Jeremy Bamber Forum

OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: Bullseye on January 18, 2019, 12:13:AM

Title: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on January 18, 2019, 12:13:AM
Hi everyone my first post, lots of questions sorry!

It’s been years since I caught up on the case. I use to read the old site til the thread was all removed. Ive always had doubt over the case, but still don’t know if he is guilty or not hoping you guys can help me gets my facts right and clear up a few things that don’t make sense to me. 

Everything seems to be centred round that 45 minute timeframe 1700 - 1745, what evidence is there that was the time of the murder, all I could find from the court records was “Although the pathologists were unable to fix a time of death, the untoward sound heard by Leonard Kelly as he cycled along the Roan's Dyke Path would fit with the attack upon her having taken place behind the wall at that time” surely that’s not all they are going by? Also the way she was treated after she was found how reliable would a time of death be, anyone know?

Was any dna found with full dna profiles other than the sisters bf? And yet to be identified?

Was there a blood stained shirt found in the area that was not tested or examined? Find that hard to believe

Was Luke’s dog training to be a tracker dog?

How long does it take to walk from Jodie’s house to the top of the lane? From the top of the lane to the v? The v to the bottom and the bottom to Luke’s house? I believe it takes around 15mins to walk length of the lane.

Was there proof Luke’s mum got home at 1715.
The call about putting the pie on for tea, what time was that, was it on the house phone or mobile, was there a log of this call?
Luke’s brother could not confirm he saw Luke in the house, but did he confirm he had pie and mash, how long after his mum got home did he come for tea? Was his room on the same level or upstair?

Is it correct he had not showered, hair and hands dirty (if I killed someone first thing I’d do is shower)

A lot of confusion over clothing I found. Witness one, green fishing type hip length jacket, witness 2 green bomber style with orange lining. So why were the police looking for a Parker style jacket and a combat shirt (which I believe Luke said he only purchased after the murder) Did they suggest there was footwear missing too, as lads that age don’t usually have a load of shoes, generally they wear the same pair most days, were any missing? What did the 2 lads that knew Luke and seen him sitting on the wall say he was wearing?

JF and GD on path at 1700 to 1720, around same time as LK, motor bike parked at v did not see or hear anything or anyone. (Who was the witness that said they saw the bike parked at v with nobody else around?) LK heard noise behind wall but saw nobody, and did not see or hear any bike, is that correct?

What time did Luke leave to meet other friends and what time did they meet at. How long would that journey take

I’m hoping the answer to some of these might help me make a bit more sense of the case, or maybe give me more questions lol
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on January 23, 2019, 12:08:PM
are good to see you agian bullseye there did used to be a timline of the events

from memory i belive lukes met up with his mates at 7pm,

theres 4 difrent times fr when jodi left her house.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on January 24, 2019, 08:55:PM
Hey nugnug, it’s been a few years, hope you are well.

I’m just reading through all the info on here, refreshing my memory. On page 200 so getting there. Finding a few answers to some questions I’ve had over the years. But I’m sure I will have more lol
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on January 29, 2019, 07:14:PM
Hi, Bullseye, I'm stuck on a train at the moment, so I have some time to answer your questions!

Quote
Everything seems to be centred round that 45 minute timeframe 1700 - 1745, what evidence is there that was the time of the murder, all I could find from the court records was “Although the pathologists were unable to fix a time of death, the untoward sound heard by Leonard Kelly as he cycled along the Roan's Dyke Path would fit with the attack upon her having taken place behind the wall at that time” surely that’s not all they are going by? Also the way she was treated after she was found how reliable would a time of death be, anyone know?

There was no evidence whatsoever that this was to time of death. No medical, pathologist or forensic evidence and no eyewitness (or even deduction from eyewitness accounts) because the time of leaving was never confirmed. If, as earlier statements suggested, Jodi left at 5.05 or 5.30 ToD could not have been 5.15


Quote
Was any dna found with full dna profiles other than the sisters bf? And yet to be identified?

Yes, there were five male DNA profiles unaccounted for. One of this was eventually identified as Falconer (condom man), the others remain unidentified. Other, partial profiles on the clothing also remain unidentified but cannot be Luke's.

Quote
Was there a blood stained shirt found in the area that was not tested or examined? Find that hard to believe
There was a hoodie and jogging bottoms that were never tested (no  indication that they were bloodstained. A shirt found on the wall was bloodstained -from memory, there were no positive results from testing, but again, partial results indicated nothing of Luke's DNA - i' d need to go back and fact check this, since I don't remember the exact circumstances

Quote
Was Luke’s dog training to be a tracker dog?
yes

Quote
how long does it take to walk from Jodie’s house to the top of the lane? From the top of the lane to the v? The v to the bottom and the bottom to Luke’s house? I believe it takes around 15mins to walk length of the lane.
There's the entrance lane then the path. Jodi's house to entrance lane, 2 mins 40:seconds, entrance lane to top of path, 2 - 3 mins, top of path to V, 7 -8 mins, v to bottom, approx 4 mins, bottom to Luke's house 7mins.

Quote
Was there proof Luke’s mum got home at 1715. [/]quote]
Other than Luke and Shane,s accounts, CCTV showed Corinne leaving work just after 5pm and in a shop 5 mins from Her home at we ar around 5.08, but nothing else to say she went straight home from there.

[qute]The call about putting the pie on for tea, what time was that, was it on the house phone or mobile, was there a log of this call?

From memory, 4.23pm, house phone to work landline, yes, it's in the phone records.

Quote
Luke’s brother could not confirm he saw Luke in the house, but did he confirm he had pie and mash, how long after his mum got home did he come for tea? Was his room on the same level or upstair?

He did  confirm he saw Luke, but the police would not accept it because he couldn't remember in his first statement. He confirmed what he ate and said it was just after his mother arrived home around 5.15pm. He was upstairs until he was called down for tea, came down and collected his dinner, poke to like and his mum, the took his meal up to his room to est. The police said Corinne put him up to saying all of that.

[qute{s it correct he had not showered, hair and hands dirty (if I killed someone first thing I’d do is shower) [/quote] Yes, that is correct. The dirt on his ankles and neck were described as having the appearance of having been there for some time.

Quote
lot of confusion over clothing I found. Witness one, green fishing type hip length jacket, witness 2 green bomber style with orange lining. So why were the police looking for a Parker style jacket and a combat shirt (which I believe Luke said he only purchased after the murder) Did they suggest there was footwear missing too, as lads that age don’t usually have a load of shoes, generally they wear the same pair most days, were any missing? What did the 2 lads that knew Luke and seen him sitting on the wall say he was wearing?

Only one witness mentioned a parka jacket (the witnesses who may have seen someone else entirely but assumed it was Luke) - she said it "could have been s parka" but "only because of the length. Initially, she described it as " dark" and possibly green". No questions about missing footwear.

Quote
JF and GD on path at 1700 to 1720, around same time as LK, motor bike parked at v did not see or hear anything or anyone. (Who was the witness that said they saw the bike parked at v with nobody else around?) LK heard noise behind wall but saw nobody, and did not see or hear any bike, is that correct?
Quote

I can't name the person who saw the bike, but her other confirmed movements and evidence make it an extremely credible and reliable account. JF and GD admitted the bike was there without them at 5.15pm

Quote
What time did Luke leave to meet other friends and what time did they meet at. How long would that journey take

After waiting for Jodi until about quarter to seven, Luke crossed the road into the abbey to wait for his other friends arriving - it would have taken him no more than 2 minutes to get into the abbey grounds -it was right opposite the wall where he was sitting in full view waiting for Jodi at the end of his street.

Quote
I’m hoping the answer to some of these might help me make a bit more sense of the case, or maybe give me more questions lol

All of this and much more is in my latest book 'Innocents Betrayed' - available on Amazon
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on January 29, 2019, 10:49:PM
Thanks for the information Sandra, I will check out the book, still to read the first one too sorry!  :-[ I sent you a PM hope you got it, I’ve no idea how to use these sites lol

So there is nothing other than a guy on a bike that heard a noise behind the wall at 1715 , to say that this is the time of the murder 1700 to 1730? So it really could have been anytime? And there is a credible sighting of the bike at 1715 at the V (sorry I wasn’t asking for a name, I just wondered if someone else on the path to see them) Then it’s very unlikely to have been then, as they would have heard or seen something or scared anyone away I’d have thought? So it would need to be after that. Timing just doesn’t fit for me to think it’s Luke. Then he is just sitting meters away from her body minutes after he has meant to have killed her for an hour, she could have been found at anytime, he would have no idea if there was any blood dna etc on him.

Turnbull said there where 3 key points that  showed Luke’s guilt.
Shane’s statement
AB sighting
Luke finding body, not the dog

Shane’s statement - someone has to have made the tea, just because he could not confirm he seen Luke does not mean Luke was not home. His mum confirmed Luke was home, only she and Luke know the truth on this but to give an alibi for such a horrendous crime, and continue to stick by this and show full support make me tend to believe her. Only thing that I don’t understand is why Shane has never spoken out to clarify this over all these years and also show his support. I know I would.

AB sighting - In my opinion the clothing does not match Jodi so i would not have taken that as a positive sighting, also she did not confirm Luke being the boy she saw.

Luke or the dog find the body - Only Luke and the family know the truth to this one. But I’ve never understood this really. Why the family statements all changed. First they all confirmed in more than one statement over a few weeks that the dog alerted them to the wall, there was no question to that. Then the statement changed, why, I’m not sure how that can be mistaken as they said they saw the dog jump at wall originally. But why would they change this, did they remember later they didn’t actually see the dog alert, they had just taken Luke’s word for it? It makes me uncomfortable to think how much of an affect this had to the trial, it wasn’t just a bit of evidence, it was a key point, one of the 3 key points Turnbull raised with the lack of any dna, etc. As I said only Luke and the family know if the original statement was correct or mistaken. if the dog was a trained tracker I would tend to believe the original statement that the dog alerted them to the wall. But just my opinion guys!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on January 30, 2019, 08:34:PM
i never i  understaood why the family wre looking for a tennager who was late hom in the woods i mean why would a teenage girl of been hanging around in the woods in the dark and why the hell wold you think they were.

and why did they not phone any of jodis friends how did they know jodi wasnt around a friends house..
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on January 31, 2019, 01:09:PM
I thought they were just following the route they thought Jodi might have taken after she left home for Lukes. Just so happens the first place they looked the dog found her. I didn’t think there was anything strange by that but I didn’t realise no other calls were made to friends. That would be the first thing to do, or was Jodie mum maybe doing this when the search party left?

I remember reading that Jodi had gone missing a few days or weeks before, she was at her friends til early hours of the morning. What action did the family take that time?
I assume this was a weekend she was missing before? the night Jodi was killed was a school night so can understand them being extremely worried and setting out looking for her, but There should still be lots of calls made to friends also, checking if she was there, maybe even before a call to the police?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on January 31, 2019, 02:19:PM
I thought they were just following the route they thought Jodi might have taken after she left home for Lukes. Just so happens the first place they looked the dog found her. I didn’t think there was anything strange by that but I didn’t realise no other calls were made to friends. That would be the first thing to do, or was Jodie mum maybe doing this when the search party left?

I remember reading that Jodi had gone missing a few days or weeks before, she was at her friends til early hours of the morning. What action did the family take that time?
I assume this was a weekend she was missing before? the night Jodi was killed was a school night so can understand them being extremely worried and setting out looking for her, but There should still be lots of calls made to friends also, checking if she was there, maybe even before a call to the police?

well i wouldent you wouldent want to call the police untill you wre abslutly sure she was missing so i think you would want to phone her friends up first.

becouse if she hadent gon to lukes there wsnt really any reason to think she took that route.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on January 31, 2019, 02:39:PM
If it was my kid I’d have called Luke first, sent people out to look and called the rest of her pals only after that would I call the police.

If I was searching I’d start by following the route she would take  to Luke’s, then searching surrounding areas she was known to hang out.

Been wondering about her smoking habits, anyone know if she bought her own hash? Could she roll a joint, was she known to have a smoke by herself?

I know about an 8 bar was picked up that night, was this at Jodi’s home, did she have a smoke with her bro before she went out?did Luke get his weed of jof usually?

Nugnug I sent you a pm too, again not sure if I sent it right, not use to using these sites sorry lol
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on February 01, 2019, 10:01:AM
Just to clear up a couple of points. Jodi's mum told police she was certain Jodi and Luke were going to be "mucking about up here" - Mayfield and Easthouses. There was no suggestion at all that Jodi was going to Newbattle (where Luke lived). When she called Luke asking for Jodi, she didn't ask where they were supposed to be meeting up - Luke told her he hadn't seen Jodi all night and she hung up. That's confirmed by both Luke and Judith's statements. So the family search trio (already in Mayfield) would have had no reason to believe Jodi might have gone to Newbattle. They didn't check anywhere on the way to the path, including places Jodi often spent time in Mayfield (Scotts Caravans, Luke's mum's business premises) or Yvonne Walker's flat, just yards from Alice Walker's home. They weren't even looking for her or calling out for her on the shortcut from Mayfield via the Complex) which was also surrounded by trees. They only switched on their torches and started calling out Jodi's name when they reached the entrance to the path.
It's not so much the going to the path that's strange (although it is, in view of the fact that everyone believed she intended to be in Easthouses or Mayfield that evening), but that they didn't look anywhere else at all for her.
Also, Janine told the court the trio had no intention of continuing down onto the Newbattle road if they didn't find Jodi on the path. (There are lots of places on the Newbattle Road where a young girl could be dragged into the woodland either side) - the path, and only the path - was their only /focus.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on February 01, 2019, 10:18:AM
The 17:15 sighting of the bike at the V. Six independent witnesses saw the boys and the bike driving "erratically" through the yard of their workplace at closing time - i.e. 5pm. Two of them saw the boys pushing the bike up the Newbattle Road after it cut out and turning into the Newbattle entrance to the path, as did a passing motorist. That places the boys and the bike at the entrance to the path, with a bike that had cut out, at approximately 17.05. Walking normally to the V point from there would have taken 4 - 5 minutes, so it's reasonable to suggest they'd need more time because they were pushing the bike, but the timings strongly suggest they would have been at the V point, with the bike, at around 5.15pm. The best evidence of all is their own statements - the admitted that it was their bike, propped against the wall without them at that time (although they initially lied to the police to have themselves off the path an in GD's house prior to 4.30). The lie was exposed by the evidence of 7 other witnesses who saw them at 5pm on the bike, a call from GD's phone at 4.30 asking JF to pick him up in Dalkeith and GD's appointment at the Jobcentre - all of that proved they were not back in GD's house before 4.30pm nor, more importantly, before 5.15pm.

The AB sighting of the guy at the Easthouses entrance to the path was nothing like Luke - an older guy, late teens to early twenties, thick messy hair sticking up in a clump at the back, fisherman's clothes - matching trousers and jacket with a bulging pocket. He was too far away for her to see his face and she was clear at the beginning that she could not tell investigators what he looked like facially - she couldn't make out a single feature.

The dog's tracker training records were in police hands and they also interviewed the trainer, who said her tracking abilities were "excellent" - he said she was a "natural". He was never asked to give evidence at trial. There would appear to be no doubt, from the records and the interview, that if the dog was in tracker mode, she would have alerted by reaching to the highest point she could find and "air-sniffing" in the direction of the thing she was alerting to.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on February 03, 2019, 02:46:PM
Just to clear up a couple of points. Jodi's mum told police she was certain Jodi and Luke were going to be "mucking about up here" - Mayfield and Easthouses. There was no suggestion at all that Jodi was going to Newbattle (where Luke lived). When she called Luke asking for Jodi, she didn't ask where they were supposed to be meeting up - Luke told her he hadn't seen Jodi all night and she hung up. That's confirmed by both Luke and Judith's statements. So the family search trio (already in Mayfield) would have had no reason to believe Jodi might have gone to Newbattle. They didn't check anywhere on the way to the path, including places Jodi often spent time in Mayfield (Scotts Caravans, Luke's mum's business premises) or Yvonne Walker's flat, just yards from Alice Walker's home. They weren't even looking for her or calling out for her on the shortcut from Mayfield via the Complex) which was also surrounded by trees. They only switched on their torches and started calling out Jodi's name when they reached the entrance to the path.
It's not so much the going to the path that's strange (although it is, in view of the fact that everyone believed she intended to be in Easthouses or Mayfield that evening), but that they didn't look anywhere else at all for her.
Also, Janine told the court the trio had no intention of continuing down onto the Newbattle road if they didn't find Jodi on the path. (There are lots of places on the Newbattle Road where a young girl could be dragged into the woodland either side) - the path, and only the path - was their only /focus.

but why would be certan  that they wre both jodi had lied to her about her whereabouts before.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on February 12, 2019, 01:20:PM
Thanks a lot Sandra, you book answered most of my questions and opened my eyes up to so much more on Scottish law that I thought I knew, turns out I had no idea of my rights!!

Couple of  Question arised from the book

Bit confusing on the 9 bar, was it the brother or the cousin that owned this, was the brother a dealer also, don’t see how he could afford to buy it unless he was selling most of it. Did the police find this when they searched jj house, I assume this search was done! The knife used to cut the 9 bar, was it found, it would more than likely have been heated up very hot in order to cut through the cannabis, that’s was how bars were usually cut up.

Luke got his weed of the cousin, was he due to get some of the 9 bar that day/night. Did he have anything on him when he was taken by police that night, how much did he usually buy from the cousin if he was meant to be some big time dealer I assume quite a bit??

Only place I can see jj having a smoke is in the house with her bro before she left or with yw which sounds plausible, do webknow much about yw statements or movements that night?

The 2 other occasions jj was late, was this at the weekend or a school night also?

1118 call, was  there was no mention of being with Luke? Does that mean he took over 20 mins to walk the path?

Is there dna evidence still available to retest or have they all now been destroyed? Can this be done independently or is there red tape making this difficult? I think some answers are there!

You said a few times in the book there may be tests statements, phone call logs, etc that were carried out but not given to the defence, I always assumed the defence were entitled to all information obtained not selected evidence, can you clarify this?







Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on February 13, 2019, 07:22:PM
Quote
Bit confusing on the 9 bar, was it the brother or the cousin that owned this, was the brother a dealer also, don’t see how he could afford to buy it unless he was selling most of it.

The brother owned it, according to statements attributed to him. I've no idea if he was a dealer - the case files are silent about that.

Quote
Did the police find this when they searched jj house, I assume this search was done!

No and No.

Quote
The knife used to cut the 9 bar, was it found, it would more than likely have been heated up very hot in order to cut through the cannabis, that’s was how bars were usually cut up.

No. To my knowledge, no attempt was ever made to recover either the bar or the knife used to cut it. You have to remember, the police didn't even become aware of all this until nearly 2 weeks into the investigation.

Quote
Luke got his weed of the cousin, was he due to get some of the 9 bar that day/night. Did he have anything on him when he was taken by police that night, how much did he usually buy from the cousin if he was meant to be some big time dealer I assume quite a bit??

No, there was no plan for Luke to get any from the cousin that night/day - he had no plan to be in Easthouses/Mayfield at all. He had nothing on him when the police took him to the station after Jodi was found. Prior to the murder, he bought £10 - £20 worth at a time. There was reference in the case files to one occasion where more than that was supposed to be bought - around £100 - because a group of friends had "clubbed together." However, it's interesting that that story didn't come from Luke or any of his friends, but from someone who was connected with supplying cannabis to the wider group. There was never anything to support it.

Quote
Only place I can see jj having a smoke is in the house with her bro before she left or with yw which sounds plausible, do webknow much about yw statements or movements that night?

Smoking at home was outright denied by the family members. Jodi never smoked at home, with anyone or by herself, according to all of their statements. There is nothing to account for YW's movements that evening. Her statements in that regard (if they exist) were not released to the defence.

Quote
The 2 other occasions jj was late, was this at the weekend or a school night also?
Weekend, both of them.

Quote
1118 call, was  there was no mention of being with Luke? Does that mean he took over 20 mins to walk the path?

I know the timings section of the book is very confusing, but the 11.18 call is disputed, both in where the search trio was when it was answered and what was said in the call. In short, the walk from the junction of the paths to the V point at a "brisk pace" in daylight was timed at 7 minutes. Allowing a couple of minutes extra for the discussion when the trio met with Luke at the junction of the path (no more than 2 minutes, according to the statements) and another couple of minutes for the slower walk in the darkness (all of the statements referred to the slow pace), the return journey down the path required at least 11 minutes. If the trio were in the "complex" at 11.18, they would not have reached the junction of the paths until 11.23 - add the 11 minutes required to get to the V point and the time is 11.34 - almost the exact time Luke called 999 the first time. But there's no time for the three members of the search party climbing over the wall, one at a time, finding Jodi, getting back to the V point and climbing back over etc. Even allowing 2 minutes each (and all of the searchers spoke of the struggle AW had getting over the wall, so it's likely to be more than that), the first 999 call would have to be around 11.40pm, based on these timings (which are, in turn, based on the search trio's own statements). That's after the police call back to Luke. There's a lot to take in about this aspect of the case - might be better as a stand alone question!

Quote
Is there dna evidence still available to retest or have they all now been destroyed? Can this be done independently or is there red tape making this difficult? I think some answers are there!

Sorry, I can't answer that question because of the ongoing case review.

Quote
You said a few times in the book there may be tests statements, phone call logs, etc that were carried out but not given to the defence, I always assumed the defence were entitled to all information obtained not selected evidence, can you clarify this?

Sadly, that's a mistake many people make. The defence is entitled only to what the "Disclosure Officer" (working for the police) deems worthy of disclosing to the defence. Officially, that is information that might undermine the Crown case or assist the defence case. In reality, those re the very things least likely to be disclosed. Everything else that the prosecution is not relying on goes onto an "unused evidence" schedule. The defence can request items from this schedule, but they must (a) know what it is they're asking for and why it's relevant and (b) give "good reason" for requesting it - once again, if the disclosure officer doesn't agree that it's "good reason," s/he can refuse to release it.

Two examples from other cases:

(1) An item on the unused schedule was labelled "fibres" found on the palm of the victim's hand. Years later,  it was discovered there were actually human hairs, clutched in the victim's hand, almost certainly from the killer.

(2) The defence requested phone log records of other potential suspects, because the phone records of the accused were being relied on by the prosecution. The request was refused because the disclosure officer deemed it irrelevant to the defence case. The accused was convicted.



Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on February 17, 2019, 03:39:PM
i read a very intresting interview with gorden dicky ill try and find it agian.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on February 20, 2019, 01:44:PM
That’s unbelievable her house was not searched, surly that should have been done the same night, or ASAP after she was found. Not for evidence as such but for any clues to her movements that night. Also the defence documents, I really am shocked, you just take it for granted the defence get given everything police had in order to decide what is relevant or not. The more and more Iearn about this case and Scottish law worries me so much.

I’ve been smoking cannabis since I was 14, over 25 years I have never in all my life heard of someone buying a 9bar for personal use, not unless they had plenty money and even then! Also how anyone can say Luke was a dealer when he spent 10 to 20 at time, unless he dealt by the joint lol. Big time dealer my a$$.

It’s this joint she had in her system that’s bothering me. If she did not have it on way home, or in her house she must have had it after she left and before she was killed, how long does it take to get into your system as this is only around 45mins to an hours before she died, at the longest. Meaning she had it somewhere first before walking the path, or had it with someone at the v. If it was Luke then that’s even more time taken before he kills her, his time frame for the actual assault and murder keeps getting dwindled down to less and less. This must be one of the most brutal sustained attacked at record speed! Also if they were there having a smoke and the cousin and friend were At the v at the time they might have smelled something.
I can only assume a statement was taken from YW as she was so close to family, if there was one taken and not given to the defence do you know if this (and other info obtained during investigation that was not used) still exists or has it all now been destroyed never to be seen again?
I wish you all the best on the ongoing review, really hope the DNA is there to be retested, I honestly think this holds the key, either Luke dna is there after all or someone else. The people’s dna found on Jodi that were eliminated from the enquiry is a joke. Not sure how they were eliminated so quick, should have been treated as a suspect the exact same way Luke was, house searched etc. Makes you wonder if they had been given SK name rather than Luke as being the only one on scene with the body, would he now be locked up trying to prove his innocence? But I suppose there was no need to check out anyone else no matter what evidence cropped us as the police stated many times they have their man the just have to prove it, and here I thought police investigations worked the other way, we have the evidence now to find our guy?? Hey ho. I know nothing it seems.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on February 21, 2019, 08:43:AM
SIO Dobbie confirmed in court that no other house was searched under warrant during the entire investigation (other than Luke's mum's and dad's house). He then went on to say that police could only search people's houses if those people would "let them."

According to Judith's statements, she was simply asked for items from the house, which she handed over to investigators. There was, eventually, a "search" of Jodi's room, but it was several weeks into the investigation and appeared to have no specific purpose or goal - they took pictures of the room and logged them as "evidence," although it's not clear what they're supposed to be evidence of, other than that Jodi had a bedroom.

I've been trying to get the word out for years that what the defence gets is extremely limited - so many people have argued "He had the best defence lawyer in Scotland" and "the jury heard all  of the evidence" - Innocents Betrayed is 140,000 words of proof that the defence was fighting with one hand behind its back and the jury heard only a fraction of the available evidence.

Smoked cannabis is detectable in the bloodstream very quickly  - less than 20 minutes - but it also breaks down quickly - within a couple of hours, so there is really only a very small timescale for Jodi to have smoked the joint.

We know there was a statement taken from YW, because she told police that Ferris intended to go to the police on July 1st and tell them he was on the path ... but something changed his mind. However, the statement wasn't in the defence and we have no idea whether or not it covered YW's movements on the day/evening. There is also a claim that YW corroborated Ferris's claim that he arrived at her flat at 10pm, but again, I haven't seen the actual statement.

The point you make about SK could, in fact, apply to many of the others connected to the case - the police could have chosen any one of them and built a case against them (in some instances, and even stronger case than they built against Luke). That's not to say any of them were involved - just that the police have the ability to construct cases that way and it's only pure luck on behalf of the others that they, rather than Luke, are not rotting in a prison cell today. Once someone's been targeted, any evidence pointing away from them is ignored, discounted or given a plausible explanation (like the ludicrous DNA transfer theories for SK's DNA).

