What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
Hi RDP,
My stance?...well that is an interesting question since it has changed somewhat the further I investigated this case.
At the outset I could not believe that what was being alleged could ever possibly have occurred but like most things the passage of time and the uncovering of certain inconsistencies has led me to believe that there is doubt. My stance therefore can be defined as going from believing Mitchell was innocent to now sitting on the fence with several unanswered questions.
It is not as if the questions haven't been asked of those who are closest to Mitchell, it is a matter that they choose to either ignore them or cannot answer them.
In relation to the website which the previous poster has chosen to highlight, I must warn that this is a pro Mitchell site and will not allow anti Mitchell arguments to be raised. It should not therefore be taken seriously in any way since it is not a true forum but a front for a most heinous slander campaign being conducted against the victims family.
I would also add that the poster Suzie is none other than the Wrongly Accused Person site owner who is reputed for his scamming and spamming, the above post being such an example.
Accusing just about everyone within the Jones extended family of being either a murderer or complicit in murder in order to somehow exonerate Luke Mitchell is the most heinous misuse ever of a public forum.
Maybe you can explain why Mrs hall was also banned and blocked from accessing the forum?
There is a big difference between fact and fantasy with the WAP forum falling into the latter category. Luke Mitchell had every opportunity to commit murder on his 14 year-old girlfriend. He had the motive, the means and the opportunity.
The sad excuse for an alibi that he was at home preparing dinner at 5.15pm on Monday 30 June 2003 while Jodi Jones had her throat cut and was thereafter mutilated just doesn't cut it as far as the evidence by his own brother has it. He was charged with perverting the course of justice as was his mother. They were also warned in court as to the consequences of perjury. Says it all really doesn't it?
... there was an instance some time ago that a poster sent an abusive message to the victims Mother but that was dealt with and the poster was banned.
... there was an instance some time ago that a poster sent an abusive message to the victims Mother but that was dealt with and the poster was banned.
There are only two people who know the truth about this and neither of them is called Suzie.
Try Mrs Sandra Lean or Billy Middleton.
Bleedin Nora.. I've inadvertantly started a war on this thread... and for once, i'm not involved...
::)
Bleedin Nora.. I've inadvertantly started a war on this thread... and for once, i'm not involved...
::)
Yes I blame you to Rochford Dolly Peel ;)
Love the name
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
Hi RDP,
My stance?...well that is an interesting question since it has changed somewhat the further I investigated this case.
At the outset I could not believe that what was being alleged could ever possibly have occurred but like most things the passage of time and the uncovering of certain inconsistencies has led me to believe that there is doubt. My stance therefore can be defined as going from believing Mitchell was innocent to now sitting on the fence with several unanswered questions.
It is not as if the questions haven't been asked of those who are closest to Mitchell, it is a matter that they choose to either ignore them or cannot answer them.
In relation to the website which the previous poster has chosen to highlight, I must warn that this is a pro Mitchell site and will not allow anti Mitchell arguments to be raised. It should not therefore be taken seriously in any way since it is not a true forum but a front for a most heinous slander campaign being conducted against the victims family.
I would also add that the poster Suzie is none other than the Wrongly Accused Person site owner who is reputed for his scamming and spamming, the above post being such an example.
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D
This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!
(apologies, off topic )
Edited for clarity
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D
This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!
(apologies, off topic )
Edited for clarity
Suzie as in Quattro? :D You can look here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ . But it is Bamber's official site. There is a page on the prosection's case. I'm unsure as to how watered down it is.
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew. Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D
This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!
(apologies, off topic )
Edited for clarity
Suzie as in Quattro? :D You can look here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ . But it is Bamber's official site. There is a page on the prosection's case. I'm unsure as to how watered down it is.
I always liked Suzie & the banshees more ;D
Thanks for that link, dont know how I missed that.
He has indeed aged in what is now nearly 8 years since the murder. Below is another picture taken a short time after the murder with Luke depicted in a Parka jacket. This picture has been the subject of much controversy since it was stated that he owned such a jacket prior to the murder when the evidence by his family was that he did not. I will come back to this later when I have decided how to fit in the various elements of the case in a single thread.
It should also be noted that a witness gave testimony that a youth fitting Mitchell's description was seen near to the murder scene some 30 minutes after the murder. He was wearing a similar black t-shirt with white writing on it. The type of jacket worn by this youth is now also the subject of some debate, I will come back to this issue soon.
(http://i.imgur.com/EVfey.png)
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew. Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.
That's awful. Her mum's gonna be desolate about not enforcing the curfew.
He has indeed aged in what is now nearly 8 years since the murder. Below is another picture taken a short time after the murder with Luke depicted in a Parka jacket. This picture has been the subject of much controversy since it was stated that he owned such a jacket prior to the murder when the evidence by his family was that he did not. I will come back to this later when I have decided how to fit in the various elements of the case in a single thread.
It should also be noted that a witness gave testimony that a youth fitting Mitchell's description was seen near to the murder scene some 30 minutes after the murder. He was wearing a similar black t-shirt with white writing on it. The type of jacket worn by this youth is now also the subject of some debate, I will come back to this issue soon.
Am I right in saying that Luke Mitchell wore a bomber jacket to school that day and that was what he was seen wearing later that evening when seen by passing motorists??
Still work out if you are for or against the accused.
Another interesting point in this case is that there was never any reward offered for information which could see the perpetrator(s) properly convicted. It has been suggested to Mitchell's family on several occasions that they offer such a reward but they are not interested. This in itself sends out the wrong message since if they truly believed in Luke's innocence they would stop at nothing to bring the real culprits to justice.
They would rather try and sell their story to the local rag as Luke's grandmother, Ruby Guetta, attempted to do some time ago.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/
everybody involved in the case seems to have had memory lapses of some sort.
john ferris and gordon dickie.
a fair few of the victems relatives an inlaws did.
not to mention the man with the condom.
The Simon Hall case, the Kate Prout disappearance and a couple of others.Ire these some private investigations you have going, or what?
The Simon Hall case, the Kate Prout disappearance and a couple of others.Ire these some private investigations you have going, or what?
Today marks the 7th anniversary in prison for Luke Mitchell for the brutal slaying of his then 14 year-old girlfriend. The savage knife attack was one of the worst they had seen according to police.
The case is currently before the SCCRC in Glasgow and is due for determination quite soon. There is every possibility that Mitchell could be freed on a technicality following the recent Cadder ruling by the UK Supreme Court.
(http://i.imgur.com/PI2f6.jpg)
Victim Jodi Jones
well the presence of other peoples sperm and blood on the body.
and other bits of DNA.
but none of his DNA.
no credible eye witnesses identifying him
plus impossibly short time frame he had to commit the crime would tend to suggest innocence.
his got more going in his defence than most people have.
oh this is a minor setback.
he will be cleared eventaully its just a matter of time.
the birghmham 6 lost a fair few appeals and many other people i could mention.
all the qustions in this case arnt going to go away.
thev have have explianed themselves time agian its not there fault if people have chosen to ignore what they have said.
im not sure what overwhelming evedence your talking about.
and i think the comprasion with the brigmingham 6 is perfectly reasonable.
as i said people can be in the same house and not know of each others prsence
id hardly call that overwhelming evednce of guilt
the evedence of the victems family was pretty inconsistant but that dosent mean they were lying
he had no motive at all to want to kill Jodi.
his opportunity would have been very limited he had at the most 45 minutes to meet her kill he mutilate the body then clean himself up without leaving a trace of himself there.
the family's evidence is very relevant.
there many other people who certainly had the opportunity to kill her.
14 year old lads do not kill there girlfriend becouse they want to go off with another girl they just pick up the phone and say your dumped.
he had no history of violence unlike most of the other people mentioned in the case.
there is absultly no evedence he did that.
that girls did come forward till after he had been convicted.
when she didcome forward she went to a newspaper not the police.
if she wa tellig the truth why did she not go the police after the murder.
how much was she paid by the newspaper for her story.
she has always dined demanded any money for a story she has explained that several times.
we only have the word of a tabloid newspaper that any of that is true.
Just another guy with a silly wig not wanting to stand on the toes of another guy in a silly wig and not have the guts to say they were wrong!
Take away the silly wigs and the Santa suits and what have you got?......3 craws, sat upon a wa'........with no concept of real life!!!
i have know idea and i dont see what its got to do with the murder anyway.
its completly unrelated.
as far as i know there is no libel case agianst her and i havent heard that theres likely to be one.
if she was lying why all charges of lying agianst droped.
was it becouse the polce knew she was telling the truth.
thats isnt libel is it.
its got nothing to do with weather her son is incocent or guilty.
and how would you know what the sccrc are doing.
i wouldn't have a clue what the sccrc are doing.
and nor would you.
sory a man convicted of robing old ladys old ladys is in know position somone else a liar
fact they were not convicted of lying unlike yourself.
and your in no postion to call anyone a coward seeing as your hideing away in spain.
you havent even got the bollocks to be in the same country as the people your slaging off.
Hi Sandra - t'would be fab if you'd take a look at the alibi thing, since that issue underpins the whole convinction. It is such a pity that no-one saw Luke coming home or leaving to meet Jodi.
No crocodile tears on this occasion?
(http://i.imgur.com/DNbTo.jpg)
Luke Mitchell and mother Corinne with family pet Mia in tow, attend the grave of murder victim Jodi Jones just hours after her funeral. Mitchell was told to stay away from the cemetery by Judy Jones, the victim's mother, but couldn't resist making an issue of it.
Hours earlier Mitchell had given an interview to James Matthews of Sky News.
Transcript follows.....
Oh I have no problem with my honesty and this is backed up by every single member of my family and every person who knows me personally. I cannot help it if a certain Procurator Fiscal Depute was a lying bitch who was only out to make a name for herself.
You on the other hand are a non entity nugget, a fictional character, a charade who professes to know all about me and others when you haven't the first clue.
I pity you nugget, for all the time I have known you and your fake lingo I have come to see you as a lonely and embittered soul. When you set out upon this crusade nugget you had some good to say to most people but I have watched as your demeanour has changed. I have watched you attack posters on several forums when you thought that us regulars weren't around. I have watched you slander many people including the Jodi Jones family...shame on you nugget.
Where do you go from here nugget or should I use your real name? All those slanderous accusations in the public domain.... remember Scott Forbes isn't the only one who can sue!! ;) ;)
It seems that the nutty penguin has done a runner.... ;)
Anyway, apparently WAP are trying to get out of this one now that pussy is out of the bag. Now we know why John Ferris did a bunk to Ayr with his maw and all....extremely interesting! ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/iJaq7.jpg)
Murderer Luke Mitchell and new girlfriend attend Jodi's grave in the full glare of the Press and the police after having been told to stay away by the murdered girls family.
The log burner situated in the Mitchell's back garden where the prosecution contend that Luke's clothing was burned on the afternoon of the murder. Several of Corinne Mitchell's neighbours spoke of an unusual wafting smell emanating from the Mitchell garden.
(http://i.imgur.com/2DKbU.jpg)
The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
No crocodile tears on this occasion?
(http://i.imgur.com/DNbTo.jpg)
Luke Mitchell and mother Corinne with family pet Mia in tow, attend the grave of murder victim Jodi Jones just hours after her funeral. Mitchell was told to stay away from the cemetery by Judy Jones, the victim's mother, but couldn't resist making an issue of it.
Hours earlier Mitchell had given an interview to James Matthews of Sky News.
Transcript follows.....
well anyone would want to viset there girlfriends thats just called being human.
and lay a tribute.
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.
even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.
i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.
visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
An excellent post Janet which clearly shows that the Mitchell family lied through their teeth prior to and during the trial. It is a sheer impossibility that two boys could be in a small house together for over half an hour with one of them making dinner and not hear each other. Corinne Mitchell bleats on about Luke being in the garden when Shane came in and that is why they did not see each other. That is quite possible but it is impossible for Luke to have prepared dinner including burning the chicken pie and Shane not noticing it especially when he was involved in an activity upstairs which he admitted he would only have done had the house been empty.
Add to this the fact that not one child ever came forward to say that they had seen Luke go home from school that afternoon, saw him go to his house around 4.40pm or saw him leave home at 5.30pm. What is ever worse is that I offered to provide a reward for any witness who would come forward and give Luke Mitchell that crucial alibi and I was shot down in flames.
It would appear that the Mitchell family would rather their son spend the next 13 years in prison than go searching for witnesses...to me that speaks volumes!
Telephone Hotline still available for any witnesses 07092 984231
Did you see Luke Mitchell between 4.00pm and 5.40pm on the day of Jodi's murder?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-12877258.html
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............
