under arm same side I believe the only explanation was that Jodi was lying on her side arm extended and bleeding from an injury. The problem I have is that it was likely that Jodi was unconscious at this point as it would have taken time for blood to flow to the areas it was found.
The thing is I always thought the clothes were taken of during the initial fight but it would seem that wasn't the case then, so at what point are they removed and the defender wounds inflicted? Was she possibly stripped when she was unconscious but then would she be able to put up the fight she did having just gained consciousness ?

Because of the way the evidence was recorded and presented, it's impossible to tell what was where, in terms of the clothing - I think the hoodie and t shirt were beyond the body (to the west) - hoodie in the bushes to the right, t shirt pieces on the track, the shoes and bra were to the east of the body by a couple of feet, and the underpants and glasses further east still. I've never been able to work out exactly where the bra strap and two pound coins were found.

If the spread of items means Jodi was moving from west to east, then does that mean she wasn't unconscious where the hoodie and t shirt were found? (There was blood where the glasses and underpants were found as well). Also, I had a horrible thought on the basis of another case I was reading about. Only one of the cut-throat injuries (out of 12 - 20) was the fatal one. Is it possible that non-fatal injuries to Jodi's neck caused some of the blood staining prior to the fatal wound being inflicted? In the other case I was reading, the vocal chords were cut, but the wound was not immediately fatal, meaning the attack continued but the victim was unable to scream for help.

If a neck injury was inflicted while Jodi was lying on her side (but not unconscious), and she managed to somehow scramble away from her attacker, the hoodie being pulled off in the process, that might also account for the armpit stain.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 11, 2017, 11:15:AM
A while back I spent many hours over a few days going through crimes where the victim had had their throats cut and none even came near 12-20. It would be unusual for the first cut to not be fatal but not impossible and would the killer continue to try and cut the throat or would they simply just stab.
I always though the wounds to the neck were an attempt to obliterate the neck of some form of evidence as even in rage it would have dissapated by the time you had made 10 cuts let alone going further.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 11, 2017, 06:48:PM
The pathologist was of the opinion that the neck wounds were bi-directional, slashing type wounds which is, as you say, unusual in terms of both the ferocity and the sheer number of wounds. I had never thought about the fatal wound not being the first wound before - it was only when I read about the other case that I considered the possibility.

If there had been a non-fatal wound to the neck area, then there would have been three serious injuries producing copious amounts of blood before the fatal wound was inflicted. That, in itself, might account for the previously inexplicably small amount of blood spray on the wall.

Contrary to previous belief, the gash to Jodi's face was not post-mortem (and obviously the defence wounds weren't). But the defence wounds on Jodi's arm were inflicted after the hoodie was off - there is no blood staining on the hoodie that corresponds to the arm injuries.

I do agree that the neck wounds appear to have been either an attempt to obliterate other evidence, or they were a concerted attempt at decapitation.

One other thing - why use the trousers to tie her hands? Wouldn't it have been easier to use the hoodie? Could the hoodie have been used as some sort of mask/blindfold, (i.e. the hood the "wrong way" over Jodi's face) - that would account for blood on the inside of the "wrong" side of the hood as the blood related to the known injuries?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 12, 2017, 01:30:AM
We can't discount a non fatal wound to the neck first but things don't stack up with that as that type of wound wouldn't account for the spray as it would need to be arterial for that, it may account for the blood on foliage. That type of wound would have caused saturation on the clothing but items like the shoes one would think would have been contaminated with blood. Was she naked at that time? Well hard to tell but I would imagine that shock and her will would have meant that Jodi was trying to escape her attacker so was there any injuries to the soles of her feet? Or were her hands heavily blood stained?

The assault for me happened in 5 stages.

Phase 1.
Initial assault identical to a (cat fight) hair torn out, bruising to face and head,bruising to hands and possible bite mark to hand.

Phase 2.
Knocked out by some blow that rendered her unconscious and either stripped at this point or later on.

Phase 3.
After gaining conciousness, being strangled and stripped after uncountiousness. The presence of petechiae tells us that a definite attempt to kill Jodi through strangulation. Stripping had to have happened before the knife was produced so in either of these two phases.


Phase 4.
The fatal wound is administered.

Phase 5.
The staging of crime scene and post mortem mutilations
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 12, 2017, 01:33:AM
I don't see an attempt at decapitation as that would require 1/2 cuts but we're talking of a minimum of 12 defined cuts.

I think the trousers being used as binding was a practical one, I feel the trousers were used to pull Jodi into the position and area she was found, a hoodie would be useless in those circumstances.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 13, 2017, 10:15:AM
Quote
We can't discount a non fatal wound to the neck first but things don't stack up with that as that type of wound wouldn't account for the spray as it would need to be arterial for that, it may account for the blood on foliage.

What I meant was that with three heavily bleeding wounds (the pathologist said the arm wounds would have been fatal "over time" ) there would have been less arterial spray when the fatal blow was inflicted because there was less blood circulating due to blood loss from the other injuries.

Also, I'm still not convinced that the spray was arterial - the positioning and amount of blood could equally be explained as having been deposited from Jodi's injured arm flailing.

Quote
That type of wound would have caused saturation on the clothing but items like the shoes one would think would have been contaminated with blood. Was she naked at that time? Well hard to tell but I would imagine that shock and her will would have meant that Jodi was trying to escape her attacker so was there any injuries to the soles of her feet? Or were her hands heavily blood stained?

There were no injuries to her feet, but clear evidence that she had been walking and/or crawling (I would say definitely crawling) without shoes. Her socks were dirt stained inside and out, suggesting they were replaced after having been initially removed. Her hands were filthy, absolutely caked with mud - it's possible - maybe even probable - that that "mud" was a mixture of Jodi's blood and dirt.

The shoes and socks were pretty much blood free, as were her feet.

It fries my brain trying to figure it out. If Jodi was stripped in one place before the knife wounds were inflicted, how did her clothing come to be found over the distance it did, and how did the bloodstaining get to be where it was (and not be where it wasn't, if you know what I mean?)

The only heavily bloodstained clothes were the t shirt and the hoodie, and we already know that some of the staining did not correspond with wounds inflicted. The bra was unbelievably free of blood, to have been found so close to the body. The underpants were bloodstained, but not heavily and there were "drips" of blood on the lower leg of the trousers.

I think, as you say, Jodi had to have been naked, or at the very least, semi-naked before the worst injures were inflicted - there is no other explanation for the lack of blood on the other clothing that I can think of.

I have always thought he damage to the trousers - the button on the waistband was "pulled through" the fabric, and the rips in the side seams were consistent with "pulling" - indicated that Jodi was either trying to run or crawl away from her attacker who was pulling her back by the waistband/upper area of her trousers. Bear in mind these were baggy trousers, so the attacker would have been able to gain purchase on the fabric around the hip area. Even if her upper half had been stripped by that point,either the face and neck injuries had not been inflicted by that stage, or Jodi did not get very far at all, otherwise, she would have been crawling through her own blood and the bloodstaining on the trousers is not consistent with that.

And, of course, this scenario still doesn't explain the blood staining on the hoodie and t-shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 13, 2017, 08:35:PM
theres a simple though somhat implausable answer to all this maybe the clothes found at the sene werent here
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 14, 2017, 03:49:PM
I don't remember the hoodie ever being described as heavily bloodstained but simply blood on the inside of hoodie and under the arm pit, is it that theses areas were saturated? Having not seen the blood at base of the wall it was always described as spray but was it more like concentrated blood drops?
I suppose the snare and drops could have been an attempt by Jodi to somehow scale the wall and that she could well have been semi naked, top have make but trousers on and it was these that she was caught by and forced to another area.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 14, 2017, 05:38:PM
if jof wasnt on the bike that would mean that whoever really was on the bike was happy to go along with it and dident want to talk the police.

what id like to know is were they covering for jof or was he covering for them.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 14, 2017, 09:06:PM
I don't remember the hoodie ever being described as heavily bloodstained but simply blood on the inside of hoodie and under the arm pit, is it that theses areas were saturated? Having not seen the blood at base of the wall it was always described as spray but was it more like concentrated blood drops?
I suppose the snare and drops could have been an attempt by Jodi to somehow scale the wall and that she could well have been semi naked, top have make but trousers on and it was these that she was caught by and forced to another area.

From memory, one side of the hood was described as "heavily bloodstained," but on the inside. Thinking about that now, it makes no sense - if it was "heavily bloodstained," one would imagine that meant soaked through, so how would they know whether it had travelled from inside to outside or vice versa? The armpit stain was just that - a "large bloodstain."