There are still avenues of investigation that can be pursued, the big question is, will the authorities be willing to release samples for testing, or will they say everything's been lost, destroyed, or degraded to the point of uselessness? Even as they announce the launch of 30 year old "cold case reviews" for unsolved crimes. Do they really think we're all that stupid?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on February 21, 2019, 07:11:PM
SIO Dobbie confirmed in court that no other house was searched under warrant during the entire investigation (other than Luke's mum's and dad's house). He then went on to say that police could only search people's houses if those people would "let them."

According to Judith's statements, she was simply asked for items from the house, which she handed over to investigators. There was, eventually, a "search" of Jodi's room, but it was several weeks into the investigation and appeared to have no specific purpose or goal - they took pictures of the room and logged them as "evidence," although it's not clear what they're supposed to be evidence of, other than that Jodi had a bedroom.

I've been trying to get the word out for years that what the defence gets is extremely limited - so many people have argued "He had the best defence lawyer in Scotland" and "the jury heard all  of the evidence" - Innocents Betrayed is 140,000 words of proof that the defence was fighting with one hand behind its back and the jury heard only a fraction of the available evidence.

Smoked cannabis is detectable in the bloodstream very quickly  - less than 20 minutes - but it also breaks down quickly - within a couple of hours, so there is really only a very small timescale for Jodi to have smoked the joint.

We know there was a statement taken from YW, because she told police that Ferris intended to go to the police on July 1st and tell them he was on the path ... but something changed his mind. However, the statement wasn't in the defence and we have no idea whether or not it covered YW's movements on the day/evening. There is also a claim that YW corroborated Ferris's claim that he arrived at her flat at 10pm, but again, I haven't seen the actual statement.

The point you make about SK could, in fact, apply to many of the others connected to the case - the police could have chosen any one of them and built a case against them (in some instances, and even stronger case than they built against Luke). That's not to say any of them were involved - just that the police have the ability to construct cases that way and it's only pure luck on behalf of the others that they, rather than Luke, are not rotting in a prison cell today. Once someone's been targeted, any evidence pointing away from them is ignored, discounted or given a plausible explanation (like the ludicrous DNA transfer theories for SK's DNA).

There are still avenues of investigation that can be pursued, the big question is, will the authorities be willing to release samples for testing, or will they say everything's been lost, destroyed, or degraded to the point of uselessness? Even as they announce the launch of 30 year old "cold case reviews" for unsolved crimes. Do they really think we're all that stupid?

I wonder wht thy would of found hd othr huses been searched probely the murder weapon
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on February 22, 2019, 09:53:AM
I don't know, nugnug. I'd have thought, with Ferris and Dickie at the murder scene at the claimed time of the murder, lying about the time to all and sundry before the claimed time of the murder was decided, taking almost a week to come forward and then claiming not to know what they were doing or where they were when their bike was seem propped at the wall without them would have warranted a bit of a closer look.

But, of course, it was 5 - 6 days before the police even got to them (thanks, in part, to the claimed helpful family advice not to go to the police earlier), so would there have been anything to find that might have shed light on where they were and whether they were telling the truth about seeing and hearing nothing?

The failure to search Jodi's house is baffling. How did anyone know she wasn't, perhaps, in contact with someone on the internet and had made plans to meet them? Her mother spoke about the family's use of chat rooms. There might have been crucial evidence in her schoolbag or bedroom that may have provided clues to people who wouldn't otherwise have come to the attention of the investigation - the point is, they didn't know and, because they didn't check, now we never will.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on February 22, 2019, 01:28:PM
I don't know, nugnug. I'd have thought, with Ferris and Dickie at the murder scene at the claimed time of the murder, lying about the time to all and sundry before the claimed time of the murder was decided, taking almost a week to come forward and then claiming not to know what they were doing or where they were when their bike was seem propped at the wall without them would have warranted a bit of a closer look.

But, of course, it was 5 - 6 days before the police even got to them (thanks, in part, to the claimed helpful family advice not to go to the police earlier), so would there have been anything to find that might have shed light on where they were and whether they were telling the truth about seeing and hearing nothing?

The failure to search Jodi's house is baffling. How did anyone know she wasn't, perhaps, in contact with someone on the internet and had made plans to meet them? Her mother spoke about the family's use of chat rooms. There might have been crucial evidence in her schoolbag or bedroom that may have provided clues to people who wouldn't otherwise have come to the attention of the investigation - the point is, they didn't know and, because they didn't check, now we never will.

its not just there alure to come forward but also when a description was given of the 2 lads on the bike ther must f been a fair few people who knew exactly who they were and thy didentcome forward ethere or encourage dickie and rris to come forward.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on February 22, 2019, 05:55:PM
According to the statements, there were at least 5 family members (other than Ferris and Dickie themselves) who knew, from early on July 1st (fully 4 days before the police appeal for the boys on the moped) that they were on the path. Given all the stories being carried back and forth amongst family members and friends between July 1st and July 4th, it would be surprising if others didn't know during that period.

Two school kids (teenagers) who spoke to Ferris as he made his way down Lady Path between 4.20pm - 4.25pm didn't come forward until after Ferris named them in his statements of July 6th onwards. There were, in my opinion, many people close to the investigation who knew who the boys on the moped were and who knew they were on the path late on the afternoon of June 30th and all of them said nothing. The question is, why?

Why was Ferris never questioned further about his claim that his Gran told him, on July 1st, not to go to the police? Why were AW and the other adult male said to be present when this advice was given, not questioned about it? Why did it never come up in court? Why did police accept Ferris's word that YW was lying about him saying he intended to go to the police on July 1st? It was at least possible he did tell YW that (since he was with her when they heard the news about Jodi) and changed his mind after the claimed conversation with his Gran?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on February 22, 2019, 06:09:PM
According to the statements, there were at least 5 family members (other than Ferris and Dickie themselves) who knew, from early on July 1st (fully 4 days before the police appeal for the boys on the moped) that they were on the path. Given all the stories being carried back and forth amongst family members and friends between July 1st and July 4th, it would be surprising if others didn't know during that period.

Two school kids (teenagers) who spoke to Ferris as he made his way down Lady Path between 4.20pm - 4.25pm didn't come forward until after Ferris named them in his statements of July 6th onwards. There were, in my opinion, many people close to the investigation who knew who the boys on the moped were and who knew they were on the path late on the afternoon of June 30th and all of them said nothing. The question is, why?

Why was Ferris never questioned further about his claim that his Gran told him, on July 1st, not to go to the police? Why were AW and the other adult male said to be present when this advice was given, not questioned about it? Why did it never come up in court? Why did police accept Ferris's word that YW was lying about him saying he intended to go to the police on July 1st? It was at least possible he did tell YW that (since he was with her when they heard the news about Jodi) and changed his mind after the claimed conversation with his Gran?

well daid dicki must of known it was them he said nothing and as jodis mum had cliamed ferris was at her house im ver suprised that she did not recognise his description.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on February 22, 2019, 06:30:PM
In fairness to Jodi's mum, the description wasn't issued until late afternoon on July 4th and again on the morning of July 5th. Dickie contacted the police on the afternoon of July 5th, so there wasn't really time for Judith to do anything.

David Dickie, however, not only knew his son was on the path, but he, himself was on the path later that evening and failed to come forward about his own presence there - as I understand it, his presence only became known after his son spoke to the police on July 5th.

So, descriptions aside, he knew Ferris and Dickie were on the path for 5 days and he knew, for the same time period that he was on the path that night, and failed to say anything.

The stories surrounding DD's presence on the path are mind blowing. He might have been home when Ferris and GD got back to the house, but he might have been walking the dogs (which meant he was in the woodland strip directly after the murder). But, according to other statements, he might have walked the dogs later in the evening - maybe 6 o'clock, maybe around 8 - 8.30pm. He did, definitely, walk the dogs, in the woodland strip on the afternoon/evening of June 30th, sometime after 5.15pm. He did, definitely, go through the V break in the wall with 8 dogs, it's just that nobody can remember exactly what time that happened, other than it was after 5.15pm.

A couple of other interesting connections. If he walked the dogs at 8.30pm, it's a tad surprising he didn't stumble across one James Falconer having his solo intimate moment, or on his way to do so, or on his way back, since JF claims to have been in the woodland strip, doing his thing, around 8.30 - 9pm.

If it was just after 5.15pm, it's surprising DD didn't stumble across the kids playing in the woodland strip, heard shouting and laughing with each other, between 5.10pm and 5.25pm. Or the dog walkers who reached the junction of the paths at around 5.15pm, who changed their minds about walking their dogs in the woodland strip and turned around and headed for home.

It was a busy area that evening, no doubt about it.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on February 25, 2019, 09:46:PM
In fairness to Jodi's mum, the description wasn't issued until late afternoon on July 4th and again on the morning of July 5th. Dickie contacted the police on the afternoon of July 5th, so there wasn't really time for Judith to do anything.

David Dickie, however, not only knew his son was on the path, but he, himself was on the path later that evening and failed to come forward about his own presence there - as I understand it, his presence only became known after his son spoke to the police on July 5th.

So, descriptions aside, he knew Ferris and Dickie were on the path for 5 days and he knew, for the same time period that he was on the path that night, and failed to say anything.

The stories surrounding DD's presence on the path are mind blowing. He might have been home when Ferris and GD got back to the house, but he might have been walking the dogs (which meant he was in the woodland strip directly after the murder). But, according to other statements, he might have walked the dogs later in the evening - maybe 6 o'clock, maybe around 8 - 8.30pm. He did, definitely, walk the dogs, in the woodland strip on the afternoon/evening of June 30th, sometime after 5.15pm. He did, definitely, go through the V break in the wall with 8 dogs, it's just that nobody can remember exactly what time that happened, other than it was after 5.15pm.

A couple of other interesting connections. If he walked the dogs at 8.30pm, it's a tad surprising he didn't stumble across one James Falconer having his solo intimate moment, or on his way to do so, or on his way back, since JF claims to have been in the woodland strip, doing his thing, around 8.30 - 9pm.

If it was just after 5.15pm, it's surprising DD didn't stumble across the kids playing in the woodland strip, heard shouting and laughing with each other, between 5.10pm and 5.25pm. Or the dog walkers who reached the junction of the paths at around 5.15pm, who changed their minds about walking their dogs in the woodland strip and turned around and headed for home.

It was a busy area that evening, no doubt about it.

well acording to jodis mum fesrris was at her house he was aprently in  places at once.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on February 26, 2019, 08:24:AM
Again, it's unbelievable that this wasn't checked out properly. Here's a guy who was very close to the crime scene at the exact claimed time of the attack, who failed to come forward, changed his appearance immediately afterwards and lied about the time he was at the V point and on the path.

Not only was none of that considered remotely worth a second glance, but his whereabouts in the lead up to the point where he and Dickie were seen on the moped is also unconfirmed to this day.

It's interesting, though, that he wasn't needed to provide an alibi for Dickie earlier in the afternoon- there were others who could do that. But he was needed to support an alibi for JoJ, since Judith's accounts were contradictory. But, if he left Judith's house at lunchtime (by 1.30pm at the latest), which is what Ferris and JoJ said (other witnesses said he was in Dickie's house well before 3pm), he wasn't in Judith's house all afternoon, and definitely not when the cancellation call to the doctor was made. But, according to Judith, the main reason for the cancellation call was that JoJ wanted to continue smoking cannabis in his room with Ferris, who was still in her house when she made the 3.25pm phone cancellation.

It's clearly a myth that those closest to the victim come under the greatest scrutiny - in this case, their accounts were pretty much accepted at face value.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on February 26, 2019, 04:02:PM
Again, it's unbelievable that this wasn't checked out properly. Here's a guy who was very close to the crime scene at the exact claimed time of the attack, who failed to come forward, changed his appearance immediately afterwards and lied about the time he was at the V point and on the path.

Not only was none of that considered remotely worth a second glance, but his whereabouts in the lead up to the point where he and Dickie were seen on the moped is also unconfirmed to this day.

It's interesting, though, that he wasn't needed to provide an alibi for Dickie earlier in the afternoon- there were others who could do that. But he was needed to support an alibi for JoJ, since Judith's accounts were contradictory. But, if he left Judith's house at lunchtime (by 1.30pm at the latest), which is what Ferris and JoJ said (other witnesses said he was in Dickie's house well before 3pm), he wasn't in Judith's house all afternoon, and definitely not when the cancellation call to the doctor was made. But, according to Judith, the main reason for the cancellation call was that JoJ wanted to continue smoking cannabis in his room with Ferris, who was still in her house when she made the 3.25pm phone cancellation.

It's clearly a myth that those closest to the victim come under the greatest scrutiny - in this case, their accounts were pretty much accepted at face value.

what ive allways wondered is weather th whole thing was a lie weather he actully was with jodis brother  as jodis mother cliamed and for some reason him and dickie to protect somebody else.


when you think about it it would be rather daft for judi jones to cliam he was at her house when she knew full well there was ee witness evdence that put him somwhere else.

that leads me to think he must of been at her house and somone else was on the bike.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on March 01, 2019, 06:19:PM
Sandra the boys  ferrissmentioned would we have hard of them before.

in any other capacity.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on March 02, 2019, 10:13:AM
It wasn't until several days into the investigation that the story about Ferris and Joseph being at Judith's house appeared, so there was time for everyone to check with each other what they thought they were doing that day.

One bit that I've never been able to make sense of is an account by Alice Walker. According to her, Janine and Kelly Alice went out for a walk around 10 o'clock (Janine called her on her mobile to ask if it was OK to cook some stuff in the fridge for breakfast). Joseph and Ferris didn't want food and left  from Alice's house "about 11 o'clock."

Alice then said she went to Judith's house at "about 12 o'clock", still on her walk, because she needed to use the toilet. She made no mention of Joseph or Ferris being there and Judith never mentioned her mother stopping by. But what made Alice think there would be anybody home? Judith would ordinarily have been working and there was no car in the drive (because Alan Ovens had taken it to work).

So 67 year old Alice took a 2 hour walk that brought her back to Judith's house (half a mile from her own home) and Joseph and Ferris, who set off from the same place (Alice's house) an hour later, for Judith's (a half hour walk) also took 2 hours to get there.

Alice was never asked to reconstruct her walk that morning, or even asked where she went - another statement seemed to imply that she and a friend would take a stroll around the perimeter of the park in the mornings when the weather was nice - that's not a 2 hour walk! I always wondered where this part of the story came from.

Nugnug, I'm not sure what boys Ferris mentioned that you asked about? There was the teenage couple on the path when he left on the moped to pick up Dickie from the jobcentre (boy and girl) - we'd never have heard of them because they were just a young couple walking along Lady Path around 4.30pm and appear to have no other involvement whatsoever. The kids playing in the woodland strip were mentioned by another witness - the kids were traced and questioned, but said they saw and heard nothing (even though they, too, were there at the claimed time of the murder).

Either Ferris or Dickie (I can't remember which one, now) said there was a yellow pushbike against the railings at the top of the path (Easthouse end) - nothing was ever done with that (presumably because it couldn't be connected with Luke)- I can't think of anyone else Ferris mentioned, apart from the male relative in Alice's house who allegedly told him not to go to the police (I know who he is, but he's never been publicly named in relation to the case).
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on March 02, 2019, 01:34:PM
sorry the 2 teenage school kids ferris mentioned in his statement.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on March 27, 2019, 12:14:PM
There were a few reports of Luke with knifes and threatening someone with a knife also. Was this just media reports or did anyone take the stand to confirm this?

The police went to America to get a murderer profile. Was this ever released? Did the defence team get s copy?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on March 29, 2019, 02:28:PM
Those who gave evidence about Luke and knives (e.g Ferris, Dickie, Kelly) had a vested interest in doing so and their evidence wasn't corroborated - for example, Ferris identified a knife as Luke's "because Dickie told him it was Luke's." One girl who claimed Luke threatened her with a knife didn't give evidence, but gave her story to the media. The other's story was dismissed when the other girl who was present the whole time said it didn't happen.

The FBI profile was never released to the defence - it was obtained by an independent journalist, but was so heavily redacted there was no readable information at all. I've always said that, if there was anything implicating Luke in there, they'd have used it.

Nugnug, the two kids never gave evidence and were never named - to my knowledge, they're not linked in any way to anyone who's been discussed in connection to the case.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on March 30, 2019, 11:00:AM
Tomorrow at 5pm, James English's Anything Goes Show will be broadcasting an interview with me about the Luke Mitchell case.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkdiBNdMSiQeT8aD7gXWgvA
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on March 31, 2019, 08:30:PM
The interview is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQ7lnucUMI&fbclid=IwAR104WmMG6paFUGazVwm2BkAeGx7atdhFBZrhePXhEkc8Fl4fOjbBSqbWe8
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 01, 2019, 01:48:PM
thankyou sandra im glad sothing new has happend
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 01, 2019, 08:29:PM
It's getting a lot of interest, Nugnug - might be the right time to set up the new discussion forum?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 01, 2019, 09:11:PM
It's getting a lot of interest, Nugnug - might be the right time to set up the new discussion forum?

yes i wondred that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 02, 2019, 08:26:PM
Sandra can you please provide a source for JF masturbating with the condom in the woods on the night of the murder?

ive never heard him deny it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 03, 2019, 12:55:PM
Also how can you tell the viewers, with a clear conscience, that Falconer would have to step over the body to have a wank 50 yards away from it?

well i suppose it would depend what route he took as it was still daylight i am suprid he couldent see the body.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 03, 2019, 03:28:PM
Sandra can you please provide a source for JF masturbating with the condom in the woods on the night of the murder?

Certainly, Lithium. The condom was found in the early hours of July 1st - within hours of Jodi's body being found. Forensic reports referred to its contents as "fresh" - i.e. there was no evidence of breakdown or degradation of cells. James Falconer, himself, said in his statement that it was the night of the murder that he took a stroll down behind the wall to masturbate because of the lack of privacy at home. It was James Falconer himself who said it was around 8 - 9 pm that night. Can't really argue with the man's own words, can we?

Quote
Also how can you tell the viewers, with a clear conscience, that Falconer would have to step over the body to have a wank 50 yards away from it?

What an interesting question, Lithium. Firstly, I didn't say he'd have had to step over the body to "have a wank" - I said, "If his own account is correct, he'd have to have almost literally stepped over the body on the way down and on the way back up." He said he went down behind the wall, did what he said he did and discarded the condom, which was found 20 yards from the body, not 50 yards. Now, here's the thing - he didn't say what the order of events was and I've never publicly stated where the condom was in proximity to the body. So he could have masturbated before reaching the body, then carried on down the woodland strip, discarding the condom westward of the body, or he could have gone past the body, masturbated and left the condom westward of the body, or he could have masturbated past the body (westward) and discarded the condom on the way back up, or finally, he could have masturbated before the body, discarded the condom then (eastward of the body) but for some reason then continued down the woodland strip before returning the way he came.

There's no point in shooting the messenger on this one - it's in his own statements.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 03, 2019, 04:55:PM
Some ridiculous misinformation doing the rounds now. So job done I guess, Sandra.

well if you blive there is misinformation would you like to correct it with your own version of events.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: marty on April 05, 2019, 10:48:AM
Hi, I was watching the James English podcast and have a question.
It was said that Corrine and Shane were out of the house at the time of the murder. I always thought that Shane was in the house supposedly watching porn as the phone lines had been busy with the old dial up system. I thought that they had just never seen each other.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 05, 2019, 11:30:AM
Luke was at home, alone, making and answering calls prior to the claimed time of the murder. Two points to be made about this - (1) it refutes any suggestion that he didn't go home from school but went to lie in wait for Jodi in the woodland strip (as has been claimed at certain points). (2) In conjunction with the texts with Jodi's mum's phone, it supports the statement that he would not have had enough time to get from his home to the top of the path in time to be the person seen by Andrina Bryson.

His brother called ahead to say he might be late for dinner - in the event, he wasn't late (but did get home later than he would have if he'd come straight home from work). Brother came home, then mum came home. Both said Luke was in the house by the time they both got there (4.50 and 5.15 respectively.

The nonsense about Shane saying he didn't see Luke was brought about by police manipulation of the entire family - even the appeal judges agreed the "evidence," as it was manipulated, would not have been admissible if Shane had been a suspect, but because he was a witness, the same protections didn't apply.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 05, 2019, 11:40:AM
Hi, I was watching the James English podcast and have a question.
It was said that Corrine and Shane were out of the house at the time of the murder. I always thought that Shane was in the house supposedly watching porn as the phone lines had been busy with the old dial up system. I thought that they had just never seen each other.

I was asked if there was anything (other than his mum and brother's testimony) to support Luke's alibi  and I said, "to a degree." The timings of the calls made and received on the landline, when they were both out, support his alibi that he was at home prior to 5.15pm (the police suggested at one point that he hadn't gone home from school at all that day). It also makes the claim that it was Luke who was at the Easthouses end of the path much less credible because of the timing.

The phone line was busy from 4.50 - 5.05 (approx) because when Shane came in from work, he went straight upstairs to use the internet - he didn't see Luke at that point because Luke was in the kitchen. He did see Luke when he came down for his tea at 5.15pm when his mum came in.

The time of the murder was 5.15pm - both Shane and Corinne were home by then (there's never been any question about that) - the phone records demonstrate that Luke must have been at home up to 4.30pm, he would have had no reason to go out to meet Jodi prior to 4.38 (at the end of the exchange of texts, so there wasn't enough time for him to have been the person seen by Andrina Bryson at the Easthouses end of the path.

The busy phone line only came into the story at all because it was claimed Luke called the speaking clock on his mobile at 4.54 and must, therefore have been out of the house. The Andrina Bryson sighting never mentioned any mobile phone, even though it was claimed to have happened at the exact time Luke was calling the speaking clock
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 06, 2019, 10:31:AM
Not to mention Luke was wasting his top-up credit calling a premium rate talking clock phone number from his mobile phone around the time of the murder when he was supposed to be at home.

No evidence, ever, for "time of murder." Plenty of evidence that Luke regularly called the speaking clock from his mobile. 

[/quote]Perfectly normal thing to be sitting in the house doing. Surrounded by clocks, also a landline sitting there since he apparently just had to know the exact time at that moment. [/quote] Landline was busy (internet), kitchen clock was unreliable, microwave clock was never set. Time of death wasn't even suggested until three weeks later after an expert was brought in to identify a window of opportunity for Luke to have been the killer.

Quote
Funny he didn't use this same phone to once attempt to call Jodi who he was so infatuated with to ask where she was?! Considering they had plans to meet??? Strange that.

He did! He called her mother's landline twice. Jodi's phone was broken - he couldn't have contacted her if she'd decided to go elsewhere.

Quote
He just forgot about it and went to bed that night without wondering "wait, wasn't Jodi supposed to come?" They were inseparable according to Corinne but Luke wasn't concerned about her no-show and lack of explanation or texts.

No. He never got to bed that night, remember? He called his mum at 7pm to say if Jodi turned up at the house to send her over to the Abbey - Jodi had no phone, remember. As late as 7pm, he was still hoping she'd turn up - there were two possibilities - she'd been unexpectedly grounded again (which even her mum agreed could happen at the drop of a hat) or she'd decided to do something else. They were 14 year old kids.

Before you come back with "he was told she'd left to meet him," no, he wasn't. Jodi's mother's partner told him Jodi had "just left" at 5.38pm. He didn't say "left to meet you, Luke" - that was added to the statements later.  So she could have been nipping out to the shop, got to the end of the path and been called back by her mother - anything. Luke called asking if Jodi was there, AO told him "she's just left" - those are the only reliable facts we have.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 06, 2019, 01:45:PM
😂😂😂😂

"Corinne and Shane were both with Luke at the time of the murder"

"Well phone records prove the house phone was being used, and we know for certain Shane wasn't home, and we know for certain Corinne wasn't home. So it must've been Luke"

The Mitchells can't ever really seem to keep their story straight when it comes to Luke's alibi.

Luke was burning a chicken pie. Shane wasn't home. Shane was home watching porn so Luke must not have been in. Wait, Shane was at work... But Luke made dinner for them though. Wait Luke burned the dinner. So what did they eat? Corinne was at work. But wait Corinne was with him lol.

he was uusing the internet so he must of been home.

if shane wasnt home who was using it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 08, 2019, 12:01:AM
a  bit from websslueths.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/uk-jodi-jones-14-dalkeith-scotland-30-june-2003.3863/
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 08, 2019, 12:39:PM
i wonder why they went to amerca was it just for a free jolly up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3378781.stm
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: marty on April 08, 2019, 08:49:PM
Luke was at home, alone, making and answering calls prior to the claimed time of the murder. Two points to be made about this - (1) it refutes any suggestion that he didn't go home from school but went to lie in wait for Jodi in the woodland strip (as has been claimed at certain points). (2) In conjunction with the texts with Jodi's mum's phone, it supports the statement that he would not have had enough time to get from his home to the top of the path in time to be the person seen by Andrina Bryson.

His brother called ahead to say he might be late for dinner - in the event, he wasn't late (but did get home later than he would have if he'd come straight home from work). Brother came home, then mum came home. Both said Luke was in the house by the time they both got there (4.50 and 5.15 respectively.

The nonsense about Shane saying he didn't see Luke was brought about by police manipulation of the entire family - even the appeal judges agreed the "evidence," as it was manipulated, would not have been admissible if Shane had been a suspect, but because he was a witness, the same protections didn't apply.

Who did Luke make and answer calls to and from prior to the claimed time of the murder. Talking clock would be one.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 09, 2019, 11:42:AM
Who did Luke make and answer calls to and from prior to the claimed time of the murder. Talking clock would be one.

Speaking clock call was made from his mobile. Call from his brother's mobile to the landline and call from the home landline to his mother's work landline are registered in the phone logs.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 09, 2019, 11:43:AM
Plenty of evidence that Luke regularly called the speaking clock from his mobile while at home?

I'm all ears.

Calls prior to 8.30am (when he left for school) and between 4 and 5pm (when he was home from school cooking dinner on all the evenings it's never been disputed that's where he was)
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 09, 2019, 01:47:PM
Calls prior to 8.30am (when he left for school) and between 4 and 5pm (when he was home from school cooking dinner on all the evenings it's never been disputed that's where he was)

i never saw the relvance anyway what the hell is so sinster about phoning the speaking clock.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 09, 2019, 03:38:PM
updates will be posted here i belive.

https://www.facebook.com/jamesenglish11/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkdiBNdMSiQeT8aD7gXWgvA?fbclid=IwAR0dBDt4tCAOCM3snzB-T_UsHH-hEB8ajmzEUEuK2aIJGbV1Vfh0w1RvaHI
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 09, 2019, 06:01:PM
Yes, updates coming soon!!!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: marty on April 11, 2019, 07:51:PM
Speaking clock call was made from his mobile. Call from his brother's mobile to the landline and call from the home landline to his mother's work landline are registered in the phone logs.