The log burner situated in the Mitchell's back garden where the prosecution contend that Luke's clothing was burned on the afternoon of the murder. Several of Corinne Mitchell's neighbours spoke of an unusual wafting smell emanating from the Mitchell garden.
(http://i.imgur.com/2DKbU.jpg)
Blimey, nugnug, this is a particularly horrible and sad case. But, sadly, it doesn't take much working out. That poor young girl, and a scared boyfriend, and a "if I can't have you, then nobody can" scenario. It's all a bit Jeremy Kyle, isn't it?
i dont have myself for having a different opinion to you.
steven kelly is not denying his dna is on there nor are the police there jus disputing how it got there.
by innocent transfer or by other means.
no all i am saying is you cant clean off your own dna and leave the dna of other people on there.
how did luke clear all his dna and all hers from him leaving no trace of himself being there.
but leave steven kellys on there plus unknown profiles of other people.
so how would the rain his dna off and leave other peoples on there.
40 minutes to comit a brutel murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty agian hardly likey.
Forensic scientist Derek Scrimger,40,said he was called at home and arrived at the path at 8am the following day.When he got there, her body had been moved from the original position and her clothing gathered together.
Mr Scrimger said there were two areas of bloodstaining on the wall near where her body was found.
Mr Scrimger said if her throat had been cut from behind, the blood would have travelled forward and there wouldn't necessarily have been any on the attacker.
so hardly a bedroom that's been cleaned you couldn't com it all those mutilations and not get blood on you.
jodi fought back that would take minutes then theres all the mutilation then theres having to get back with nobody seeing him.
and clean himself up.
a lot to do in 40 minutes.
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.
even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.
i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.
visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
so hardly a bedroom that's been cleaned you couldn't com it all those mutilations and not get blood on you.
Jodi fought back that would take minutes then theres all the mutilation then theres having to get back with nobody seeing him.
and clean himself up.
a lot to do in 40 minutes.
That is assuming he had much cleaning up to do isn't it? You are inferring that he would be blood stained. It is possible he was not.
Mitchell could have worn gloves.
The court was also told that Shane said in a statement on July 3, 2003, that he had returned home from work to Newbattle Abbey Crescent on June 30, 2003, at about 3.40pm.
However, four days later, he said that he had arrived back that day between 4.55pm and 5pm.
In evidence, Shane told the court: "I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in the first one."
The court heard that, while being interviewed under police caution on the day his brother was arrested, Shane Mitchell was told that officers suspected him of deliberately giving false information.
So this 40 Min's could have given a longer time Luke Mitchell was unaccounted for if Shane Mitchells first statement is the correct one.
http://www.telegraph.co.UK/news/1481697/Lies-to-protect-a-son.html
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.
even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.
i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.
visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
Oh yes there is and well you know it missy....
Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.
One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.
Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.
Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.
Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurdertrial/Natural-born-killer.2597278.jp
The victims family have changed there story several including the time Jodi went out.
this was one of the most brutal murders in history.
it would be impossible for the person who committed it not to have blood on them.
no all i am saying is you cant clean off your own dna and leave the dna of other peoples on there.
how did luke clear all his dna and from her all hers from him leaving no trace of himself being there.
but leave steven kellys on there plus unknown profiles of other people.
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.
even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.
i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.
visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
Oh yes there is and well you know it missy....
Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.
One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.
Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.
Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.
Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurdertrial/Natural-born-killer.2597278.jp
why did this girl never go to the police at the time of the murder if she had really been attacked.
why did she only come after he was convicted to talk to tabliod is possibly becouse she made the whole thing up for money.
jodi never mentioned knowing anything about kimberly thomsan kimberly thomsan lived miles away there was very little danger of jodi finding out.
so how would the rain wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.
40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.
the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratch
i think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.
do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.
and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.
so how would the rain wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.
40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.
the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratch
i think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.
do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.
Jodi never touched her attacker no matter how hard she allegedly fought.
Scrapings from her finger nails provided only her own DNA.
He probably had a second set of clothes all along thus why no forensics relating to Jodi were ever found on him. Its wonderful what you can get in a backpack!
a lot of probeblys here.
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.
and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.
There is no real proof of that either.
The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.
and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.
There is no real proof of that either.
The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.
theres concerete he hadent washed the police examined him.
logically conclusion that the killer had bllood on him.
I find it interesting that one of Mitchell's potential witnesses is now a solicitor in Glasgow and works alongside his new lawyers.
Do they not call that a conflict of interest?
Scott Forbes.
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.
Mr Findlay said Mr Forbes had given a sworn statement last month and his claims were still being investigated.
But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.
Mr Beckett also said Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.
what jurys and judges believe is often not what is the truth.
POLICE suspected Luke Mitchell's brother of deliberately giving them false information.
Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.
But he later made a second statement and changed the time he returned home to nearly 5pm.
Shane tells the court he gave a number of statements to police in the weeks following Jodi's death.
Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC reads from the statement given on July 3 where Shane tells police he returned home from work at 3.40pm.
Shane says that he cannot remember what he said. He agrees he made a second statement on July 7 but he could not remember exactly how it came about.
He says: 'It is a long time ago and a lot has passed. I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one.'
In his new statement he gave the time he returned home as 'between 4.55pm and 5pm.'
Shane also agrees with the Advocate Depute that he was questioned by police on April 14 last year, the same day his brother was arrested.
Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'
Shane replies: 'Yes.'
He also tells the court that he thought he was alone in the family home the day Jodi was killed.
The trial has already heard that Luke told police he was at home when Shane got back from work.
Shane says his mother returned home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.
Alan Turnbull QC reads out a police statement from Luke in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.
His mother and Luke both agreed Shane was not in when Luke left the house.
THE court hears that Mitchell's mother Corinne had been interviewed in connection with attempting to pervert the course of justice during the police investigation but will not face criminal charges.
Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?'
'Yes, I do' replies Mrs Mitchell, 45. The witness, who says she does not approve of youngsters carrying knives, admits ordering Mitchell a knife from a catalogue for Christmas 2003. She says he needed it for a camping trip.
Referring to a police interview she gave on April 14 last year - the day Luke was arrested - Mr Turnbull says: 'By the following April you had forgotten about buying it.'
Mrs Mitchell denies lighting a log burner in her back garden the day Jodi died. The jury heard neighbour George Ramage, 37, claim the burner appeared to have been used between 6.30pm and 7.30pm and around 10pm that day.
But Mrs Mitchell says: 'I have no reason to put the burner on.'
She also admits buying her son a parka-style jacket just over a week after Jodi's death.
'Why did Luke need a parka?' Mr Turnbull asks. 'They were in fashion,' she replies.
But the lawyer tells her that several friends, neighbours and teachers had given evidence that her son owned a parka jacket before Jodi's death. Mrs Mitchell says: 'I wasn't aware he had one.'
MITCHELL'S mother Corinne tells the court: 'My son did not kill Jodi Jones.'
But Alan Turnbull QC accuses her of lying in court to protect her son. He says she had 'abandoned all effort at exercising parental control over Luke'.
And he adds that their relationship had 'changed from that of parent and child to that of accomplice'. Mrs Mitchell denies the lawyer's suggestions.
He continues: 'You lied to police by saying Luke was in the house when you got home from work.'
Mrs Mitchell answers: 'Luke was in the house.' The QC adds that she 'knew perfectly well' that items had been burned in their wood burner the day Jodi was killed and that Luke had lied to the police.
She replies: 'He was telling the truth.'
The advocate depute continues: 'You have to tell the truth whether you think it matters or whether you think it relevant.
'Isn't it nearer the truth that you'd be prepared to lie to cover up to protect him?'
Corinne replies: 'No, it's not true. I've not been lying.'
a lot of people know the truth and there starting to come forward now.
Shane has never been convicted of lying to the police now that's probably because he didn't
nor as Corine.
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.
what jurys and judges believe is often not what is the truth.
That is true. But everything the Mitchells say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Don't ask us to doubt the the jury and the judge, and question everything they have done, then tell us that the Mitchells have not lied. You cannot possibly know they did not lie as fact. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382QuotePOLICE suspected Luke Mitchell's brother of deliberately giving them false information.
Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.
But he later made a second statement and changed the time he returned home to nearly 5pm.
Shane tells the court he gave a number of statements to police in the weeks following Jodi's death.
Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC reads from the statement given on July 3 where Shane tells police he returned home from work at 3.40pm.
Shane says that he cannot remember what he said. He agrees he made a second statement on July 7 but he could not remember exactly how it came about.
He says: 'It is a long time ago and a lot has passed. I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one.'
In his new statement he gave the time he returned home as 'between 4.55pm and 5pm.'
Shane also agrees with the Advocate Depute that he was questioned by police on April 14 last year, the same day his brother was arrested.
Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'
Shane replies: 'Yes.'
He also tells the court that he thought he was alone in the family home the day Jodi was killed.
The trial has already heard that Luke told police he was at home when Shane got back from work.
Shane says his mother returned home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.
Alan Turnbull QC reads out a police statement from Luke in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.
His mother and Luke both agreed Shane was not in when Luke left the house.QuoteTHE court hears that Mitchell's mother Corinne had been interviewed in connection with attempting to pervert the course of justice during the police investigation but will not face criminal charges.
Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?'
'Yes, I do' replies Mrs Mitchell, 45. The witness, who says she does not approve of youngsters carrying knives, admits ordering Mitchell a knife from a catalogue for Christmas 2003. She says he needed it for a camping trip.
Referring to a police interview she gave on April 14 last year - the day Luke was arrested - Mr Turnbull says: 'By the following April you had forgotten about buying it.'
Mrs Mitchell denies lighting a log burner in her back garden the day Jodi died. The jury heard neighbour George Ramage, 37, claim the burner appeared to have been used between 6.30pm and 7.30pm and around 10pm that day.
But Mrs Mitchell says: 'I have no reason to put the burner on.'
She also admits buying her son a parka-style jacket just over a week after Jodi's death.
'Why did Luke need a parka?' Mr Turnbull asks. 'They were in fashion,' she replies.
But the lawyer tells her that several friends, neighbours and teachers had given evidence that her son owned a parka jacket before Jodi's death. Mrs Mitchell says: 'I wasn't aware he had one.'
MITCHELL'S mother Corinne tells the court: 'My son did not kill Jodi Jones.'
But Alan Turnbull QC accuses her of lying in court to protect her son. He says she had 'abandoned all effort at exercising parental control over Luke'.
And he adds that their relationship had 'changed from that of parent and child to that of accomplice'. Mrs Mitchell denies the lawyer's suggestions.
He continues: 'You lied to police by saying Luke was in the house when you got home from work.'
Mrs Mitchell answers: 'Luke was in the house.' The QC adds that she 'knew perfectly well' that items had been burned in their wood burner the day Jodi was killed and that Luke had lied to the police.
She replies: 'He was telling the truth.'
The advocate depute continues: 'You have to tell the truth whether you think it matters or whether you think it relevant.
'Isn't it nearer the truth that you'd be prepared to lie to cover up to protect him?'
Corinne replies: 'No, it's not true. I've not been lying.'
a lot of people know the truth and there starting to come forward now.
Shane has never been convicted of lying to the police now that's probably because he didn't
nor as Corine.
How can you possibly know that what you have said is true? Only Corinne and Shane will know for sure.
EDITED to add: No Shane was not convicted but he was charged with giving false statements.
people have charges dropped becouse there is no case against them.
Giving evidence at the High Court in Edinburgh today, Ms Mitchell was asked questions relating to statements given to police by both herself and Luke.
After answering "I can’t remember" to a number of questions relating to her son, advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC prosecuting, said to her: "Is it not the truth that you could see no wrong in anything Luke did?"
Ms Mitchell replied: "No, that’s not true."
Ms Mitchell told the trial that she first learned of Jodi’s death when she got into a police car on June 30, 2003, and that she asked the officer if Luke had been arrested.http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/No-Jodi-coverup-says-Mitchell.2594892.jp
Mr Turnbull then asked: "What reason would you have to ask that question?"
Ms Mitchell said: "I don’t remember asking that question."
Mr Turnbull replied: "You don’t want to commit yourself. You want to take refuge in the notion that he can’t remember. But I can tell you that the policeman concerned is in the waiting room ready to give evidence.
"If he tells the court that you asked this question is there any reason to disbelieve him?"
Ms Mitchell replied: "No".
Ms Mitchell told the court that she still maintained that she knew her son well.