The "spray" on the wall - it's a narrow, shallow arc of blood droplets, but there's really not much of it - if you imagine spray of anything under pressure, you would expect it to cover quite a large area, tailing off as the pressure/supply decreased - t's nothing like that at all. In no way at all could it be described as "litres" of blood sprayed onto the wall. The scenario you describe is along the lines of what I was thinking - having broken free, Jodi was either running, half running, half crawling or "scrambling" (the condition of her hands make me think this) and she was dragged either down or back by the waistband/hip area of her trousers. If that was the case and the arm injury had already been inflicted, being yanked backwards may have caused her to throw out her arm involuntarily, the blood from the arm would following the "arc" of her arm as she was swung downwards.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 14, 2017, 09:57:PM
sandar before allegdly pleasuring himself in the woods what did jaf say he was doing that i would imagine the police would of assked him to reacall the whole day.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 14, 2017, 10:08:PM
theres a simple though somhat implausable answer to all this maybe the clothes found at the sene werent here

Weren't hers, did you mean? It's a possibility, since nothing in this case makes any sense, but where would that take us? The hoodie seems to have been fairly positively identified - however   and I thought this was quite interesting - the police could not find an identical hoodie for the reconstruction - they ended up getting a copy of the Deftones logos and sticking them to a plain hoodie.

The t-shirt - we all know the shenanigans that went through to be finally described as one that was possibly maybe definitely JaJ's.

The shoes - again, apparently Jodi and JaJ had "identical" trainers, I think the only claimed difference was the colour of the piping (Jodi's had white piping, Jaj's had yellow)

Underwear - who would know?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 14, 2017, 11:22:PM
sandar before allegdly pleasuring himself in the woods what did jaf say he was doing that i would imagine the police would of assked him to reacall the whole day.

You'd have thought so, but no. He was only asked to account for his movements in the immediate run up to the littering incident. He volunteered the information about his actions the following morning, but there is zero information about what he did, where he was etc, prior to what he thought was "about 9 - 9.30 that night - it was getting grey dark."

Hmmm, it was daylight until after 10pm that day, but that's another story entirely!

The police were in his house on July 2nd 2003, taking statements from his mum and two of his brothers, but somehow they didn't speak to him until more than three years later - and then they accepted his interesting account at face value and left it at that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 15, 2017, 11:03:AM
i suppose they dont know what he lookedlike at the time or how he was dressed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 15, 2017, 02:12:PM
There was nothing in the statements to indicate he'd even been asked, nugnug, so there's nothing at all to go on.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 15, 2017, 02:47:PM
so it the then follows that there would really be no way of knowing weather he fits any of the eye witness decriptions or not.

the only thing we have is a picture of him 3 years later but that could be totaly difrent from the way he looked at the time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 18, 2017, 10:07:AM
i dont suppose the polce mentioned of condom that was used.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 18, 2017, 12:20:PM
It's so hard in this case to for any real summary as to what we believed happened at the crime scene, every abnormality in the case seems to be precluded with another.
We know Jodi had to have been at the point where she was discovered but the police believing that Luke was there waiting just doesn't make sense. There are so many possibilities as to why she was there she may have chosen that way herself,followed someone or as I believe she was trying to avoid one of the people on that motorised bicycle who we know were on the path, strangely her killer to might have been trying to avoid the same person.
The lack of noise concerns me but possible considering the fact there were people on a motorised bike in the area and Jodi may well have been overcome very quickly, I believe someone heard something as those on the bike appear to have been drawn to the v break.

Jodi was knocked unconscious and possibly semi stripped early on and numerous wounds caused over a lengthy time, this wasn't a 5 min assault but most probably took in excess of 20/25 mins.

The clothes and their proximity to the body can tell us very little as we know that some staging took effect, body moved, clothes handled and on occasion placed or folded neatly. There's nothing to suggest that all the clothes at the crimes scene were placed by designed
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 18, 2017, 12:59:PM
Very interesting post, gordo!

Not only do we not know how Jodi came to be behind the wall, to this day, we don't know when she went there. She may have been trying to avoid certain people or, alternatively, she may have been intending to meet someone - that joint that she smoked less than 2 hours before her death has never been explained. She had no smoking equipment on her so, even if she'd had a ready prepared joint with her, she needed something to light it with - or someone to light it for her. She was too early for Luke, who wouldn't have been out before 5.30 - did she intend to meet someone behind the wall for a smoke to kill some time before heading down to Newbattle?

I totally agree that the riderless bike propped precisely at the V point suggests the riders were drawn there by something. Had they been standing next to the bike, then it could be concluded they'd simply stopped for a rest from pushing the bike. If they stopped for a rest, but decided to hop over the wall for a joint, they'd have hopped straight into a murder scene if, indeed, Jodi was killed at that time. Or one of them had an arrangement to be over the wall at that particular place and time?

According to their accounts (and we know we can't place much reliability on them), they pushed the bike up the Newbattle Road, managed to get it going again at the Newbattle entrance to the path, rode it a little way up and then it cut out again. If Jodi was killed at 5.15, the noise of the bike in the few minutes prior to that, while it was still running, may have drowned out any sound from the attack. Did they hear something when the bike cut out and went over the wall to check what it was?

I agree, too, that this wasn't a five minute attack - the distance covered by the blood staining, the "flattened and trampled" area at the opposite side of the woodland strip, the nature of the injuries and the need to strip and mutilate the body all took time to occur.

The clothing aspect is so frustrating - it's impossible to know whether the moving of any  the clothes by the scenes of crime officers took place before they were photographed, there's no way of telling whether AW, in going right up to the body, may have accidentally have kicked things into a new position etc.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 18, 2017, 01:03:PM
i dont suppose the polce mentioned of condom that was used.

The brand was named (I can't remember it now) but the same brand was used in the local free sexual health programme that gave out free condoms to teenagers, so there were literally thousands of the same brand of condoms in the area - for example, JaF's condom was the same brand as those in the opened packet in JoF's glove.  JaF mentioned that his brothers got condoms from this programme, but then bizarrely lied to police that he'd "borrowed" his condom from a friend he didn't even know at the time. When asked why he lied about it, he said (to police, no less!) "I had to say something."
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on May 18, 2017, 01:15:PM
An excerpt from an article about the appeal:

Quote
A MAN named by Luke Mitchell's lawyers as an alternative suspect in the Jodi Jones murder today declared he was "100 per cent innocent". James Falconer hit out after being identified as a possible suspect in papers lodged by Mitchell's defence team at the Court of Appeal. He accused Donald Findlay QC, who is leading the appeal, of dragging his name into the mud and accused the lawyer of "sheer desperation". Mr Falconer, who lives only a few minutes' walk from the secluded spot were 14-year-old Jodi was killed, has been questioned by police in connection with the brutal murder. But detectives are understood to have ruled him out of their investigations. Mr Falconer, of Reed Drive, Dalkeith, was identified by Mitchell's legal team after being linked to a condom found near the woodland murder scene.He said: "I was questioned by police and they cleared me. I think it's tragic my name has been dragged into this by Donald Findlay."I had nothing to do with the murder. I could never do something like that. I'm 100 per cent innocent." The defence team alleges that a recently-used condom was found 50 metres from the spot where Jodi was killed, in June 2003. They added that DNA swabs matched a sample taken from Mr Falconer, who they claim also gave false statements to police. The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/i-didn-t-kill-jodi-1-1249412

How did Beckett ever get away with that? It was the Crown who alerted Luke's legal team to the full profile match - there was absolutely no question about it, so Beckett's claim in court was an outright lie.

Also, that 50 metre claim? The original police record logs it as 20 metres from the body, plain and simple. It was later amended to read "within a 20 metre radius" to a "50 metre radius", to 50 metres from the body. What were they playing at?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on May 18, 2017, 02:51:PM
I can't help but believe that JaF was masterbating to the sight of a dead naked body and realised just how the conatations of that might mean to someone with a record. These actions although rare do happen and maybe someone should be heeding the warning signs.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 20, 2017, 01:06:PM
if you stumbled across a dead body I think your first instinct would be to ethere call the old bill or just get the hell out of there.