Thank you, just getting the sequence of events clear in my mind.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 12, 2019, 11:19:AM
3:30 -  school finished
4.15 -  Luke called his mother from the home landline to her work landline (his grandmother answered the call before passing it to Corinne, so there are two witnesses plus the phone logs).
4.25 - call from Shane's mobile to the home landline connected for just over a minute. Neither Luke nor Shane remembered this call initially - it wasn't until the phone logs showed it and Shane remembered he'd stopped at a friend's on the way home from work that they realised the call was Shane letting Luke know he might be late home for dinner.
4,34 - 4.38 - exchange of texts between Luke's phone and Jodi's mother's phone (Jodi's phone was broken)
4.54 - Luke called the speaking clock from his mobile. Shane was on the internet, so the landline was busy.

If the claim was that the call to the speaking clock placed Luke outside his home and the Andrina Bryson sighting was of Luke, why did she not mention a phone in her description? She said the youth had both hands at his sides, palms facing forward, at exactly the time of the call to the speaking clock.

And, if Luke left home immediately after the final 4.38 text from Jodi, there would not be enough time for him to be the person at the Easthouses entrance to the path, which is why the suggestion arose that he didn't go straight home from school but, instead, went to the woodland strip to lie in wait for Jodi.

That then unravels because he wouldn't have known about the sudden decision to "unground" Jodi at 4.34pm - why would he be "lying in wait" for her if she was grounded?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 13, 2019, 08:32:AM
The Legal Aid Board refused funding, saying the expert was "too expensive." But why didn't the police do it? It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt - the eyewitness evidence was extremely weak - if they were sure the guy seen at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 4.54 was Luke, why didn't they use cell site evidence to back it up?

I suspect they probably did get cell site analysis and, when it didn't show movement of Luke's phone, they buried it - wouldn't have been the first or only time it happened in this case as we now know. They didn't release the FBA profile or the information about the identification of Stocky Man at the time - just makes me wonder what else they have that the defence never saw.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 19, 2019, 11:58:AM
The Legal Aid Board refused funding, saying the expert was "too expensive." But why didn't the police do it? It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt - the eyewitness evidence was extremely weak - if they were sure the guy seen at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 4.54 was Luke, why didn't they use cell site evidence to back it up?

I suspect they probably did get cell site analysis and, when it didn't show movement of Luke's phone, they buried it - wouldn't have been the first or only time it happened in this case as we now know. They didn't release the FBA profile or the information about the identification of Stocky Man at the time - just makes me wonder what else they have that the defence never saw.

well i think i can easly answer that qustion they dident want to know
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 23, 2019, 07:29:PM
https://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=4978
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 24, 2019, 05:41:PM
the podcast seems to havgot a suprisingly postive reception.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on April 26, 2019, 06:42:PM
I think you'll find the interview, and the case, is being talked about in many more places and by many more people than just this form, Lithium. And will be for some time to come.

There are over 33,000 views on youtube and almost 400 comments, the majority of which are supportive. Similar response on twitter (can't say how many comments because I'm just learning to use twitter), but many people have commented positively. Many shares and positive comments on facebook.

Maybe you didn't know all of this?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Steve_uk on April 27, 2019, 02:17:PM
I think you'll find the interview, and the case, is being talked about in many more places and by many more people than just this form, Lithium. And will be for some time to come.

There are over 33,000 views on youtube and almost 400 comments, the majority of which are supportive. Similar response on twitter (can't say how many comments because I'm just learning to use twitter), but many people have commented positively. Many shares and positive comments on facebook.

Maybe you didn't know all of this?
This is the video. I don't think it's been posted before. https://youtu.be/fqQ7lnucUMI
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 28, 2019, 05:00:PM
Yeah a brief discussion between 3 guys (one being you) on an unknown forum. Luke's case is really taking the world by storm.

how would you know one of them was me wich nes me then.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on April 29, 2019, 04:34:PM
I think you'll find the interview, and the case, is being talked about in many more places and by many more people than just this form, Lithium. And will be for some time to come.

There are over 33,000 views on youtube and almost 400 comments, the majority of which are supportive. Similar response on twitter (can't say how many comments because I'm just learning to use twitter), but many people have commented positively. Many shares and positive comments on facebook.

Maybe you didn't know all of this?

yes you only have to google it
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on May 13, 2019, 03:03:PM
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-i-would-rather-stay-behind-bars-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodie-jones/?ref=fbshr&fbclid=IwAR0I2WIfy8OgYUe7tcTrBUtsJfti1A6_0qe1BMUwVotf6edA1vBT9oRjQPQ
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on May 14, 2019, 02:56:PM
Just seen the interview, good job Sandra. I’ve seen quite a few people taking an interest in the case. Be great to see one of these crime shows pick this up
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2019, 12:34:PM
when jaf got his job coaching a ids football team i asume the team dident know about the statement he had made.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on May 31, 2019, 08:43:AM
In fairness, I don't think a youth masturbating should preclude him from working with kids later in life - if it did, there'd be very few men working with kids!

Men with convictions for violence, however, are a different matter, especially if kids were caught up in that violence. I know these days, anyone who wants to work with kids has to have a background check (I'm not sure about volunteering) - such a background check would have meant he wouldn't be allowed to work with kids - either the safeguards have changed or something slipped through the net.

I know of three instances of violence (involving weapons) prior to 2006, when his DNA was identified via the database check. I've never been able to discover what happened in 2006 that brought his DNA into this case, though. One of those instances involved trying to break down the door of a house with a young child inside, armed with an iron bar, screaming threats of serious assault at one of the adults in the house.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 03, 2019, 12:36:AM
https://youtu.be/t6ysPeri0O4

corines interiew
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 03, 2019, 11:47:PM
That poor woman. This is all so unfair on her. I for one wish her all the very best and hope some fantastic lawyer takes the case and gets him out. I really don’t know how she has endured it all. Very sad ??
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Steve_uk on June 04, 2019, 08:47:PM
That poor woman. This is all so unfair on her. I for one wish her all the very best and hope some fantastic lawyer takes the case and gets him out. I really don’t know how she has endured it all. Very sad ??

She does come across as telling the truth. Shane's evidence is neutral rather than damnatory I would have thought.  Is there a timeline of the murder somewhere? Could Luke have slipped out of the house unbeknownst to his mother?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 05, 2019, 12:20:AM
Was good to hear corine tell whats happened, I think she came across great. She has had so much to put up with over the years and still manages to stay strong.

I think it would be great to hear from Shane next, there has been a lot said over the years about his statement in court and how he did not provide an alibi for Luke (that was accepted) also the fact he has never spoken out since or clarified what actually happened. It would shut up so many people if he was given the chance to tell his side once and for all. If he confirms Luke was there cooking dinner then for me it’s case closed!!

Fingers crossed you get a lawyer with some balls this time, willing to get their teeth right in about this case. All the best.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 05, 2019, 12:55:AM
it wa good tohear corine agian.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 05, 2019, 09:19:AM
The response to the two podcasts has been stunning - there's never been so much positive interest in the case in almost 16 years. One really interesting outcome is that people who were kids at the time, but are adults now, are coming forward with information we've never previously had access to.  Three of them, so far, have revealed some potentially significant information.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 05, 2019, 11:21:AM
It’s taken 16 years but people are now starting to take notice. I think people in the past were a bit scared or embarrassed to admit they were not sure if the police got the right person. Everyone KNEW back in 2003/2004 and beyond, that Luke was the killer, after all it was in the papers, clear they got the murderer. That is until you start to look a bit closer and realise it’s all crap, there is no evidence, how the hell did he get found guilty. Now people are staring to realise this, it’s taken time but now on the right path.

Sandra do you think Shane might be willing to have a short interview also?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 05, 2019, 12:08:PM
i notice i dident see the stream of negative coments that i used to see.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 05, 2019, 12:16:PM
I noticed that too, also on the other forum (the red forum I think you call it) which I have found to be VERY negative to this case, seems a bit quiet over there too, thought they would have lots to say but seems not ....,
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 05, 2019, 12:47:PM
Yeah that’s what I mean, I heard he does support luke but in the background. That’s why I think it’s so important for him to do a quick 5 minute interview to tell his side. I don’t know about the dad, never heard anything about him in all the years, do does he think Luke is guilty then?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 05, 2019, 02:03:PM
Really, that would explain the silence over the years. Does put a lot of shade over the case if both the dad and bro think he did it, who knows him better than his own family. Plus Shane was his alibi. But I thought Shane support Luke? If that’s the case it does look bad!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 05, 2019, 03:10:PM
It’s quite simple, if Shane seen him in the house between 1700  and 1730 or when they had tea it could not have been Luke. If he could not confirm for sure he ‘seen’ Luke then all he need confirm is that tea was cook and ready when his mum got home. If Shane did not cook, his mum was at work then again Luke must have been home cooking the dinner and it could not be him.

I read over the years Shane has supported Luke, just not publicly which I can fully understand going by all the stuff that’s happened to his mum and Sandra over the years.

I’ve never read or heard anything about his dad.

Now things are picking up pace I’d hope they would show there support, if they do indeed still support Luke.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 05, 2019, 05:57:PM
I have it on good info Shane and Dad both do.

you havent exactly got a good track on this.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 05, 2019, 10:41:PM
Really, that would explain the silence over the years. Does put a lot of shade over the case if both the dad and bro think he did it, who knows him better than his own family. Plus Shane was his alibi. But I thought Shane support Luke? If that’s the case it does look bad!

in most campaghns the whole family doesnt speak its normally left up to one relative normally a mother or a sister
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 05, 2019, 11:14:PM
They can still show support without speaking. But like I said I can understand why Shane would not be so public due to the backlash.

I just think they need to use all their cards if they want to prove his innocence and Shane could be holding the ace card, for me a whole lots depends on what he remembers. If Luke was there he is innocent if he wasn’t he could be guilty and his mum has definitely lied. He may not even remember for sure.

For the record I think she is telling the truth, but some back up would go a long way.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 06, 2019, 11:10:AM
The personal circumstances of Shane and Luke's dad (which will remain private, since enough lives have already been ruined by this case) make it difficult for them to be publicly involved.

I don't think people really understand the damage these things do to family relationships - it's not as simple as whether people "support" the convicted person or not - there are many other factors which come into play. Corinne is fully supportive of Shane staying out of the public eye - as she has put it on many occasions, they have wrecked one of her sons' lives, if they can possibly avoid it, they're not giving them the chance to wreck her other son's life. Shane had to move out of the area at the time because the threats were so bad.

Corinne has publicly served Luke's sentence with him - asking his dad and brother to do the same is akin to saying everyone in the whole family should be put up as targets for a baying mob, the vast majority of which, for 16 years, have been 100% negative to suggestions that Luke is innocent. Should his dad's business be trashed? His brother's? Is that what people mean by "showing support"? For them to comment publicly would put them at the same risks as Corinne has faced all these years.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 06, 2019, 11:26:AM
Quote
It’s quite simple, if Shane seen him in the house between 1700  and 1730 or when they had tea it could not have been Luke. If he could not confirm for sure he ‘seen’ Luke then all he need confirm is that tea was cook and ready when his mum got home. If Shane did not cook, his mum was at work then again Luke must have been home cooking the dinner and it could not be him.

Which is exactly why the police refused to accept the statements of the burnt pies. Looking back at the interviews, it's clear that, from the moment the Family Liaison officer stepped foot inside the Mitchell house, she was there to destroy Luke's alibi. She was telling Shane to "picture" things in his head just a few days after the murder - if that's not a blatant attempt to influence recall, I don't know what is. The trauma of the police treatment of Shane (in particular the interrogation on 14th April 2004) would have been enough to break any man - a point DF made very strongly at appeal. His treatment on the stand compounded that trauma - right up to the point where they thrust pictures of Jodi's naked, mutilated body in front of him (without warning) Shane was very clear that he did see Luke that evening, but the police wouldn't accept his statements and kept "putting words in his mouth." After the shock of the photographs, he was forced to carry on giving evidence - any psychologist will tell you that a witness will become extremely manipulable immediately after such a shock because they can't think straight.

It is utterly disgusting that this sort of treatment is allowed. Having caused such shock and distress, the prosecution QC moved straight onto questions about masturbating to pornographic images on the internet - can you imagine trying to make any sense of that in those circumstances? 

And, before the inevitable comments about him "admitting" that he was masturbating, he didn't. I have the court transcripts - it was put to him that he might have been "doing something else" whilst looking at the images ... Shane agreed that he "may have been" - that's it. We now, know, of course, that the "pornographic images" were almost certainly pop-ups, on screen for a few seconds, so he wasn't "watching porn" as has been claimed for all these years.

That said, is it any surprise that Shane just wanted to disappear and have the whole thing go away? It's not about believing Luke to be guilty, it's about self-preservation - Shane's life still had to go on out here after such intense media coverage and such personal trauma and humiliation.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 06, 2019, 11:30:AM
Forgot to say, Luke's dad has always supported him.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 06, 2019, 02:29:PM
I have always said I completely understand Shane keeping out the public eye and did think he supported Luke. What I meant by showing support is things like helping out now and again behind the scene with the campaign, visiting Luke etc not standing up in front of the news papers making statements. But I just think now would be a good time for him to clarify the mess that has been made with his statement, they were totally out of order the way he was treated on the stand and he didn’t get the chance to tell his side like he wanted. There was no evidence against Luke, in the jury’s eyes his brother could not confirm he saw Luke, I think this had a lot to do with him being found guilty. Also all the armchair detectives I’ve encountered over the years always use this as their ammunition, be good to disarm them once and for all. He wouldn’t even need to go on camera, a written statement that James English could read out now that he has more people interested. But again I fully understand if he was not comfortable doing that. Safety first.

As for his dad, thanks for clarifying he does support Luke. Again I understand him keeping out the campaign, enough life’s have been pulled apart.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 07, 2019, 12:13:PM
See, this is how it’s been since Shane left the stand. now I don’t know what to think. Either he got harassed on the stand and was not able to provide his side correctly or he saw the pics and would no longer lie believing his bro to be guilty.

2 totally contradicting sides here, Shane has always supported Luke or Shane openly confirms his brothers guilt.

Even more reason for him to provide a statement of fact I’d say. If you say he is that open perhaps it’s best to get it from the horses mouth.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 07, 2019, 08:20:PM
Yes I do. Shane was virtually disowned by Corrine for not going along with it. Dad doesn't even visit. Also pornographic "pop-ups" don't pop up unless you're viewing pornographic websites. He was at home watching porn and masturbating, and admitted to it. Unsure why Sandra is now trying to argue that Shane wasn't watching porn when he openly admitted that's what he was doing? Had his bedroom door open to listen out. Luke wasn't there. Luke has no alibi and his attempt at one was torn apart at trial. It's not rocket science.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 07, 2019, 08:22:PM
Yes I do. Shane was virtually disowned by Corrine for not going along with it. Dad doesn't even visit. Also pornographic "pop-ups" don't pop up unless you're viewing pornographic websites. He was at home watching porn and masturbating, and admitted to it. Unsure why Sandra is now trying to argue that Shane wasn't watching porn when he openly admitted that's what he was doing? Had his bedroom door open to listen out. Luke wasn't there. Luke has no alibi and his attempt at one was torn apart at trial. It's not rocket science.

I’m a bit confused, do you know shane and the family and what are your sources for knowing his dad doesn’t visit.

We’re you at the trial?



Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 07, 2019, 08:31:PM
He cried in the witness box at what his brother had done when he seen the images. Luke never shed a single tear at any point. Not at images of his murdered girlfriend or even at the sight of her body. Don't take my word for it. Feel free to get in touch with Shane. He openly tells people his brother is guilty lol.

Maybe he cried because of the awful scene he was being made to look at.

I think Sandra has more than explained why Luke didn’t show any emotion . None of what you says has any baring on wether he’s guilty or innocent.

Umm where we would ask Shane anything. As far as I can tell he is protecting himself from people like you by not getting involved in what other people think or say.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 07, 2019, 08:34:PM
+ Shane also admitted that Corinne coached him to say he seen his brother in the kitchen mashing potatoes.

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

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

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

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

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

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

Yes she was reminding him of what happened. He was a young lad and probably could t have remembered half of what happened that day until his mum reminded him

You are distorting the reality
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 08, 2019, 08:26:AM
This is the problem with people misquoting or selectively quoting from various documents (especially media reports). What Shane said on the stand had already been massively influenced by police officers determined to destroy Luke's alibi. Shane had no recollection of "watching porn" - it was only once the police took the computer and searched the history that they went back to him and told him that's what he was doing.

Quote
"How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies."

When he was first asked, on the Wednesday, he couldn't remember anything about the earlier part of the Monday evening - he said he probably came straight home from work, had his tea and went out again. Corinne reminded him Monday was the day Luke burnt the dinner - it was the only thing that made the day in question stand out. It was also later shown that Shane actually stopped off at a friend's on the way home from work to have a look at his car (phone records and receipts for parts for the car) - that wasn't considered "suspicious" and the police accepted that he'd simply forgotten about it.

It's the prosecution's job to make even the most innocuous things appear suspicious.

Shane was more than harassed from the off - the police were constantly bulldozing him to say what they wanted to hear. The day he was arrested "on suspicion of perverting the course of justice," they let him leave the family home in order to drive into a police road-block just yards from the house. He was dragged out of the car, laid flat out on the ground then bundled into a police car without being told why. They then held him for a 6 hour interrogation, during which they absolutely refused to accept any of his answers, just as they'd done for the previous 9 and a half months. They also told him he'd be looking at a long prison sentence unless he told them "the truth" (the one that they wanted to hear). When Shane re-iterated that he was telling the truth, the response was, "you're not. You're lying. We know you're lying and we've got witnesses to prove it." They didn't have witnesses.

Corinne didn't "virtually disown him."

I'm sorry I can't properly address aspects of Luke's brother's and his dad's stances because of the need to respect their privacy - their lives have moved on in the last 16 years and they have other priorities that have to be taken into consideration.


Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 08, 2019, 12:12:PM
https://youtu.be/ItQvr1lei_k
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 09, 2019, 10:20:PM
back then and even now you don’t need to be on a porn site or searching for porn for a pop up to show, you only needed to have used the computer at some point to view porn, then pop ups can come at any time.
I see what the lawyers did there, if he was watching porn it would be when nobody was home and he would leave the door open to listen for anyone coming home, then made out he was watching porn but appears these were was only pop ups.

Luke was on medication which could explain his lack of tears etc

When it comes to remembering stuff you do sometimes need a reminder. I asked my bro what he was doing at tea time 2 days prior, he could not remember until I said it was the day we were trying to decide if we should get a take away, he would not have remembered otherwise, there is a huge difference between coaching someone a load of lies to tell and reminding someone of an event to refresh their memory, just seems like the police and lawyers accept some changes as stuff he remembered after help and stuff he was being coached to lie.

Lithium where are you getting your info from, is there anything you know as a fact like Sandra does, or are you just saying stuff you have read or heard elsewhere, which is how it seems. Have you any connection to the case or people in it, or like me just someone with a keen interest? Just we all need to be clear and careful what is said and be able to back it up, Sandra has done this on numerous occasions but so far I’ve not seen anything to back up what you have stated, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 10, 2019, 07:58:AM
Here's another example of remembering and reminding.

For the first 11 days of the investigation, Stephen Kelly's statements said he left Alice Walker's house either at lunchtime or early afternoon, had his tea in his own house and returned to Alice's around 7pm. Janine appears to have remained in her Gran's house throughout (meaning Kelly didn't have an alibi for the crucial hour between 5pm and 6pm).

Then, on July 12th, their statements changed (again). Now both Kelly and Janine "remembered" they had dinner at Kelly's dad's house (with his dad) and Janine wanted waffles and ham for dinner. The dad's statement was not in the defence files - the SCCRC said there was one, but we have no idea when it was taken. Also, we don't know if the dad's statements changed or if there were none to support Kelly's original story and the one in the files only appeared after the change of story.

So, 12 days ago from now was Wednesday 29th May. I invite anyone reading this to remember what they ate and with whom, on Wednesday 29th May and what reason you have for remembering.

But it's yet another example of one rule for the Mitchell family and another for everybody else. I've heard many times that Kelly and Janine were each other's alibi - not before July 12th, they weren't - neither had an alibi. They became each others' alibi on July 12th (because there was no statement from Kelly's dad to support or otherwise the suggestion they were together in his house).

If lack of alibi was a driving factor in this case, someone without an alibi, whose DNA turned up on the victim's clothing wasn't considered suspicious and was allowed 12 days to come up with an alibi!

I'm not saying Kelly had anything to do with it - what I'm saying is, in any other circumstances, these events would definitely have warranted closer scrutiny and it's only because of the police conviction that Luke was the killer that they didn't conduct that scrutiny.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 10, 2019, 12:50:PM
It’s clear the police did a piss poor job, from start to finish, even the courts agreed to that. They had Luke as the only suspect within the first 30 minutes. To be fair he was not a suspect, the police KNEW he did it and just had to prove it, as they stated on a number of occasions. If it was Luke then no harm done but if they are wrong they let the killer go.

All the statements are sketchy, nothing to say it was Luke at the top or bottom of the path. For me the only credible sighting is the 2 boys that knew Luke and seen him at the end of his street, which he has never disputed. I can’t honestly say one way or another if Luke was home going by what his bro says and the way he was questioned on the stand. His mum clearly says he was home but that’s not accepted by police or court.

Luke finding the body is clearly incorrect the body was found by the dog and she passed all the tests for tracking that the prosecution had her do. Luke’s mum burning the clothes in that tiny wee burner is laughable and the whole Manson line another joke.

As for any forensic evidence at all, murder weapon or motive there was NONE.

Out if interest what does it take to get a retrial in Scotland. I assume new evidence. I really can’t see any new evidence being found in this case apart from new dna techniques over the past 16 years that might find something of interest. I hope the defence team have access to carry out any retesting that may help in order to keep things moving.

I’ve read a couple of things about knifes recently but no idea how accurate they are. Firstly that Findlay was sent a knife in the post, was anything done with that knife as may be a murder weapon from a case he was connected to. Also that a knife was found very close to the murder scene a few years ago with the name Luke on it?

The person that confessed, I know we can’t talk names but what do you know about him, what was said, how credible is this, does any of it add up?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 10, 2019, 04:41:PM
Sorry, huge post and I still don’t know how to use the quote properly lol

I’m not from the area but live close by. I don’t know anyone connected to the case on either side. I don’t know if Luke is guilty or innocent (hope to god he is guilty) I worked with the police at the time and read all the papers and from what they said it was a clear cut case. I never doubted it and believed him to be guilty from all id heard and read like so many people. Then a few years later I read somewhere how there was no forensics evidence linking Luke to the case and that tweaked my interest as he was only a young laddie at the time I thought there must have been loads of solid evidence to send him down and started reading all I could about the case. It’s worried me since, how someone, especially so young, can be found guilt with such little evidence (not the gossip and hear say, but just what was used in court) so far I’ve not heard anything that I would have found him guilty on, other than the brothers statement. But there is so much been said from both sides on that it’s such a mess, is there a court transcript available that would have what was said?

Luke was a suspect right away, only he was taken into the station for questioning at that time and the only person who’s clothes were taken that night, even tho the granny touched her. The police thought Luke and Jodi left her house together when they started searching for her I believe. Over 3000 people interviewed but these were not suspects, but even the police admit Luke was the only suspect they were not looking for anyone else and they knew he did it, or they did to me at the time, which was before Luke was arrested and before the tv re-enactment

The dog did not alert to her body on the way up as Luke would be pulling her up the lane and not allowing her time to search also she was not in tracking mode, she sounds like a well trained dog who did as she was instructed, if she was told to move and not “mess around” I think she would do as she was told, on the way back down she was told to look for Jodi and given the space and time to do so. I believe the dog alerted Luke to the spot (if he knew she was there and led the dog there knowing she would react is also a possibility)

I don’t know who the couple where, maybe they don’t even know themselves it was them and are oblivious ie the don’t remember passing at that time which is totally understandable. It may have been Luke and Jodi but from what they were said to be wearing it did not match what Jodi was found wearing (or around her body) therefore it’s not a positive sighting for me, unlike the 2 boys who knew him.

I said no motive sorry I should have been clearer, no known motive.

Ive always believed it was a partial dna for Luke, but not a match, this could be a partial for a number of people not just luke. so that’s why I said no forensics found at the scene. But if there is a full match for Luke on Jodi or Jodi on Luke then that’s not something I’ve heard and changes things a bit.

I use to love knifes when I was a kid too, I now have a collection of all kinds of swords and knifes, I’m not a murderer. So his love of knifes and messing around is something I did. You said he threatened his ex, With this information being extremely relevant I assume the ex gf took the stand to confirm this, if so that would go a long way. If not why not? I’m never sure who the actual witnesses are that were at court and what is from interviews and comments from the papers, and gossip. All a bit mixed up which I think is half the problem. It’s what was used in court that interests me most.

She didn’t meet him so he assumed she was not coming but told his mum where he was incase she did turn up. Went to meet pals no longer expecting her. Not calling to see where she was, they were 14, she didn’t turn up, he was not worried she must have got caught up with something or someone or changed her mind, maybe even got grounded, he would find out at school tomorrow. Or that’s how Id have thought at 14.

I use to call the speaking clock all the time, I enjoyed it lol plus it gave you the exact time if doing something your timing, ie cooking dinner, I never found that suspicious.