Mr Turnbull then reminded her how she had previously told the court she was shocked to learn her son smoked cannabis, carried a knife on a daily basis and took cannabis to school.
He asked her: "Are you beginning to have second thoughts then about knowing your son well?"
"No," she replied.
In a statement given to a police doctor after being checked for injuries following Jodi’s death, Mitchell said his mother had "a quick temper". He said that he also had a quick temper and that he got this from his mother.
"Would this be accurate?" Mr Turnbull asked Ms Mitchell.
"Did Luke have a temper?"
She replied: "No more than most people." She then also agreed that Luke had described himself as having a quick temper with a short fuse.
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.
It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.
I edited to add more
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.
It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.
I edited to add more
thae pathologists said she put up a fight.
fought for her life thats what they said.
I have read on the main Luke Mitchell forum Wrongly Accused Person, that there is an accusation going around that someone in the Jones family assaulted his mother and stabbed her accidently. And that he had been charged?
Where does this accusation come from?
Where is the proof of this?
If there is no proof then why is this being said?
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.
This poor family have suffered enough
This Sandra Lean you mention nugnug, is that the same Sandra Lean who advocates for Luke Mitchell after originally admitting that she thought he was guilty?
This Sandra Lean you mention nugnug, is that the same Sandra Lean who advocates for Luke Mitchell after originally admitting that she thought he was guilty?
i think you know well who sandra you said know about everyone involved in the case now you ether do or you don't.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.
This poor family have suffered enough
no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.
This poor family have suffered enough
no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.
How is it a statement of fact? It is not fact. It is a guess and there is no proof.
Oh so outrageous things can be said by people on Wrongly Accused Person and elsewhere in the hope that the Jones family will sue? How sick is that?
Why would they need to sue anyway? As far as they are concerned the guilty person is in prison and all that is being said is sheer speculation anyway.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.
This poor family have suffered enough
no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.
How is it a statement of fact? It is not fact. It is a guess and there is no proof.
Oh so outrageous things can be said by people on Wrongly Accused Person and elsewhere in the hope that the Jones family will sue? How sick is that?
Why would they need to sue anyway? As far as they are concerned the guilty person is in prison and all that is being said is sheer speculation anyway.
so first its adopted people you dont like now its people who live in councel houses
who do you like john.
sueing isnt about money its about protecting your good name.
You never could get anything right missy could you?? ;)
I have no problem with either so stop trying to make waves again....
nugnug
you never answered my question. Why would the Jones family need to sue people on a forum?
nugnug
you never answered my question. Why would the Jones family need to sue people on a forum?
well that's obvious to quash once and for all scurles allegations.
well we shall she shan't we.
it wasnt his supporter who said the thing about the stabbing it was a guy on the daily record.
well we shall she shan't we.
it wasn't his supporter who said the thing about the stabbing it was a guy on the daily record.
i don't run his campaign i just post what i think on forums
i dident even start this i just posted on it..
well ether you discuss theor you dont case that means discussing everything.
like members of the extended family being at the crime scene at the crime is supposed to have happened
but hearing nothing and seeing nothing and not being able to say what they were doing there. and lying about the time they were there.
or the sisters boyfriends sperm being on the victims bra.
only by luck i would say.
yes he was convicted as was steven kisko as was the birgmham 6 and the guilford for and simon hall
and a lot of other people need i go on.
oh as was john lamberton.
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
We are not discussing either of those cases. I know nothing of them.
So tell us who you think it is who murdered Jodi Jones if it is not Luke Mitchell as you claim?
not all of the Simon hall hasn't been.Most of that makes no sense.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
thats what luke mitchells supporters its up to you chose to believe or not the sight wasn't put up there just to convince you.
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
We are not discussing either of those cases. I know nothing of them.
So tell us who you think it is who murdered Jodi Jones if it is not Luke Mitchell as you claim?
ive got fair idea but i cant just declare someone guilty murder when they haven't had a trial.
not all of the Simon hall hasn't been.Most of that makes no sense.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
thats what luke mitchells supporters its up to you chose to believe or not the sight wasn't put up there just to convince you.
first you said you followed the forum fo a long time then you said you had only just looked at the sight make your mind up.
if your not convinced nothing anyone can do about that.
Why was the site put up then? It is pointless if it is to talk to the converted.
Surely a site for someone allegedly wrongly convicted is to get the doubters to look at the case?
Its failing big time because once I started reading it all I felt as if I was in the twilight zone.
I know I am not the only person to think like this.
well as said if your not convinced it wasn't put up just for you
i cant expect everyone to be convinced.
i dont think any websites ever done that.
i thought you said youve only just at it.
well first you said you had only just at it now you say you have followed it for a long time now make your mind up.
well half the country has smoked canabis at some time other it dosent make them killers.
a young lad writting and english esay to shock his teacher make him loads of kids write esays like that
not unknown for teenagers to have more than one sexual partner.
dosent make them killers.
how many important people cheat on there wives dosent make them killers,
every killer leaves a trace luke mitchell left none,
but others did.
we do think theres so many teenage pregnancy becouse some boys and girls get up to things before there legally old enough.
its not right but it happens it dont make them murders.
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,
That's right excuse away everything Luke Mitchell ever did that was questionable to say the least.
He was not by any stretch of the imagination a normal teenage boy.
well your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.
storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.
ive met fair few people who who have had that illness
a fair few ex soldiers have it.
It was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,
That's right excuse away everything Luke Mitchell ever did that was questionable to say the least.
He was not by any stretch of the imagination a normal teenage boy.
you seem to be takeing a rather unhealthy interest in young people having sex
Sounds like a really good mother. Did she not clean her house. I think I would have found ") bottles of piss in my kids room. Perhaps she was flogging it to the winoswell your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.
storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.
ive met fair few people who who have had that illness
a fair few ex soldiers have it.
tut tut nugnug resorting to insults again.QuoteIt was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.
This actually suggests that two sets of urine. One set in an earlier search of the house and 9 months later another 20 bottles.
If this is the case why did his mother not seek help for him when the first 20 bottles were found?
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Jodi-trial-hears-of-knife.2588863.jp
IT was the strong smell of ammonia which first struck detectives when they walked into Luke Mitchell's bedroom.
If that initially puzzled them, then their next discovery would startle even the most hardened investigators.
There lying under the teenager's bed were bottle after bottle of a cloudy liquid, looking suspiciously like urine.
More bottles were hidden away in drawers, some wrapped up in socks. Soon there were 20 bottles lying in front of the bewildered detectives. Lab tests would later show they were the 15-year-old's own urine.
well your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.
storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.
ive met fair few people who who have had that illness
a fair few ex soldiers have it.
tut tut nugnug resorting to insults again.QuoteIt was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.
This actually suggests that two sets of urine. One set in an earlier search of the house and 9 months later another 20 bottles.
If this is the case why did his mother not seek help for him when the first 20 bottles were found?
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Jodi-trial-hears-of-knife.2588863.jp
EDIT: I have re read and re read the wording of the article and it may be that there was only one set of 20 bottles of urine bottles. I am sure if that is the case someone will correct it.
SO if you dint know anyone in the case how come your getting so emotional about it.
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff
I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.
and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous
the McCanns have been accused of exactly the same thing on this forum i don't see you jumping up in outrage about it.
why makes this family so different.
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff
I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.
and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous
the "facts" as you call the claims about members of the Jones family and others for that matter are not facts at all. That is what I find outrageous. All there is, is total speculation about who else could have, might have or maybe have murdered Jodi Jones.
The fact is that these people have not been charged and convicted. Luke Mitchell has and it is totally outrageous to blame the victims family of murder or covering a murder up, or the multitude of other things that have been said about this family. They have suffered enough.
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff
I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.
and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous
the "facts" as you call the claims about members of the Jones family and others for that matter are not facts at all. That is what I find outrageous. All there is, is total speculation about who else could have, might have or maybe have murdered Jodi Jones.
The fact is that these people have not been charged and convicted. Luke Mitchell has and it is totally outrageous to blame the victims family of murder or covering a murder up, or the multitude of other things that have been said about this family. They have suffered enough.
half the stuff being said about the family was already mentioned in the trial so sorry it is fact.
yes there is a lot of speculation thats what happens on public forums.
just like its happening with the bamber case.
no they dont john ferris and gordon dickie dont david dickie dont james falconer dont joseph jones dont.
no albis whatsoever.
steven kelly has one but its starting to look shaky.
you must be a bit interested or you wouldn't bother to read it
im afraid is not going to stop anytime soon.
well we shall see shant we.
as you think hes guilty why would you care about his chances.
joseph jones was never interviewed.
james falconer john ferris gordon dickie and david dickie were at the murder scene by there own admission
falconer dident come forward for 3 years dispite appeals by the police for the owners of the condom to come forward.
ferris and dickie did not come for a week dispite appeals for them to do so none have any albi
mark kane im convinced has nothing to do with this.
Joesph was not spoken to by the police that's why nothing he said has ever been mentioned because he wasn't interviewed.
so he dident say anything becouse he wasnt asked.
if he was no doubt what he said would have been mentioned.
we do you think everyone who says something you don't like has to explain themselves
what everyone else said has been mentioned.
i really dont care what you believe
believe what ever you like i believe someting else
and im going to say what believe end of
im just a poster on a forumfor christ sake im not spokes person for anybody.
im just saying what i think.
lets face it you would face it you would believe it what ever i said
i cant make people belive what i believe.
When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.
Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.
After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!
Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.
This is what Corinne Mitchell says about the afternoon of the murder. Remember that Corinne arrived home at 5.15pm, the exact time when Jodi was allegedly murdered.Quote from: Corinne MitchellWhen I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.
so you must wonder why charges of perjury and lying to the police were not pursued then and why corine and shane mitchell have never been convicted of crime.
could it becouse if they were lukes conviction would of been undone there and then.
Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.
After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!
Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.
Link (http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg2352/?topicseen#msg2352)
Remember, Shane told the trial that he never saw Luke that afternoon! ::)
Makes you wonder eh??
makes you wonder why charges of perjury witch would have strengthened lukes conviction were not persued.
is it becouse the police knew if they were charged it would of undone luke mitchells conviction straight away.
makes you wonder why charges of perjury witch would have strengthened lukes conviction were not persued.
is it becouse the police knew if they were charged it would of undone luke mitchells conviction straight away.
Not in the least, I can see them being reinstated just after the SCCRC refuse to make any referral.
Joesph was not spoken to by the police that's why nothing he said has ever been mentioned because he wasn't interviewed.
so he dident say anything becouse he wasnt asked.
How do you know for 100% certainty that he was not spoken to by the police? You cannot have seen all the police statements made to know this.
by there own admission judy jones and allen oven were out at the time of the murder visting a cemetry.
so joseph jones has no albi whatsoever fact not speculation.
judy jones and alan oven were out at the time of murder so joseph jones has no albi what so ever thats not speculation its a fact.
i thought you said you had followed this case.
Did you go to the trial?
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028
sorry i made a mess of that post.
what i was going to say is Judy Jones Allen oven were vi sting a cemetery by the own admission at the time of the murder so Joseph has no Albie whatsoever fact not speclation.
he never made any statement and wasn't asked to that's why everyone else statements are being quoted
and not his.
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028
What relevence has this got to do with the murder conviction?
he never made any statement and wasn't asked to that's why everyone else statements are being quoted
and not his.
How do you assert with 100% accuracy that Joseph Jones did not give a statement?
Where did you get this information from? Please provide a source or forever hold your tongue. Again it is idle speculation.
ive stated my reason for saying it so bollocks.
your going to be offended by that arnt you.
And why does it matter so much to you?
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028
What relevence has this got to do with the murder conviction?
its as relevant as stuff you have posted.
it relates to gordon dickie and seem to have hit a nerve there.
its in the public domain so why shouldent i post it.
Your reasons for saying Joseph Jones did not have an alibi is because his mother and her partner went to the grave yard and the police did not speak to him as you claim.
Have you any proof to show what you are saying is true?
Do you know for 100% that he had no alibi or was not spoken to by police?
What legal status would your speculation have in any court?
I asked what relevence does it have to this murder conviction?
well thats up to the reader to decide it dident post just for you the links for you.
why do you think the entire world has to justify itself to you.
now your posting the tabloid version of events witch you quoting as the gospel truth and im posting a different version of events.
from a diffrent.
why is it descredited its up to reader to decide weather its descredited or not.
something is not discredited becouse keeps saying.
deascredited discredited disredited over and over agian how ever much you might wish that was true.
you never did get over being banned from there did you.