I don't think you would get the urge to start touching yourself and even if you did I think you'd resist it.

unless of course he only noticied the body after he had done it at then thought oh shit.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on May 29, 2017, 07:53:PM
I was just wondering how long luke got sentence wise. Was it 15 years? If so hasn't he served his time or because he says he's innocent they won't release him?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on May 31, 2017, 09:58:AM
life with a tarrif of 20 years.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on May 31, 2017, 06:17:PM
I was just wondering how long luke got sentence wise. Was it 15 years? If so hasn't he served his time or because he says he's innocent they won't release him?

thanks
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on June 01, 2017, 07:36:AM
if you stumbled across a dead body I think your first instinct would be to ethere call the old bill or just get the hell out of there.

I don't think you would get the urge to start touching yourself and even if you did I think you'd resist it.

unless of course he only noticied the body after he had done it at then thought oh shit.

I would have thought so too, but according to his own statement, right after he heard about the murder the following morning, he went out and did the same thing again, behind a tree at the Reed Drive end of Lady Path - the place was swarming with cops - it might just be me, but I think that's just weird... and very worrying.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on June 01, 2017, 11:48:AM
I would have thought so too, but according to his own statement, right after he heard about the murder the following morning, he went out and did the same thing again, behind a tree at the Reed Drive end of Lady Path - the place was swarming with cops - it might just be me, but I think that's just weird... and very worrying.

its also clearly a lie he would of got cought there must of been antoter bit of sperm he was trying to explain away.

or hes trying to convince the police that it was something he normaly did and although it might sound a bit weird it was perfectly harmless and nothing to do with the murder.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 19, 2017, 03:57:PM
sandra do you know if flemming and walsh have ever done a press interview.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 19, 2017, 09:49:PM
Not to my knowledge, nugnug - I've never seen anything attributed to them. Why do you ask?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 19, 2017, 10:20:PM
no i couldent find anything ln the papers ethere they seem a bit reclusive im sure the press would of loved to interview if they could of done.

but they seemed a tiny bit publicity shy.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 21, 2017, 11:31:AM
It's so hard in this case to for any real summary as to what we believed happened at the crime scene, every abnormality in the case seems to be precluded with another.
We know Jodi had to have been at the point where she was discovered but the police believing that Luke was there waiting just doesn't make sense. There are so many possibilities as to why she was there she may have chosen that way herself,followed someone or as I believe she was trying to avoid one of the people on that motorised bicycle who we know were on the path, strangely her killer to might have been trying to avoid the same person.
The lack of noise concerns me but possible considering the fact there were people on a motorised bike in the area and Jodi may well have been overcome very quickly, I believe someone heard something as those on the bike appear to have been drawn to the v break.

Jodi was knocked unconscious and possibly semi stripped early on and numerous wounds caused over a lengthy time, this wasn't a 5 min assault but most probably took in excess of 20/25 mins.

The clothes and their proximity to the body can tell us very little as we know that some staging took effect, body moved, clothes handled and on occasion placed or folded neatly. There's nothing to suggest that all the clothes at the crimes scene were placed by designed

why had the body been moved why did the killer move it why would he want to.

did he move it or is it the police moved the body to photograph it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 11, 2017, 12:06:PM
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/new-attempt-to-release-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1-4581473
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 11, 2017, 12:12:PM
Note how Paddy errs on the side of caution

"Involved in the campaign is Paddy Hill, one of six men wrongly accused of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombing. He said: “I remain extremely concerned and disturbed that Luke was convicted of this crime based on the evidence presented

Read more at: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/new-attempt-to-release-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1-4581473

Paddy once backed Simon Halls campaign
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 11, 2017, 12:26:PM
Professor Allan Jamieson also reviewed forensics in the Simon Hall Case. In fact he was interviewed during the last ever BBC Rough Justice Documentary "The Innocents Brief"


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 11, 2017, 12:27:PM
Note how Paddy errs on the side of caution

"Involved in the campaign is Paddy Hill, one of six men wrongly accused of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombing. He said: “I remain extremely concerned and disturbed that Luke was convicted of this crime based on the evidence presented

Read more at: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/new-attempt-to-release-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1-4581473

Paddy once backed Simon Halls campaign

Paddy raises concern regarding the evidence presented at trial. He has NOT claimed Mitchell is innocent
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 11, 2017, 01:04:PM
paddy says that in every case its his standard statement.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 13, 2017, 09:33:AM
Paddy raises concern regarding the evidence presented at trial. He has NOT claimed Mitchell is innocent

Paddy isn't quoted as saying "at trial," is he? Everyone who has ever worked with a claimed wrongful conviction knows there is so much more than simply the evidence presented at trial. And, as it should be, Professor Jamieson is going to review the forensic evidence.

What does it matter which cases groups or individuals have reviewed previously? The suggestion that they "got it wrong" in the Simon Hall case (I'll reserve judgement on that, since there are still so many unanswered questions) can't then be used to infer either that their opinions/reviews are worthless or that they will "get it wrong" in other cases.

The criminal justice system is deeply flawed and is getting away with convictions on the flimsiest of evidence - that's not justice for anyone. Trying to address those flaws and ensure true justice for all is, in my opinion, a responsibility that belongs to all of us.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: JackieD on October 13, 2017, 10:41:AM
Very interesting post
Thank you Sandra
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Stephanie on October 13, 2017, 11:24:PM
Paddy isn't quoted as saying "at trial," is he? Everyone who has ever worked with a claimed wrongful conviction knows there is so much more than simply the evidence presented at trial.

Don't they just  ::)

So when are you going to fill us all in with regards Luke's relationship with his mother

Which category does she fall in http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8760.0.html


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg391774.html#msg391774
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 14, 2017, 07:46:PM
Quote
[Note to readers: This survey is anecdotal, the start of a future study]... a doctor of criminology at Birmingham City University has pointed out that there are three distinctive types of mothers that might be more likely to raise a murderer.

Operative words and phrases - "anecdotal"- not based in any sort of formal research whatsoever. "Might be more likely" ... and, of course, might not!

Quote
After examining 10 murder cases in the UK series Murderers and their Mothers, Dr Elizabeth Yardley began to demystify the psyche of killers by looking closely at their maternal relations.

TEN! On average, there are around 5,500 people serving life sentences for murder each year in the UK. Ten doesn't really seen like a reasonable sample from which to draw such conclusions, in my opinion.

Quote
What about Luke's "unusual" relationship with his mother?

If, by that, you are referring to media claims that he was found sleeping in the same room as his mother, I'd caution that media reports aren't always accurate and even when they are, there can be perfectly innocent explanations for the information published.

For example, some media reports stated they were found sleeping in the same bedroom. Inaccurate. However, another youth was sleeping in the same bedroom as his mother at the time, but that youth was Jodi's brother. Unusual relationship? Or devastated family keeping close for comfort.

Luke and his mother were sleeping in the living room - on a couch each on separate walls in the room, because Luke was heavily medicated for shock in the aftermath of Jodi's murder, and Corinne was afraid he might fall down the stairs in the night. Unusual relationship, or sensible, caring and responsible decision in the circumstances?


Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 14, 2017, 08:01:PM
The "three types of mothers" who "might be more likely to raise murderers" are either

Victims of abuse and neglect themselves

OR

They come from relatively stable, if not "traditional" families

OR

They follow society's rules and fulfil social expectations.

Let's see, what does that leave? Rebellious, anti-social, refusing to obey rules or acknowledge social norms ... nope, nothing to see here, likely to bring up perfectly normal children. How about strictly authoritarian, doling out harsh punishments for the most minor misdemeanours ... nope, they're not on the list either. Mothers with mental health problems, addictions, zero social support ... they don't seem to be on the list either. Just those crazy, stable mothers who insist on following society's rules and fulfilling social expectations ... guess we'll all have to watch out for them!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: gordo30 on October 17, 2017, 01:35:PM
Is there actual “new evidence” or a summary look at the old evidence that may or may not have been at trial. We had two new DNA samples discovered during the last appeal process that were neither considered good enough to invoke a new appeal and were never identified through the national database.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 17, 2017, 02:37:PM
Is there actual “new evidence” or a summary look at the old evidence that may or may not have been at trial. We had two new DNA samples discovered during the last appeal process that were neither considered good enough to invoke a new appeal and were never identified through the national database.

well the sccrc is under investigation now so i doubt they would make such an absurd decisn agian.

though maybe i shouldent speak to soon.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on October 19, 2017, 07:31:PM
Great news this is being looked at again. I don’t believe Luke has is guilty, let’s hope the real killer gets caught
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest154 on October 19, 2017, 07:43:PM
Great news this is being looked at again. I don’t believe Luke has is guilty, let’s hope the real killer gets caught

Who's looking at this again? You mean Mojo?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 19, 2017, 09:03:PM
It's always difficult, in cases like this, to post meaningful information because of the tendency for it to be misrepresented, misquoted or used against the very case it's trying to assist. So please bear with me and read between the lines where necessary.