I always found info related to Shane to be really mixed up and confusing between what he told the police and what he said in court. I do remember thinking if he says he did not see him but remembers the tea being burnt, could it be burnt as Luke put it in the oven to cook then went out and left it for his mum to take out, hence it got burnt? But as I said I’m really not sure of what was said in court and in his statement. For me what he actually remembers is the clincher so want to be 100% but getting contradicting info. I’d love to ask him direct on FB but to be honest I would not feel I have the right to invade his privacy, this is an open forum if he wanted to say he could do it here and plenty other places. I know I would not want some random(s) bothering me and I’d just ignore them.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 10, 2019, 10:05:PM
It was her Satanist boyfriend (yes he was writing about satanism in school essays which worried teachers, none of these could be attributed to video games or fiction like Sandra claims. He was also requesting books on Satanism a few years ago in jail) the same bf who was known to always carry knives and who threatened/assaulted a previous girlfriend with one in a tent, who she was arranging to meet that night, who she was spotted arguing with at her end of the path, who was then spotted 50 mins later by 2 different people alone at his end of the path "acting suspicious". Who didn't follow up to find out why she didn't turn up. Who told mates she wouldn't be coming out when he didn't know that. Who was ready to go to bed without wondering why his gf didn't turn up. Whose "dog" led him to the body only on the 2nd time he passed it. Whose alibi fell apart. Who other than her bf would she climb over a wall to a secluded area with? cmon. The list goes on. Regardless of the endless circumstantial evidence... it's really not rocket science.

Not a single  one of Luke's friends believe he's innocent. Not one. They knew him and seen how he was with knives and knew about the Satanic crap. His violent behaviour got him referred to the school psychiatrist ffs.

i have yet to see you pruduce any evdence to back up this statement.

you have previously cliamed that sandra lean had changed her mind abut lukes guilt wich  is clearly untrue.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 11, 2019, 05:47:AM
The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.

The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included. There was, however, a report that suggested the other DNA deposits on the T-shirt and bra "could have originated from the same person" as the full profile recovered (which was not Luke's). Indeed, the police "rainwater transfer theory" seemed to suggest exactly that - DNA from one deposit was carried by rainwater to other parts of the t-shirt and soaked through to the bra. But the full DNA profile from the t-shirt wasn't Luke's, it was Steven Kelly's.

There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.

The information about the possibility of all the DNA deposits on the t-shirt and bra being from the same person was not used at trial (and rightly so, because none of the other samples were full profiles), yet Susan Ure was allowed to make the outrageous suggestion that one of those partials "could have been" Luke's DNA.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 11, 2019, 05:58:AM
In spite of all the hype, there was no "missing knife." The knife which belonged to the pouch was handed to Luke's solicitor by Corinne (who couldn't remember where she'd put it when the police raided the house). The solicitor's statement, confirming the handing over of the knife to the police, is in the case files.That knife was bought six months after the murder, so could not be in any way connected to the crime.

The knife that was found in 2010 was found near the new St David's High School, not the one that existed at the time of the murder. The distance from the old school to the new campus is 1.7 miles. it was completely ruled out as having any connection to the murder.

I don't have the time (or inclination) to go through every aspect of misinformation in Lithium's posts which, I believe, is exactly his/her intention - swamp people with the same misinformation over and over again and people will get tired of correcting it endlessly.

I'll just point out the blindingly obvious again - why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age, work so hard to point out the fact that this lad was convicted without a shred of reliable evidence, knowing if it had been properly acknowledged, he could be released into the very community where my girls lived their lives? Why would I want to "make him look innocent" if there was even the slightest doubt in my mind that he did what was done to Jodi?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 11, 2019, 01:23:PM
Age restrictions on knives weren't introduced in Scotland until 2006. It's not illegal to own or carry a knife with a folding blade less than 3" long. Luke worked at his mother's caravan business and the family owned horses. There are several perfectly legitimate reasons for Luke having a knife, none of them remotely related to the fact that Jodi was murdered with a large bladed instrument (the pathologist's description).

No such "large bladed instrument" was ever found in his possession or in the family home or business, or described by any witness as having been possessed by him.

I didn't know the people at the time, but I know which knives the police were looking for and they (the police) had them all, so from the police perspective, there were no missing knives except the murder weapon, the description of which could not be matched to any knives attributed to Luke.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 11, 2019, 05:33:PM
I didn’t think it was ever illegal for a child to own a small knife, only for it to be sold to them. If a parent buys it as a gift there is no law being broken is there? Scouts own knifes. Carrying a knife for scouts was also legal if going to camp or if they had a good reason. But I’m no expert just going by my understanding of what I’ve read so could well be wrong lol
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 11, 2019, 05:38:PM
Also I started my collection when I was 12. I got many a pen knife or Swiss Army knife for Xmas and birthdays from lots of different people, friends and family before I was 16. Hope they were not all breaking the law.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 11, 2019, 06:54:PM
Not true. The age was increased from 16 to 18 in 2006. It was illegal to own a knife at 15 and illegal for Corrine to buy him one. Much like it was illegal for her to get him a tattoo and lie about his age, and let him smoke cigarettes and god knows what else. Let's not pretend this was a normal relationship with normal boundaries.

Smoking cigs at Jodi's grave. Walking their dog through the graveyard.

(https://i.imgur.com/kzjkEWf.png)

Well that’s it then!!! guilty as charged because he smoked a fag and took his beautiful dog to the graveyard.  Heist why didn’t I think of that before . Good god man I am lost for bloody words .
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2019, 01:03:AM
Also I started my collection when I was 12. I got many a pen knife or Swiss Army knife for Xmas and birthdays from lots of different people, friends and family before I was 16. Hope they were not all breaking the law.

maybe you did it then.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 12, 2019, 08:40:AM
Quote
Much like it was illegal for her to get him a tattoo and lie about his age, and let him smoke cigarettes and god knows what else. Let's not pretend this was a normal relationship with normal boundaries.

Let's take this bit by bit. It is not, and never has been, illegal for anyone under 18 to have a tattoo. What is illegal is for a person to tattoo someone they know, or believe, to be under eighteen. You see the difference there? The offence is on the tattooist who, incidentally, went on to give evidence against Luke.

"For her to get him a tattoo and lie about his age..." There's no evidence she lied about his age. The claim in court was that Luke provided "fake ID" showing him as over age (that ID, had it ever been produced in court, would have shown a picture of a man 40+ years old, but we'll leave that for the moment). It was Luke who signed the form in the shop. So all Corinne is guilty of is being there. Think about it - what 18 year old would take his mum along to "confirm" his age? Just a few years after the murder, the same parlour carried out a body piercing on one 14 year old girl I know and tattooed her 14 year old friend. That's why they used that particular parlour - because they knew no questions would be asked about their age.

The "fake ID" that was never produced in court, Corinne and Luke always denied the existence of. Like I said, it would have depicted a man of 40+ years old - the tattoo staff would have put themselves right on the line if they tried to claim in court they accepted that the person in the picture was the 15 year old boy standing in front of them. By the time of the appeal, the person whose name (not ID) Luke used on the form had given a statement saying Luke had never had access to his ID in any format. The statement wasn't used by the defence.

I smoked from the age of 13 - my parents didn't know. I was still under 16 when they found out but that still didn't stop me smoking. I knew loads of kids who smoked under the age of 16, both in my own generation and my daughters' generation.

"And god knows what else..." There we have it again - speculation and insinuation with nothing to back it up. What about, making him work for his pocket money? What about supporting his interests in outdoor activities - motorbikes, camping, tracking, etc? What about encouraging him to keep up his grades in school, setting a curfew time for him to be home both on school nights and weekends?

What about being a responsible enough parent to call Jodi's Gran to confirm Luke and a few others would be having a sleepover at her (the gran's) house ... even though the Gran lied to her, saying the teens would be in her house, knowing full well they were all going to sleep over at Yvonne Walker's flat?

What about Judith's own statement saying that, when she found out about the sleepover being at Yvonne's, she was so angry (because Jodi was banned from going to Yvonne's flat) that she threatened to tell Corinne. Jodi begged her not to because Corinne was "quite strict" with Luke and he'd be in deep trouble?

It has to go both ways. Either Luke, Jodi and the others were teenagers doing what teenagers do and their parents were doing the best they could, or everyone whose teenager was doing things they shouldn't have been doing was a bad parent. I know which one I believe.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 12, 2019, 08:46:AM
(https://i.imgur.com/kzjkEWf.png)
[/quote]

Smoking cigs at Jodi's grave, yeah? Why did they change Jodi's name to Andrew Paxton on the headstone? That's the extent of the disrespect of the media in this case - that poor man's family have to see pictures of his headstone connected to such a dreadful case.

That is clearly a picture of Luke, Corinne and another friend walking through the cemetery, not standing at Jodi's grave, but why let the facts get in the way of a good lie?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 12, 2019, 08:51:AM
maybe you did it then.

Going by these forums it must have been me, I’m clearly a danger up the public and have been since I was 12. For the record I smoked weed since I was 15/16 and loved nirvana. I must be a serial killer by now 🤣

The dog is gorgeous by the way!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 11:31:AM
Normal teenagers dont threaten girls with knifes

Its no secret that shane mitchell
Luke mitchells brother runs his own company  smd technical services in Livingston
http://www.smdtechnicalservices.com/ so why does sandra make out thats why we dont hear from.
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont because he knows his brother is guilty


Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 11:37:AM
Sandra lean, they were seen smoking at jodis grave and left cigarettes ends?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2019, 11:39:AM
Sandra lean, they were seen smoking at jodis grave and left cigarettes ends?

erm he knew her she was girlfriend so i think might what was respectfull and not respectfull better than a complete starnger.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2019, 11:40:AM
Normal tenagers dont threaten girls with knifes

Its no secret that shane mitchell
Luke mitchells brother runs his own company  smd technical services in Livingston
http://www.smdtechnicalservices.com/
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont because he knows his brother is guilty

if we getting into the stalking business im pretty good at that myself.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 12, 2019, 12:39:PM
Who took us off topic ... oh yes,, a ridiculous poster making ridiculous allegations about the identity of other posters. Sit down, Guiltyascharged, you're making a show of yourself.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 12, 2019, 01:24:PM
Normal teenagers dont threaten girls with knifes

Its no secret that shane mitchell
Luke mitchells brother runs his own company  smd technical services in Livingston
http://www.smdtechnicalservices.com/
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont because he knows his brother is guilty

OMG he left a ciggy butt in the graveyard and that makes him a murderer. Normal teenage stuff. For goodness sake if yoh cannot be seriously asking us to consider this as part of the reason he is guilty in your opinion.

Instead of telling us why you think he’s guilty let’s hear why you dont think the other suspects are. Now that might be a good debate
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 01:42:PM
Would you do the same on someones grave you claim to love and who had recently passed? One of you mention respectfull the other normal teenage stuff  ,  another made out it didnt happen, what one is it,?

Luke was far from normal a teenager

My point was to correct sandra,  who was rubbishing another poster

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 12, 2019, 01:47:PM
Would you do the same on someones grave you claim to love and who had recently passed?

My point was to correct sandra,  who was rubbishing another poster

yess and I have done.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 12, 2019, 07:01:PM
Here's what trolls do. They post something and elicit responses to it. Then they edit or delete their posts so that the responses make no sense. Then the whole conversation gets so confusing, people get fed up and stop participating.

Best not feed the trolls!!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 08:07:PM
Nice try sandra, i had to edit other because  the post about your other usernames was removed.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 08:13:PM
Sandra how often have you spoken to luke since the failed appeal. Have you guys resolved your problems?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 13, 2019, 08:55:AM
If you mean the refusal of the SCCRC to refer the case back to the court of appeal, I've communicated with Luke several times since, the most recent being this week.

In mid 2014, I took a break from the case after 11 years solid involvement. 18 months later, at the beginning of 2016, I became officially involved again and have been ever since. I had continued to work privately on the case during the 18 months "break," just not at the same level or with the same public exposure.

So that everyone reading this forum, new and old, is absolutely clear, I posted under one username that was not my own at the very beginning of this case for my own safety and that of my children. My identity was outed by a troll with no concern for the potential consequences. I have not posted using anything other than my own name (or variations of it, depending on the protocols of various sites - so, Sandra L, Dr Sandra, Sandra Lean, etc) in over a decade.



Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 13, 2019, 12:41:PM
No falling out/disagreement between luke and you at all ?? You had to keep going, had a book to finish.

What other username do you admit to using?

You were also aware others on your side/forum/pro luke were also posting under different usernames to, one of the main ones being your ex partner billy middleton?

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 13, 2019, 12:59:PM
Quote
Out if interest what does it take to get a retrial in Scotland. I assume new evidence. I really can’t see any new evidence being found in this case apart from new dna techniques over the past 16 years that might find something of interest. I hope the defence team have access to carry out any retesting that may help in order to keep things moving.

I’ve read a couple of things about knifes recently but no idea how accurate they are. Firstly that Findlay was sent a knife in the post, was anything done with that knife as may be a murder weapon from a case he was connected to. Also that a knife was found very close to the murder scene a few years ago with the name Luke on it?

Sorry, Bullseye, I missed this.

Yes, it would need new evidence and the definition of new evidence is "that which was not, or could not reasonably have been available at the time of the original trial." That means if anyone came forward now who could have given a statement at the time, their information can be rejected by the courts as not new evidence. It's an uphill struggle. New forensic evidence is different, because the science is being continually updated, so modern tests could produce results that older tests couldn't.

Getting access to items for re-testing is notoriously difficult, especially now, with the Scottish Courts' emphasis on certainty and finality. They can refuse to release stuff and refuse to hear new evidence on the basis that it's "too late." I know of one case where the defence found evidence to prove who the real killer was and the court refused to hear it because it had taken too long to find.

I don't know anything about Findlay being sent a knife in the post. I know Corinne handed a knife to Luke's solicitor, Nigel Beaumont (this was the claimed "missing knife") and he handed it to the police - his statement about that is in the case papers.

I think I answered the bit about the knife that was found years later with the name "Luke" on it. It wasn't found anywhere near the murder scene - it was over a mile and a half away on the new Dalkeith Campus. It was eliminated as the murder weapon (but not before the media had had a field day with it!!)
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 13, 2019, 02:53:PM
Thanks Sandra. The knife in the post is on Wikipedia so maybe not the best place to be searching facts lol

In May 2011, Findlay was sent a parcel in the post to Cowdenbeath football club where he is chairman.[10] Initially it was thought to contain a bomb but it was later revealed to contain a knife.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 13, 2019, 11:41:PM
sandra youtube keeps notfing me that you have uploaded a video but  when i clic it says not avilable.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 14, 2019, 08:07:AM
sandra youtube keeps notfing me that you have uploaded a video but  when i clic it says not avilable.

Sorry, nugnug, it'll be available later today.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 14, 2019, 08:09:AM

Corinne's fingerprints were on the consent form. She told the girl in Whiplash Trash it was a late birthday present for her son and mentioned a "dark" tattoo that she had which was similar to the flaming skull the little emperor of the Mitchell household got that day.

Nope! It was Luke's thumbprint that was on the consent form. We only have the girl in the tattoo parlour's word for what Corinne said. Corinne didn't have a "dark" tattoo, so it would be an odd thing for her to say, don't you think?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 14, 2019, 08:13:AM


Oh so they weren't there to see Jodi's grave? Get a grip Sandra. Their fag doubts were found at the grave. The same grave the grieving family told them to stay away from.

They weren't told to stay away from the grave, they were told not to attend the funeral earlier that day. Different thing. It was you who posted the picture giving the impression that it was of Luke smoking at Jodi's grave. "Their fag doubts"? Really? If (and I emphasise IF) cigarette ends were found at Jodi's grave, there's nothing anywhere to say they came from Luke and Corinne. Several members of Jodi's family and friends smoked - they were all at the cemetery earlier that afternoon - how would anyone know whose cigarette ends were dropped there?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 14, 2019, 08:14:AM
Were you asked by the deceased's family to stay away but instead of respecting their wishes turn up with a muzzled dog, dressed like a couple of fuckin weirdos and flicking fag doubts all over the place? Was your mum grabbing your face towards hers too and rubbing noses with you?

Getting desperate now, Lithium!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 14, 2019, 08:18:AM
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40745000/jpg/_40745981_joditree203.jpg)

A tree from Roan's Dyke that Luke carved into with a knife.

Jodi Jones was murdered on Roan's Dyke path with a knife.

She was meeting her boyfriend, the one who evidently carried knives, on Roan's Dyke path no less.

She was in a secluded area behind a wall because she climbed over there with someone she trusted.

Is it really too difficult to see what happened.

Two boys on a moped were at the V point on Roan's Dyke path at exactly the time the police claimed Jodi was being murdered with a large bladed weapon. Both carried knives. Jodi would have trusted both to climb over the wall with because that's where one of them sold cannabis to others. He was her cousin.

Your move.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 14, 2019, 09:45:AM
Nope! It was Luke's thumbprint that was on the consent form. We only have the girl in the tattoo parlour's word for what Corinne said. Corinne didn't have a "dark" tattoo, so it would be an odd thing for her to say, don't you think?

All these people who are whiteness , is every single one lying sandra. Cmon, hes guilty. Just like others you said were miscarriage of justice and later confessed
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 14, 2019, 09:53:AM
Hasnt a court or appeals covered all sandra trys to argue. Top lawers, top qc, nearly 600k in defence. Theres a reason hes still in jail.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 14, 2019, 10:45:AM
I've just been reminded by a very kind poster on the red forum that I did, in fact, use another username way back - "Angeline" - I'd completely forgotten about that. However, now that I've been reminded, I believe I made it clear who I was and was using that username because I couldn't get into the account under my own name for some reason. So, no suggestion that I was trying to hide my identity there!

For several years, there were a number of people who called me Angeline (it started at work where people misheard "Sandra Lean" and thought I'd said Angeline and it carried on from there).

I'm fully aware that all this nonsense about usernames (from people who do not reveal their own identities) is designed simply to derail conversations, but in the spirit of transparency, I'm correcting my earlier error.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: lookout on June 14, 2019, 12:13:PM
Hasnt a court or appeals covered all sandra trys to argue. Top lawers, top qc, nearly 600k in defence. Theres a reason hes still in jail.





There's a reason that Jeremy bamber is still in jail after 33 years but he didn't commit any murder---it was the police who cocked-up the case from start to finish like they did with the Birmingham 6, Eddie Gilfoyle et-al the list goes on and still does to this day.
Police will rarely admit defeat and as in Luke's and Jeremy's cases it'll remain to be seen.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 14, 2019, 12:26:PM
What about the ones sandra was supporting who later confessed.  Dr sandra leans track record so far is 2 confessions 0 freed.

A jury heard both sides of the argument for months, much more qualified people than sandra tried to defend him. After months the jury found him guilty. Appeals failed, remember sandras big box? Nothing else has happened  in 16 years because the police caught the right person. 

IF corrine is telling the truth, maybe the real reason a lawer wont touch them is because they all believe hes guilty?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: lookout on June 14, 2019, 12:51:PM
What about the ones sandra was supporting who later confessed.  Dr sandra leans track record so far is 2 confessions 0 freed.

A jury heard both sides of the argument for months, much more qualified people than sandra tried to defend him. After months the jury found him guilty. Appeals failed, remember sandras big box? Nothing else has happened  in 16 years because the police caught the right person. 

IF corrine is telling the truth, maybe the real reason a lawer wont touch them is because they all believe hes guilty?





I haven't followed Sandra, though I'm sure many followed those higher up in the echelons of law who've made huge mistakes ! Judges/QC's. They can be wrong too you know !
It's sometimes best to step aside when there are families such as in Luke's case for I'd take what they said with a large pich of salt.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: lookout on June 14, 2019, 12:53:PM
* pinch.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 14, 2019, 01:16:PM
What about the ones sandra was supporting who later confessed.  Dr sandra leans track record so far is 2 confessions 0 freed.

Simon Hall confessed in circumstances that have never been fully explained. The confession was never made public. Thousands of people supported Simon Hall.

I discussed the Adrian Prout case on an open forum - I was never involved with the case personally - never saw a single case paper.

Quote
A jury heard both sides of the argument for months, much more qualified people than sandra tried to defend him. After months the jury found him guilty. Appeals failed, remember sandras big box? Nothing else has happened  in 16 years because the police caught the right person.

No, they didn't! Potential jurors heard prejudicial media coverage for months - the actual jurors heard 42 days of evidence that most certainly didn't cover "both sides of the argument." After 5 hours deliberation, the jury found him guilty. Are you suggesting there have been no murders of young females in Scotland (or, indeed, the UK) in sixteen years?

Quote
IF corrine is telling the truth, maybe the real reason a lawer wont touch them is because they all believe hes guilty?

What makes you think a lawyer "won't touch them"? You're wrong, btw!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 14, 2019, 02:50:PM
Simon Hall confessed in circumstances that have never been fully explained. The confession was never made public. Thousands of people supported Simon Hall.

I discussed the Adrian Prout case on an open forum - I was never involved with the case personally - never saw a single case paper.

No, they didn't! Potential jurors heard prejudicial media coverage for months - the actual jurors heard 42 days of evidence that most certainly didn't cover "both sides of the argument." After 5 hours deliberation, the jury found him guilty. Are you suggesting there have been no murders of young females in Scotland (or, indeed, the UK) in sixteen years?

What makes you think a lawyer "won't touch them"? You're wrong, btw!

Same old sandra,  his wife/famiy can accept it but you cannot or trying to find a way of not admitting your wrong.

Why didnt luke hire you for the trial instead, your skills are being wasted on the Jeremy bamber forum.

What was the falling out/disagreement luke had with you about?


I never said that, corrine did. Not the first time shes lied eh
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 15, 2019, 07:47:AM
Jodi was spotted arguing with Luke on one side of the path,

The girl was never identified as Jodi - even the appeal judges could only say the jurors were entitled to infer she "may have been" Jodi. The descriptions were nothing like Jodi or Luke. The "identification" of Luke from the polaroid photo has been criticised by top experts and lawyers. The witness who "identified" Luke from the polaroid failed to identify him in court. Before the argument that Luke looked completely different by the time it got to court, this witness said she never so the guy's face and would only be able to identify him by his clothing. The clothing in the polaroid was nothing like the clothing she described the guy she saw wearing.

Stocky man, seen following Jodi just after she left home, was identified (he wasn't Luke), but the police never released that information to the police. One  of the witnesses to stocky man knew Jodi. If the stocky man sighting is correct, the people seen at the entrance to the path couldn't be Luke and Jodi because Jodi hadn't left home by then.

Quote
Luke was then spotted by more than one person  acting suspicious alone on the other side of the path after the time of the murder.

A youth was seen standing against a gate, looking at the pavement. What's "suspicious" about that? He wasn't agitated, trying to flee or covered with blood - just standing there looking at the pavement. If he was the murderer, how and where did he get cleaned up within half an hour of the murder? (And that's not allowing any time for the stripping and mutilating of Jodi's body). The witnesses said they never saw his face but were taken pictures of Luke in the media, by the police, and asked if he was the person they saw. We now know there was another youth on the Newbattle Road that evening and he is probably the person the witnesses saw - a simple case of mistaken identity of another youth who was acting perfectly innocently.

Luke was seen at the end of his street (also on the Newbattle Road, sitting on a wall,  acting perfectly normally. The people who saw him there knew him and positively identified him.

Quote
He phoned Alan Ovens who told him Jodi was on her way to meet him,

Who told him either Jodi was "out" or had "just left" according to his own statements. No mention of going to meet Luke.

Quote
but despite this still went and met a friend and told the friend Jodi wouldn't be coming out because she was grounded.

Met a friend who says Luke told him "Jodi's not coming out." (Nothing about being grounded). The other two friends who were there deny that that was said.

Quote
Why would he say that?

The friend? Because, like so many of the kids involved in this case, he was bullied, browbeaten and threatened until he said what the police wanted him to say.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 15, 2019, 10:09:AM
Patience, Lithium! You'll have your proof in the not too distant future.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 15, 2019, 01:12:PM
Maybe her memory isnt as good today or maybe shes misleading once again,  sandra has a history of that.

How many times have we read comments like that and shes failed to deliver, shame they deleted old forum eh, the stuff they come out with on there!!! remember the  big box? Remember the stuff she came out with in the build up to that and the big attempt for sandra and corrine to arange press to see her walk/deliever it that failed, sandra trying to make a name for herself, hows that going?  Corrines mums attempt to sell her story for 10k.

Theyve now found someone else whos trying to make a name, mr english.  Watching his interviews i thought he looked like he was thinking wtf at times, doubting stuff coming from corine especially. But its all about the views for him, some people will do/use anything to try become famous.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 15, 2019, 01:35:PM
I notice on the red forum, there's a discussion about the QC at the appeal saying the DNA in the condom was "no match whatsoever" to James Falconer.

Quote
The defence team alleges that a recently-used condom was found 50 metres from the spot where Jodi was killed, in June 2003. They added that DNA swabs matched a sample taken from Mr Falconer, who they claim also gave false statements to police.

The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected.

How did he ever get away with that? It was the Crown that discovered the match (when Falconer's DNA was run through the database in relation to another matter) and alerted the defence - what Beckett did in court was deny the Crown's own evidence. Falconer wasn't "identified by Mitchell's defence team" - they were told his DNA matched the DNA from the condom by the Crown!

The defence didn't just "claim" Falconer made false statements to the police - when the police went back to him after finding out the information he'd given them was untrue, he is on record as saying, "I had to say something."

Findlay never explained why he "dropped interest" in Falconer - the first we heard about it was in court that day.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 15, 2019, 01:51:PM
How many people have you pointed the finger at over the years sandra, 8-9? Only one person who has so much evidence against, hes not on that list,  hes in jail.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 15, 2019, 05:00:PM
I notice on the red forum, there's a discussion about the QC at the appeal saying the DNA in the condom was "no match whatsoever" to James Falconer.

How did he ever get away with that? It was the Crown that discovered the match (when Falconer's DNA was run through the database in relation to another matter) and alerted the defence - what Beckett did in court was deny the Crown's own evidence. Falconer wasn't "identified by Mitchell's defence team" - they were told his DNA matched the DNA from the condom by the Crown!

The defence didn't just "claim" Falconer made false statements to the police - when the police went back to him after finding out the information he'd given them was untrue, he is on record as saying, "I had to say something."

Findlay never explained why he "dropped interest" in Falconer - the first we heard about it was in court that day.

it wasnt just lues defence that thought falconers story might be untrue more or less everybody who has heard it does.

even people who think lukes guilty.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 15, 2019, 08:03:PM
It's certainly a strange story, nugnug!

Someone commenting on the James English podcast asked whether Luke was on any anti-psychotic medication (he wasn't) and that got me thinking. How many people would think psychosis, or people close to the victim or her family, on medication to control psychosis, should have formed part of the police investigation?