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-tattoo-evidence/the-manson-connection/
and how would you no that.
if he was spocken to by what did he say then.
it proven fact he has no albi.
but there own admission his mum and stepfather visited a cemetery at the time of the murder leaving him home alone.
so no alibi
or are saing judy and allen dident go to the cemetery are you saying there lying.
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.
I am sure there are people who do know. Its just you do not know.
If he was ruled out as he obviously was then why would you need to know what he said anyway?
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi
if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.
I am sure there are people who do know. Its just you do not know.
If he was ruled out as he obviously was then why would you need to know what he said anyway?
im sure there are people who know.
now whos speculating.
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi
if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.
Why would he need an alibi anyway?
Why would anyone feel the need to come forward publicly anyway?
so where are they then.
if joey had given a statement and somone else was visting it would of all been mentioned.
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi
if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.
Why would he need an alibi anyway?
Why would anyone feel the need to come forward publicly anyway?
everyone needs an albi when the investigation starts you don't know the police are going to accuse someone else and not you.
yes i honestly believe they dident
because no doubt if they had spoken to joey the family would have got up and said so.
and 2 people say they have seen all the statements.
.
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO
This family have been through hell with this brutal murder. They rarely speak to the media, so why would they tell anyone other than their own family and friends what happened with the police? They have no need to do so.
They need to be left in peace to grieve their terrible loss but they are not being allowed to because people like you keep bringing all the gory details of this murder onto the internet.
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO
quite a short article which I wouldnt say was speaking to media a lot. They had every right to speak to whomever they wanted to anyway.
that wasnt an attack.
i was just pointing out that your previous post wasn't true.
Do you want to attack them for every single thing they say or do? Have some compassion for goodness sake. They have suffered something most will never have to suffer thankfully.
This family have been through hell with this brutal murder. They rarely speak to the media, so why would they tell anyone other than their own family and friends what happened with the police? They have no need to do so.
They need to be left in peace to grieve their terrible loss but they are not being allowed to because people like you keep bringing all the gory details of this murder onto the internet.
i dident start this thread blame john.
i know this trick don't dare question the official version of events because it might upset someone.
this is trotted out in all claims of wrongful conviction.
that wasnt an attack.
i was just pointing out that your previous post wasn't true.
i havent accused anyone of murder ive just talked about the case.
well ill let them read the threads then and decide for themselves.
please stop trying to put words in to other peoples mouths.
do you think a registered charity would publish all this stuff knowing it wasn't true knowing they could be sued out of existence at any time.
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.
hardly hideing
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.
whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.
and how do you know what thier finances are.
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.
hardly hideing
She lives in Mayfield actually, I could Google her house if you like?
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.
whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.
and how do you know what thier finances are.
Well Middleton is on disability benefit and Lean is a sponsored student.
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.
whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.
and how do you know what thier finances are.
Well Middleton is on disability benefit and Lean is a sponsored student.
benifet records are confidential how would you know who was on benefit or not.
if you do know that for a fact youve comited a very serious crime.
or is it just more bullshit hey.
or is it just more bullshit hey.
hey Billy boy....better watch they don't catch you out and about on that walk eh?? ;D
The way the cops tried to get evidence from Shane was outrageous. They lied to him, tried every way they could to get him to say Luke did it, twisted everything he said, and then used that in evidence to say he was lying. Judges decision - we agree, if Shane had been a suspect, this would have been totally unacceptable, and the "evidence" garnered from it would never have been allowed. But he wasn't a suspect, was he? He was a witness, so the police treatment doesn't count.
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.
hardly hideing
I see a poor family who have lost a child in such a brutal manner being victimised and accused by people hiding behind computer screens.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkiethSo nugnug is your real name then? Or are you hiding?
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
my names in my profile you care to look i cant prove its my name.
can you prove yours is janet.
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them
the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.
i
as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
not too sure of your source...IS IT FROM DOBBIE THE DUMB COPPERS fantasy version?...Dobbie...the man that seems to think it normal for 14 year old girls to have sperm from several different males on her body and clothes and not find it highly suspicious...hmmm..well I do find it suspicious...oh and Dobbie..I know you got it wrong sunshine...cos I know who really killed Jodi....and so do a growing number of other people.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.
Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.
Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums? I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
[/quote
believe or not a lot of people have other things to do than post on forums.
i know we dont but some people have a life.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.
Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.
Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums? I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them
the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.
i
as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.
Most who are innocent actually do let the courts know how they feel somehow or another. They say something at the very least, especially when being sentenced.
Especially when they already know there is a big media interest in the case.
They do not usually stay totally silent. I know Luke Mitchell was young but he had no problem answering police questions and arguing with them.
Suddenly when he is found guilty he is struck dumb?
This is the same man that Lord Hamilton, said, "Mitchell was "perfectly capable of holding his own". He had made no confession and had "stuck to his guns" throughout the interview, the court heard."
I know too that a guilty verdict can be a shock to some people but they usually react in someway too. He knew the media would be listening to everything said. Yet said not one word?
There is not one word of truth in the Daily Mail articles or in any article that does not support Mitchell.
Wonder why they are still in business and not been sued out of it by now considering all they do is tell lies about innocent people like Luke Mitchell. They clearly made up every little thing about him. None of it is true of course.
So if he stuck to his guns throughout an interview, when it was quite clear he was the only suspect then why no outburst at court that they got it wrong?
As I said I do understand that perhaps someone would be shocked to be charged but once charged there is always a chance of conviction unless you know you did not do something. And if you did not you will let people know the verdict is wrong.
That did not happen in this case at all.
the mail articall contians nothing but a lot of innuendo
this was paper who spen years telling the world colin stag was guilty..
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them
the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.
i
as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.
Most who are innocent actually do let the courts know how they feel somehow or another. They say something at the very least, especially when being sentenced.
Especially when they already know there is a big media interest in the case.
They do not usually stay totally silent. I know Luke Mitchell was young but he had no problem answering police questions and arguing with them.
Suddenly when he is found guilty he is struck dumb?
This is the same man that Lord Hamilton, said, "Mitchell was "perfectly capable of holding his own". He had made no confession and had "stuck to his guns" throughout the interview, the court heard."
I know too that a guilty verdict can be a shock to some people but they usually react in someway too. He knew the media would be listening to everything said. Yet said not one word?
There is not one word of truth in the Daily Mail articles or in any article that does not support Mitchell.
Wonder why they are still in business and not been sued out of it by now considering all they do is tell lies about innocent people like Luke Mitchell. They clearly made up every little thing about him. None of it is true of course.
So if he stuck to his guns throughout an interview, when it was quite clear he was the only suspect then why no outburst at court that they got it wrong?
As I said I do understand that perhaps someone would be shocked to be charged but once charged there is always a chance of conviction unless you know you did not do something. And if you did not you will let people know the verdict is wrong.
That did not happen in this case at all.
make react in all diffrent ways to the verdict it means nothing your clutching at straws here.
a lot of guilty do react a lot of innocent people dont.
a lot of guilty start protesting there innocence after the verdict a lot of innocent people dont it means nothing.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.
Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.
Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums? I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.
Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.
Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums? I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
Well if people are admitting to using certain names you can bet they are using others too.
If Shane or the dad post why don't the post under their own names if they believe he is innocent?
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche
But it wasn't a cliche was it? People saw it for themselves in court.
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche
But it wasn't a cliche was it? People saw it for themselves in court.
how would you that if as you say you wernt in court.
i thought said you said you had nothing to do with the case so how would you know that.
i did read what you wrote.
and if your nothing to do with the case as you say.
how would you know what other people who were in court said.
and
kids write on there jotters
its perfectly normall.
there are thousnds of jotters that look just like that.
and your hideing in another country.
how many jotters have you seen then.
what does writing things on jotter have to do with murder
you will scribels like that on half the school jotters in the country.
I see the fans over at GI are asking questions about Shane and his daddy posting on the forums. I won't burst their bubbles just yet but watch this space because it will come out soon....
By the way I believe as things stand the SCCRC will not be making any referral to the High Court as Mrs Leans arguments are all sawdust. They should be receiving the provisional determination very soon now.
I have had another look at the testimony by smack-head Shane the secret poster on WAP. Half the time he couldn't remember and the other half he was repeating things that mummy had fed him earlier. What a tosser!
I can't get over Corinne being so stupid as to admit that Luke spoke to Shane that afternoon when according to her Luke had called him down for dinner. Shane denied this ever took place when he confirmed he never saw Luke any time that afternoon until he returned home after 9pm.
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp
this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.
DI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.
He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.
"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.
"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.
She never quite did that load of crap she refers to as the truth sorted out did she Sandra? Lets say I am not surprised she ended up with you two since you all deserve each other.
Luckily Stephanie Hall saw through them before it was too late!
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp
this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.
Thought the media only printed rubbish? Or is it only rubbish when it does not suit your theories?
Did you take a note of the date that article was published? Published Date: 10 July 2003 So 8 years have passed since that article so I would say it proves nothing.
What about the blonde woman. Did she ever come forward?QuoteDI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.
He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.
"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.
"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp
this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.
Thought the media only printed rubbish? Or is it only rubbish when it does not suit your theories?
Did you take a note of the date that article was published? Published Date: 10 July 2003 So 8 years have passed since that article so I would say it proves nothing.
What about the blonde woman. Did she ever come forward?QuoteDI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.
He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.
"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.
"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.
it proves the police wre lying when they said the dna transfered innocently as was the prosecutor.
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accidentagain I point you to the date of the article. It was also very early on in the investigation. You cannot possibly know who was tested or not.
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accident
DETECTIVES investigating the murder of schoolgirl Jodi Jones are considering DNA testing up to 1400 men living near where she was killed.
well why would the considering that if the dident the dna had anything to do with the murder.
well why would the considering that if the dident the dna had anything to do with the murder.
because it was the start of a massive enquiry and like you have said on other occasions, "they always say things like that"
One reason why they might say it is to see if someone will confess.
no we are saying the police ignored as happens in many cases.
the sperm and the rest of the dna had to get there by some means it dident get there by magick.
the pathologists have nothing to do with it they don't make the decisions.
at least one of those patholigists thinks luke mitchells innocent says a lot.
the prosecution ignores all evidence that dosent suit its case.
Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011HCJAC10.html
Professor Busuttil gave evidence that a reddish hair bobble, or "scrunch", was situated at the back of the deceased's head, but was not easily visible among her hair which was largely uncontained by it.
There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse.
Meanwhile, the other man had provided an innocent explanation about the condom.
"Both gentlemen gave samples to the police and DNA profiles were obtained which were compared to crime-scene samples, and there is no match whatsoever," he told the court.
well of course he saw the body they all saw the body when the dog found it.
it would depend on what you consider an innocent explanation as far as the condoms concerned.
why did he not come forward for 3 years if he had an innocent explanation.
the good professor said that luke Mitchell could not have comited the murder without wearing a forensic suit.
and by all accounts luke Mitchel did not have one.
But when TV bosses viewed the documentary, made by the flagship Frontline Scotland team, they were appalled and claimed interviews with his mother made Mitchell out to be "a saint". They said it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and added that the programme lacked impartiality and was unbroadcastable in its current state.
One source said: "They hit the roof. It was not impartial enough and did not given enough right of reply to those it was criticising. It made the mistake of assuming that because he has lodged an appeal that he must be innocent. The truth is that almost every convicted murderer tries to chance their arm by lodging an appeal."
well thats the newspaper i suggest people watch front line seemed perfectly impartial to me.
its hard to see most things in the dark that's what torches are for.
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...
Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder
« Reply #7578 on: May 22, 2011, 10:24:40 PM »
Quote from: fishy on May 22, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
Quote from: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 08:52:52 PM
i still find it strange that judy jones and allen oven were not doing the press conference.
Maybe because they'd have had to bring JoJ along.
Or leave him "Home Alone". Again.
Remember what happened last time they did that.
more like...erm...remember what happened when they "claimed" to have left him "Home Alone"
good old AO eh...leaves the kissing and holding hands with Judy at the funeral to Joey....how odd for a man who was so agreeable to supposedly visit a cemetery and grave of the man he replaced in Judy's life.
fishy
Quote from: Mrssmith on May 22, 2011, 11:39:41 PM
... who are we to judge the behaviour of people just living their lives? before their loved one was brutally taken away? .. you can paint anyone in a bad light ... try and be respectful to all involved...innocent until proven otherwise
An extremely fair point. Just a pity the police and judiciary don't agree to play nice in that respect.
It's a crying shame that Corinne had her boy kidnapped.