There is "new information" in the literal (legal) sense - information that was not known about (and could not have been known about by the defence) at the time of trial and the appeal.

There is new information that has not been released to anyone other than those most closely involved in the new initiative, and will not be released publicly until it becomes a matter of law.

A group of people with individual, specialist understandings has agreed to carry out a whole case review. That means reviewing the investigation, the evidence, the media involvement, the legal arguments - pretty much every aspect of the case will be scrutinised and held up against accepted norms and values and the findings of those involved will be offered at the end of that review. It is not a new concept - it has been done in a number of other high profile cases (some of them discussed on this forum) and it's had a number of successful outcomes, even though, unfortunately, it has taken a great deal of time to get there.

I think I've answered all of the questions asked in the last few days - if not, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer anything I've missed.

Thanks to everyone still interested almost 14 years and 4 months later.



Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on October 19, 2017, 09:21:PM
Who's looking at this again? You mean Mojo?
[/quote

Yes read it on google news ,
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on October 19, 2017, 09:26:PM
Paddy isn't quoted as saying "at trial," is he? Everyone who has ever worked with a claimed wrongful conviction knows there is so much more than simply the evidence presented at trial. And, as it should be, Professor Jamieson is going to review the forensic evidence.

What does it matter which cases groups or individuals have reviewed previously? The suggestion that they "got it wrong" in the Simon Hall case (I'll reserve judgement on that, since there are still so many unanswered questions) can't then be used to infer either that their opinions/reviews are worthless or that they will "get it wrong" in other cases.

The criminal justice system is deeply flawed and is getting away with convictions on the flimsiest of evidence - that's not justice for anyone. Trying to address those flaws and ensure true justice for all is, in my opinion, a responsibility that belongs to all of us.

Great post Sandra
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on October 19, 2017, 09:28:PM
It's always difficult, in cases like this, to post meaningful information because of the tendency for it to be misrepresented, misquoted or used against the very case it's trying to assist. So please bear with me and read between the lines where necessary.

There is "new information" in the literal (legal) sense - information that was not known about (and could not have been known about by the defence) at the time of trial and the appeal.

There is new information that has not been released to anyone other than those most closely involved in the new initiative, and will not be released publicly until it becomes a matter of law.

A group of people with individual, specialist understandings has agreed to carry out a whole case review. That means reviewing the investigation, the evidence, the media involvement, the legal arguments - pretty much every aspect of the case will be scrutinised and held up against accepted norms and values and the findings of those involved will be offered at the end of that review. It is not a new concept - it has been done in a number of other high profile cases (some of them discussed on this forum) and it's had a number of successful outcomes, even though, unfortunately, it has taken a great deal of time to get there.

I think I've answered all of the questions asked in the last few days - if not, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer anything I've missed.

Thanks to everyone still interested almost 14 years and 4 months later.

Why do the wheels of justice go at snail speed.the justice system is so u fair and I really pray that Luke gets his freedom sooner rather than later
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 19, 2017, 10:44:PM
well it stands to reason noting is going to be disclosed at this stage theyd be mad sat anything this early in the process.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on October 20, 2017, 03:36:PM
well it stands to reason noting is going to be disclosed at this stage theyd be mad sat anything this early in the process.

Your right and I for one would rather not know anything until it is deemed acceptable to be in the public domain. If I was in that situation I wouldn’t want anything to get in the way of justice. I do hope the media are fairer this time round though. They were so bias last time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 20, 2017, 09:52:PM
Thanks, nugnug and notsure, it's a delicate line and those who understand that know why it's so delicate. I'll do what I can to update, but you know it will be restricted to as and when. My focus has always been justice for Jodi and her family and Luke and his ... nothing's changed
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on October 20, 2017, 10:45:PM
Thanks Sandra will be keen to hear anything you feel we are able to know but in the meantime very best wishes to you and the team. HopeLl goes well
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 21, 2017, 05:58:PM
of course theres no tral harm in talking about things that are already public and there is plenty.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: notsure on October 21, 2017, 06:13:PM
of course theres no tral harm in talking about things that are already public and there is plenty.

Very true nugnug
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 13, 2017, 09:50:AM
hopefully it wont take to long this time.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 21, 2017, 01:24:PM
That's what I was thinking, Nugnug. The thing is, I can't quite get it all to fit together in my head.

Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.

Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads.  Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theories?

But, if this was a crime staged to look like a sexually motivated attack, it failed fairly quickly, since police dropped that as a possibility by mid July.

The very clean bra, I agree with Gordo - Jodi could not possibly have been wearing it when the cut-throat injuries were inflicted - apart from anything else, the blood saturation of the t-shirt makes the cleanliness of the bra a physical impossibility, if it was being worn under the t-shirt at the time those injuries were inflicted. But the transfer stain on the clasp area means someone with some level of contamination of Jodi's blood touched (or undid) that clasp. The only other possibility (please forgive me, I include this only because it's the only other plausible explanation) is that a bleeding Jodi undid the clasp herself.

The pathology reports, and the forensic evidence from the scene (drips and splashes of blood on foliage, branches etc) suggest that Jodi had bleeding injuries before the fatal cut-throat injuries were inflicted - her lip was burst, for example.

But here's something that might throw even more confusion into the mix (sorry!) Jodi's hands were filthy - caked with dirt, embedded right under her fingernails - if it was Jodi who undid the clasp, she had to have done so before her hands got so dirty, or the clasp area would have been heavily dirt stained. It wasn't.

So, if we're turning this around and Jodi was not stripped after death (again, something I've been arguing for years), how do we explain the known evidence, and how does Gordo's hypothesis fit with alternative explanations?

The cut t-shirt was "heavily bloodstained" around the neck area. If Jodi was killed in a sitting position, facing the wall, I'd have expected the t-shirt to be heavily bloodstained definitely down the whole of the front, at the very least, over the shoulder areas, and potentially down the back. If the hoodie was being worn at the time, then I'd expect the t-shirt to be possibly less stained, but the hoodie to be saturated. It wasn't - it was bloodstained on one side of the hood.

I never understood the bloodstaining in the armpit of one of the sleeves of the hoodie- there were no injuries on Jodi's body that could account for that heavy staining, and no cuts in the hoodie to suggest an injury inflicted through it. There were also no "matching" cuts in the t-shirt

Which brings me to the "defensive wounds" on Jodi's arms. She couldn't have been wearing the hoodie when these were inflicted - no cuts to the hoodie sleeves in the areas of these injuries, no bloodstaining to match with those injuries, either directly or indirectly (e.g. sleeves rolled up when the injuries were inflicted.) So, what about the t-shirt? Could that have been still worn when the arm injuries were inflicted? Again, I'd be inclined to say no. These were horrific injuries. If Jodi had done the instinctive thing when they were inflicted and drawn her arms towards her body to shield them I'd have expected to see extensive blood staining on the t-shirr around the chest or stomach area, most probably soaking through to the bra. If she was flailing her arms, trying to fend off further blows, then I'd have expected to see splashes of blood from those injuries on the front, back and sleeves of the t-shirt, as well as the jeans, and again, because of the level of blood loss, where those splashes landed on the t-shirt, I'd expect to see soak-through onto the bra.

I have no idea where all of this might lead - I'm just thinking out loud, all these years later, about the anomalies, the things that just don't add up, and never have.

i think they chnged there mind once they found there chosen suspect.

they must of had a reason to think it was a sexaully motivated atack to start with.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 21, 2017, 05:58:PM
If the case papers are anything to go by, the finding of a condom so close to the murder scene had them pretty convinced before the DNA results came back. But the nature of the investigation into the condoms (there was another found in a cave about 500 yards away) is telling.

In the first instance, they tried to distance the first condom from the murder by expanding the distance from 20 yards, to "within a 20 yard radius" to "within 50 yards." They didn't say, for example, that the blood stained branch was found "within 12 metres" - it was 12 metres west of the body. They didn't say Jodi's spectacles were found "within 3 metres" - they were 2.7 metres east of the body. The only reason I can think of for the lack of precision about where the condom was found was that they wanted to make it seem "too far away" to be of any importance. But why would they do that, especially if they believed the murder to have been sexually motivated and the DNA donor had not been traced?
Oh yes, I forgot - because the donor was not Luke and they needed him to be Luke.