Is it ok to say, well, we're focusing on this guy here, so we're not at all concerned about this guy over here with serious psychosis, on the highest dose of anti-psychotic medication (that's not working) whose mental health has been deteriorating in the months leading up to the murder? Especially if that was someone with direct access to the victim?

Just asking!!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 15, 2019, 10:33:PM
falconer said i had to say somthing so why dident he just tell the trth instead of making up a ridcluss story unless the truth he couldent say to a policeman.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 15, 2019, 10:37:PM
How many people have you pointed the finger at over the years sandra, 8-9? Only one person who has so much evidence against, hes not on that list,  hes in jail.

I’d give up if I were you. Your arguments contain no facts or truths unlike Sandra’s . It’s obvious she knows this case inside out and has thoroughly investigated this case and has seen all the documents.

As for James English bravo to him for letting them have a voice.

We must allow prisoners protesting their innocence to follow through with appeals etc. Its called human rights. If any one of us were in the same situation we would expect the same . Unfortunately the system is not fair and there is a killer walking the streets. Who is that and where is he. He/she/they should man up and confess as far as I’m concerned he/she/they are bloody cowards on top of being a cold blooded murderer. Someone knows who he/she/they are and they too are cowards. When the truth finally prevails I hope they throw the bloody book at them. They just like Luke will deserve a fair trial and appeal just like Luke.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 15, 2019, 10:48:PM
How many people has she tried to blame,  for someone who knows all the facts and truths why cant she make her mind up or convince the people who really matter?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 16, 2019, 01:02:AM
How many people has she tried to blame,  for someone who knows all the facts and truths why cant she make her mind up or convince the people who really matter?

There you go again. She isn’t trying to blame anyone. If for example it’s a fact that it was a known persons dna near the scene,  how is her questioning the police and what they did with that information blaming anyone. Truth hurts but needs outing. What would you like to do with information like that. Oh well someone jacked off very near the scene and we know who that was but heyho he wouldn’t have done anything so let’s not talk about it. If someone known that had been on or near the scene changed their appearance immediately after the event shouldn’t we be questioning these things.

I dont get what your motive is for trying to make Sandra into something she isn’t. She has kids Jodie age. Are you seriously asking us to consider that she’s doing this for some other motive.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 16, 2019, 01:06:AM
Sandra and others are seeking justice for what they believe to be a miscarriage of justice. And by the information that she has bought to light ought to make everyone sit up and take notice that Luke did not get a fair trial.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 16, 2019, 01:13:AM
The poeple in the area that have burnt corrines business down and made her life a misery should hang there heads in shame. How many were convicted of that offence. Mob justice is a disgrace and I don’t hear anyone of you supporting this argument. Its a complete joke that because she put an arm around her son or slept in The same room As Luke For his safety that she has been treated this way. To be quite frank it’s about time some of these cowards grew some balls and spoke up for what is right and for those that know what happened or who was involved to speak up. Little weasels ! Makes me mad!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 16, 2019, 01:49:AM
There you go again. She isn’t trying to blame anyone.

Have you been reading the same threads and watched same interviews? Ask billy to activate the old forum, read through these forums and the other. The police caught the right person, 16 years and nothing has happened since. The reason they jump between so many people to blame is there is no evidence for each one. How ever there is a massive amount of evidence against luke, hundreds of pages. Ill leave you and nugnug to line up questions for sandra.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 16, 2019, 08:46:AM
When someone is convicted of a serious crime (and sentenced to life imprisonment) it's supposed to be on the basis of proven guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. Let's see what reasonable doubt exists in this case.

(1) DNA from semen on the victim's t-shirt from another man who had no alibi for 12 days. The prosecution explains other semen deposits on the t-shirt and bra as possibly carried there by "rain water diffusion" or "washing machine diffusion". This guy is part of a group who insist on a double check of the path, having gone directly there with no definable reason for doing so. His first words to the police when they arrived were "I suppose you've been to my house first?" He later explained this away as "humour" - minutes after finding his girlfriend's sister's body. He tells police in the 999 call they "phoned the police an hour ago" - much earlier than they actually did call the police and, coincidentally, at the exact time of a mysterious call reporting Jodi missing before she was missing. Admitted experiencing "anger issues". Never considered a suspect.

(2) A man suffering serious psychosis whose medication wasn't working because he was also using recreational drugs. Regular appointment with psychiatrist was cancelled that day apparently because he "wanted to keep smoking cannabis." Was kept away from police attention for the first 9 days of the investigation by others. Alibi from only one person is contradicted by others claimed to have been with him leaving his alibi dependent on just one person whose stories continually change. History of violent outbursts, including attacks with bladed instruments, increasing in the run up to the murder. Direct access to the victim, said to have been at home at the claimed time of the murder but identified by a witness outside of his house, close to the victim. Never considered a suspect.

(3) 2 boys on a moped, whose bike was propped against the wall at the V break, at the precise time the police claimed Jodi was being murdered. They couldn't say where they were or what they were doing. Took 5 days to make themselves known to police following a public appeal for them to come forward. Lied about the time they were on the path (removing themselves for the exact time of the murder, even though it would be several days later before police publicly released the believed time of the murder). One said they didn't come forward because Jodi's Gran told them not to. One cut off his own hair immediately after the murder. Supplied Jodi with cannabis. Was allowed to continue selling cannabis to Luke (who would later also be charged with drug offences). Known to carry knives. One was facing a charge for a serious violent attack on another female at the time of Luke's trial - gave evidence against Luke. Never suspects.

(4) A man masturbated into a condom which was dropped 20 yards from the body on the night of the murder. He wasn't traced for three years. When he was, the distance he said he went down behind the wall meant he would have to have seen the body (but said he didn't). He said that when he heard the following morning that a girl had been found murdered behind the wall, he went out onto Lady path and masturbated behind a tree (within the police cordon). Three arrests for violent attacks by the time he was identified. Never considered a suspect.

(5) After the murder, in 2006, a man driving along a main road spotted a girl walking on a country path in woodland. He swerved into a layby and followed the girl, grabbing her by the hair and pulling her down an embankment, beating her severely and raping her. He had a knife, but the girl managed to struggle free and escape. It was later discovered he was near Roan's Dyke path on the afternoon Jodi was murdered. Never considered a suspect. And to this day, people say there have never been any similar attacks in the area since Luke was convicted!

I could go on. Beyond reasonable doubt means ensuring anyone else who could have been responsible is ruled out on solid, factual evidence. That didn't happen. Four of the people mentioned above knew Jodi well (and she them). All of them lied at some point during the investigation (or others lied for them).

So there you have it. Without naming a single name or pointing a single finger, can anyone reading this factual information seriously claim Luke Mitchell was convicted "beyond reasonable doubt"?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 16, 2019, 09:14:AM
Have you been reading the same threads and watched same interviews? Ask billy to activate the old forum, read through these forums and the other. The police caught the right person, 16 years and nothing has happened since. The reason they jump between so many people to blame is there is no evidence for each one. How ever there is a massive amount of evidence against luke, hundreds of pages. Ill leave you and nugnug to line up questions for sandra.

I have read the other forum etc and I’m still of the same opinion that Luke did not get a fair trial and that certain suspects were never investigated.

Spouting off about Sandra who you obviously have a problem with does not make Luke guilty. This isn’t about Sandra this is about someone shouting about Luke being imprisoned on an u fair trial , trial by media and locals doing their utmost to place the blame firmly on Luke to protect others.

Let’s hear from these cowards x
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 16, 2019, 12:19:PM
Sandra be honest, don't beat about the bush name everone youve pointed the finger at over the years.

You can mislead as much as you like on here to try convince random people, controlled interviews and forum use.
When it comes down to it your arguments arnt credible and that's why youve failed to help free luke, you have failed to convince the people who matter. Deep down you know hes guilty, like simon hall you wont admit it no matter what. your to involved now, books, worried what reputation you have left if any is nearly gone.

Are you 'just' helping mojo, surly an expert like you with all facts, truths would have a seat at the top table. Was there any fall out, disagreement with luke and you?

Corrine said lawers wont touch them, you said they will. What is it ? Someones lying, again


Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 16, 2019, 12:41:PM
Unlike Luke, this guy had 2 alibis, one being Jodi's older sister. No motive. "I suppose you've been to my house first?" is suspicious but Corrine's first words when finding out were "Has Luke been arrested yet?"

You're referring to Jodi's brother.  Please provide a source for the claim his medication wasn't working? Again, had an alibi. Jodi's mum. Wasn't identified by anyone outside his house and rarely left his bedroom. No criminal background as stated. No motive.

Ok sure. I think they were considered suspects and police made an appeal to find them. Like every other male close to the victim except Luke, they were able to rule them out.

Jodi wasn't raped. Unless you think someone raped Jodi using a condom, didn't leave any DNA on the body or the crime scene, or have Jodi's DNA on the condom, but was then foolish enough to leave it nearby with his semen in it, I think you can stop trying to force the idea that a condom near the crime scene was at all linked to the non-sexual murder of a young girl.

Really trying to blame the Da Vinci rapist again Sandra? Embarrassing. This was about 10 miles away from where Jodi was murdered. Jodi was't grabbed and pulled down anywhere, she voluntarily climbed over a wall with someone she trusted. Oh and Jodi wasn't raped. There were absolutely no witness sightings of any bald man in his mid 20s that day. More than one of a teenager with shoulder length dirty blonde hair. There have been no similar attacks in the area since Luke was convicted. Robert Greens raping someone years later does not cast "reasonable doubt" on Luke Mitchell's murder conviction in any way. Wtf?!

joe had an albi fromhis mum sodid luke if lukes mums albi isnt good enough neather is the albi of jodis mum

and steven kelly has an albi from his girlfreind thats really not good enough ethere wullie gage had an albi
from his girlfriend and hes doing life now.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: notsure on June 16, 2019, 12:52:PM
joe had an albi fromhis mum sodid luke if lukes mums albi isnt good enough is the albi of jodis mum

and steven kelly has an albi from his girlfreind thats really not good enough ethere wullie gage had an albi
from his girlfriend and hes doing life now.

Totally agree but nut and if either of them had been convicted they would be shouting they didn't
Get a fair trial
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 16, 2019, 01:32:PM
Totally agree but nut and if either of them had been convicted they would be shouting they didn't
Get a fair trial

well ian huntley had an albi from his girlfriend we all know how much that was worth.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 16, 2019, 02:33:PM
https://youtu.be/uK7OVE_5L7Y
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 16, 2019, 06:37:PM
Unlike Luke, this guy had 2 alibis, one being Jodi's older sister. No motive. "I suppose you've been to my house first?" is suspicious but Corrine's first words when finding out were "Has Luke been arrested yet?"

Tut tut, Lithium. For 12 days, according to his own and Janine's statements, he had no alibi. Nada! In those statements, he left Janine's Gran's either late morning or around lunchtime and that's the last we hear of him until around 7pm when he's back in the gran's house watching "Natural Born Killers" with Janine. The alibi of two people didn't appear until 12 days in. Corinne's first words were "Jodi's dead?" (unless the cops are lying about that). The claim that she asked "Has he been arrested?" (the word "yet" was never suggested to have been used) was never corroborated. That said, if your son was in the back of a police car that you weren't being allowed into, having just heard that his girlfriend was dead, "Has he been arrested?" would seem like an obvious question - why else would they have him isolated in the back of a police car?

Quote
You're referring to Jodi's brother.  Please provide a source for the claim his medication wasn't working? Again, had an alibi. Jodi's mum. Wasn't identified by anyone outside his house and rarely left his bedroom. No criminal background as stated. No motive.

I quite deliberately did not name any of the people I'm talking about here. if you want to think I'm talking about Jodi's brother, that's entirely up to you. Information about the person whose medication was not working because of continued use of recreational drugs is in the case papers. But if we're talking specifically about Jodi's brother, why was his mum's alibi (which does not stand up because of the statements of others) acceptable when Luke's mum's wasn't? I'm sorry, you're quite wrong about him being identified outside the house - he was, and I have the documents to prove it. Rarely left his room? He was at his Gran's house on the Saturday night, went out somewhere until around midnight, returned to his gran's and stayed there overnight, returned to his mum's on the Sunday, walked back up to his Gran's on the Sunday evening (on his own) and walked back to his mum's on the Monday. I didn't say Jodi's brother had a "criminal background" anywhere - it's really not cool to misquote people to shore up your own arguments.

Quote
Ok sure. I think they were considered suspects and police made an appeal to find them. Like every other male close to the victim except Luke, they were able to rule them out.

The boys on the moped were ruled out before the DNA results came back and before it was discovered they'd lied about the time on the path. Exactly what was it that "enabled" the police to rule them out in these circumstances?

Quote
Jodi wasn't raped. Unless you think someone raped Jodi using a condom, didn't leave any DNA on the body or the crime scene, or have Jodi's DNA on the condom, but was then foolish enough to leave it nearby with his semen in it, I think you can stop trying to force the idea that a condom near the crime scene was at all linked to the non-sexual murder of a young girl.

You have conflated "non sexual" with "not sexually motivated." Did you know the police considered the possibility that Jodi had been sexually assaulted (potentially an attempted rape with a condom) but couldn't complete that line of enquiry because the swabbings from the outside of the condom were so badly done, no DNA profiles could be reliably obtained from them? No? They spent quite a bit of time on that theory, but once again, shoddy crime scene practices lost vital evidence. Ever considered that the person who dropped the condom didn't mean to drop it and, by the time he discovered he had, it was too late to go retrieve it?

Quote
Really trying to blame the Da Vinci rapist again Sandra? Embarrassing. This was about 10 miles away from where Jodi was murdered. Jodi was't grabbed and pulled down anywhere, she voluntarily climbed over a wall with someone she trusted. Oh and Jodi wasn't raped. There were absolutely no witness sightings of any bald man in his mid 20s that day. More than one of a teenager with shoulder length dirty blonde hair. There have been no similar attacks in the area since Luke was convicted. Robert Greens raping someone years later does not cast "reasonable doubt" on Luke Mitchell's murder conviction in any way. Wtf?!

It would be really easy to just give up here! I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm not "trying to blame" anyone! Roan's Dyke Path to Rosslyn Glen is 5.5 miles - about 10 minutes' drive at 30mph. Jodi was most definitely grabbed and pulled down, by the hair. We don't know if she climbed over the wall or went into the woodland strip from another, easily accessible point (the big break at the top of the path or the field at the other side of the woodland strip). There were other people she would have trusted to go over the wall with on the path at the time she would have been walking down it. There are no witness sightings on record of a bald man in his 20s that day because nobody was asking for them. How many sightings of "a teenager with dirty blond, shoulder length hair" do you think there might be in an area with 2 High Schools  and about 1500 pupils between them? (BTW, he didn't have shoulder length hair at the time.) Similarities between the two attacks: young female on country path in woodland, attacker armed with knife, victim dragged by the hair, beaten and partially strangled.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 16, 2019, 07:32:PM
strange to rule people out before the dna results cme back isnt it mind you strange to let the crime scne by scrubbed with bleach and to let the bins be emptied when your looking for a mrder weapon.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 17, 2019, 02:46:PM
Imagine if Falconer was put in the stand at the original trial.

Finley: how did a condom with your seamen appear 50 ft from a murder scene
JF: I was playing with myself at the time because I have no privacy at home
Finley: what time was this? What route did you take to get there?
JF. Could have been as late as 9pm, and I went this way and that!
Finley: so you stepped over a naked  and mutilated body on your way there?
JF: na! Of course not I didn’t see anything.
Case closed and back to the drawing board for Lothian and borders police if the procurator fiscal even allowed it to trial.

One thing that gets to me is that so much of what we know counteracts with what we know!
We know two people were on a motorised bike GD and AN OTHER, these are on camera at a tool hire place. They are seen pushing the bike. The bike is seen propped up against the V break in the wall. All before and at the very time of the murder. These two were never spotted heading home to GD’s house, these two couldn’t even say what route they took back home, these two were proven to have lied about the times they were supposed to be home at GD’s house. These two quickly changed their pre arranged plans for that night due to ! Well nothing really.

Let’s take that in context with what we know of Luke’s movements, not seen before the murder anywhere, not seen at the murder scene,not seen escaping the murder scene in a state that would make anyone believe that he had just brutally killed is girlfriend. Was possibly seen hanging around at what was basically his end of the path by a couple of chancers, who were almost held in contempt of court by colluding with each other on their testimonies. Ok Luke was seen prior to 6pm by a few lads who knew him sitting on a wall at the Newbattle end. This is conducive of what Luke maintains was his actions, home after school to lark around until time to make dinner, he was nowhere to be seen by anyone!!

The trouble is the two motorised bikers can be placed at the scene but can’t be placed leaving it! If I was a manipulating person who only wanted to see a brutal murderer  off the hook I could suggest this was because they committed,witnessed and covered up a horrendous crime. Of course I’m not suggesting that, but I do wonder why two individuals who went a long way to discredit Luke as a cannabis user and seller who carries knives simply not say they saw him there! They were there so WHY! Didn’t they see him?

This takes me to something I don’t remember the answers to, the bike was seen placed at the V break, but it had to have been removed at some point. Do we have a time where we can tie down exactly when that bike wasn’t there
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 17, 2019, 03:19:PM
We don't, Gordo, and that's always bothered me. Both Dickies statements were all over the place. GD couldn't remember if his dad and the dogs (all 8 of them) were at home when he and JF got back, but he did remember they were home but went out shortly after 5.30pm, but it could have been 8 o'clock. He and JF went to a local shop for beer, etc, around 7pm, but he didn't know if his dad was home with the dogs then or not.

DD said he went out with the dogs "later on," possibly around 8 or 9pm (from memory, there were no statements from DD in the defence files - the information about going out around 8 or 9 was given in a media interview).

The guy on the pushbike didn't mention seeing the moped, but they had that guy so harassed, he didn't know if he was coming or going - he actually said on the stand, "They were making me feel like I was a suspect." In terms of the time he cycled up the path, according to police timings, it was between 5pm and 10 past, but that was on the basis of a route they pushed him to agree he'd cycled. Like AB, he told them the routes he normally cycled and that he couldn't be sure which one he cycled that evening, so they chose the one that fitted the timing they needed.

Either Ferris or Dickie jnr said there was a yellow pushbike against the railings at the back of the school, at the top of the path. The bike (and its owner) were never traced and the bike didn't fit any know descriptions of bikes belonging to anyone connected to the investigation. Was there a bike, or did they just make that up?

There was a phone call to Dickie's mobile phone from his girlfriend (or maybe vice versa- I'll have to check) that was used as "proof" of the time Dickie was back in his home - an exact reversal of the way the call to the speaking clock was used as "proof" that Luke was out of his house!

The only presumption we're left with is that Dickie and Ferris, if they returned to Dickie's home at 5.30pm, returned there on the moped.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 17, 2019, 03:24:PM
i think if falconer had come to police atetin he would have had to come up with a much better story.

funny he said about 9 a clock though hes dropin himself in it there

was that becouse he could only give that time becouse his other movements were acounted for that day.

or was he just trying to make it to late for him to have been the killer.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 17, 2019, 03:29:PM
im coming to the belief that jodi  was atacked twice that day.

before she was murderd i belive earlyer in the day somebody had already hit her that person may or may not be the killer.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 17, 2019, 03:34:PM
I can’t help feeling that what Falconer told the police 3 years later was pretty accurate an account of what he did and saw that night, it only becomes contentious when placed amid  the other evidence the was brought to trial. It’s pretty unfair to him to believe otherwise and again not his fault he wasn’t detected prior to the trial and during the investigation
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 17, 2019, 03:42:PM
It’s strange you say she might have been attacked twice that night, certainly a lot of the injuries can’t be explained mainly due to the timings, again though until we get a grip of when this murder actually occurred it will seem strange. This was a very prolonged attack, fitting everything into a time frame is impossible if Luke’s the killer.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 17, 2019, 03:48:PM
It’s strange you say she might have been attacked twice that night, certainly a lot of the injuries can’t be explained mainly due to the timings, again though until we get a grip of when this murder actually occurred it will seem strange. This was a very prolonged attack, fitting everything into a time frame is impossible if Luke’s the killer.

that's why I don't think they were all committed in one attack it would of taken to long I believe she was in fight with somebody before she was killed I think the injury's to her face were caused then.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 17, 2019, 03:49:PM
I can’t help but agree with you mate
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 17, 2019, 04:11:PM
of course the person who hit her may have nothing to do with the murder but of course the police would not have belived that so they wouldent have come forward.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 17, 2019, 06:07:PM
that's why I don't think they were all committed in one attack it would of taken to long I believe she was in fight with somebody before she was killed I think the injury's to her face were caused then.

Some of the injuries to her face were so horrific, nugnug, it would have been impossible to "hide" them. Some of the other injuries could have been caused by a fight - the bruising to the knuckles, the back of the head, side of the eye - even the cut to the inside of her top lip could have been caused by a punch to the face.

Actually, you guys have just made an important point. Bruising. If all the blows that caused the bruising were inflicted immediately before the injuries that killed Jodi, would they have had time to become full blown bruises, given the amount of blood loss involved? I'll go investigate and come back to this!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 17, 2019, 07:16:PM
No I don’t believe they would have Sandra, it’s something I toyed with for a while but I always felt there was a danger to Jodi prior to all this anyway
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 17, 2019, 08:01:PM
Proof(lol just imitating yourself) but c’mon everything you have just typed is conjecture at most or desperation at best
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 17, 2019, 08:10:PM
I wouldn’t have put up that GD and AN OTHER called out Luke to start with. I believe your an intelligent person with much information and knowledge of this case so to simple stick stuff out there is crazy. These two didn’t even come forward for a few days after being told not to by a person on the search party. Luke has already been interviewed and treated like the culprit from day one
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 17, 2019, 08:23:PM
Once again plz prove what your are saying. Why would you so often criticise Sandra for what she puts up and NOW!! Ask her to back up what your saying? What side of the coin do you sit mate? I have told you that these two who ever they two were didn’t come forward at the time, here’s an even better point though, these two didn’t testify to what your saying at court.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 17, 2019, 08:29:PM
JF and GD were telling people it was Luke even before Jodi's family believed it. Not sure if Sandra can confirm.

and why would they want to do that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 17, 2019, 08:33:PM
Maybe GD and JF did see something? They were the first people to tell everyone it was Luke, and Jodi's family fell out with them after it. Maybe because they didn't come forward with what they had seen. That would explain why Joey wanted to batter them. They didn't help. Maybe they didn't want to talk to police or want to grass someone they sold drugs to?

if so why wold they not come forward.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 18, 2019, 08:33:AM
Ferris and Dickie!

They didn't come forward for 5 days. Ferris said afterwards his gran, Alice Walker, told him not to because they were on the path "too early" (at around 4.30). Since the time of Jodi leaving was thought, by Judith originally, to be 5 o'clock (later changed to 5.30, then to 4.50), how could AW be sure they hadn't seen someone suspicious lurking around the area? Ferris was never questioned in court about his claim that his gran told him not to come forward, nor was AW.

Jodi's mum did "fall out" with them later, claiming they knew more than they were letting on, but has never pushed for the police to go after them to find out what that was. Why might that be?

When MBB went to the Gran's on the morning of July 1st, he did not describe someone who could be Luke, but one witness said Ferris kept saying that afternoon, "it's Luke, it's Luke." However, the same witness said Ferris was behaving very strangely - whenever an article about Jodi came on the news, he would turn the volume up and concentrate intently on it. He was also very tense and "snappy" according to this witness.

We know from other witnesses the police were telling people from the off that Luke was the killer and they would have him arrested within the week - there's no reason to suppose they were telling Jodi's family anything different, so if Ferris and Dickie "knew" it was Luke, that's because the police were telling anyone who would listen!

Why didn't they tell police the truth about that afternoon? I think it's a dead cert that the whole lot was dishonest, not just the timing - they could "remember" everything about that afternoon except the correct time (even though Dickie remembered the time of his jobcentre appointment from which Ferris picked him up on the moped) or where they were when the bike was propped at the V point without them (even though they gave an "account" of everything else they did on the path).

It sure as hell wasn't because they were "covering" for Luke - their initial statements are entirely focused on incriminating him - stories about Luke and knives, Luke and cannabis, jabbing Jodi in the leg with a knife (never corroborated by anyone else), handing police knives they claimed belonged to Luke (one of them turned out later to be Ferris's own knife and there was nothing to corroborate the other claims) - it goes on and on. If they'd seen Luke there that day, there's absolutely no way they would have covered that up - their enthusiasm to point the finger at him in their early statements (while lying their heads off about the time) just stopped short of saying it was Luke, anyway!

What reason might Joseph have had to want to batter Ferris? Oh, yes - Ferris destroyed the alibi Judith gave police for Joseph that afternoon. It was Ferris, it appears, who told the police about Joseph's 9 bar which is why the police went back to Judith and Alice, several days into the investigation, to ask about Joseph, who'd been airbrushed out of their earlier statements.

As for not wanting to grass someone they sold drugs to - Ferris was singing like a canary about all the people who bought cannabis from him, not just Luke. He said in court Luke still owed him for the last lot. And we know the police were telling witnesses they weren't interested in cannabis, that nobody would be in trouble for anything cannabis related, they just wanted information about "the murderer" (what they meant was they just wanted information about Luke Mitchell).

So, not to cover for Luke, not to cover for someone they sold drugs to, not because they had special knowledge about Luke (since the police were telling everyone they "knew" it was Luke), so what are we left with?

Why did Ferris ask his gran and another male relative, on July 1st, if he should go to the police or not? There's a slightly different version of this, according to Yvonne Walker. She said Ferris did intend to go to the police on July 1st, so something must have changed his mind. Was it not so much a case of asking his gran, but mentioning that he'd been on the path and was going to tell the police that, and he was told not to? Then there's the gloves - why lie about them (and try to hide them prior to that)?