And an even greater shame on all of us that we condone the constant propagation of absurd rumours and innuendos about almost any aspect of that family's life and relationships, up to and including complicity in murder.
I doubt the Important Family's supporters will yield for an instant in their slanders against the Mitchells, though.
I'll stop, if they do. Or if I'm caught out in a lie. Deal?
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...
Yes it is a very upsetting case. It has been appealed many times. One of the things that is most upsetting is that the Luke Mitchell Support hint very strongly that the Jones family are involved in some way.
Here is an example of some of their posts on their own forum. JoJ is Jospeh Jones, Jodi's brother. This is who they are accusing of the murder while saying they are not doing that. They are accusing Judith Jones of covering up this murder. This family have suffered enough and what they are doing is beyond anything I can even think of.
QuoteRe: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder
« Reply #7578 on: May 22, 2011, 10:24:40 PM »
Quote from: fishy on May 22, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
Quote from: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 08:52:52 PM
i still find it strange that judy jones and allen oven were not doing the press conference.
Maybe because they'd have had to bring JoJ along.
Or leave him "Home Alone". Again.
Remember what happened last time they did that.
more like...erm...remember what happened when they "claimed" to have left him "Home Alone"
good old AO eh...leaves the kissing and holding hands with Judy at the funeral to Joey....how odd for a man who was so agreeable to supposedly visit a cemetery and grave of the man he replaced in Judy's life.Quotefishy
Quote from: Mrssmith on May 22, 2011, 11:39:41 PM
... who are we to judge the behaviour of people just living their lives? before their loved one was brutally taken away? .. you can paint anyone in a bad light ... try and be respectful to all involved...innocent until proven otherwise
An extremely fair point. Just a pity the police and judiciary don't agree to play nice in that respect.
It's a crying shame that Corinne had her boy kidnapped.
And an even greater shame on all of us that we condone the constant propagation of absurd rumours and innuendos about almost any aspect of that family's life and relationships, up to and including complicity in murder.
I doubt the Important Family's supporters will yield for an instant in their slanders against the Mitchells, though.
I'll stop, if they do. Or if I'm caught out in a lie. Deal?
I have been watching this programme and taking notes from it. I have not yet finished as I have been busy with family, dinner and homework. So will continue watching now.
So far I have heard this.
Over 3000 people interviewed
He was no angel. He carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.
Prof Busitil has clearly been asked a very loaded question regarding what state the murderer could be in afterwards.
He does not mention Luke Mitchell's name. He has been asked a "hypothetical" question about a hypothetical killer and this will only be the edited part that suits Frontlines clearly biased agenda. The fact that we do not hear the question asked is pretty conclusive proof of that.
He does mention the fact that gloves could have been worn.
He does not say "I think Luke Mitchell is innocent."
Roy Ramm says if there are fibres from the murderer and it is heavy rain that it could be washed away. It was raining that night wasn't it?
Busitil says that it is a probablity that evidence may have been lost due to the rain too.
He also says the chances of transfer from assailant to victim is not that common.
I will be back soon with more comment.
I have been watching this programme and taking notes from it. I have not yet finished as I have been busy with family, dinner and homework. So will continue watching now.
So far I have heard this.
Over 3000 people interviewed
He was no angel. He carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.
Prof Busitil has clearly been asked a very loaded question regarding what state the murderer could be in afterwards.
He does not mention Luke Mitchell's name. He has been asked a "hypothetical" question about a hypothetical killer and this will only be the edited part that suits Frontlines clearly biased agenda. The fact that we do not hear the question asked is pretty conclusive proof of that.
He does mention the fact that gloves could have been worn.
He does not say "I think Luke Mitchell is innocent."
Roy Ramm says if there are fibres from the murderer and it is heavy rain that it could be washed away. It was raining that night wasn't it?
Busitil says that it is a probablity that evidence may have been lost due to the rain too.
He also says the chances of transfer from assailant to victim is not that common.
I will be back soon with more comment.
prof bustil was asked a qustion and he gave his honest answer.
royy ram also expressed his doubts about the conviction.
and the behavior of loathen and borders police.
then how do you know the question was loaded.
will you stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.
er that should be obvious.
here it is jools.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6640000/newsid_6640100?redirect=6640115.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1
Maybe you can explain why Mrs hall was also banned and blocked from accessing the forum?
There is a big difference between fact and fantasy with the WAP forum falling into the latter category. Luke Mitchell had every opportunity to commit murder on his 14 year-old girlfriend. He had the motive, the means and the opportunity.
The sad excuse for an alibi that he was at home preparing dinner at 5.15pm on Monday 30 June 2003 while Jodi Jones had her throat cut and was thereafter mutilated just doesn't cut it as far as the evidence by his own brother has it. He was charged with perverting the course of justice as was his mother. They were also warned in court as to the consequences of perjury. Says it all really doesn't it?
And just on cue up she pops.
Lets just say that I was misled into believing that the Jones family were involved in her murder. I most certainly don't believe this to be true any longer having looked at all the facts in the case.
The continued refusal by the Mitchell's to address their memory lapses is the clincher for me. Innocent people don't suddenly develop amnesia deary.
Indeed Sandy, that has always concerned me in that people who promote themselves as advocates for the wrongly accused could act in such a way which could only do harm to any investigation.
Unless of course they didn't want me to get to the truth in the first place which is always a possibility?
There are too many unanswered questions in that case for me. Why did those very same people go out of their way to have the Jodi Jones forum closed down if they themselves had nothing to hide? Their actions speaks volumes.
nothing the charges were all dropped just after the conviction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones
hello janet or is that john?
why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh the iceland volcano...eh?
Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.hello janet or is that john?
why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh the iceland volcano...eh?
I am not named John. Why are you calling me John? My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.
I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
After reading Janet's post in the disclaimer I second that cliff.Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.hello janet or is that john?
why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh the iceland volcano...eh?
I am not named John. Why are you calling me John? My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.
I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
There seems to be so much in fighting that I lose the threads. can you please stick to the facts, instead of point scoring. Thank you.
Thank you grahame.After reading Janet's post in the disclaimer I second that cliff.Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.hello janet or is that john?
why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh the iceland volcano...eh?
I am not named John. Why are you calling me John? My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.
I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
There seems to be so much in fighting that I lose the threads. can you please stick to the facts, instead of point scoring. Thank you.
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.You are quite clearly involved in this case Janet. As I am not, I will observe from a distance.
It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.You are quite clearly involved in this case Janet. As I am not, I will observe from a distance.
It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.
With due respect.
you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.
I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.
There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew. Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.
you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.
I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.
There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.
OH YES JANET/john ...how odd that in a later post you completely contradict yourself..
by then wanting to limit discussion as per this that you posted;
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.
It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.
:)
so you pointless then JANET...by your own previous words...so maybe you should go away and not come back..
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew. Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.
I have been having a good read about this case and all early newspaper reports have the girl leaving home at 5.30pm, then the time changes as the days pass. How odd :-\
I have also read that first statements by the mothers boyfriend state Jodi's brother wasnt at home. The sister Janine said she had visited her mother's home and also said her older brother wasnt at home. These statements then change, very strange :o Did Jodi not use her mothers phone to text Luke, did she actually make a call to Luke? From what Ive read so far they exchanged texts, that someone deleted.
The above reconstruction has Jodi, walking down the path. Why would they do this? The witness at no point said that the girl she saw walked towards or down the path. This witness who saw a girl, she claimed could have been Jodi, but I find this strange as she claimed not to have known Jodi when she gave this statement, so how could she have said it could have been Jodi, if she didnt know what she looked like. The first pictures in the media were of a young 5/6 year old child, not a 14 year old girl, therefore I wonder how she came to this conclusion. This same witness did not describe black hoody and black jeans, she said the person that she thought was Jodi had a navy hoody and blue jeans, Jodis mother said she left in a navy blue hoody and blue jeans, so why has the reconstruction got the girl dressed all in black. I believe this was the clothes that were found scattered around the crime scene, but why did the police ask for witnessess and descriptions if they werent going to listen what was said. I find this very confusing, as they have done a reconstruction to jog peoples memories, but dressed the victim in clothes that were nothing like the mother and witness described. ::)
you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.
I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.
There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.
Another interesting point in this case is that there was never any reward offered for information which could see the perpetrator(s) properly convicted. It has been suggested to Mitchell's family on several occasions that they offer such a reward but they are not interested. This in itself sends out the wrong message since if they truly believed in Luke's innocence they would stop at nothing to bring the real culprits to justice.
They would rather try and sell their story to the local rag as Luke's grandmother, Ruby Guetta, attempted to do some time ago.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/
It is the very same with the confidential hotline that you helped to set up John, they did nothing but ridicule it instead of supporting it. They want to keep any information in the case within their own grasp and don't want to share anything of value. They keep talking about progress but from what I have seen of their efforts they will be lucky to ever get a referral from the SCCRC.
At the end of the day there is no evidence which can clear Mitchell but plenty that can condemn him.
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew. Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.
That's awful. Her mum's gonna be desolate about not enforcing the curfew.
thev have have explianed themselves time agian its not there fault if people have chosen to ignore what they have said.
im not sure what overwhelming evedence your talking about.
and i think the comprasion with the brigmingham 6 is perfectly reasonable.
The Mitchell family have failed to explain the inconsistencies in their own evidence.
Shane Mitchell stated to the court that he did not see his brother in the house that afternoon from 4pm until 5.15pm yet his brother Luke claims that he made the dinner for them all. Not hard to see who is lying is it?
Why don't you face it Sandra, you all thought that he would get out on the 'Cadder' ruling but you were sorely mistaken.
Oncesaid....
it may help if you addressed the question to John as he was the person posting under the username "sandy"...such is his dishonest nature.
John has no real evidence and makes many false claims.
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............
Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............
Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.
I actually disagree with this. Why should they have kept away? They were being respectful by not attending the funeral when asked by JJ's family, but it was only natural they would have wanted to go to the graveside and pay their respects to someone they cared about.
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............
Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.
I actually disagree with this. Why should they have kept away? They were being respectful by not attending the funeral when asked by JJ's family, but it was only natural they would have wanted to go to the graveside and pay their respects to someone they cared about.
its a very interesting one...
The implication...of asking/demanding that Luke not attend the funeral is an issue in itself.
The person(s) making the demand ..and then publically proclaiming all about it was more or less accusing Luke in public through the press on this issue...ie decided he was the murderer ...ie they acted as judge jury and executioner... not a good state of affairs...
But as Luke was not the killer...and I know who was!!!!!!! ...
How much did such an action influence the jury and/or public perception.
hypothetically
what if the killer, or those protecting the killer from justice, were party to the decision of banning an innocent person who was accused of the murder...then how do people see that...how cold and calculating are such people..??
bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
I think its a kid.If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
ah ..this "bigwullie" poster...the person who is using this name is not the known poster Big wullie who posts on the shirley mckie and GI forum but someone else entirely. this person has a grudge with the real big wullie it seems and this person is believed to be John Lamberton..who is known to have a grudge with the real big wullie ....and many other people.To bo honest smiffy, I agree with Grahame on this one, and think its a kid.
the fake "bigwullie" has acted the same way on a number of forums before getting banned .
While not knowing for sure if it is John Lamberton...I and others have experienced a lot of john's abuse and deception on various forums particularly in regards to this case that are of a nature that fits with him being this fake "bigwullie"
whether it is john or not.... the person is a sad case and needs help with their mental health issues.
in any case hes a big willie. ;Dah ..this "bigwullie" poster...the person who is using this name is not the known poster Big wullie who posts on the shirley mckie and GI forum but someone else entirely. this person has a grudge with the real big wullie it seems and this person is believed to be John Lamberton..who is known to have a grudge with the real big wullie ....and many other people.To bo honest smiffy, I agree with Grahame on this one, and think its a kid.
the fake "bigwullie" has acted the same way on a number of forums before getting banned .
While not knowing for sure if it is John Lamberton...I and others have experienced a lot of john's abuse and deception on various forums particularly in regards to this case that are of a nature that fits with him being this fake "bigwullie"
whether it is john or not.... the person is a sad case and needs help with their mental health issues.
Probably a big one at that.
I think its a kid.If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
I think its a kid.If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
I doubt that the real user big wullie would come on and say one word just for attention. He's very vocal and likes to have his say and one word just wouldnt do it. The FAKE big wullie is a complete moron, who goes round forums using words like condoms, tits, cock etc and sends users who support certain moj victims pm's with one of these words. He only targets forums of those that he believes himself are not miscarriages of justice.