The first DNA results were received 12 days into the investigation - at that point, they would have received the news that the contents of the condom did not originate from Luke. Rather than drop the connection right there, however, they tried to connect that condom with the condom found in the bin in Luke's room. Why? Who knows - a bit like the so-called knife evidence, so that they could say "a condom of the same brand as the one found in the bin in Luke Mitchell's bedroom was also found near the murder scene?"

The condom in the cave is just plain strange. The DNA profile from it was listed in the DNA reports as "unknown male" (it was a full profile). But they traced the two vagrants who had been living in the cave and got DNA profiles from them. However, the DNA results were not amended to link the DNA of either vagrant with the DNA from the condom. So.... if it didn't belong to either of the vagrants, isn't it a least possible they got the wrong flipping vagrants???

The media happily advised us all that the vagrants had been traced and eliminated. What they didn't say was that the originator of the condom contents had NOT been traced or eliminated.

By the end of the first week, the FLO was telling Luke and his family that Jodi had not been sexually assaulted (I guess, in her defence, the presence of sperm heads and semen deposits all over her body and clothing hadn't been recorded in the forensic report by then).The same day, the media broke the story that Jodi may have disturbed someone committing a sex act in the woods. So whoever was leaking information to the media knew (or had a damn good idea) that the sperm and semen deposits were not likely to come back from the labs identifying Luke - after all, the deposits were known about from the off - stains testing positive for semen, etc. I don't believe for a moment that senior officers sat twiddling their thumbs for 12 days saying, "It's ok, we'll just wait for the lab reports" - not a chance. I believe there has to have been contact throughout.

In fact, I know of another case where the Senior officer was emailing and calling a contact at the labs repeatedly, suggesting they use a specific technique on a specific sample from a specific area on a specific article of clothing. It took months - the lab kept coming back saying there was no point, the chances of a strong profile were miniscule, the technique in question did not provide as reliable results as other methods, there were better samples on other articles of clothing, etc, but eventually, after months of pressure from this officer, they agreed. (Direct funding had also been refused, so the agreement to test in this particular manner was on a "non urgent," when they could get around to it basis. Bet nobody can guess the outcome??

Yup, miraculously, they found a "full" DNA match (well, not quite, but it was close enough and they provided a plausible explanation for the missing bits!) Interestingly this "match" was found from a tiny group of cells lifted from a tape which had somehow acquired a mysterious cut... the cells were right next to this mysterious cut (which sliced right through both top and bottom layers of tape "sandwiching" the sample between them). The expert asked to comment on this said it was, in her opinion, highly unlikely that any contamination of the sample, via the mysterious cut, could have occurred.

Sorry to digress, but I think it's an important point - the labs testing these deposits are far from "independent" - they are aware of where their money comes from and if a senior officer calls up looking for a heads up before all the results are available, are they really going to refuse?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 21, 2017, 06:16:PM
its interesting the police originally saying that Jodi may have disturbed someone committing a strange sex act in the woods because by complete coincidence somebody was doing just that but it wasn't known about until 3 years later.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 10, 2018, 06:51:PM
https://innocent.org.uk/2018/01/09/luke-mitchell-launches-fresh-innocence-appeal/
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 11, 2018, 03:43:PM
She is here. And she's comfortable enough with accusing people of murder who aren't here to defend themselves. She's also comfortable enough to accuse Jodi's family of incest, sexual abuse and other such mental pish. I'm not being petty, Luke's supporters are a horrible bunch and if I was related to Jodi I can't say I'd be handling it with the dignified silence they have.  (Other than one time Jodi's brother went to Sandra's door and asked her to leave his family alone, which was spun to suggest he was the murderer and getting worried they were getting close to nailing him!)

Apparently not, Sandra's SCCRC application was 99% cases against these other guys. SCCRC - knowing this was completely irrelevant to the claim that Luke received an unfair trial - threw it out.

My point was if you are only interested in the case, get your information from an unbiased source that won't put information out deceive even when she knows it can't be true.

why anybody acuse them of incest as far as i know that acusation has not been made i mean why would it be.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 13, 2018, 06:29:PM
She heavily implicated Jodi's brother not Luke's, maybe there's been a misunderstanding either with yourself or the source.

why would it fo that then lithum.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 15, 2018, 07:36:AM
From Lithium's quote
Quote
if you are only interested in the case, get your information from an unbiased source that won't put information out deceive even when she knows it can't be true.

Interesting to see how the rest of Lithium's post meets up to his own suggested standards:

Quote
she's comfortable enough with accusing people of murder who aren't here to defend themselves.!

I have never accused anyone of murder. Ever. Pointing out that police failed to investigate aspects of the case that required explanation is not accusing anyone of murder - it's accusing the police of an extremely poor investigation.

Quote
She's also comfortable enough to accuse Jodi's family of incest, sexual abuse and other such mental pish.

Nope, has never happened. What I did do was point out that the media selectively reported Luke and his mother sleeping in the same room, the living room, on separate couches, as evidence of the so-called "inappropriate relationship" between them, whilst exactly the same scenario - Jodi's mother and brother sleeping in the same room, a bedroom, in separate places, wasn't reported at all, far less taken as the "evidence" that it was - i.e., it's a perfectly understandable set-up in the circumstances.

Quote
I'm not being petty
I agree - Lithium is being deliberately dishonest, not petty.

Quote
Luke's supporters are a horrible bunch and if I was related to Jodi I can't say I'd be handling it with the dignified silence they have. (Other than one time Jodi's brother went to Sandra's door and asked her to leave his family alone, which was spun to suggest he was the murderer and getting worried they were getting close to nailing him!)

Dignified silence = coming to my door effing and blinding, telling me "That site goes or you go. I know where you f*cking live now, don't forget that." Dignified silence = posting on a website that Joseph never came here at all, then changing that to Joseph "asked"  me to take the website down. Dignified silence = denying that Judy attacked Corinne at work and was escorted off the premises by police. Dignified silence = posting utter tosh about a "missing" blue hoodie in order to try to further implicate Luke, knowing it to be completely false. (if it had been true, the logical but ludicrous conclusion is that Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over the top of her extremely baggy deftones hoodie on a warm summer evening!)

While I sympathise with Jodi's family and cannot imagine what it must be like to lose a loved one in such horrific circumstances, telling lies is still telling lies.

Quote
Sandra's SCCRC application was 99% cases against these other guys. SCCRC - knowing this was completely irrelevant to the claim that Luke received an unfair trial - threw it out.


The SCCRC application pointed out numerous failings in the police investigation, anomalies in the evidence (including extremely poor practices concerning the DNA results) and solid evidence undermining the already weak eyewitness identifications, amongst other things. Failure to look anywhere other than at Luke is very relevant to a fair trial - the Steve Johnson and Billy Allison case, for example. The SCCRC refused to refer the case in spite of agreeing that Luke's rights had been breached, that the police had failed to disclose evidence to the defence, and concluding that a witness's recall was likely to have been more reliable in 2014 than it was one week and six weeks after the murder in 2003.

Please don't forget, the application included an extensive submission regarding all of the legal arguments, compiled by a leading QC - guess that was "completely irrelevant" as well?

Lithium has quite deliberately distorted every single claim made against me here, and accuses me of intending to deceive?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on January 15, 2018, 10:02:PM
I notice lithum seems to have dispeared along with a lot of his posts.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on January 19, 2018, 07:51:PM
Going round in circles here. Seems a tad deliberate.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 20, 2018, 11:00:AM
Hi, Marty, I'm not sure I understand your post? I'd only posted once since October when I noticed Nugnug's post quoting Lithium and replied to it. I don't understand what it is about that that's either going round in circles or "a tad deliberate"?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on January 23, 2018, 06:29:PM
Hi Sandra, what I mean is the same accusations/points made by lithium which you have defended more than once on this thread. I maybe didn’t word it correct :-[
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on January 25, 2018, 09:53:AM
Ah, I see. Sorry! These claims and accusations have been made by a select group for years - it's as if they think the more they say it, the truer it becomes. They don't seem to get that a lie is still a lie, no matter how many times it's told.