I, too, think Ferris and Dickie know more than they're letting on, but not about Luke Mitchell.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 18, 2019, 01:56:PM
It’s strange that in those earlier encounters with the police that they were pointing the finger at Luke, why not simply say they saw him behind the wall? That’s because they didn’t see him but they should have. We know they were there so why not!
No real way of determining a time for the bike being at the wall, the tool yard workers knocked off around 5pm and by the time they locked up, got in their cars and drove to a point where they could see the bike certainly puts the 17:15 timing being accurate. Was the bike there only fleetingly? Simply stopped there to look over the wall, nothing to see and move on to the next place. No one else seems to put the bike there at the wall, neither Kelly,woman pushing the pram.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 18, 2019, 05:41:PM
Thinking about the bike.
Does anyone know who owned it?
Where it was kept?
It’s movements that day? We know Dickie was picked up by Ferris so was Ferris running around on it that day
Was it forensically tested?
Remember this bike was positively placed at a murder scene at the time it was supposed to have occurred, if it was tested and found to have dna then the owners/riders would have questions to answer. If however it was clean would that go some way to suggesting that the murder didn’t occur at that time!


I was also wondering where the furthest item contaminated with blood that was found at the scene and at what direction it was found in relation to the body?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 18, 2019, 05:44:PM
The woman pushing the pram wouldn't have seen it, Gordo, because she walked up the Easthouses Road rather than Roan's Dyke path. The most obvious witness would have been the guy on the pushbike who originally said (from memory) he thought he'd cycled up the path around 5.30pm - again, the time frame was altered over time to make it between 5pm and 5.10pm. If he cycled up the path beginning at 5pm,he'd have been at the other end of the path by the time Ferris and Dickie turned onto it from the Newbattle Road. If he cycled up it at 5.10pm, he couldn't have failed to see and hear the bike. If (as he originally said) it was nearer to 5.30pm and the moped wasn't there, we can deduce that it was removed sometime between 5.15pm and 5.30pm.

According to their finalised statements, Dickie and Ferris got back to Dickie's house at "about half five" - it would have taken them literally a few minutes, on the moped (if it didn't cut out again, which, according to them, it didn't) to get there. So, based on the information we have, the bike was at the V point for somewhere around 10 - 12 minutes from 5.15pm. They did claim that they drove up and down Roan's Dyke Path "a couple of times" before heading to Dickie's house - there is no other information anywhere to support those claims.

But, if they did, it would mean the murderer was stripping Jodi and mutilating her body, completely unconcerned by a couple of youths in such close (and noisy) proximity. Since they suggested that one reason the moped might have been propped against the wall was because they were "tired out" from pushing it, why would they take it back down the path, risking it cutting out again and the possibility of having to push it even further to get it home?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 18, 2019, 06:18:PM
Thinking about the bike.
Does anyone know who owned it?

Apparently it was jointly owned by both youths who rode it that day.

Quote
Where it was kept?
Dickie's back garden

Quote
It’s movements that day? We know Dickie was picked up by Ferris so was Ferris running around on it that day

Apparently, it was in Dickie's back garden when Ferris arrived between 2 and 3pm. They tinkered with it for a bit (Dickie getting his mum to take him to the Shell garage in Mayfield to get fuel for it). He left Ferris tinkering with it when he went to his Jobcentre interview and, according to statements, Ferris stayed there until he got the call from Dickie to pick him up.  The only movements on record for it are Ferris's trip through the woods and Newbattle Golf Course to collect Dickie and the return journey. Ferris and Dickie claimed to be in Dickie's house until around 9pm, when Ferris left and walked to Yvonne Walker's flat, so it would appear the bike wasn't moved again after 5.30pm. There were two witnesses whom Ferris claimed to have spoken to on his way down Lady Path between 4.20pm and 4.30pm - I have their names, but have never seen statements from them.

Quote
Was it forensically tested?
Remember this bike was positively placed at a murder scene at the time it was supposed to have occurred, if it was tested and found to have dna then the owners/riders would have questions to answer. If however it was clean would that go some way to suggesting that the murder didn’t occur at that time!

Not to my knowledge. If it was, the information was never released to the defence. It wasn't even known about until Saturday 5th July and (again, from memory) by the time the police got around to asking about it, they no longer had it. As per the introduction of confusing information in this case, another "dirt bike" was mentioned by one of the two (I'd have to go back and check which one - I think it was Ferris, but I'll double check) - that was in relation to the finding of the gloves. Information was offered about the history of this bike, but it's unclear whether they claimed to have ridden it before or after the bike in question.

There were witness statements about Ferris climbing over a fence later that night, his jeans ripped and covered with what the witnesses assumed was mud. To my knowledge, those jeans were never forensically tested either.


Quote
I was also wondering where the furthest item contaminated with blood that was found at the scene and at what direction it was found in relation to the body?

A bloodstained branch was retrieved 25 yards westward of the body (so 9 yards from the body in the direction of Newbattle). Other bloodstained branches were discovered eastward of the body (in the direction of Easthouses), but their distances from the body were not recorded (or, if they were, the information was never released to the defence). Someone claiming to be a relative of Jodi's once claimed that a bloodstained branch was found in the waste ground to the right of the lane leading to the Easthouses entrance to the path, so that would have been some 500 yards eastward of the body. Craig Dobbie claimed Jodi went over the wall and a violent encounter ensued, causing her to turn "eastward, towards home" - he made this claim on the basis of bloodstained branches found in the woodland strip. If, as he claimed, Jodi was attacked immediately she went over the wall at the V point, the bloodstained branches he's talking about would have to be at least 16.3m eastward from the body, since Jodi was found 16.3m west of the V point. All of the bloodstains on the branches were found to be Jodi's blood.

The police files refer to yards and metres interchangeably - sorry if that's confusing, but it's all we've ever had to work with and it makes it really difficult to pinpoint with any precision exactly what distance they're talking about.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 18, 2019, 06:43:PM
The branch 25 yards towards newbattle when taken in context with the initial assault being around 7m? In that direction could suggest it was a part of that initial assault or had been moved because of the assault. Those further towards Easthouses are more suspicious in relation to possible movement of the murderer. It would seem strange have such an array of items as widespread as that. The V proved negative to any blood or forensics didn’t it so if the two lads on the bike had entered that clearing beyond the V they would surely have contaminated that area when leaving it to get the bike. Again does that mean that no crime scene existed at that time!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 18, 2019, 07:42:PM
Jodi was attacked immediately she went over the wall at the V point, the bloodstained branches he's talking about would have to be at least 16.3m eastward from the body, since Jodi was found 16.3m west of the V point. All of the bloodstains on the branches were found to be Jodi's blood

The area at the woodlands side of the V didn’t contain that much blood though did it? The initial assault happened further westwards of the body in a more dense area of woodland, the area where the spatter and smear were located

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 19, 2019, 05:51:AM
The spread of the bloodstained branches is consistent with Jodi possibly being attacked, breaking away and trying to run, then being attacked again (even Dobbie himself alluded to that). The other possibility is that some of them could have been moved by animals - dogs, perhaps? That wouldn't be a reasonable explanation for the 6' branch (the one found furthest westward), but may account for some of the others.

Using the word "bloodstained" maybe gives the wrong impression - the branches all had spots or drips of blood on them - they weren't covered with blood.

The problem with the V point is how many people had been through it by the time the forensics officers got there. For example, blood on a boulder at the path side of the V was considered incapable of providing any usable evidence because it could have been deposited there by police officers at the scene. The explanation for no trace of Jodi going through the V was the same, but it's odd that there was no trace of the wall on Jodi either. I've been through the V point many times and every time, I get "scuff marks" of some description on my jeans.

It's true that the area directly behind the V had no bloodstaining, which doesn't fit with Dobbie's theory of the assault starting there and then moving westward then eastward. We don't know for sure where the initial assault happened - all we know is there was blood spray and a small smear on the wall to the west, beside where Jodi's body was found. The area where Jodi was found (and her body itself) were remarkably clean of blood, which seems very unusual. We don't know, for example, if blood had pooled beneath where Jodi lay, because no soil samples were taken (or, if they were, they weren't released to the defence). There was no pooled blood at the foot of the wall where the blood spray was (and where it was claimed Jodi's throat was cut) - the crime scene photographs show that clearly. I've said for many years that the spray on the wall is highly unlikely to be arterial spray.

So where does all of that leave us? The lack of evidence from the wall could suggest that there was no crime scene when the boys on the moped were there, meaning the time of death was wrong. Coupled with the kids who were playing in the woodland strip at the time who saw and heard nothing and the dog walkers at the junction of the paths at five o'clock who saw and heard nothing, Dickie Snr's claim to have seen and heard nothing, the cyclist's and Falconer's claim that they saw nothing, that's 9 people at or around the scene who should have seen something and didn't.

Similarly, because of the absolute hash the police made of protecting the crime scene, lack of evidence from the wall could be because they didn't try to collect it or they conceded from 8am on July 1st that whatever they might get from the wall would be evidentially worthless. We know that someone carried blood over the wall to the path side because of the blood on the boulder, but we'll probably never know who that was. It would have been a very dangerous move for the killer to climb back through the V onto the path side - that would have put him out in the open, with nowhere to hide, for several hundred yards in both directions. Also, he would have no idea if someone might appear on the path just as he climbed through (that happened the last time I was down there - had just climbed back onto the path side when a man appeared behind me and scared the bejeezus out of me because I didn't know he was there).

There were other, far safer routes for him to make his escape without being seen.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 19, 2019, 08:30:AM
When put together like that it does make the time of the murder pretty impossible but we’ve known that for a while.

Didn’t Dickie snr take his dogs through that point sometime that day? I remember the oldest one wasn’t able to jump up that high or was it further down the path that he entered the woodland?

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 19, 2019, 09:02:AM
One big problem is if the murder occurred sometime after the 17:15 allotted time spot and put it to the latest of those 9 people who should have heard or saw something then we have a short window of when the crime could have been committed, equally we have a longer window of when it couldn’t have. If Jodi has simply went somewhere else and with someone different, whoever she was with would also appear to be the murderer!(alternatively she could have been with someone who caused her to be murdered) Or why wouldn’t they have came forward and simply said “yeah Jodi was with me until 6,7,8 pm etc”. Then we have the fact that if she had been with someone else for an extended period of time from where the crime occurred it would appear that Jodi was making her way towards Luke at newbattle, or alternatively on her way back from that area.

At that later time of night it would be unlikely for her to actually expect to go to see Luke! Mainly because of the non contact so she couldn’t be sure Luke would even be in, also this would be out of sorts with the routines and regular actions of Luke and Jodi .
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 19, 2019, 09:37:AM
When put together like that it does make the time of the murder pretty impossible but we’ve known that for a while.

Didn’t Dickie snr take his dogs through that point sometime that day? I remember the oldest one wasn’t able to jump up that high or was it further down the path that he entered the woodland?

He took his 8 dogs through the V point (he lifted the old one through). The problem is, we can't put a time on when that was - their statements are all over the place - anywhere between 5.30pm and 8 - 8.30pm. I'd have thought the dogs would have left forensic traces on the wall - it's a stone dyke that 7 dogs scrambled up, through and over onto the other side. Dickie Snr said he walked back up from the V break, on the woodland side, to the big break at the junction of the paths (the Easthouses end) and back along Lady Path. If it was the later end of the timescales given, he'd be arriving back at the house shortly before Ferris left to go to Yvonne Walker's, but neither of them ties the two events as happening in such close time proximity.

it absolutely fries my head, even after all these years, trying to work it out!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 19, 2019, 09:48:AM
Crucially though it fits with there not being a body or a crime scene at the time the prosecution claimed.

Jodi has to be somewhere else at some point that night.
I was wondering we hear a lot about the close relatives to Jodi on her mother’s side and these were regular haunts for Jodi, she would visit YW and her gran, I’m sure she was also close to the aunts if their actions that night are anything to go by. What about har relatives on her fathers side? Did she regularly see them? Where did her uncle stay the one who committed suicide before the trial?

Looking at other aspects to see where she had went might be more informative. She had nothing substantial in her digestive system and we know she didn’t  have dinner! Would this suggest she wasn’t somewhere where food was readily available? No alcohol in her system but the toxicology report stated she had used cannabis at some point after she had left the house. I’m kinda leaning towards not being at a house she knew well or outside somewhere the whole time, surely though she would have been seen!

Where there any squats around the area that kids used to hang around in?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 19, 2019, 10:02:AM
Quote
5.30pm and 8 - 8.30pm. I'd have thought the dogs would have left forensic traces on the wall - it's a stone dyke that 7 dogs scrambled up, through and over onto the other side. Dickie Snr said he walked back up from the V break, on the woodland side, to the big break at the junction of the paths (the Easthouses end) and back along Lady Path

Let’s take it he was wrong substantially and it was actually 5pm , allowing for possibly missing Jodi and the murderer. This was a prolonged attack taking quite a while when you put all the processes of the crime together. The route he takes would come back eventually to the point of the murder scene and his dogs didn’t alert him to it, no noise and nothing witnessed! Crazy
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 19, 2019, 10:25:AM
One big problem is if the murder occurred sometime after the 17:15 allotted time spot and put it to the latest of those 9 people who should have heard or saw something then we have a short window of when the crime could have been committed, equally we have a longer window of when it couldn’t have.

Another big problem is that if the witnesses to Stocky Man were correct, and Jodi was still on the Easthouses Road at 5.05pm, she couldn't have been killed at 5.15pm behind the wall - there's not enough time.

Quote
If Jodi has simply went somewhere else and with someone different, whoever she was with would also appear to be the murderer!(alternatively she could have been with someone who caused her to be murdered) Or why wouldn’t they have came forward and simply said “yeah Jodi was with me until 6,7,8 pm etc”. Then we have the fact that if she had been with someone else for an extended period of time from where the crime occurred it would appear that Jodi was making her way towards Luke at newbattle, or alternatively on her way back from that area.

Or another alternative, Jodi spent some time with someone she "shouldn't" have been with - we know, if she left at 5pm, she was a bit too early for her usual meeting time with Luke of around 6pm - and someone attacked her after she left that person to head for Newbattle. Luke called to let her know he was out after tea at 5.32pm, eventually getting through at 5.38pm, so it would appear he hadn't expected her to have left already and, if AO told him "she's just left," Luke wouldn't be expecting her until around 6.10pm. Could she have gone to pick up some cannabis - maybe from Yvonne's, maybe from elsewhere - before heading off down the path?

It still wouldn't account for her not being seen by the witnesses who were over the wall between 8 and 9 o'clock, though.

Quote
At that later time of night it would be unlikely for her to actually expect to go to see Luke! Mainly because of the non contact so she couldn’t be sure Luke would even be in, also this would be out of sorts with the routines and regular actions of Luke and Jodi .

Agreed. Also, if she was on the path between 8.30pm and 9pm, she'd have virtually no time to spend with Luke because her curfew was 10 o'clock - she'd be getting there just in time to about turn and head back!

Then there's the scream reported by the witness in the house at the top of the path - around 8pm, he reckoned. Since Dickie didn't mention hearing it, that would rule him out as being there or thereabouts at 8pm and it's unlikely he got there at 8.30, or he'd have bumped into Falconer on his (Dickie's) way back.

So, if the expectation was that she'd be in Newbattle around 6pm (which the statements of Luke, Judith and a couple of Jodi's friends all suggest was roughly the time the and others would meet up after tea), we'd also expect her to start making her way down the path at around 5.30pm  (the time Judith originally said she left). If the scream at 8pm is connected to the murder, that gives us a rough timescale of 5.45pm - 8pm (allowing time for Jodi to get from the top of the path to the V point). We also know that Jodi smoked a joint within an hour or so of her death and, taking all of the statements into account, that had to be after she left her home that evening.

If Jodi went straight to the V point after leaving her home at the claimed time of 4.50pm to smoke a joint with someone there, there would have been no body to see at 5.15pm (again, not enough time for the entirety of the attack on Jodi) - just a couple of people getting stoned.

Alternatively, if she went in through the big break at the top of the path to smoke a joint with someone (this was a popular hangout for underage or illicit smokers) and was initially attacked there, running further into the woodland strip in an attempt to escape, that would account for the bloodstained branches at the Easthouses end of the woodland strip.

There are just so many possibilities - sixteen years on and still no answers.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 19, 2019, 10:36:AM
The bottom line is that, if Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, several people who were over the wall at or after that time should have seen her. If they (genuinely) didn't, it would be reasonable to conclude she wasn't there at that time (I can't see kids playing in the woods saying nothing -- they'd have been utterly traumatised by the sight).

But that would mean Jodi wasn't dead, in the woodland strip, as late as 9pm. She was found at 11.35pm (approximately) - AW said Jodi was "clammy" to the touch, not stone cold. Does that support the idea that Jodi was killed much later than suggested and, if so, where was she in the time in between?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 19, 2019, 01:04:PM
Quote
But that would mean Jodi wasn't dead, in the woodland strip, as late as 9pm. She was found at 11.35pm (approximately) - AW said Jodi was "clammy" to the touch, not stone cold. Does that support the idea that Jodi was killed much later than suggested and, if so, where was she in the time in between

That’s the first time I think I’ve heard that is what AW described the body she had touched, I remember a few years ago we were discussing the entomology of the body and that didn’t coincide with a 6 hour gap between murder and discovery.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 19, 2019, 01:20:PM
Quote
Luke's dog didn't alert him to it the first time he walked directly past it. Wasn't interested. On the way back though and in front of the search party it was apparently like a scene from Lassie where he pulled Luke straight over to it and started scrabbling at the wall. A complete contrast to the dogs behaviour walking past it on the way up the path. Doesn't make sense imo

This of course has come up time and time again and I think because of so many events that were occurring that evening it takes on many connotations.
For instance is it more likely for a dog that was well trained and I think Mia could be described as a well trained dog to react out with what it’s handler wants it to do?
Do we know that it didn’t react on the way up?
Luke’s arrangements were to make his way up Roans ’ Dyke path and to make his way to Jodi’s to establish what they were to do after that. Of course on the way up if he saw Jodi then he would have let whoever know he had found her. There was no real urgency on Luke’s part as to him Jodi would have never been in danger or put herself in danger so it was simply she was not where she should have been and they were out to look for her. He was himself with a dog, instructions were made and he was following them.

Is this really any different from let’s say the immediate assumption from Judy that something bad had happened to Jodi when on other occasions she didn’t react the same way when Jodi hadn’t shown up.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 19, 2019, 01:42:PM
I am wondering lithium with what’s been discussed do you feel that the 17:15 time of the murder still holds up to scrutiny?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 19, 2019, 05:24:PM
thers at least 4 people who should of seen the body if it was there david dickie john ferris Gordon dickie and james a falconer

mean the body wasnt there when they were or they did see it and for some reason chose to ignore it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 20, 2019, 02:44:PM
Not true. Entirely possible to be on the path without seeing the body. Also plenty of room to get to where JF left his condom without being anywhere near the body despite Sandra claiming he had to "STEP OVER IT"  ::)

And who says dickie and fung were over the wall? DD certainly wasn't. A witness said they seen the bike parked at the break in the wall which would be impossible to tell from a car.

in broad daylight how could you not spot all that blood.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 20, 2019, 03:30:PM
Sounds about right to me considering Luke and Jodi were spotted arguing on Jodi's side of the path at around 16:55 (which ties in with the time Jodi left her house and the few minutes to get to the path entrance and also the time Shane just couldn't agree that Luke was in the house) and the time to walk to the wall and climb over and the argument to escalate. Luke was then spotted by boys who knew him from school alone at his end of the path acting suspicious from about 17:40 - 18:00. Where he phoned Alan Ovens to pretend he was waiting for Jodi. AO ofcourse told him Jodi's left to meet you. Luke said "ok cool" even though his last text from Jodi was almost an hour ago saying she was leaving, he didn't raise this with AO... also later told his friends Jodi won't be coming out; she's grounded. Why would he say that?  AO already told him Jodi had left... Why would he go home that night and never wonder what happened to Jodi and why she stood him up?

edit: no idea how Corrine confirming from work that Luke was at home burning dinner while Shane was having a wank in an empty house fits in to any of this.
 
Luke's friends who hung about with him that night in the woods all believe he done it. Ask yourself why?


It's all so obvious. And to think he almost got away with it.

Sorry but this is the sort of statements that get me annoyed, there is nothing you have said that is fact, but it’s made out to all be fact

Jodi and Luke were not spotted arguing, 2 people who might have been them spotted at top of path

Luke was spotted by 2 boys that knew him, but as far as I know they did not say he was acting suspicious (I’m sure Sandra can confirm on that tho), also this is meant to be only minutes after he carried out this bloodied murder, just sitting at the end of his street, Seems very unlikely to me. we do not know what ao said, even he was not sure, he did say she had already left but we do not know he said that she left to meet him. Luke said he then waited longer for her she did not turn up so he told him mum where he would be, met him mates and said Jodi wasn’t coming, may have been grounded. They were 14, why would he be worried she did not turn up, when I was 14 if my mate / bf did not turn up I’d just think something happened to stop them coming, certainly would not be worried.

The text from Jodi to Luke did not say she was leaving then to meet him, nobody knows what the text said apart from Luke and Jodi.

How do you know Luke’s friends he was with that night thought he done it, out of interest, was that in there statements?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 20, 2019, 03:52:PM
I did not know it was a frozen pie, that’s would take over 30mins to burn I would think unless heat was up too high. Luke made the tea most nights so unlikely he had the heat to high, sounds like he had a good idea how to cook (better than me anyway lol ). If tea was ready for 1715 - 1720 I don’t see enough time for the pie to burn if it was in at 1650.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 20, 2019, 04:01:PM
Someone had to have made the tea that night, it was not Shane or his mum according to their statements, but they both remember the burnt pie I believe. I always thought the pie might have been burnt as Luke had put it in to cook but was not there to take it out. Ie told his mum he put the pie in to cook and then went out, when him mum got home the pie was burnt.

Really depends if Shane remembers seeing Luke when he went to get his tea, I’ve heard both he did see him and he didn’t so I’ve never been clear on that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 20, 2019, 04:06:PM
I don't have time to address the mass of misinformation Lithium has posted here tonight - it'll have to wait until Monday.

Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 20, 2019, 04:10:PM
No one said in court that they saw Luke at the Easthouses end of the path, in-fact it was the opposite. No one saw him at the crime scene or wherever it was he managed to clean himself up. The bike was spotted by the tool place employees, ones that were getting harassed by it that afternoon so would have known the bike. That bike places them at the crime scene. No one else is placed there.

Falconer by his own statement not Sandra’s claim the route he took meant he would have had to have stepped over the body.

Dickie snr claimed he was there and went over so again he can be placed at the crime scene, Luke can’t.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 20, 2019, 04:21:PM
Thanks Sandra, I had read somewhere recently he spoke to his mum around 1650 to find out what was for tea, if it was 1620/1630 that’s plenty time to cook and even burn a pie.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 20, 2019, 04:52:PM
Quote
And who says dickie and fung were over the wall? DD certainly wasn't

I’m curious as to your claim the Dickie certainly didn’t go over , if Dickie has told you that then it suggests you know where they went when not with the bike.! It also suggests that Ferris did! We know Jodi smoked cannabis that evening was she there to buy it off Ferris?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 20, 2019, 05:16:PM
Not true. Entirely possible to be on the path without seeing the body. Also plenty of room to get to where JF left his condom without being anywhere near the body despite Sandra claiming he had to "STEP OVER IT"  ::)

And who says dickie and fung were over the wall? DD certainly wasn't. A witness said they seen the bike parked at the break in the wall which would be impossible to tell from a car.

how would you that  were yu on there.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 20, 2019, 05:26:PM
Not true. Entirely possible to be on the path without seeing the body. Also plenty of room to get to where JF left his condom without being anywhere near the body despite Sandra claiming he had to "STEP OVER IT"  ::)

And who says dickie and fung were over the wall? DD certainly wasn't. A witness said they seen the bike parked at the break in the wall which would be impossible to tell from a car.

so if a murder was going on at the exact same time they were on the path wouldent they have haerd it very few murder happen in comlete silence.

wouldent they have heard her scream.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 20, 2019, 07:06:PM
The bike was spotted by the tool place employees, ones that were getting harassed by it that afternoon so would have known the bike. That bike places them at the crime scene. No one else is placed there.

Falconer by his own statement not Sandra’s claim the route he took meant he would have had to have stepped over the body.

Dickie snr claimed he was there and went over so again he can be placed at the crime scene, Luke can’t.

Ferris and Dickie admitted their bike was against the wall without them and they agreed that fact in court - just couldn't remember where they went when they left it there!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 20, 2019, 07:44:PM
Ferris and Dickie admitted their bike was against the wall without them and they agreed that fact in court - just couldn't remember where they went when they left it there!

well they couldent of gone far i mean you wouldent want to leave it there long it might get stolen.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 20, 2019, 07:52:PM
Thanks Sandra, I had read somewhere recently he spoke to his mum around 1650 to find out what was for tea, if it was 1620/1630 that’s plenty time to cook and even burn a pie.

Something I'm finding quite interesting. Firstly, 16.50 is the time Jodi is (finally) claimed to have left her mother's house - it changed from 17.30 to 17.00, to 16.50.

Luke spoke to his mum before 16.30 and therefore before the exchange of texts between his and Judith's phones at 16.34 - 16.38 and he called the speaking clock at 16.54.

His mum came home at 17.15, according to all three of the Mitchell family, and dinner was ready (This time is also supported by CCTV of Corinne leaving her work, stopping in at a local shop and reconstruction timings of the journey between the three places.)

Now, there's someone on youtube claiming Luke was still at home, cooking dinner, when he called Alan Ovens at 17.40, meaning he would have to have spent over an hour and a quarter cooking pies in the oven, by which time they'd have been burnt to a crisp!!!

I see this often - a large influx of misleading posting, using known timings but attributing them to other events to cause confusion, changing details from one known event and claiming it belongs to another and so on. I used to try to correct every example - not any more - I'd never have time to do anything else.

But since we have at least one poster who seems keen to extend the length of time for cooking some pies in the oven, I wonder what people make of the fact that the lasagne Judith claimed to be cooking that afternoon took 5 hours, at least, to cook? All of this focus on the 45 minute period in which Luke and his mother said pies were in the oven, yet no-one seems remotely interested in the development of the lasagne story, the timing of which, it seems, is to give an alibi for Joseph's movements that day.

Here's the final version:

Between 12:00 and 13:00 Judith was cooking the mince for the lasagne when Joseph and Ferris arrived at lunchtime (somewhere between 12 and 1).

15:50 - 15:55 Judith was preparing the sauce for the lasagne when Jodi came in from school (15.50ish) and Joseph was "mooching" around the kitchen, eating the mince. (This is just 25 minutes after the cancelled doctor's appointment to allow Joseph and Ferris to continue smoking cannabis - Judith would later say she didn't know what time Ferris left).