Bad hair day girls? :D
(http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000POcgNMa6aJU/s/750/750/CORINNE-MITCHELL-DPPA02.JPG)
Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell arrive at the High Court in Edinburgh.
The High Court in Edinburgh has refused Mitchell permission to bring his case before the UK Supreme Court in London...now why am I not surprised?
Convicted killer Luke Mitchell's request to refer his case to the UK Supreme Court has been refused by judges at the High Court in Edinburgh.
Mitchell was trying to get his conviction for killing his girlfriend Jodi Jones, 14, in Midlothian in 2003, overturned.
But judges dismissed claims that his human rights were breached when he was questioned by police without a lawyer.
The 22-year-old now plans to appeal directly to the UK Supreme Court.
Mitchell was given a life sentence in 2005 after he was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Jodi Jones in Dalkeith when he was 14.
(http://i.imgur.com/mrsEQ.jpg)
Read more... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13672255)
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.
So you keep saying and has no relevance to Mitchell's supposed whereabouts.
He claims to have been home by 4.50pm and this is uncorroborated even by his big bro who was at home after 5pm. So who is the liar nuggy, Lukey or big bro?
Where is all this brilliant evidence now that the SCCRC was supposed to have considered?
The last time I looked at the SCCRC website, innuendo and theories don't count! ;)
In paperwork lodged with the court, Mitchell's legal team argued that the Lord Advocate relied upon evidence identifying Mitchell which was "unfairly obtained and had the effect of rendering his trial unfair and in breach of the accused's rights".
They further argued that his interview with police, carried out when he was 15, was conducted in a way which was "oppressive and constituted an interrogation designed to break the accused and obtain an admission".
They also argued what was described in court as a "Cadder point", namely that Mitchell was interviewed as a suspect but was not given access to legal advice before being quizzed.
So where is there any evidence of his innocence? Thought not!
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.
I quite agree Janet, no wonder the Mitchell's come in for such public ridicule and to think that Corinne Mitchell and her mum tried to court the Press and get £10,000 for their trouble not so long ago.
What sort of a decent family attempt to gain financially from their own sons conviction and imprisonment??
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.
I quite agree Janet, no wonder the Mitchell's come in for such public ridicule and to think that Corinne Mitchell and her mum tried to court the Press and get £10,000 for their trouble not so long ago.
What sort of a decent family attempt to gain financially from their own sons conviction and imprisonment??
what decent person robs there dying aunty.
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more. Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices. What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it? Sadist beast!
Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean? Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more. Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices. What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it? Sadist beast!
Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean? Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??
your wife gave evedence agianst you in a court of law so what did you do to her to make her do that.
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more. Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices. What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it? Sadist beast!
Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean? Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??
your wife gave evedence agianst you in a court of law so what did you do to her to make her do that.
Wrong nuggy, my wife never gave any evidence against me in relation to any charges, try harder and don't put so much faith in press reports provided by the Crown Office.
You of all people should know how they operate or do they have a different agenda when it comes to child murderers?
all the newspaper say she gave evdence agianst you did they all get it wrong.
this was court reporting i cant believe all the reporters saw someone in the witness box who wasn't there.
Off course she was there but she didn't give any evidence against me. In fact, she has been most helpful in my application to the SCCRC and has been able to provide information which was previously never heard.
The press wrongly assumed that because my wife was designated a Crown Witness that she was there to give evidence against me.
I must also point out yet again that the Press agency who transmitted the story never attended my trial and were never in a position to report what transpired. They gleamed only what the discredited Inland Revenue later told them which was what they wanted them to hear. You will find that every newspaper who carried the story ran with the same content, there was never any independent reporting in my case.
I have previously stated that some of the content is libellous and will be dealt with in due course.
So you keep saying and has no relevance to Mitchell's supposed whereabouts.
He claims to have been home by 4.50pm and this is uncorroborated even by his big bro who was at home after 5pm. So who is the liar nuggy, Lukey or big bro?
his bro aint a convicted liar unlike yourself.
there was a witness anyway if you look on the other forum ill post a link up later.
jodis was still alive at 5pm.
so who cooked diner if it wasnt luke the dog.
Off course she was there but she didn't give any evidence against me. In fact, she has been most helpful in my application to the SCCRC and has been able to provide information which was previously never heard.
The press wrongly assumed that because my wife was designated a Crown Witness that she was there to give evidence against me.
I must also point out yet again that the Press agency who transmitted the story never attended my trial and were never in a position to report what transpired. They gleamed only what the discredited Inland Revenue later told them which was what they wanted them to hear. You will find that every newspaper who carried the story ran with the same content, there was never any independent reporting in my case.
I have previously stated that some of the content is libellous and will be dealt with in due course.
ill take my chances bring it on.
he was found innocent.
unlike yourself.
the judge said you showed no remorse,
in law not proven means innocent.
how come you and john keep posting at the same time.
he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
in law not proven means innocent.
how come you and john keep posting at the same time.
he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
It might mean it in law, but we all know what it really means don't we?
Who gave you permission to be the spokesperson for Luke Mitchell?
because he (John) seems to be one of the only people on this forum who is capable of having a conversation and asks serious questions about the case, that people like you want to avoid.
What exactly is it you are trying to infer by your comment? Is this yet another diversionary tactic to avoid the real subject?
in law not proven means innocent.
how come you and john keep posting at the same time.
he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
It might mean it in law, but we all know what it really means don't we?
Who gave you permission to be the spokesperson for Luke Mitchell?
because he (John) seems to be one of the only people on this forum who is capable of having a conversation and asks serious questions about the case, that people like you want to avoid.
What exactly is it you are trying to infer by your comment? Is this yet another diversionary tactic to avoid the real subject?
so changing the subject from luke mitchell to billy midellton isnt a diverson.
i dont need anyone's permission.
ive chosen to do so thats it.
in law not proven means innocent.
how come you and john keep posting at the same time.
he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
in law not proven means innocent.
how come you and john keep posting at the same time.
he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it. We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.
Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy? Happy days!! ;)
nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.
Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol
nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.
Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol
by his own arguments he cant be innocent.
and if he cant take it he shouldn't dish it out
in law not proven means innocent.
how come you and john keep posting at the same time.
he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it. We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.
Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy? Happy days!! ;)
only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.
and a jury found you guilty.
and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.
in law not proven means innocent.
how come you and john keep posting at the same time.
he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it. We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.
Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy? Happy days!! ;)
only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.
and a jury found you guilty.
and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.
I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.
in law not proven means innocent.
how come you and john keep posting at the same time.
he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it. We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.
Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy? Happy days!! ;)
only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.
and a jury found you guilty.
and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.
I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.
we only your word it was 8/7 ive seen no evidence of this.
Nugnug or should I say Billy Middleton hasn't the first notion what stands for the truth in the Luke Mitchell case Janet. That is true for the Kate Prout case and all the others he claims to support.
He cannot even provide a single shred of evidence in support of Luke Mitchell yet he claims to be the saviour for everyone else. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
oh by the way "Janet"...I suggest you go read back through your posts as its clear from paying attention to them that your a blatant liar. Claims you make in some posts being shot down in other posts you make....your not doing a good job using this fantasy persona...losing track of yourself.
I notice that both the Record and Sun have followed on with the story from the Sunday Post. Other papers may also have done likewise.im glad the press picked up now people will be looking to see what was said.
If these papers actually read what has been written on these forums they will find there has indeed been great disrespect towards Jodi and her family. The now defunct Fact and Myth had a lot of terrible comments.
Smiffy how do you know someone else killed Jodi and who "he is and who is shielding him"? What proof do you have?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/13/mum-of-murdered-jodi-jones-brands-luke-mitchell-a-sociopath-86908-23198262/
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3633801/Jodi-Jones-mum-Killer-had-no-emotion-as-I-cuddled-him.html
Be patient.
Judy ...oh ....best not say too much...from my posts she may brand me a paranoid schizphrenic or call me a liar when she is a person known to have difficulties in recalling the truth.
Though she may have particular experience of paranoid schizophrenics of a violent kind I find her judgements to be clouded by bias and her drink issues for her to form any valid opinion of me on forums etc.
I know things you dont know ....
:)
oh by the way "Janet"...I suggest you go read back through your posts as its clear from paying attention to them that your a blatant liar. Claims you make in some posts being shot down in other posts you make....your not doing a good job using this fantasy persona...losing track of yourself.
Smiffy is a bum Janet and we all know it to be so. You and I know all too well who the great smiffy really is and a bigger lump of lard one would never find if one tried. Yes, he knows who killed Jodi Jones but then again you and I and most of Scotland know who killed her too.
LUKE MITCHELL murdered Jodi Jones and then set about brutalising her corpse by slitting her eyelids and almost removing her throat and gouging her abdomen. What sort of a depraved animal would do such a thing to a beautiful young lass who had most of her life before her??
Yes, we all why the likes of Sandra Lean and Billy (the scammer) Middleton want to disrespect the Jones family in general and Jodi Jones in particular. Lean in particular is a snake in the grass, she says one thing in private and another in public when her discredited reputation is about to go down the toilet.
Well done to the Daily Record and The Scottish Sun for following up on the recent comments and exposing the Wrongly Accused retards for what they really are.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!I know nothing of this case John, only what I have read on here.
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim.Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim.Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?
We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim.Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.
They did and unsuccessfully. The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?
We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim.Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.
They did and unsuccessfully. The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.
but theres no evedence they had been in close contact.
they say each other at scholl.
now if they dident touch each other there wouldent be.
luke mitchells hair was dirty and unwashed acording to the police.
his finger nails were dirty as well so how could he have cleaned himself up.
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?
We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.
How did she fight? Can't wait to hear this one!
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?
We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.
How did she fight? Can't wait to hear this one!
she fought for her life thats a fact the patholigists said so in court.
but luke Mitchell dident have a mark on him.
Whom did she fight and what did she use because it most certainly wasn't her hands or nails according to the pathologist?
Oh he was forensically clean alright and then went up the woods to get uncontaminated dirt on him prior to any examination. Do you think the authorities are stupid nugget?
You never could answer the questions about Luke's whereabouts after leaving school and the discrepancies in the brothers evidence, neither could Corinne Mitchell.
If I recall she complained about her blood pressure the last time she was caught out...not surprised really as she was nailed to the floor.
Judy Jones referred to Mitchell as a SOCIOPATH>>>
Profile of the Sociopath
Some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioural Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behaviour Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioural and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviours such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behaviour/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on 'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths.
It seems Judy was well briefed!
Information loop? How little you know really at the end of the day.
Why don't you come out and say that your brilliant theory is that Joey Jones killed his own sister in a moment of violent rage because that is what you numpties at WAP have been promoting for weeks now?
No wonder Jodi's mother is enraged at your attacks upon her and her family. No wonder the local Press have taken up this story at the expense of the Mitchell circus entourage.
How anyone could possibly promote the theory that a mother would protect her son if he murdered his sister just goes to show how far you and others will go to condemn the innocent while all the time promoting yourself as some sort of campaigner for miscarriages of justice.
(http://paimages.s3.amazonaws.com/categories/news/480x385/10922024.jpg)
In for the long haul. Corinne Mitchell (right) has a quick puff after learning that her son has lost the right to have his case referred to the UK Supreme Court. Sandra Lean looks on.
i am really glad the forum is making headlines.
keep at it nugnug...the demented john lamberton keeps showing himself to be the nasty dishonest individual he really is .
i am really glad the forum is making headlines.
FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS !!
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared004.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Looks like the WAP forum has gone down the toilet! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)more viewers than ive ethere seem before.
Looks like the WAP forum has gone down the toilet! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)more viewers than ive ethere seem before.
keep posting the links youl get them a few more.
keep at it nugnug...the demented john lamberton keeps showing himself to be the nasty dishonest individual he really is .
And you of course are all sweetness and light aren't you Smiffy? Personal attacks is what you are reduced to when you do not like what is being said.
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away. I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"
John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi? The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away. I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"
John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi? The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away. I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"
John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi? The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?
it dident say that it said no reportable result not the same thing.
it dident say that it said no reportable result not the same thing.
thats correct nugnug :)
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
are well maybe we can correct those inaccuracy's
i agrea this thread was justed by john to have a pop at certain people.
do you think i should start a thread on his case.
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers. Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old. :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers. Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old. :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.
Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said. Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.
I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.
Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers. Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old. :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.
Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said.
Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.
I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.
Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers. Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old. :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.
Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said. Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.
I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.
Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?
Correct. However there is evidence in abundance to support LM's innocence and it is not contained in the posts here from JL. This thread was not started to give a balanced view, it was started with malicious intent, end of. Janet have you any idea how difficult it is for someone who is factually innocent to prove that innocence? Obviously not. ::)
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers. Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old. :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.
Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said.
Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.
I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.
Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?
how would you know why joh started this thread.
I admit I know little of this case, but if there is doubt then in my opinion you should side with the guilty person, unless of course you believe the police would never fabricate anything.should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers. Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old. :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.
Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said.
Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.
I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.
Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?
how would you know why joh started this thread.
I have read the thread. Does it matter why it was started? If there is evidence of innocence post it. You must realise though that not everything looks good for Luke Mitchell and that there are two sides to the story. Both must be told because somewhere in the middle of it all is the truth.
your very wide of the mark cliff.
if you dont believe the tabliods in the bamber case why do belive them this case.
theirs no evidence to say lukes family did anything wrong.
only the allegations of a few newspapers.
just the same as in jermys case.
theres no evedence they tried to sell the story other than the word of the sunday mail.
just like jermy bamber with the topless photos.
all charges of lying against shane and corine mitchell were dropped.
wouldn't they have persued if they had really lied.
your very wide of the mark cliff.I don't want to get in a row with you Nugnug, because you have always been passionate in your beliefs, And I do not know too much about this case.
if you dont believe the tabliods in the bamber case why do belive them this case.
theirs no evidence to say lukes family did anything wrong.
only the allegations of a few newspapers.
just the same as in jermys case.
and if you dont beilive what john said about jermy why belive him about luke mitchell.
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.
and convicting them of lying would have made the conviction stronger.
why would the Sunday mail make that up because its a good story simple.
just like bamber with the topless photos.
t
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.
and convicting them of lying would have made the conviction stronger.
why would the Sunday mail make that up because its a good story simple.
just like bamber with the topless photos.
t
Corinne Mitchell has never denied that she and her mother asked the Sunday for money. Nor did she deny speaking to them. You cannot just say reporters make up stories like this without proof.
Did she make a complaint about this story to the complaints commission? If not why not, maybe because you dont know for sure what went on back then.
just the same as she did not deny her son wrote a letter that was on her sons prison wall.
I dont know anything about topless photos with Jeremy Bamber but if a newspaper printed the actual pictures showing him with topless women then what can anyone say about that? Its nothing to do with his case anyway, but Corinne Mitchell and the brother are very much to do with the Luke Mitchell case.
there wernt his mates cliff one of them was victims sisters boyfriend who spoke agianst him in court.
i dont really want get in a row with you ether im just fighting my corner.
there isnt a trace of lukes sperm there.
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.
and convicting them of lying would have made the conviction stronger.
why would the Sunday mail make that up because its a good story simple.
just like bamber with the topless photos.
t
Corinne Mitchell has never denied that she and her mother asked the Sunday for money. Nor did she deny speaking to them. You cannot just say reporters make up stories like this without proof.
Did she make a complaint about this story to the complaints commission? If not why not, maybe because you dont know for sure what went on back then.
just the same as she did not deny her son wrote a letter that was on her sons prison wall.
I dont know anything about topless photos with Jeremy Bamber but if a newspaper printed the actual pictures showing him with topless women then what can anyone say about that? Its nothing to do with his case anyway, but Corinne Mitchell and the brother are very much to do with the Luke Mitchell case.
she has made sevral compliants to the press compliants comission.
and has always denied it.
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.
fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.
you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.
fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.
you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.
I do feel strongly about it because there is so much rubbish being put online and no one is allowed to have a differing opinion to the supporters. Its time you all got the veil removed from your eyes and looked at the case less passionately and objectively.
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.
fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.
you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.
I do feel strongly about it because there is so much rubbish being put online and no one is allowed to have a differing opinion to the supporters. Its time you all got the veil removed from your eyes and looked at the case less passionately and objectively.
so who's dined you a voice exactly.
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.
thats not denying someone a voice.
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.
thats not denying someone a voice.
Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.
The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.
There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.
It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.
'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.
thats not denying someone a voice.
Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.
The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.
There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.
It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.
'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.
well you wernt there ethere were you but you seem sure.
or were you there.
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.
thats not denying someone a voice.
Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.
The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.
There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.
It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.
'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.
well you wernt there ethere were you but you seem sure.
or were you there.
You would love to know if I was wouldn't you? What difference would it make to you? None because you believe what you want to believe anyhow
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.
John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??
That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.
John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??
That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »
is rather strange the family did not provide such photos as there were plenty of the said photos about as has been demonstrated.
youre being impersonated on the lambo forum, unless it is you!
theyve got a fake smiffy now as well.
Those who really know the case are able to conclude who the real killer of Jodi actually is.No point in the post then Smiffy.
He is a person I have met face to face and from that viewing of him at close quarters I am satisfied that he is the killer. I cannot reveal publically or by pm as to why.
well there must have been a point to it or he wouldn't some of us may not know what the point was but there must have been one.Pardon.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/19/anger-as-supporters-of-killer-luke-mitchell-launch-postcard-campaign-to-proclaim-his-innocence-86908-23646465/
· Did you shoot your family on August 7th 1985? – No
· Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? No
· Were you present inside the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? – No
· Did you shoot your father Neville? – No
· Did you shoot your mother June? – No
· Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? – No
· Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? – No
· Did you climb out of a window of your parent’s home after shooting your family? – No
· Did you shoot your family in your father’s home? – No
· Did PC Bews radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings? – Yes
· Did you pay a professional hit man to shoot your family? – No
i wonder who else will be willing to take one in relation to this case.
I reckon anyone that is confident in passing would speak up.
I wouldn't expect to hear from cocky Kelly, Falconer, Ferris, Dickie, or AW, JAJ.
Nunnug, what do you make of all those discarded items of clothing being found near the crime scene?
2 different hoodies and joggies. :-\
Everytime I think of those hoodies, I think of that half naked picture of GD, as it looks to me if the picture is taken outside, in the dark. Not that I'm saying it is his hoody, but there is just something about that picture that gives me the creeps.
Ha Rochford, you stole his thunder. That is what I was waiting for him to spew out next. It was only a matter of time before he came out with that one as he has called Corrine everything else under the sun. She is a strong woman, something he wasnt able to handle, he likes his victims to be weaklings so that it is easier to grind them down. Sad, pathetic man. He hasnt even got his numerous usernames to keep himself company on his festered forum now it has been suspended. ;D
hes guilty guilty guilty and guilty.
Tracey Jane Well done another success from Scotland on the polygraph test I have been banging on about Joseph Steele who was cleared of murdering 6 people on the results of a polygraph test he had served 17 years. It is mentioned on Jeremy,s official web site can the non believers of the polygraph test give some impact into the two posts thank you.we get the response of people saying how easy it is for a psycopath to fool the test....But the non believers are more than happy to celebrate Adrain Prout failing his ....Brainless hypocrites, although it is not admissable in a court of law they've been trialling them in English prisons to check if sex offenders are safe to be released....And also what are the odds of both Luke and his mom passing the test? Big risk to take I'd say .. x
we get the response of people saying how easy it is for a psycopath to fool the test....But the non believers are more than happy to celebrate Adrain Prout failing his ....Brainless hypocrites, although it is not admissable in a court of law they've been trialling them in English prisons to check if sex offenders are safe to be released....And also what are the odds of both Luke and his mom passing the test? Big risk to take I'd say .. x
Tracey Jayne It is so good to have somebody agree with me on the polygraph I know they use them in Scotland re. sex offenders in America they are admissible in Court as 100percent reliable but all the people on this forum who say polygraph tests are unreliable will not comment on the Joseph Steele case and now we have the Jodi Jones. I put it to the non believers to accept our views and challenge them with some positive response about the above two cases. After all if they have no credence why bother with them.Could you possibly send me a link to the Joseph Steele case Susan? I would be interested to read about it.
Tracey Jayne I have had people on this forum saying how easy it is to cheat the polygraph test especially if you are a psychopath like Jeremy. Jeremy has had 27 different assessments and has not got any psychotic tendencies other people have said but you only have to answer No and it is so much easier as the test was taken so long after the murders. Jeremy has been asking for a polygraph test since shortly after he was committed finally got one I think it was 2002. As I have said he had failed the test people would have said I told you he was guilty.well it's been 9 years for Luke and his mother come to that, So Id just say poppycock to all the doubters (who probably watch Jeremy Kyle every day and get quite excited by it all ) :D x
Rochford so sorry I don,t understand your post could you explain. I apologise for my ignorance.
Tracey Jayne so sorry I don,t have a thread but I just read about part of it on the Jeremy Bamber Official Web Site. Joseph Steele and another guy were involved in the Ice Cream Wars in Glasgow they were accused of setting fire to a house with 6 people inside one an 18 month old baby . He always protested his innocence and at one stage escaped from prison and chained himself to the railings of Buckingham Palace (not suggesting Jeremy do that). He had two failed appeals and after being imprisoned for 17 years he was released on the results of a polygraph test by the Secretary of State for Scotland. If you Google Joseph Steele Glasgows Ice Cream Wars you will get the story up. Hope this helps. By the way the six people died in the fire not sure if the other guy is still in prison.Thank you Susan will read up on this tomorrow when my house is quiet :o
Tracey Jayne I have had people on this forum saying how easy it is to cheat the polygraph test especially if you are a psychopath like Jeremy. Jeremy has had 27 different assessments and has not got any psychotic tendencies other people have said but you only have to answer No and it is so much easier as the test was taken so long after the murders. Jeremy has been asking for a polygraph test since shortly after he was committed finally got one I think it was 2002. As I have said he had failed the test people would have said I told you he was guilty.Susan, I reckon that should print out at the top of every thread on the forum, I have been banging on about the Psychiatric/psychological tests and you about the polyogram endlessly. I think I say it in my sleep!!
Rochford sorry I must be lacking in brain cells as I don,t know who John is and is he related to the Jodi Jones case I had not heard of this case until Tracey Jayne brought it to my attention. Please be patient with me and explain it is the only way I will learn. Many thanks.
Hi Maggie I am the same and nobody takes the slightest bit of notice of us Patti does but she has gone out on her canoe hope she gets back. I am suffering from sun burn but I have laid down a challenge to the people who just dismiss polygraph testing but as yet no takers. I take notice of you Maggie.I take.notice of you Susie.!
nugnug A polygraph test can be accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has the power to overturn the conviction and that is what he did with Joseph Steele it was not an actual Court of Law. The Jodi Jones case I knew nothing about it till Tracey Jayne brought to my attention yesterday thanks for the thread. I see it was Terry Mullins who carried out the test the same guy who carried out Jeremy,s test
nugnug A polygraph test can be accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has the power to overturn the conviction and that is what he did with Joseph Steele it was not an actual Court of Law. The Jodi Jones case I knew nothing about it till Tracey Jayne brought to my attention yesterday thanks for the thread. I see it was Terry Mullins who carried out the test the same guy who carried out Jeremy,s testSusan I am acknowledging your post about the polygraph test.
Everytime I think of those hoodies, I think of that half naked picture of GD, as it looks to me if the picture is taken outside, in the dark. Not that I'm saying it is his hoody, but there is just something about that picture that gives me the creeps.
Your post has been mod'd because the forum does not permit the potentially libelous naming of persons who members suspect to be murderers. If you have evidence of your allegation, this should be given to the police.
(http://i.imgur.com/mHSFL.jpg)
cant be taken outside, hes clearly looking in a mirror and taking a picture of his own reflection with his camera phone.
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.
he fought to take the test and past that says alot to me his mum past a lie detector as well and shes his albiThat's true nugnug, unfortunately no one's listening. A lie detector test can be dismissed as not proof in this country. Psychological and psychiatric test results can be doubted and sneered at, where is the power?
it would be hard for both of them to pass it if they were lying or are they both deluded.
funny though they use they youse same lie detector tests to dicide weather there going to relase dangrous sex offenders into the community if they really think there that untrustworthy they should stop using them.Couldn't agree more nugnug.
it was the first time they were offered they jumped at the chance to take it and they both passed i wonder who else involved in the case will except the challenge to take one.
why should anyone else have to take one? they obviously all had an alibi. the police wanted to clear luke at the time but just couldnt.
she did mention it in the lie detector test witch she passed.
most of them have no credible albi the police had luke down as there only suspect from day 1.
and were not intresteded any other suspects.
like i said, do you know how polygraphs work, what kind of reactions detect dishonesty? one wouldnt experience these reactions if they were simply re-stating the same position they have for all these years.
i know the chances of 2 people taking the test idependantly telling the same lies and passing the test are virtully non existent.
well the presence other mens sperm and blood on the body for a start
the fact that the there not a single trace of fronsic evedence linking to the crime but plenty of fronsics linking other people.
theres no doubt in my mind luke mitchell could beat a lie detector, he's proven to be a cold person, someone who shows no emotion finding a body, shows no emotion in hours of police interrogation, and doesnt even respond emotionally to being found guilty and sent down... why would he feel anything when lying to a machine?
the semen was her sisters boyfriend as she was wearing her sisters top. Blood? post your source please
how do you know that?