In many ways, these sorts of posts help support the case for Luke's innocence (or at least that the case against him was fatally flawed) - firstly, they allow the truth to be re-stated clearly and unequivocally every time they're posted and secondly, they cause fair-minded and right thinking people to wonder what reasons people might have for consistently posting inaccurate, misleading or downright dishonest information ... and to draw their own conclusions!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on July 02, 2018, 12:23:PM
Hi folks, just wondering if there is anything new here to report . It was suggested in some of the last conversations that something may have been getting put together.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on July 05, 2018, 02:57:PM
Hi folks, just wondering if there is anything new here to report . It was suggested in some of the last conversations that something may have been getting put together.

noting realy new  to report yet I'm afraid.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Jon2 on September 15, 2018, 10:42:AM
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/fresh-appeal-launched-to-clear-name-of-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1-4800387
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 16, 2018, 02:03:PM
wer did forclydes coment go.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lilly15 on September 16, 2018, 02:23:PM
Good luck to Luke! He has a strong team behind him which is fantastic to see. i will await the updates and hope justice is done very soon

It isnt just that Luke he has 15 years taken from him life but a killer is also walking free. Time to swap places now.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 16, 2018, 02:52:PM
Good luck to Luke! He has a strong team behind him which is fantastic to see. i will await the updates and hope justice is done very soon

It isnt just that Luke has has 15 years taken from him life but a killer is also walking free. Time to swap places now.

i secound that.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lilly15 on September 16, 2018, 03:01:PM
A lot of people will then be eating their words. They dont count though, Just Luke and his freedom.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 16, 2018, 03:34:PM
I don't want to put a damper on things
 we have thought this before I not going to count the chckens before there hatched.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lilly15 on September 16, 2018, 04:02:PM
I agree, got to be realistic but its good to know Luke has a chance
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on September 16, 2018, 04:49:PM
I agree, got to be realistic but its good to know Luke has a chance

its great that theres going to be a public campaign again.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 16, 2018, 07:35:PM
Hi, it's been a while!!

Nugnug's right - we've been here soooo many times before. But it is good that the story is back in the public domain.

Thanks to those still interested in discussing the case and all the failings of the original investigation, trial, etc  - bear with us over the next few months, I know it's been a long time with apparently nothing happening, but progress has been, and is being, made.

I'll update as soon as I'm able. Thanks again!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on September 27, 2018, 06:56:PM
Seeing as you seem to be back involved in a big way Sandra. Will you guys be putting Luke’s website back up with all the info which was available before when you had the case papers.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on September 27, 2018, 08:10:PM
That's not a decision for me, Marty - although I'm involved with the review team, I'm not the principal decision-maker.

However, there are discussions underway regarding an online presence for the case and the best way to go about that - I should be able to report back on this within the next couple of weeks.

As soon as I know what's happening, I will post here - Luke's had some really good support on this forum, so it's only right that this should be one of the first places to know about new developments.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 26, 2018, 07:28:PM
Today, my book about the case, Innocents Betrayed, was launched. Profits from the book are being donated to help fund a new organisation, Long Road to Justice, which will be taking a radically new approach to helping the fight against injustice.

Details of the book can be found here:

www.longroadtojustice.com
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on October 27, 2018, 08:58:AM
LUKE MITCHELL IS INNOCENT !

Sandra,what are your thoughts on Stephen/Steven Kelly ?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 27, 2018, 01:22:PM
Today, my book about the case, Innocents Betrayed, was launched. Profits from the book are being donated to help fund a new organisation, Long Road to Justice, which will be taking a radically new approach to helping the fight against injustice.

Details of the book can be found here:

www.longroadtojustice.com

thankuou ill check them out.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 29, 2018, 03:08:PM
LUKE MITCHELL IS INNOCENT !

Sandra,what are your thoughts on Stephen/Steven Kelly ?

have you been researching him lookout.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lookout on October 30, 2018, 06:08:PM
have you been researching him lookout.





Yes nugs besides others.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on October 31, 2018, 12:51:PM
Hi, sorry it's taken me a few days to get back.

Although I've made this point many times in the past, I'll make it again, just for clarity. When I discuss people connected with this case, I'm not making any suggestion that they're guilty (or possibly guilty) of anything - I'm pointing out failings in the police investigation.

My take on Kelly is that it was absolutely bizarre that the police handed him an innocent explanation for his DNA being found on the t-shirt Jodi was wearing. Fifteen years later, it has still not been confirmed that the t-shirt was definitely one of Janine's that Jodi borrowed without permission. There was none of Janine's DNA on the t-shirt and it was "freshly laundered," yet had visible semen staining on it.

The "washing machine transfer" or "rainwater transfer" theories do not, and cannot, account for visible semen staining. It also had a large saliva stain; the originator of that saliva was never identified. How, amongst all of that visible evidence, could anyone be certain that a full DNA profile got there by transfer in a washing machine, prior to the depositing of the other substances?

The rainwater theory is even less credible - it means DNA from Kelly had to first survive a machine wash (which is, theoretically, possible) and then be transferred, by the rain, from wherever it survived on the t-shirt, following the wash, to where it was found. But the prosecution theory was that only Kelly's DNA was transferred by rainwater - that same rainwater didn't transfer or disperse the visible semen or saliva staining.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 31, 2018, 01:41:PM
Hi, sorry it's taken me a few days to get back.

Although I've made this point many times in the past, I'll make it again, just for clarity. When I discuss people connected with this case, I'm not making any suggestion that they're guilty (or possibly guilty) of anything - I'm pointing out failings in the police investigation.

My take on Kelly is that it was absolutely bizarre that the police handed him an innocent explanation for his DNA being found on the t-shirt Jodi was wearing. Fifteen years later, it has still not been confirmed that the t-shirt was definitely one of Janine's that Jodi borrowed without permission. There was none of Janine's DNA on the t-shirt and it was "freshly laundered," yet had visible semen staining on it.

The "washing machine transfer" or "rainwater transfer" theories do not, and cannot, account for visible semen staining. It also had a large saliva stain; the originator of that saliva was never identified. How, amongst all of that visible evidence, could anyone be certain that a full DNA profile got there by transfer in a washing machine, prior to the depositing of the other substances?

The rainwater theory is even less credible - it means DNA from Kelly had to first survive a machine wash (which is, theoretically, possible) and then be transferred, by the rain, from wherever it survived on the t-shirt, following the wash, to where it was found. But the prosecution theory was that only Kelly's DNA was transferred by rainwater - that same rainwater didn't transfer or disperse the visible semen or saliva staining.

ive never heard of another case were this has been cliamed.


what is also strane is kelly did not come with this xplanation himself the police did

how lucky is that the police explianing away the evdnce for you

and i cant think of any other case in the uk where this has happend.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 31, 2018, 01:59:PM
Are we really suggesting the trace semen was transferred at the crime scene?

i really dont know all i know is stevn is one of the luckest men alive normally if your sperm is found on the victemits up to yu think of an explanation.

or vry likely your barister explianing to a jury.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 31, 2018, 02:04:PM
Nothing to do with luck, Steven had an alibi and Luke didn't.

an albi from girlfriend means nothing when your sperm is found of the victem well not to mostcops anyway.

plenty of people have provided albis and still ended up in prison.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 31, 2018, 02:14:PM
Oh so Jodi's sister gave him a false alibi. Funny how Janine doesn't have any trouble accepting it was her shirt.

plent of people have had false albis from there girlfriends a girlfriends albi doesnt nrally help you if theres other evdnce agianst you.

ort the police think there wullie gage has an albi from his girlfriend he was still convicted
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 31, 2018, 02:19:PM
Have plenty of people had false alibis from girlfriends who were also the victims sister? You may live on a planet where girls help cover for their sisters murderer. I live in the real world where it was her boyfriend with the knife obsession who she met with before she was killed that stabbed her.

yes its happend before being related to victem does not normally exclude you from suispion of wrongdoing.

a diffrent police force investiating they may have both probely wrongly but they would of been there.

they dont normally xept an explantion of a borrowed t shirt without evdence to back it up.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on October 31, 2018, 06:14:PM




Yes nugs besides others.

who else have been researchinng.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 02, 2018, 05:15:PM
Quote
Are we really suggesting the trace semen was transferred at the crime scene?

We're not, the prosecution was. The important question is not so much where semen was transferred (since according to the prosecution it managed to grow legs and run across the woodland strip from one item of clothing to another), but how it came to be deposited in the first place.

It was never proven that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing belonged to Janine - zero evidence, not even DNA from Janine herself. So, on the basis of the actual evidence, all of the samples from the t-shirt returned DNA from Jodi, some partial, unidentified male samples and a full profile from Kelly. If there is no proof that the t-shirt belonged to Janine, we have to default to the evidentially supported theory that the t-shirt was, in fact, Jodi's.