16:40 She and Alan Ovens sat in the living room for about half an hour after he came in from work, listening to cds and waiting for the lasagne to cook. Joseph was up in his room. (But Judith said Joseph was in the living room with her and Jodi listening to the Rod Stewart track when AO got in from work at 16.40). Jodi called out "keep some (lasagne) for me" as she left at 16.50

17:38 When Luke called  - Alan Ovens took the call because Judith was in the kitchen making the cheese sauce for the lasagne and assembling it ready to put it in the oven, so they couldn't have been sitting in the living room between 16.50 and 17.20 "waiting for the lasagne to cook" as claimed above. It took about 10 minutes to make the sauce and assemble, she put it in the oven for about 20 minutes, then told AO to put it back on for another 5 minutes, twice. Then they called Joseph down for tea which they either all ate together on their laps, all ate sitting at the table (including Jodi), or which Joseph took to his room to eat while Judith and AO ate in the living room.

18:05 - Either way, Joseph was back in his room when Judith and AO left to visit the cemetery just as the six o'clock news headlines came on. But if the lasagne didn't go into the oven until 17.48 (allowing for the 10 mins prep) and it was cooked for at least 30 minutes before being served, the they couldn't even have started eating it until 18.28 - almost half an hour after they claimed they left to visit the cemetery.

I'm not saying there's anything "suspicious" about the cooking arrangements in the Jones household that day - I'm asking why known timings for the Mitchells, which are proven to be supportive of their claims about that afternoon are under such scrutiny, when such unsupported and extremely unlikely timings for the Jones family are glibly ignored?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 20, 2019, 07:54:PM
well they couldent of gone far i mean you wouldent want to leave it there long it might get stolen.

Ferris knew all about stolen bikes, nugnug! He told police about a bike he'd "found" (in someone's garden) that somehow became his (Ferris's) bike. Guess it's ok if you find something to just keep it - even if you find it in someone's private property?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 20, 2019, 08:12:PM
I’m curious as to your claim the Dickie certainly didn’t go over , if Dickie has told you that then it suggests you know where they went when not with the bike.! It also suggests that Ferris did! We know Jodi smoked cannabis that evening was she there to buy it off Ferris?

Goodness, Dickie didn't go over the wall, for certain? So he lied on oath then? Or, if what Lithium says about this is true, all these years later, Dickie is throwing Ferris under the bus? Guess something like that was bound to happen eventually!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 21, 2019, 11:41:AM
Because they aren't accused of anything. What are you implying?

At the time of these statements, nobody was accused of anything. I'm not implying anything, I'm saying outright the double standards in this case were disgraceful.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 22, 2019, 11:48:PM
So 2 people where at the v in the wall right at the time the murder was meant to be, but can’t remember what they were doing? And that was accepted? Do we know how long the bike was parked at the v? Or just that it was seen there at around 1715?
I still think they have guessed the time of the murder wrong, just seems to be too much going on in that 30 mins between 5 and 5.30 on the path for someone to be carrying out such a brutal crime. Imo.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 23, 2019, 09:31:AM
We were just talking about that bullseye, had to be around the 12ish mins as the cyclist doesn’t mention it when he went by around 17:30
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2019, 12:59:PM
if jodi was killed later she wasnt seen by any witness so would mean she would of been in somebodys house.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on June 23, 2019, 02:30:PM
I always wondered if she was with the boys on the moped having a smoke behind the wall, when they left she was fine but as that’s where she was found dead and they were to scared to say, as they would have been the last to see her alive. Everyone seems to think they know more that they are saying, that could be what it is. So many possibilities
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2019, 02:41:PM
I always wondered if she was with the boys on the moped having a smoke behind the wall, when they left she was fine but as that’s where she was found dead and they were to scared to say, as they would have been the last to see her alive. Everyone seems to think they know more that they are saying, that could be what it is. So many possibilities

i think that could certanly be a posbility.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2019, 04:13:PM
i belive she ethere went to gorden dickies house or yvone walkers.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2019, 04:45:PM
Who? Jodi?

yes.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 23, 2019, 04:50:PM
Agreed think it's a fair suggestion. After they left though why would Jodi remain over there alone. Has Luke ever said anything about the pair? Like Gordo said, if they were so determined to incriminate Luke they could have easily made something up.

Maybe they didn't leave her alone, though. In this scenario (Jodi going over the wall with Ferris and Dickie to smoke), there could have been someone else there as well. If that someone was Luke, they'd have said so - as I said in a previous post, they were falling over themselves to incriminate him. So the suggestion would have to be that, if someone else was over the wall, it wasn't Luke and it was someone Dickie and Ferris were not prepared to bring to police attention for some reason. Were the lies about what time they were on the path, the failure to come forward, etc, all attempts to distance themselves from this person, or were they to keep him out of police attention?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 23, 2019, 04:53:PM
It doesn't cancel anything out with regards to Luke's conviction, which is why the SCCRC was a bust. Yes L&B could have done better but they got their man in the end, and Luke had his day in court with one of Scotland's top lawyers and was still found guilty by a jury who heard everything.

So, if we're to believe the official documents, etc, why did the appeal judges say the family search trio left from Jodi's mother's house, just a few minutes from the path?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 23, 2019, 04:54:PM
Did they all sit around the table eating burnt food?

The pies were "overdone," not burned to a crisp!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2019, 08:58:PM
Maybe they didn't leave her alone, though. In this scenario (Jodi going over the wall with Ferris and Dickie to smoke), there could have been someone else there as well. If that someone was Luke, they'd have said so - as I said in a previous post, they were falling over themselves to incriminate him. So the suggestion would have to be that, if someone else was over the wall, it wasn't Luke and it was someone Dickie and Ferris were not prepared to bring to police attention for some reason. Were the lies about what time they were on the path, the failure to come forward, etc, all attempts to distance themselves from this person, or were they to keep him out of police attention?

were did they say they were going with the moped it was somones house as i recall.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 23, 2019, 11:42:PM
I just have an impossible time believing Ferris had anything to do with it. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer (or in the letterbox, I could say :))) He did seem adamant it was Luke but is hiding something. I know at the time of the murder Luke owed him money for cannabis. So I'm not sure where his loyalties lay. What I do know for sure is Joey didn't want to batter him for murdering his sister and he since returned to Dalkeith.

so why would he hide somthing
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 12:37:AM
Not sure nugnug.

What I am sure of is that Luke owned a parka before 30 June 2003. This has been confirmed by friends, and even school teachers who even commented that he resembled a "hooded monk" walking around school with it on. Why would these teachers lie? Jodi's family believe he owned one before the murder because they remember him wearing one before the murder too. This is why they are comfortable with the conviction. Not because they are simply dim-witted and easily influenced like Sandra would have you believe, but because they were there, they knew Luke. They know this as fact. Sandra did not and does not.

yu dont are so your ignoring my point are i thought that might be the case.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 12:38:AM
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, the flames and burning smell were reported from Luke's garden by NICHOLAS FRANKLAND and GEORGE RAMAGE, one being Luke's next door neighbour, the other whose garden backed onto Luke's. Both reported seeing and smelling burning which wasn't food, on the night of June 30th. Frankland stated it was shortly after he watched Luke walking past his window returning home. Ramage also commented to his partner that it was a bit late for the Mitchells to be having a barbecue. Mr Frankland's wife Patricia also confirmed smelling and seeing the burning from the Mitchell garden. Can Sandra please address this? The attempt to make these police statements disappear and just casually attribute it to a random incident in Newton Grange is worrying.

A school teacher testified in court that Luke owned a Parka. Why on Earth would he do this? And he certainly wasn't mistaken about it being before the murder, because he left St. Davids before the murder.

What on Earth would possess a respected teacher to lie in court like this?

There is solid evidence from credible sources that something was burned, and that it was probably the missing parka.

Jodi's family know first hand that Luke wore a parka before the murder. As did Luke's close friends. Random usernames on a forum who have never met Luke are telling them they are wrong. They have no issue believing this piece of evidence.

respected teacher respected by who exactly.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 12:44:AM
Good argument mate.

Do you have evidence or something that this teacher should be discredited?

no i am merely asking who respescts them your cliaming somone is respected respected by who.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 12:52:AM
Teaching isn't a respectable job? Not sure what your argument here is mate or why you're not addressing anything else?

it certanly is not i know enought teachers who are in prison to confirm that.

you shuld of met some of my teachers.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 01:18:AM
Why does Sandra deny that it was Luke's direct neighbours who reported burning to the police? What's this nonsense about a random family in Newton Grange? These people exist. Nicholas Frankland, Patricia Frankland, George Ramage.

makes no diffrence forensic examination of the log burner proves them wrong.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 24, 2019, 04:09:AM
Is it possible that the parka morphed from say an oversized German army shirt worn over a hoodie? Something I have saw before.
Where exactly does a parka actually fit into all of this anyway? I understand it’s a great item if your covered in blood and wanted to get from the scene to safety, but here’s my problem. Safety would be his house and that would mean a full clean up there had to have occurred. That house was stripped and forensically checked with nothing found, I’m also sure if some massive clean up took place they would find extensive use of cleaning products. They took the plumbing system apart and nothing!
I know you follow the prosecutions stance so why doesn’t AB say she saw Luke wearing it, also why doesn’t the neighbour you claim who reported the burning not long after Luke passed his window not say that Luke was wearing one on his return. The lack of forensics is paramount to Luke’s innocence in this case and no one has been able to break that down.

My other problem is that you seem adept to believing Ferris has more to contribute but is holding back, I don’t think Ferris was even on that bike that evening. He doesn’t fit the description of either of the two seen on it. It’s suspicious that he cuts his hair shortly afterwards if indeed he was trying to distance himself from being on that bike, to do so and then go to the police was an attempt to place himself on that bike. Why do that? I suppose if the person who was there was a better alibi for someone else would be one reason. Oh I’m not suggesting Joey was one the bike he was most probably busy cutting his 9 bar up.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 24, 2019, 05:54:AM
What time was it the the reported smoke smell from the garden reported?

Why just burn the parka? If he was wearing it during the murder it would have been saturated, these are usually thinish material that would mean anything underneath also would have contamination. It wouldn’t cover the lower part of the legs so jeans and definitely footwear also must have been contaminated. That’s a hell of a lot of burning! Then the ash taken away possibly allowed to cool a bit and then further burning as we know ash was taken from the burner by the police.

I just don’t think it’s credible to dispose of things like this in this manner, Corrine was available and had the means to say bag everything and drive for 30mins and back again to sufficiently dispose of the items far enough away from the area if need be. Much easier methods.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 24, 2019, 08:52:AM
And considering all 3 members of the Mitchell household ate dinner in 3 different rooms and can't remember seeing each other that night, does Corinne know for sure Luke wasn't burning anything that night out the back garden?

Error. There has never been any suggestion that Corinne "didn't remember seeing Luke" -she told poice what he was wearing and the conversation they had when she came in from work and when he wass going out to meet Jodi. Shane's initial statement (on the Wednesday) said he didn't remember any real detail about the Monday evening - it wasn't until he was reminded about the visit to the friend on the way home, the receipts from the parts place, etc, that the evening in question began to fall into place. Corinne's reminder about the pies was only part of what reminded Shane about the evening in question.

Corinne took her dinner out into the garden to eat - she was sitting right beside the log burner!

Quote
The neighbours who lived closest to Luke's back garden both  told police they smelled burning which wasn't food, but also seen flames coming from the log burner next door. Why would  they lie? Why would Luke's teachers lie about a parka and why would the neighbours lie about this? Both neighbours whose gardens were directly joined with Luke's (one being the next door neighbour and the other whose backing onto Luke's garden) independently reported to the police seeing and smelling burning. COME ON...

Error. Only one neighbour referred to the smell not being burning food - he referred to Corinne as "the tart in tight pants," but I don't suppose that suggested any bias on his part? Nobody claimed to have seen flames - or even smoke. They smelled it - that's all. There was evidence of strange smelling smoke, but on a different night just after the murder. How could anyone be sure what night they smelled smoke? Even the Franklands weren't entirely sure it was that night. Why would you make claims about seeing smoke and flames when none of the witnesses made such claims?

Quote
I recently watched Sandra falsely attribute this burning to another family in Newton Grange, but this is just not true.  It was Luke's direct neighbours George Ramage and Nicholas Frankland both seen and smelled burning.

Error. Sandra did not "falsely attribute" anything. James Matthews asked, directly, in the Sky interview about the burning of clothes (long before this was a police line of enquiry) on the basis of a local newspaper article about police following up on a report of the mother of a suspect burning clothes in a back garden in Newtongrange.

Quote
She also keeps talking about there being no evidence of clothing being burned because they checked the ashes etc. This was a week after the night of the murder so it doesn't prove anything. She also said there was no opportunity because Luke was in the police station that night and they were being watched by media from the day following. She knows no one stated the burning happened after Jodi was found. So none of this is relevant.

Error. What was a week after the murder? The police raided the house at 7am on July 4th - just 4 days after the murder. I never claimed anyone said there was burning after the body was found. I said there was no opportunity to dispose of ashes between Jodi's body being found and the raid on July 4th -   different thing entirely.


Quote
Oh but a parka wouldn't fit in the log burner! How hard would it be to cut it up and throw the pieces in? Just a suggestion.  Luke regularly burned things out the back and was apparently free to do so. School jotters etc. Also sometimes cooked using the log burner, bacon, sausages etc.

Ok, so Corinne knows her son's murdered his girlfriend and left her body lying out, visible, in broad daylight, so she could be found any minute. Best plan - spend time cutting up the jacket (and risk getting caught red handed), set a fire with no accelerant and wait for it to get hot enough to incinerate the cut up pieces (and run the risk of getting caught red handed or the rain putting out the fire before the incineration is complete), relight the fire a couple of hours later (and risk getting caught red handed with the remaining cut up pieces of jacket nearly 4 hours after beginning the disposal) - what was it you said earlier? Oh yes, I remember ... COME ON!

Luke sometimes cooked and burned old jotters when his mother was having a fire - there's never been any evidence he lit fires in the burner by himself, if his mother wasn't there.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 24, 2019, 10:15:AM
Just because you refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 10:24:AM
well its obvios she dident burn anything in the log burner becouse if she had forenic examination of the log burner would of proved it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 24, 2019, 11:41:AM
Quote
You/Sandra/nugnug seem to be simultaniously claiming he's deliberately placing himself at the scene, but also lying about times to distance himself from it. It can't be both

Lying is a hard thing to do when so many people involved, the lies where just that and not done to intentionally distance themselves.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 02:03:PM
i think the jones family were very sensble not talking to the press.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 03:29:PM
sndra who did the mopd actully belong to.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 24, 2019, 06:49:PM
Sandra already has a few posts back. Why would we bother if the Jones family or yourself can come out with what they want simply because they believe it themselves.

Can I ask did the Jones know Luke before he went out with Jodi?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 24, 2019, 07:42:PM
That’s not what I asked though is it. Did the Jones know Luke prior to his relationship with Jodi?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 07:52:PM
So are you willing to address the evidence from Luke's neighbours?

3 people mistakenly smelling and seeing burning from Luke's back garden that night?

How does that happen.

it was adreseed forensic examition of the log burnr proves them to be wrong.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 24, 2019, 08:48:PM
Well he was buying Cannabis from Ferris before he went out with Jodi.

Error. I know who he was buying cannabis from previously and it wasn't Ferris.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 24, 2019, 08:55:PM
So are you willing to address the evidence from Luke's neighbours?

3 people mistakenly smelling and seeing burning from Luke's back garden that night?

How does that happen.

Yes, I'm more than willing to address it. They did not say in their statements they saw it - they were quite clear about that - they only smelled it. And yes, they are almost certainly mistaken about the time. It was much later that the police went back and asked neighbours about smoke/burning - 32 out of 35 witnesses either said there was no smoke that evening, they couldn't say for sure if there was smoke, or they gave accounts of various places where the smell of smoke could have been emanating from (other than the Mitchell garden). Two out of 35 (and only one of whom was called to give evidence) spoke of strange smelling smoke. The one who was not asked to give evidence told of a citronella candle in their garden catching fire a few days after the murder. It was the police, camped outside the Mitchell home, who alerted them that their candle had gone up in flames. The Franklands (two out of the three who did give evidence) said the smell, on whatever night it was, because they could not be sure what night it was, was wood smoke. They remembered because they liked the smell.

So who do we believe? 34 out of 35 or 1 out of 35? As they say in legal circles, where does the weight of the evidence lie?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 08:58:PM
Ashes taken days after the alleged burning prove nothing

And I'm not sure gordo. My post was just to say that there is ever chance joey knew of him through jfs dealings

yes it does it wouldent mater if it was years later forensics would still be able to find evidence of it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 24, 2019, 09:00:PM
That’s not what I asked though is it. Did the Jones know Luke prior to his relationship with Jodi?

No, Gordo, they didn't. This is according to all of their own statements, Jodi's diaries, friends' statements and Luke's accounts. None of them knew Luke prior to his relationship with Jodi.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 24, 2019, 09:12:PM
Exactly what I thought ! The smallest detail can be so damaging in the wrong context . If the Jones didn’t know Luke prior to the relationship with Jodi then where are you getting all the information from? Regarding the lock knife he always carried! How the whole family knows he had a parka! . All the information that your producing here to be fair seems contentious at best. You some sort of pawn mate? Like Ferris
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 24, 2019, 09:23:PM
sndra who did the mopd actully belong to.

If their statements are to be believed, it was jointly owned by Ferris and Dickie. There is, however, a suggestion that it was Ferris's, but he kept it at Dickie's place for some reason.

The statements about bikes are very confusing - there was mention (eventually) about another bike ridden by Ferris that belonged to someone else entirely (someone with no apparent connection to the case) - that came about as part of the explanation for the wet and muddy gloves. Ferris couldn't remember when he'd ridden that bike - it might have been the weekend before the murder - but he did remember that he'd borrowed his brother's gloves (without his permission ... wait ... that sounds familiar) to go out riding that bike and they'd got wet and muddy then.

Dickie, however, blew a hole in that story by suggesting he had identical gloves to the ones borrowed without permission from Ferris's brother (wait ... that sounds familiar), but he (Dickie) "wasn't bothered" about the damp, muddy, hidden gloves being discovered even though they might have been his or they might have been Ferris's.

So, in answer to your original question, I don't know for sure who the bike really belonged to. There was a statement from Judith, quite a bit into the investigation which begins:

"I have been asked about motorbikes owned by my son Joseph." She went on to say she could confirm Joseph had not "owned" a bike for a period of time (can't actually remember how long - again, I'd have to check). Why were the police asking specifically about motorbikes owned by Joseph? None of the bikes in question had recorded owners - they were all off-roaders and, back then, there was no requirement to register ownership - I think that changed several years later when daft lads on dirt bikes/off roaders were causing a nuisance in residential areas?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 09:27:PM
Exactly what I thought ! The smallest detail can be so damaging in the wrong context . If the Jones didn’t know Luke prior to the relationship with Jodi then where are you getting all the information from? Regarding the lock knife he always carried! How the whole family knows he had a parka! . All the information that your producing here to be fair seems contentious at best. You some sort of pawn mate? Like Ferris

well if they dident know him they couldent of known wather he wore a parka or anything about him.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 24, 2019, 09:32:PM
If their statements are to be believed, it was jointly owned by Ferris and Dickie. There is, however, a suggestion that it was Ferris's, but he kept it at Dickie's place for some reason.

The statements about bikes are very confusing - there was mention (eventually) about another bike ridden by Ferris that belonged to someone else entirely (someone with no apparent connection to the case) - that came about as part of the explanation for the wet and muddy gloves. Ferris couldn't remember when he'd ridden that bike - it might have been the weekend before the murder - but he did remember that he'd borrowed his brother's gloves (without his permission ... wait ... that sounds familiar) to go out riding that bike and they'd got wet and muddy then.



Dickie, however, blew a hole in that story by suggesting he had identical gloves to the ones borrowed without permission from Ferris's brother (wait ... that sounds familiar), but he (Dickie) "wasn't bothered" about the damp, muddy, hidden gloves being discovered even though they might have been his or they might have been Ferris's.

So, in answer to your original question, I don't know for sure who the bike really belonged to. There was a statement from Judith, quite a bit into the investigation which begins:

"I have been asked about motorbikes owned by my son Joseph." She went on to say she could confirm Joseph had not "owned" a bike for a period of time (can't actually remember how long - again, I'd have to check). Why were the police asking specifically about motorbikes owned by Joseph? None of the bikes in question had recorded owners - they were all off-roaders and, back then, there was no requirement to register ownership - I think that changed several years later when daft lads on dirt bikes/off roaders were causing a nuisance in residential areas?

did it really belong to ethere of them i wonder were did they say they were going with it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Parky41 on June 25, 2019, 12:32:AM
Dare I ask a simple Q guys, don't want to be promoting any kind of hostilities between  'The auld team' of your take on Q time?

Simple really.

There were , regardless of conception of your (cough) facts. 20 points of circumstantial evidence put forth.

My interest would be, in all of your many years of debates and discussions, can you 3? come anywhere close to putting forward 20 points in respect of (cough) your many suspects. Each individually to their own of course.

Dissertation and all that, just simple answers and points required. Thank you muchly :-)


Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 25, 2019, 12:50:AM
So you're saying none of Jodi's family met Luke before Jodi was murdered? What are you talking about? I didn't say they saw him wearing a parka before he was Jodi's bf. I said they saw him wearing a parka because he was Jodi's bf.


they also said jodi wasnt allowed to use the path on her own wich is peovably untrue
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 25, 2019, 01:02:AM
How is it?

Just because she did something doesn't mean she wasn't allowed.

I'm sure her and Luke "weren't allowed" to smoke weed.

they allso said she was grounded when she wasnt.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 25, 2019, 10:23:AM
How is it?

Just because she did something doesn't mean she wasn't allowed.

I'm sure her and Luke "weren't allowed" to smoke weed.

they also said she would she would not of used the path on her own.

but then chose that as the first place to look rather strange
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 25, 2019, 10:24:AM

(https://i.imgur.com/tSNfyaz.gif)

Ok just the 20 on one person( I would t call them suspects)
1. Mental health problems treated by many different drugs exacerbated by the use of recreational drugs
2. Long time dealer of drugs.
3. Long history of violence
4. Use of knives
5. No alibi at at least 1 point that night
6. Never took part in the search for his sibling
7. Plans for that night we’re changed
8. Was seen following Jodi not long after she left the house.
9. Was one of the last people to see the victim alive
10. Would certainly know the area of the murder
11. Was never questioned by the police
12. Was there a danger to Jodi through his dealing with drugs?
13. Were told he never left the house for a long time although he had been out that weekend and was also that day
14. Missed appointment to see psychologist that day.
15. After the murder appeared withdrawn again possibly due to drugs
16. Threatening behaviour afterwards

Ok just the 16 points but many of these were applied circumstantially to Luke and quite a few of these points could be elaborated with more than one example. In all that I still could make up more to fit a circumstantial case. I don’t see the point as this looks like I’m claiming he committed  the murder and that would be wrong because I don’t believe he committed the murder.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 25, 2019, 10:26:AM
So you're saying none of Jodi's family met Luke before Jodi was murdered? What are you talking about? I didn't say they saw him wearing a parka before he was Jodi's bf. I said they saw him wearing a parka because he was Jodi's bf.

I only asked if the Jones family knew Luke prior to them being in a relationship, simple question that didn’t warrant anything else than a simple yes/no
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 25, 2019, 12:02:PM
Sandra already has a few posts back. Why would we bother if the Jones family or yourself can come out with what they want simply because they believe it themselves.

Can I ask did the Jones know Luke before he went out with Jodi?

That’s what I asked more misinformation from yourself
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 25, 2019, 01:50:PM
You can find as many thoughts on this type of thing from various different professionals and  amateurs a like. I do t have many thoughts either way, I know it’s used by certain government departments in the states and other places.
It doesn’t have a bearing on this case though does it ! Luke wasn't convicted using one was he?

His lie detector was for me just that, makes no difference to myself although it might bolster popular opinion in some aspects.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 25, 2019, 02:06:PM
Here a Q for parky.

Can you give 5 fully corroborated pieces of evidence that would be allowed in a Scottish court of law that would lead to the conviction of Luke?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 25, 2019, 03:50:PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/25/jeremy-kyle-producers-admit-lie-detector-tests-may-have-given/

there talking about people who failed them not people who passed.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 26, 2019, 09:54:PM
Lithium has left the building and this thread has become unintelligible. There are better times ahead with a lot of effort and a big push to prove this case a MOJ and the support will be with Luke as it has the past 16 years.
I don’t want to try and understand motives for the deletion of much of what has been discussed here as private reasons are enough.
I’m sry though as we had new posters contribute even although they failed to follow up on what they contributed to but again as with a case like this it’s hard to even know where to start let alone know anything about the case in general.
looking forward always
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 27, 2019, 08:29:AM
We've seen this happen so many times before - people come on, flood the thread with misinformation, draw everyone into responding then delete their posts so that the thread makes no sense. Anyone coming along later soon gives up because they can't make head nor tail of it.

I was thinking about the claimed 20 pieces of solid evidence against Luke (that's been deleted now) - what's always interested me are the number of pieces of "evidence" that applied equally, and in some cases, moreso, to others than they did to Luke - so, drug use, connection with knives, "dark" interests, etc, etc. There are at least 5 others to whom all of these apply. Of those five, we can add serious mental health conditions (which didn't apply to Luke), previous attacks on women (which didn't apply to Luke), attacks with bladed intruments (which didn't apply to Luke), long histories of violence and/or involvement with the police (which didn't apply to Luke) - the truth is, they could have built stronger circumstantial cases against a number of others but stuck with their ludicrous case against Luke and stoked the fires of hatred and bias via the media to ensure he was convicted.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 27, 2019, 01:56:PM
can anyone find the clip of jodis aunts making the information appeal id like to post it elsewhere.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 27, 2019, 10:19:PM
I haven't been able to find it nugnug - there are articles referring to it, but the clip itself seems to have disappeared completely. The only link I had (a very old one) no longer works.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 27, 2019, 10:29:PM
Looking for the clip of the aunts' appeal, I found this, from January 21st 2005:

Quote
She [Judith]said she learned from police that Jodi had been self-harming, and she later discovered the girl had confided in her sister Janine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4195169.stm

That is completely and utterly untrue. According to her statements, it was Joseph who told Judy about Jodi self harming - she knew nothing about it until Joseph told her. I always thought it was very strange that Joseph knew, but Janine didn't, since Jodi was, by all accounts, much closer to Janine than she was to Joseph.