Wasnt Luke with her that day at school? they never hugged or made any contact? his DNA by all accounts should have been on her, and vice versa, yet it wasnt.
thats not the only semon there and theres no evedence to back up the sisters boyfriends story about the t shirt.
so how does not haveing dna prove you guilty exactly..
thats not the only semon there
so jodi's own sister is lyin to protect her boyfriend? jodis sister knew her boyfriend killed her little sister yet stayed with him and gave him an alibi? what planet are you lot on
its happened many times before
he was never positively identified by anybody the officer in charge of the investigation admitted that.
at the trail she couldent point to him even though he was standing right in the dock.
hardly postive id.
ofcourse not he looked totally different, between 14 and 16 is some of the biggest changes a boy will go through in life
time of the murder
(http://i.imgur.com/rMPNG.jpg)
trial
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/8/3/1249299405480/Luke-Mitchell-001.jpg)
it would have been less credible if she did say he was the same boy she saw, considering the time that had passed and change in appearance. she was just being honest, no reason to be anything other than honest why would she?
the fact is she couldn't point him
she could say positively it was him she saw.
im postive that inocent.
i dont have to justify my opionions to you ive have allready stated why im sure his innocent.
may he reffere you to this its contians the fronsic reports.
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/other-suspects/suspects-and-dna/
ah so its just an opinion so i was right when i said you dont have a clue weather he did it or not
susan lukes guilty as far as im concerned
what part of im postive that his innocent do you fail to understand.
you clearly have no intrest in freeing wullie gage at all do you.
so 10 different people killed Jodi?
it put that there becouse it contians the refrences to the blood and the sperm.
the same reson wullie gage does the same reason all the cases mentioned on here do.
well thse people could take a lie detector test to prove them wrong and they could always sue.
oh thers a few questions i would love to ask maybe i could make a list
when i was the same age as luke if girlfriends dident show i thought nothing it merly thought i had been stood up hardly an unusall occurrence.
luke did phone back ounce to be told she wasn't there why would he phone when the family had told him she wasnt in it would make no sense.
no im not there abslutly nothing strange about it all he would be seeing her the next day at school anyway.
it would of been to late for them to do anything.
and that makes him guilty of murder does it becouse he forgot to phone his girlfiend who he would talk to the next day anyway by the same logic you could lock half the population up.
no they don't, no one takes those tests seriously other than chavs on the jeremy kyle show.
Don't you know that guilty killers have passed lie detectors before then been proven to have been lying?
Lukes tracker dog found the body apparently, yet luke and the dog would have had to have passed the body and the same v break in the wall on the way up the path yet he didnt alert him of anything then? only on the way back down? this is proof it was Luke who found the body and not the dog, and this means Luke wanted to lead the family to the body as he wanted to witness their distress and reaction to his 'work'. truly evil.
a dog found sarah pians body a dog finds bodys that are concealed in the woods thats what dogs do.
a dog finds the body in most murder cases you read about it the papers all the time a man walking his dog found the body
exactly so why didnt it find the body on the way up the very same path? it would have to have walked right by it, why didnt it smell the body at that point? isn't that "what dogs do"? can you explain that?
probably because he relaxed his grip on the lead the rest of the search backed up his story about the dog.
are you saying he could control his dogs sense of smell.
no killer would want the body to found or be anywhere near the body when it was found.
if hes storys not true how come the rest of search party backed it up.
h
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.
im not saying his stories not true about the dog finding the body on the way back down the path
i want to know why it didnt find the body on the way up the path?
it must have walked right past the exact same spot. No one was there other than the dog and luke on the way up, its consistant with the dog smelling the body on the way down, that the dog must have alerted luke to the body on the way up also, so why didnt luke discover it on the way up?
can i ask if anyone else on here believes luke to be guilty
im not doubting the dog 'found' the body, i would expect a dog to smell a dead body/blood. What i want to know is why it didnt smell it passing it on the way up. (im guessing it probably did, why then didnt luke go over the wall then? he probably just tugged at the dog to keep coming... he didnt want to find the body at this time, he wanted to find it with the family to appear innocent)
I also find this rather misleading as it was not Luke in control of the search party,he could not have known that they would have went back down the path he had just came up, I have heard that it was Jodi's gran who suggested they go back the way he came, this idea that he could of and didn't so brilliantly carry out a plan when so many variables were outwith his control amazes me.
the mitchells pick n choose when it suits them, lie detectors arent taken seriously in law. funny when police showed their sky interview to the human lie detector in America that his opinion was completely rubbished, yet an unreliable machine is now gospel.
Hi Janet please excuse my ignorance but I am now becoming interested in this case could you just explain what you meant by your post as I said I know very little about it and cannot decide who thinks what.
Hi Janet I am becoming confused with the freewilly gage and nugnug as I have got to the stage I just don,t know who thinks what about either case think only the two of them are in tune I gather freewillygage thinks luke is guilty and nugnug thinks innocent freewullygage thinks willy gage is innocent and nugnug thinks guilty. That is what I am picking up.
I chose this username as I lurked this forum and was surprised there was no William Gage thread... I am not being nasty just realistic.
There is absolutely no proof Luke is innocent I'm afraid. That's the problem with Mitchell supporters, they don't actually know if he's innocent. Sandra Lean doesn't really know if Luke did it or not. They've just all decided their opinion is fact. No matter how many times you repeat the same things though it won't make it fact, he can't prove he's innocent.
There is enough reasonable doubt to get at least a retrial for Mitchell. No one needs to prove his innocence on forums it is enough to show that there is evidence that he might indeed be innocence. The court is the place to prove innocence.
can I ask why someone claiming to support one alleged moj is attacking another alleged moj ? something is not ringing true here
I dont believe this case to be a MOJ... So in order for me to believe Gage is innocent I too must believe Mitchell is? what kind of logic is that.
you dont have to believe anyone is innocent but if you are promoting a case with the belief someone may be innocent, it does not seem good form to be nasty about someone else claiming innocence.
There is not one case on this forum that anyone can say for 100 per cent that someone is innocent.
The only people to really know if they are innocent or not are the people convicted.
I'm being nasty? show me any post ive made where im doing anything other than stating facts???
and I dont know gage is 100% innocent, its my opinion, nugnug claims hes convinced mitchell is 100% innocent yet he doesnt have to explain why to me.
i wouldnt attack anyone who made posts regarding willies innocence and asked questions about suspicious things in the case.
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.Well all I can say is that your view of the case surprised me for one.
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.
im talking about later that night after hed been out with his mates, he went home and put on a video, surely he would suspect jodi would also be home from wherever she was and this would be the perfect time to call and see what was going on? youre not willing to admit there is nothing strange about that?
judging by his recent letter published in a paper, he and Jodi were inseperable and in love, yet he had no concerns? when i had girlfriends at 14 texts were constant.
what are you talking about
i dont doubt the dog smelled the body, i just presume for it to have done this, it would have had to have smelled it also on the way up the path, why didnt luke and mia discover the body then?
luke wanted to find the body with the search party to appear innocent and perhaps for his own twisted thrills
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.
yes but if uality newspaper like the daily record the news of the world say his guilty i mean you've got to believe them.
Once Said what I meant was is there a list of questions that Mitchell was asked and for the people who doubt the test, what questions would you have liked answered that did not get asked.
Sorry I wasnt very clear
theres no doubt in my mind luke mitchell could beat a lie detector, he's proven to be a cold person, someone who shows no emotion finding a body, shows no emotion in hours of police interrogation, and doesnt even respond emotionally to being found guilty and sent down... why would he feel anything when lying to a machine?
Are you also suggesting that Luke had a motive? If you are, could you share with me what his motive was?[/font]
Are you suggesting that his mother who also passed the test is also cold and shows no emotion?
Are you suggesting every single killer needs a motive?
FWG I was responding to you when you stated "I believe one day it will all come out that Luke really did it. Most other "suspects" have alibi's, no motive whatsover, all behaved as expected at the time".
Now that I have reread what you have written in bold, could you explain what you mean, do you mean other suspects in this case had alibis, no motive whatsever, all behaved as expected etc
Funny how mummy went first eh? almost as if she was guinea pigging before Luke was confident enough to follow suit.
Please explain why, in any circumstance, his mother would feel the need to pass one before the person in question, Luke?
Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds? ::)
the thing about Mitchells supporters is, they have absolutely no clue weather or not he's guilty or innocent, there is no proof hes innocent, there is every possibility and chance he could have done it, yet they put so much faith into it to the point they will disrespect Jodi and every member of her family with their accusations. They are a very sad little bunch indeed, thankfully there's only about 10 of them. The only miscarriage of justice on that site is that Billy Middleton got a "not proven" verdict at his trial.
If you think the correct person is in prison for the murder of Jodi Jones, why dont you leave his supporters to continue getting the facts out to a wider audience via the internet, instead of coming on to forums like this with the sole intention to mislead and disrupt.
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )
a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.
Funny how mummy went first eh? almost as if she was guinea pigging before Luke was confident enough to follow suit.
Please explain why, in any circumstance, his mother would feel the need to pass one before the person in question, Luke?
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )
a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.
From the initial time of being asked, and doing it, Luke was not aware of what was going on. It was done and dusted in a few days and he was informed on the day the test was completed, by his mother.
why would i have to "get my foot in the door" of a forum? please go outside.
I could have joined here as any name and said the exact same things, I could have made up something random, like you have...
Im failing to see your problem with me choosing a supportive username for a certain individual.
You have no idea how I know Willie Gage.
Too little too late..
btw..
woops, blatant lie there =/
Are you suggesting every single killer needs a motive?
If someone is going to kill someone else they do so for a reason. Surely that is motive
If someone is going to kill someone else they do so for a reason. Surely that is motive
if that counts as a motive, then Luke had one.
well you would think that any sane person would need a motive to kill someone and luke was pronounced to be sane.
Too little too late..
btw..
woops, blatant lie there =/
What is a blatant lie? Why would I lie about anything? If you mean the number of days since being asked and taking the test, I thought it was 3 days but I will be able to double check that information tomorrow, unless another poster can confirm the timescale before then. If you are saying it is a lie, then can you tell me how many days it was then to correct my error?
I find it really odd that you would say that my information was a blatant lie, so you are either deliberately trying to goad me, or someone else has been filling your head with nonsense and you have soaked it in like a sponge.
Hi, Susan, the argument about "training" to pass the polygraph is one which has been floated several times by people who doubt the reliability of the test.A very good point Sandra. The one backs up the other so to speak.
These are the same people who use previous cases in which the perpetrator has passed a test when they actually committed the crime to negate the modern polygraph.
However, the points about Luke and Corinne both passing independently, with completely different questions, of which they had no knowledge prior to the test, are that (a) the likelihood of both passing in these circumstnaces, had they been dishonest, is virtually non-existent and (b), as nugnug says, they would have to have been totally crazy to take the tests, in these circumstnaces, had they been lying.
Hi Sandra L to be totally honest with you I am not well up on the case or polygraph testings I have read it is difficult to cheat the test but who am I to argue any different.
so it would be a completly insane thing to do if you wernt telling the truth.
well if you would have been a nervous wreck telling the truth what you be like if you were lying ten times worse i would imaginepolygraph tests are a fake science. they just dont work and the mitchells were lucky not to have come of even worse because of all this.
i mean even someone who thought they could con the test would have no way of knowing it for a fact.
i certanly think its time this test was suggested to others involved in there case if only just to see what there reaction is.
so why do the authority use them then if there fake science.what authority?
luck had nothing to do with it nobody can be that lucky.
lie detectors are used in this country when deciding weather or not to release dangerous back in to the comunity.it is a false science that is why it is never used by the criminal justice system.
something that you cant afford to get wrong to many times.
now they wouldn't be used for that if they wernt trusted as reasonably reliable.
clearly guiltyOh dear, not another numpty in the camp.
he wis pumpin the maw anaw
maybe his brother shane should take the test as well and the we will know who is really lying.
its called a junk science and the us is getting wise to it.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/05/like-most-junk-science-that-just-wont.html
Hi Grahame we certainly get um don,t we and they can,t even speak English