That changes the ballpark somewhat, because now, the question is, how did Kelly's DNA get on Jodi's t-shirt?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 02, 2018, 05:30:PM
Quote
Nothing to do with luck, Steven had an alibi and Luke didn't.

Not quite! Both had alibis, each of them (obviously) dependent on the word of other people. Luke had an alibi from the first day of the investigation - his mother. His brother told police on day 5 of the investigation that Luke made the tea that evening - in his first statement on day 3, he couldn't remember much about the Monday evening.

Steven had no alibi until day 12 of the investigation. In fact, until then, he said simply that he'd gone home from Janine's "in the afternoon" and had his tea, then gone back to Janine's later. The story about them going to Kelly's father's together for tea at about 4.30pm and returning at around 7pm didn't emerge until day 12.

Kelly's father was able to remember, 12 days later, exactly what they'd eaten on the night of Monday 30th June. No-one thought that was suspicious.

Shane didn't remember what he'd had for tea 3 days earlier - it was only when his mum reminded him on day 4 that he went back to the police to correct his statement, but that was considered suspicious.

So, really, it came down to what the police chose to believe about alibis, rather than who had or didn't have alibis.

Here's a little challenge - what did you eat on Monday 22nd October, with whom, where and when and can you prove it?
What did you eat on Tuesday this week, with whom, where and when and can you prove it?

I'll go first - no idea and no idea. I cheated and checked my diary, but I'm not in the habit of recording what I eat. I can tell you I was home alone both days, so even if I could remember what I ate, I couldn't prove it.

Anybody else?

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lilly15 on November 07, 2018, 09:10:AM
Do you think the huge difference in treatment right from the start was intentional? Everyone else involved or known to Jodi seems to have been able to give various explanations for their actions and whereabouts even changing the info yet the same didnt apply to Luke.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 07, 2018, 06:09:PM
Without shadow of a doubt lilly15. What people don't realise is that the police were acting on wrong information from the off - for example, they believed Luke was coming up the path on his bike and that Jodi left her home with him at teatime.

Identical circumstances in both families were treated so differently - details about what people ate were treated as instantly suspicious in the Mitchell household, but not elsewhere, even when those details contradicted each other. 14 year old, heavily medicated Luke sleeping on one settee in the livingroom with his mother sleeping on a settee at the other side of the room was indicative of an "unnatural" relationship, but 19 year old Joseph sleeping in his mother's bedroom, wrapped in Jodi's duvet, at the foot of his mother's bed was accepted as perfectly natural.

I'm not saying there's anything suspicious about any of those circumstances, because there's not. I couldn't tell you what I ate three days ago and I think children of any age naturally seek their mother's comfort during times of trauma and tragedy. The question is why did the police make such a difference?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 07, 2018, 08:48:PM
We're not, the prosecution was. The important question is not so much where semen was transferred (since according to the prosecution it managed to grow legs and run across the woodland strip from one item of clothing to another), but how it came to be deposited in the first place.

It was never proven that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing belonged to Janine - zero evidence, not even DNA from Janine herself. So, on the basis of the actual evidence, all of the samples from the t-shirt returned DNA from Jodi, some partial, unidentified male samples and a full profile from Kelly. If there is no proof that the t-shirt belonged to Janine, we have to default to the evidentially supported theory that the t-shirt was, in fact, Jodi's.

That changes the ballpark somewhat, because now, the question is, how did Kelly's DNA get on Jodi's t-shirt?

tou would sory expect somones dna to be on there own t shirt woldent you
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 07, 2018, 10:02:PM
It's one of those little things that's always niggled, Nugnug. Was it rubbish DNA testing (or selective testing), or was there genuinely no DNA of Janine found on the t-shirt? There was certainly none ever reported in the test results.

I guess we have to look at the various possibilities and decide what's most plausible:

(a) All of Janine's DNA was washed off in the washing machine, but Kelly's DNA survived the wash cycle.
(b) All of everybody's DNA was washed off in the washing machine and DNA on the t-shirt was deposited after it was washed
(c) The t-shirt Jodi was wearing wasn't Janine's and that's why there was no DNA from Janine found

I can't think of any others - can anyone else?

If we take each in turn,
(a) means Kelly's DNA survived in the form of sperm heads - biological detergent would have destroyed other traces (at least in terms of what was recoverable in 2003). But if that was the case, the "rainwater transfer" theory cannot stand, for the reasons I've already given.

(b) means Kelly's DNA was deposited on the t-shirt at some point after it was washed - perhaps in Janine's room. This was DNA from a bodily fluid, rather than skin flakes or so-called "touch DNA," so how might that have happened? The other alternative, of course, is that it was deposited while Jodi was wearing the t-shirt.

(c) means the whole "borrowed t-shirt" theory is a complete red herring (as I discuss in my new book, there was no reliable evidence to support the borrowed t-shirt theory).

It's an interesting area for discussion - I still can't decide what it all means. From an evidential perspective, (c) is the correct position - the t-shirt was never borrowed, with or without permission.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 07, 2018, 10:35:PM
sandra refresh my memory was his dna actully found on the t shirt or on the bra strap alegedly transfring from the t shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 07, 2018, 11:41:PM
The full DNA profile was recovered from the outside front of the t-shirt. It was never recorded exactly where on the t-shirt (upper front, lower front, etc).

Everything else on the t-shirt and bra was explained away by "transfer theory" - including a recorded semen stain on the outer left cup of the bra which, it was suggested, had transferred into the padding below.

That stain matched up with the visible semen stain on the left sleeve of the t-shirt.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 08, 2018, 12:01:AM
The full DNA profile was recovered from the outside front of the t-shirt. It was never recorded exactly where on the t-shirt (upper front, lower front, etc).

Everything else on the t-shirt and bra was explained away by "transfer theory" - including a recorded semen stain on the outer left cup of the bra which, it was suggested, had transferred into the padding below.

That stain matched up with the visible semen stain on the left sleeve of the t-shirt.

and as far as i know there is no suggestion that jodi borrowed her sisters bra.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 08, 2018, 10:01:AM
No, there wasn't. The bra evidence was interesting for a number of reasons.

They claimed it, too, was clean, to ensure there could be no "innocent explanation" if Luke's DNA was found on the bra (he'd had sex with Jodi on the Saturday night and were together on the Sunday evening). There was no evidence that it was a newly laundered bra, just a guess from Jodi's mother.

They also claimed that semen from the outside of the bra had soaked through into the padding by rainwater transfer - what that doesn't explain is how it got onto the bra in the first place. It's hard to believe they were really trying to claim that DNA (almost certainly sperm heads) survived a wash in the machine, then transferred from a clean t-shirt to a clean bra beneath and then the rain caused it to soak through into the padding. Didn't stop them claiming, during interrogation, that the partial profiles recovered from the bra "matched" the corresponding "parts" of Luke's DNA profile when there were, in fact, 5 markers that didn't appear in Luke's profile at all!

When you then consider there was semen found on her left breast, from which partial profiles were recovered which excluded LM, it does seem to stretch the transfer theory quite a bit!
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 09, 2018, 03:14:PM
Do you think the huge difference in treatment right from the start was intentional? Everyone else involved or known to Jodi seems to have been able to give various explanations for their actions and whereabouts even changing the info yet the same didnt apply to Luke.

it might of had something to do with the fact jodis aunt knew the investigating officer
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 10, 2018, 04:04:PM
I'd forgotten about that!

The aunt who took care of all the media communications worked with the same child protection unit as the Senior Investigating Officer, I think?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 10, 2018, 04:42:PM
I'd forgotten about that!

The aunt who took care of all the media communications worked with the same child protection unit as the Senior Investigating Officer, I think?

yes she did all the things about the case that was the one that stuck in my mind.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lilly15 on November 12, 2018, 08:38:AM
it might of had something to do with the fact jodis aunt knew the investigating officer

I didnt know that... could explain a lot couldnt it?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 12, 2018, 09:39:AM
I was told, years ago, that it was agreed that none of the family would speak to the media except this one aunt because she "knew how to deal with the media".

On the one occasion that Judith did speak to the media directly (after she drunkenly attacked Corinne in her workplace), Judith was quoted as saying, "It's all rubbish - it never happened." Of course, we will never know if that was what she said, or if the media just made that up, but it's the only time, to my knowledge, Judith was ever quoted directly (any other time it was "sources" who spoke on behalf of the family). And it was a lie, because it most certainly did happen!

I just had a thought (how could I not have thought of this before?) If this aunt knew SIO Dobbie at the time, that might explain the aunts' public appeal that included the information about Jodi borrowing clothes from her sister without asking, at exactly the time the DNA results came back with Kelly's DNA on the t-shirt Jodi was wearing.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: lilly15 on November 12, 2018, 09:50:AM
Extremely good timing? Not like it was planned or anything. The more I read about this case, the more appalled i feel
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 12, 2018, 10:47:AM
Exactly - within 48 hours, borrowed t-shirts had become a real thing, even though prior to that, there was no mention of the sisters sharing clothes (they lived in different houses). But it was never proven to be a real thing - throughout her interviews, Janine only said the t-shirt "could have been" hers. Quite bizarrely, the only person to say the t-shirt was Janine's was Kelly himself - how on earth could he have known that? In his statements, he spoke of Janine having 2 identical black t-shirts, saying the one Jodi wore the night she was murdered was one of those two. But Janine said she had "lots" of black t-shirts, mostly plain and six black t-shirts were found in Jodi's bedroom in her own home.

How could Kelly (who didn't live in either house) be so sure about that one t-shirt and, coincidentally, it turned out he was right?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 12, 2018, 12:48:PM
I didnt know that... could explain a lot couldnt it?

wellthe aunt was present at the search but did not take part in the search she stayed in hr car so you have to ask why so bothred to turn up.

the only thing I can think of is she was there to talk to the police when they turned up I'm sure some name droping went on
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 12, 2018, 06:16:PM
Good point, nugnug. If the aunts had come to comfort Judith, they would have gone to her house, but they didn't - somehow, they knew to go into the school grounds. Something I thought about today - not only did they know to go into the school grounds, but they knew to drive past the two main car parks, through the "tunnel" connecting the gym to the main building and right down to the back of the school to a bit that can't be seen from the road or the main car parks.

But no-one could have known the police would take the search party up to the school grounds - there was an area at the Newbattle end of the path that could just as easily have been a "meeting" point. It can't be that the aunts knew, before they set off, that the search party was taken to the school because the aunts were already there when the police and searchers arrived.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 18, 2018, 11:33:AM
I was told, years ago, that it was agreed that none of the family would speak to the media except this one aunt because she "knew how to deal with the media".

On the one occasion that Judith did speak to the media directly (after she drunkenly attacked Corinne in her workplace), Judith was quoted as saying, "It's all rubbish - it never happened." Of course, we will never know if that was what she said, or if the media just made that up, but it's the only time, to my knowledge, Judith was ever quoted directly (any other time it was "sources" who spoke on behalf of the family). And it was a lie, because it most certainly did happen!

I just had a thought (how could I not have thought of this before?) If this aunt knew SIO Dobbie at the time, that might explain the aunts' public appeal that included the information about Jodi borrowing clothes from her sister without asking, at exactly the time the DNA results came back with Kelly's DNA on the t-shirt Jodi was wearing.

but what did they fear would happen if they dident handell the press properly was it the drugs they dident want the press picking up on somthing i can see why they would want to keep the pres at bay and it turned out to by a wise decisn but what did they fear happening if they dident.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on November 18, 2018, 03:57:PM
The one thing I've learned over the years is that most families, right at the beginning, have no idea how awful the media can be and talk to them trustingly ... to begin with, at least. Unless the police, themselves, were advising them to say nothing to the media (and they can't have been, because the aunt was talking to the media), you're right - what could they possibly have been afraid of or worried about?

What it find even more surprising is their need to control how the media portrayed them, given the clear and obvious focus on Luke from the off. Anybody in the area at the time was left in no doubt that the police suspected Luke was the culprit from day two of the investigation, so Jodi's family would have had nothing to "worry" about. For example, the aunts' "appeal" on July 16th (2 weeks and 2 days after the murder) asked for someone in "unacceptance" that one of their own could have done this to stop covering for them - funny old thing that, since that became exactly the police and prosecution line against Corinne. The certainly weren't "afraid" of such an accusation being turned around and pointed in their direction by then, so why the continued need to control the media?
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 18, 2018, 04:57:PM
well most people dont try and handle the pollice and the press becouse thy dont think thy need to theyve done wrong so they dont think hey will have any problems.

Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 21, 2018, 12:39:PM
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyrecord.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fscottish-news%2Fjodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-13256857%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1gG4AFBN-RkP8pPgxhasslh7apFGC7lH93_CzIKCxFQHBpyCgBqAi5RGw&h=AT0LTXJ9QZxBpifH5gUa5hy9FE_r0gpnJEPuU-NGhwuWtfwWGNemgdJP3OyN_I4UfqKwVyLbpw_2ZND8jc963piV9vjwuT5gdNgNAs4rU2ZyMsHr_v9whx6eMNvvuKoPjdkIdSoBbyK7L-CiWsR7IPmYMf666Y-KA4i4QSEUSaqH2lko5S0OOISxGbTCUzoALub3hxwklqQ-gaRPxkX28svx_RSFIvtwiOP0h2l1lhmniHnhXKIodqhEBCDfxVbriPkWYEU620E18UuLh7k8PqPXAQuIRAxG8DVHN62-uZ4e0IVy4ErJcIhCzZ2rRiTEYb0TSz-A4pd1KQN89m6OBqhg4PviyRxcst-eQQG8a1UmYh8AeVnlkBkCM2BgiQtLioYi-PijvnzOVdi0DRQuIxhIqiF4hUOW9IpzTgv_L0-uvFMfaix0M6P-q8fFIzphdYfxr1Y0SXV1cyPfaTqiFrbr-n9FlpwCajmQOQDQZaRON0DNDB9129b8Fa5Q9-9_YCs4iu3LPL2oIbo3lVElMM-0bmWUSdJ47aYLswvZ3J24RpucSP-EBYbyvp4dwmO7_cery_BhKJ23xEc9qOfjFF_T6s4
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on November 28, 2018, 03:35:PM
i love the wat the record spin everything.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 06, 2018, 05:53:PM
whats allway bothred me about this case is the patholgist said had been moved now did the police moveit or did the kiler or killers move it.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: sandra L on December 08, 2018, 09:22:AM
As it turns out, nugnug, she was probably moved more than once - the lack of blood at the foot of the wall and where the body was found suggest she wasn't killed in either place.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 17, 2018, 03:47:PM
As it turns out, nugnug, she was probably moved more than once - the lack of blood at the foot of the wall and where the body was found suggest she wasn't killed in either place.

moving a body of that size  would be hatd for one person to do and would they do it in daylight without being noticed.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 18, 2018, 10:27:PM
So from death to the time the pathologist got there she could have been moved up to about 5 times. She was on a plastic sheet in the morning by the time he got to the scene, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 19, 2018, 12:02:AM
thepolice move body ssomtimes photograph them but i doubt they would do twice.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: marty on December 20, 2018, 11:16:PM
They shouldn’t be moving anything until all possible evidence has been gathered though.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: nugnug on December 20, 2018, 11:37:PM
They shouldn’t be moving anything until all possible evidence has been gathered though.

no they shouldent but t times they do.


im not saying it necasrly happend here though it could  that who ever moved the body had to put it dwn agin maybe they were woried they would be seen if they are caried it all the way to were they wanted her so  kept having to pick her up and pu her down agin.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Cambridgecutie on February 16, 2022, 08:40:AM
Is there some reason Sandra Lean and Corrine Mitchell do not want to upload information much the same way Mike Tesko has for Bamber? 
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Bubo bubo on February 16, 2022, 08:44:AM
Is there some reason Sandra Lean and Corrine Mitchell do not want to upload information much the same way Mike Tesko has for Bamber?

Is there a difference in the Scottish Legal situation? Only they can answer.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: guest29835 on February 16, 2022, 12:29:PM
Is there some reason Sandra Lean and Corrine Mitchell do not want to upload information much the same way Mike Tesko has for Bamber?

I agree that people who go round making all sorts of claims and accusations and giving a certain interpretation to things should submit to transparency and disclose the case files for us all to see.

A similar point applies to the Bamber camp, who demand we accept their interpretation of documents they refuse to release.
Title: Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
Post by: Germane on February 23, 2022, 11:15:AM
Does anyone have a picture or video of the exact spot where Jodi’s body lay for 6 hours before it was found?