But it certainly wasn't "the police" who broke the news about self-harm. Jodi did confide in her sister that the relationship with Luke had become sexual, so it's even more surprising that she didn't confide in her about the self harm.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 28, 2019, 12:57:PM
It doesn’t look out of place though, Jodi might have wanted a different form of relationship with her sister, friends and closeness to the point where she wanted to be more like her. She may have looked up to her sister and didn’t want to let her sister know there were problems.

She stayed in the same house as Joesph so he may have saw the cuts and asked about them, more a matter of circumstance than anything else.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 28, 2019, 06:04:PM
It doesn’t look out of place though, Jodi might have wanted a different form of relationship with her sister, friends and closeness to the point where she wanted to be more like her. She may have looked up to her sister and didn’t want to let her sister know there were problems.

She stayed in the same house as Joesph so he may have saw the cuts and asked about them, more a matter of circumstance than anything else.

well shel ilived in the same house as her mum but her mum didn't know
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 28, 2019, 06:06:PM
the question for me is why the police even asked abut her sexual activity and her self harming what was the relevance.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on June 28, 2019, 08:47:PM
The two in certain circumstance can be co joined, abuse can lead to many different avenues
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 30, 2019, 03:10:PM
I've never heard that she was claimed to have been self-harming from the age of 8 - that would have been round about the age she was when her dad died. I know she struggled for her first two years at high school - I always assumed the self-harm began in that period.

From all accounts, Jodi was very secretive about her self-harming and always kept her arms covered. The statement in which Judith claimed not to have known about Jodi self harming until Joseph told her "just the other day" covered other information that Joseph had read in Jodi's diary, the implication being that the information about self harm had also come from the diary.

The front of her diary was covered in dire warnings that they were strictly private and not to be read by anyone. Judy said, after the trial, that Jodi would have been horrified at her diaries being read out in court (even though the bits read out in court were about her love for Luke, etc). I presume Jodi would have been equally horrified at the thought of her brother reading her private thoughts about boys, sex, etc.

In the same statement, Judy said Joseph told her about Jodi writing in her diary that she wanted to move out of the family home and move in with Yvonne Walker, which doesn't really fit with the idyllic, blissful home-life portrayed at trial - Janine moved out three years earlier, also aged 14. Why would two 14 year old daughters both want to leave home at such a young age?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 30, 2019, 04:23:PM
I've never heard that she was claimed to have been self-harming from the age of 8 - that would have been round about the age she was when her dad died. I know she struggled for her first two years at high school - I always assumed the self-harm began in that period.

From all accounts, Jodi was very secretive about her self-harming and always kept her arms covered. The statement in which Judith claimed not to have known about Jodi self harming until Joseph told her "just the other day" covered other information that Joseph had read in Jodi's diary, the implication being that the information about self harm had also come from the diary.

The front of her diary was covered in dire warnings that they were strictly private and not to be read by anyone. Judy said, after the trial, that Jodi would have been horrified at her diaries being read out in court (even though the bits read out in court were about her love for Luke, etc). I presume Jodi would have been equally horrified at the thought of her brother reading her private thoughts about boys, sex, etc.

In the same statement, Judy said Joseph told her about Jodi writing in her diary that she wanted to move out of the family home and move in with Yvonne Walker, which doesn't really fit with the idyllic, blissful home-life portrayed at trial - Janine moved out three years earlier, also aged 14. Why would two 14 year old daughters both want to leave home at such a young age?

oh soory missread the link i will delete that post.

i wonder hy he was reading her dairy was it just nosey or did he want to know somthing i doubt if she would of left it lying around so he must of looked for it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 30, 2019, 04:57:PM
Apparently, one diary went missing. It had been referred to in a statement, which is how the police knew about it, but when the police came to collect it, it couldn't be found.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 30, 2019, 05:00:PM
Apparently, one diary went missing. It had been referred to in a statement, which is how the police knew about it, but when the police came to collect it, it couldn't be found.

dident she have more than one dairy though becouse passages of her dairy have been queted.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on June 30, 2019, 05:16:PM
Yes, there were three in total, but only two were recovered.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on June 30, 2019, 05:30:PM
so what happened to the third im guessing it would of been in her bedrom I am all guessing that should would of removed it from there meaning somebody else did.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 01, 2019, 05:05:PM
What happened to it? It’s obviously been removed or discarded for some reason.  According to Sandra’s book, the Jones family seem good at covering up evidence and keeping people and things out the limelight.  I think a key character in all of this was her brother JJ even though there was hardly a mention of him.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 01, 2019, 05:47:PM
What happened to it? It’s obviously been removed or discarded for some reason.  According to Sandra’s book, the Jones family seem good at covering up evidence and keeping people and things out the limelight.  I think a key character in all of this was her brother JJ even though there was hardly a mention of him.

im thinking if hetoldhis mother things he read ij jodis dairy theres a good chance he may of told oter people as well and that could of had consuences.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 01, 2019, 08:35:PM
I think there’s more to Joseph Jones than what’s been disclosed.  His alibi that he was at home on June 30th was contradicted by Ferris.  The accounts of Ferris undermined a lot of the statements to be honest, but this guy had a propensity for violence and grossly managed to go under the radar. 

I think Ferris simply shat himself when he realised the screws were onto him and Dickie on the path, hence why he started acting suspicious with the mad hair cuts.  I think there’s more evidence to suggest someone in Jodi’s family is linked to it.  A witness identified a member of Jodi’s family as Stocky Man, who was also the dude who claimed to be at home all day.

That of course would imply - if you read the book - it was Joseph Jones
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 01, 2019, 09:50:PM
I think there’s more to Joseph Jones than what’s been disclosed.  His alibi that he was at home on June 30th was contradicted by Ferris.  The accounts of Ferris undermined a lot of the statements to be honest, but this guy had a propensity for violence and grossly managed to go under the radar. 

I think Ferris simply shat himself when he realised the screws were onto him and Dickie on the path, hence why he started acting suspicious with the mad hair cuts.  I think there’s more evidence to suggest someone in Jodi’s family is linked to it.  A witness identified a member of Jodi’s family as Stocky Man, who was also the dude who claimed to be at home all day.

That of course would imply - if you read the book - it was Joseph Jones

i wonder if ferris actully was with joe that night and hes actully lying about on the bike

i find odd that joe would use him as an albi withot asking ifthe albi was not true.

i mean they all talked to eah other so joe would know ferris was with dickie if was with dickie so joe is hardly likely to say  ferris is with him knowing full well hes been seen somewhere else that leads me to belive joe is telling the truth and ferris was with him and somebody else was with dickie.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 01, 2019, 10:01:PM
this is of course why jodis gran told ferris not to go to the police becouse by doing so hes leaing joe without an albi.

and also making jodis mum look like a liar
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 02, 2019, 06:18:AM
What happened to it? It’s obviously been removed or discarded for some reason.

Judith seemed to think the police had it, the police didn't think they did (obviously) because they were asking about it.  Another possibility is that it had been collected at some point and is, to this day, lying in a police storage unit somewhere (it's not as if that's never happened in Scottish policing before!!!)

Quote
According to Sandra’s book, the Jones family seem good at covering up evidence and keeping people and things out the limelight.

I don't know if it's the case that Jodi's family were good at these things or if it was more that the police just never asked - if you think about it, prior to Jodi being found, Ferris, Dickie, Joseph, Alice Walker, Janine and Judith (at least) all knew that Ferris left Alice Walker's with Joseph on the morning of June 30th and went to Judith's house, but the police had to put out a public appeal for the boys on the moped on the afternoon of July 4th. I would have expected a police investigation of this magnitude should have uncovered the main people in the houses Jodi might have been prior to her murder within the first few days. According to Corinne and others, Judith said, on either July 3rd or July 5th "Thank goodness they didn't find out about Joseph's illness," suggesting it was more a complete failure of police to ask the relevant questions. Likewise, Ferris's claim that his gran told him not to go to the police appears never to have been checked by investigators.

Quote
I think a key character in all of this was her brother JJ even though there was hardly a mention of him.

I think it was left looking that way because of terrible failings with the investigation. As I've said so many times, if the right questions had been asked at the very beginning, we wouldn't still (16 years later) be looking at so many unanswered questions.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 02, 2019, 06:33:AM
i wonder if ferris actully was with joe that night and hes actully lying about on the bike

i find odd that joe would use him as an albi withot asking ifthe albi was not true.

i mean they all talked to eah other so joe would know ferris was with dickie if was with dickie so joe is hardly likely to say  ferris is with him knowing full well hes been seen somewhere else that leads me to belive joe is telling the truth and ferris was with him and somebody else was with dickie.

But it wasn't Joseph who said Ferris was with him that afternoon, it was Judith. Joseph said Ferris only stayed a short while - less than half an hour - then left around 1 o'clock (which ties in with other statements that Ferris was in Dickie's house by 3 o'clock). The problem with that is, Judith's reason for cancelling the home visit by the psychiatrist then falls apart - she said it was so that Joseph could continue smoking cannabis with Ferris, up in his room, but if Ferris had already been gone for two and a half hours by then, that can't be correct.

Also, according to Judith, Ferris left her house "at some point" before Jodi got in from school at approximately 3.50- 3.55, but she (Judith) cancelled the appointment at 3.23pm, so Ferris must have left within less than half an hour of that cancellation, but Judith didn't hear him leave (even though the reason for the cancellation was so that he and Joseph could continue smoking).

The story about Ferris supposedly returning to Judith's house at 6pm that evening didn't emerge until more than a week into the investigation. It's probably just coincidence, but 6pm - 7pm (approximately) was the only time Judith's statements didn't provide an alibi for Joseph, so it ends up looking like Ferris (again) was supposed to be Joseph's alibi that evening, but failed to show.

What's surprising about all of this is that they were all talking from the early hours of July 1st - we know a group of Jodi's extended family members were in Judith's house by 4am and even more gathered in Alice's house later that morning - there was plenty of time to check with each other whether their recollections about June 30th tallied with other people's.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 02, 2019, 06:53:AM
I think there’s more to Joseph Jones than what’s been disclosed.  His alibi that he was at home on June 30th was contradicted by Ferris.

I think there's more to a great deal of things than what's been disclosed. It doesn't necessarily mean any of them are "linked" to the murder, it just means there are huge areas of doubt about what was going on within Jodi's wider family that day.

Quote
The accounts of Ferris undermined a lot of the statements to be honest, but this guy had a propensity for violence and grossly managed to go under the radar.

Ferris left so many people looking "suspicious" - again, the problem is, a lot of what he said was never followed up properly. We can infer, from some of the other statements, that he appeared to be telling the truth in places (for example, Yvonne Walker's assertion that Ferris intended to go to the police on July 1st and tell them he was on the path, on the moped), except that Ferris later denied saying that to Yvonne. Or the Dickies' statements that Ferris was in their house prior to 3pm. Trying to unravel what's true and what isn't from Ferris's statements is challenging. Several people with propensities for violence managed to go under the radar in this case.

Quote
I think Ferris simply shat himself when he realised the screws were onto him and Dickie on the path, hence why he started acting suspicious with the mad hair cuts.

Why though? If they saw, nothing, heard nothing, knew nothing, why would they sh*t themselves? They were just a couple of lads messing about on a moped. The guy on the pushbike didn't sh*t himself when he realised he'd been on the path at the relevant time - he just called the cops and told them so. The dog walkers who were at the top of the path at the relevant time didn't sh*t themselves, they just called the cops and told them.

Quote
I think there’s more evidence to suggest someone in Jodi’s family is linked to it.

I don't. At the moment, the best that can be said is that there could have been stronger circumstantial cases built against others (some members of Jodi's family, some not) than the case that was built against Luke. That doesn't mean any of them were "linked" to the murder, it just means they could have been fitted up for it just as easily as Luke was. The only person "linked" in what we would consider traditional terms is the sister's boyfriend because of the DNA deposit on Jodi's t-shirt and the implication that other deposits came from that original one. If the claim about rainwater/washing machine transfer is discredited, then, apart from the condom and the unidentified DNA profiles, it is the only solid evidence "linking" another person to the crime scene and the body.

Quote
A witness identified a member of Jodi’s family as Stocky Man, who was also the dude who claimed to be at home all day.

That of course would imply - if you read the book - it was Joseph Jones

But all that tells us is that his alibi was not what it was claimed to be. It doesn't "link" him to the murder - everything we know about Joseph is circumstantial. What we know might have built a circumstantial case against him that a jury would have considered "compelling," but it wouldn't actually prove he did anything wrong.

All my points about other people and the circumstances surrounding them are made to demonstrate how very poor the police investigation was and the extent of the double standards required to make the case against Luke stick.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 02, 2019, 08:17:AM
“It doesn’t necessarily mean any of it is linked to the murder”

The amount of contradictions in all of the statements between the members in this family certainly make it look as though someone knows something and aren’t letting on.

Do you think there are people who know more than they have let on?

You answer the previous points in a way that sort of says, well, perhaps one could view it as suspicious, but it was the fault of the Police not to take it further.  I can see that you don’t want to name or blame, but are there, in your opinion, people outlined within the book who should be sent down for the crime? Or, do you consider that this murder was committed by a complete stranger?

You do make several “hints” along the way in the book as to who you think could be responsible, and that these hints are definitely geared towards an inside job. 

Also, in the Stocky Man chapter, who was the witness who came forward that identified him as a member of Jodi’s family, and was this sighting considered credible? Think this was page 111 in your new book...
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 02, 2019, 09:20:AM
“The only person "linked" in what we would consider traditional terms is the sister's boyfriend because of the DNA deposit on Jodi's t-shirt and the implication that other deposits came from that original one”

Do we have any further information yet as to whose DNA was contained within the saliva, short colourless hairs and sweat? I’m aware that they only tested this against Mitchell, but has there been any developments over the years that may point to someone else?  Could the short colourless hairs have been deliberately treated with peroxide as a means of avoiding leaving a trace? Could these have been dog hair? What are these samples that we know of, and does anyone else match these other than Kelly?

Lastly, what do you presume will happen from this new knife that has been reported in the media? I don’t mean the 2010 “Luke” knife; I mean the one found in a dry-stone dyke by a local farmer hiding under rocks some 500yards from the murder site.  Where do things stand with this? The media say Luke Mitchell’s campaigners want this knife to be tested. 

Where are we at with this?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 02, 2019, 08:01:PM
The amount of contradictions in all of the statements between the members in this family certainly make it look as though someone knows something and aren’t letting on.

It does make it look like that, and that's the problem - since those contradictions were never followed up to confirm or refute, there is clearly a large amount of reasonable doubt in this case which, unfortunately, ends up turning the spotlight on Jodi's family. As I said in the book, there may be perfectly innocent explanations for all of them, but since the questions were never asked, we just don't know.

Quote
Do you think there are people who know more than they have let on?
Yes, but not necessarily members of Jodi's family or extended family.

Quote
You answer the previous points in a way that sort of says, well, perhaps one could view it as suspicious, but it was the fault of the Police not to take it further.  I can see that you don’t want to name or blame, but are there, in your opinion, people outlined within the book who should be sent down for the crime? Or, do you consider that this murder was committed by a complete stranger?

My answer doesn't "sort of" say it - it's the whole point. The police should have taken all of it further - our convictions are supposed to be based on proof "beyond reasonable doubt". It's up to the police to investigate areas of doubt and eliminate them - they didn't do that.

I wouldn't name or blame - to do so would be to do what was done to Luke. I've no idea whether people outlined in the book should be "sent down" - every single one of them would be entitled to a fair trial, based on solid evidence and it would be up to a jury to decide who should be "sent down". And, even then, the jury might get it wrong.

I've said for many years, there's a huge possibility that this was a stranger murder (as in, the killer didn't know Jodi personally).

Quote
You do make several “hints” along the way in the book as to who you think could be responsible, and that these hints are definitely geared towards an inside job.

My apologies, I didn't intend for anything in the book to suggest I was "hinting" at any individual or even group of individuals - my point was intended to be, repeatedly, why don't we have answers and explanations for this, this and this. 

Quote
Also, in the Stocky Man chapter, who was the witness who came forward that identified him as a member of Jodi’s family, and was this sighting considered credible? Think this was page 111 in your new book...

The sighting was considered credible from the off - it's 50% of what police appeals for "Stocky Man" were based on! If you mean, was the identification credible, I'd say, on the basis of the information available to the witness, yes, it probably was. The witness pointed out a particular male from a group of several males not known to him/her and said - he's the guy.  Had that been an ID parade, it would have been called a "positive identification." The problem was, the police buried that information and it didn't re-emerge until 2013/14. The witness did not name the male -s/he merely pointed out a male in a crowd as the person referred to as Stocky Man and that information was never released to the defence.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 03, 2019, 06:31:PM
i wonder if the dairy might resurface at some time.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 03, 2019, 09:13:PM
Thanks for addressing the previous points, Sandra.  What’s going to happen with that knife found in a dry-stone dyke by a farmer some 500yds from the murder scene? Is this being tested or what?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 03, 2019, 10:48:PM
It wasn't in a drystane dyke  and it wasn't found by a farmer, Armchair Detective. I can say no more about testing etc at the moment, I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Parky41 on July 03, 2019, 11:28:PM
Thanks for addressing the previous points, Sandra.  What’s going to happen with that knife found in a dry-stone dyke by a farmer some 500yds from the murder scene? Is this being tested or what?

New houses/scheme being built in the area for some time now. (approx. 7yrs) The knife found by one of the site team. AD, whether by the police in liaison with forensics or Ms Leans attempts at reconciliation with Ms Mitchell to retrieve authorisation for results on this testing leave a ? Not a mark but the question, as you asked, what happened with this. Ms Lean either doesn't know as she has no authority to know, she has since gained authority by visiting Ms Mitchell after their parting of ways. The results have to remain private incase it causes bias in future legal proceedings. Not rocket science. A play on words and answers (much like politicians) Can't answer because the answer would detract from the wonder?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 04, 2019, 06:11:AM
New houses/scheme being built in the area for some time now. (approx. 7yrs) The knife found by one of the site team. AD, whether by the police in liaison with forensics or Ms Leans attempts at reconciliation with Ms Mitchell to retrieve authorisation for results on this testing leave a ? Not a mark but the question, as you asked, what happened with this. Ms Lean either doesn't know as she has no authority to know, she has since gained authority by visiting Ms Mitchell after their parting of ways. The results have to remain private incase it causes bias in future legal proceedings. Not rocket science. A play on words and answers (much like politicians) Can't answer because the answer would detract from the wonder?

Why did you just make all of that up, parky41? I mean, just literally made it up. The find had nothing to do with new houses or builders of them. My access to information about it had nothing to do with Corinne or Luke - I've known what has been  "going on" with it since it was found and had full authority to know.  If I am ever required to do so, I can prove what I say with documented evidence.

I am not prepared to disclose any strategy involving the knife at this time, not because I don't know and certainly not to satisfy an anonymous poster who is prepared to post utter tosh in his/her attempts to (a) discredit the information I can put in the public domain and (b) goad me into revealing confidential information by attacking my credibility/reliability.

The original question was
Quote
What’s going to happen with that knife... Is this being tested or what?

My answer was 
Quote
I can say no more about testing etc at the moment, I'm sorry.

So let's be very clear. I could say more about it, but am not prepared to do so because of the potential (as you, yourself, point out) of adversely affecting potential future legal proceedings. That is, of  course, the standard position of anyone working in these circumstances.

Most people know what is meant when I (or others doing this work) mean by "I can't say more at the moment" - it doesn't meant I literally can't say (or type) the words, it means I am restricted in what I can make public without jeopardising other, confidential developments.

Resorting to lies and assumptions about my "authority" whilst posting under a false username doesn't bolster your position, it merely exposes your complete lack of reliability and integrity.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 04, 2019, 06:35:AM

Do we have any further information yet as to whose DNA was contained within the saliva, short colourless hairs and sweat? I’m aware that they only tested this against Mitchell, but has there been any developments over the years that may point to someone else?

Not yet, Armchair Detective. Getting samples released for re-testing is notoriously difficult, which is why we are now calling for a full, Hillsborough style, independent case review.

Quote
Could the short colourless hairs have been deliberately treated with peroxide as a means of avoiding leaving a trace?


Possibly, but that would suggest a large degree of pre-meditation and this case doesn't appear to allow for that. For example, no-one could have known for sure what time Jodi would walk down the path (we don't even know for sure that she did).

Quote
Could these have been dog hair?

 Yes, it's possible - the forensic results didn't even say whether they were human or animal.

Quote
What are these samples that we know of, and does anyone else match these other than Kelly?

The saliva stains, semen/sperm head samples and "white stains" returned either partial profiles or "no reportable results". The hairs and fibres apparently yielded no results either. Some strands of long brown hair on Jodi's hands/arms were checked under a microscope to see if they "matched" Jodi's hair and the conclusion was that they were "similar." Cut hairs found in the pocket of a male who became known to the enquiry (a male who was not LM) were similarly checked and concluded to be "not similar" to Jodi's hair. No more sensitive testing of the cut hairs ever appears to have been done. There are still four "unidentified" male profiles in the case files and six mixed male/female samples recorded as "Jodi Jones and unidentified male." These profiles contain markers that are not in Luke's profile (hence the reason for recording them as "unidentified male"). The partial profiles cannot be "matched" to anyone although, to my knowledge, none of them has ever been subjected to Low Copy enhancement to examine whether more sensitive testing might make identification possible. Again, these are all reasons why we are calling for a full case review - if the Crown has nothing to hide, what does it have to fear from such a review?

Quote
Lastly, what do you presume will happen from this new knife that has been reported in the media? I don’t mean the 2010 “Luke” knife; I mean the one found in a dry-stone dyke by a local farmer hiding under rocks some 500yards from the murder site.  Where do things stand with this? The media say Luke Mitchell’s campaigners want this knife to be tested.  Where are we at with this?

As previously answered, I am not in a position to be able to reveal the strategy concerning the knife find. As soon as I am, I will update.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 04, 2019, 09:35:AM
This knife is it the one that was found in the area of the new high school? It was pretty much cleared quite soon afterwards by the police as a possible murder weapon.

When we think of what was found on the body, the many different parts of dna partial or otherwise it things like the cut hair that astound me. Jodis murder was brutal and she had lost a lot of blood but very little was found on the body. The torso was almost clean.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Parky41 on July 04, 2019, 10:04:AM
Thank you for your help and reply Dr lean.

The post was put out with areas of misinformation intentionally . A feeder comment  for the study of response. I haven't hidden what I am doing. For the most part, my work is general. Any material/quotes will be credited with source.

All of which should be complete, hopefully by the beginning of August. If I feel anything needs clarification I will seek this and give the oppertunity of response for all subjects.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 04, 2019, 11:13:AM
It’s just games!! Why the need to as I’m sure your aware of Sandra’s work and you wouldn’t be here asking questions if you felt she had no intention of answering them to the best of her ability.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 12:12:PM
I don’t understand why lots of people seem to be so against a retrial? (Of course other than the pain it was cause Jodi’s family opening the whole thing up again, they are sure the right person is already serving justice) but there are 2 sides and everyone deserves a fair trial, I’m not sure Luke had one.

I think everyone can agree the police mucked this up right from the start, the investigation was poor, the treatment of witnesses appalling, the media reports at the time, the trial being held in Edinburgh, all the information that was not used, I can go on and on. So for all those reasons I think a retrial would be the best way forward for everyone. If you believe Luke to be guilty  and there is any evidence to be found by retesting stuff etc. then surely it can only help and prove once and for all, without doubt, that Luke is the killer (which would be the outcome I’d like to see) It would then shut this down once and for all and everyone can get on with their lives, including Jodi’s family who have had to put up with all this crap over the past 16 years, all started because of LB police (IMO).

But if there is the slightest chance Luke did not do it, and its proved in the retrial then can you imagine the pain that would cause all involved, both Jodi and Lukes family and also everyone in danger from the real killer the past 16 years. I’m just not sure and I’d like to be, as I’m sure lots of other would be, from both sides, a retrial is the only way I can see this being put to bed.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 04, 2019, 12:52:PM
im of the opon tat the knife was not found beouse the killer did not throw it way they took it home them.

craig dobbie allowed the bins to be emptied so if it was thrown in a bin god knows where it would be now.

i allways wonder why he did that i mean een if you had luke lined up s the only suspect and you were certan it was him would you not want the knife to confirm it its almost like dobbie dident want the murder weapn to be found.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 05, 2019, 06:21:PM
Thanks for replies to previous points, Sandra.  I appreciate this.

With regards to where you say the knife wasn’t found in a dry-stone dyke 300yards from the scene by a farmer, why would the media blatantly lie about that? I do get the media massage and manipulate things, but surely such a simple fact, which in itself is really a simple, non-incriminatory statement, would be told truthfully?

I suspect this knife is probably not connected to the murder anyway.  When I was young, I found a machete behind my house in a bush.  There was a lot of gang related violence nearby though, but these sort of finds do happen.  Look at how many knives and weapons the police find and confiscate from the public each year.

I guess the location makes it look a bit more dubious, but if you’re saying it wasn’t in a dry-stone dyke 300yds from the scene, perhaps it was found 5 miles away? I’m also assuming if anything was to come from this development it would have already.

Out of curiosity - why have the media just begun to talk about this knife anyway? It was found what, four years ago or something? Why now?

I’m not forcing you to answer anything about it though, but I suppose the other argument is that your lack of response in relation to this weapon sort of suggests that it will be part of the investigation.  I do get this which you did sort of mention.  I just don’t get why now, given it was found what, three or four years ago?

Forgive me for any factual inaccuracies with this post.  The only source of information for this is the media at the minute, sadly.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 05, 2019, 07:22:PM
why did criag dobbie refuse a lot on crimewatch its almost like he dident want witness to come forward.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 05, 2019, 07:24:PM

With regards to where you say the knife wasn’t found in a dry-stone dyke 300yards from the scene by a farmer, why would the media blatantly lie about that? I do get the media massage and manipulate things, but surely such a simple fact, which in itself is really a simple, non-incriminatory statement, would be told truthfully?

I don't know why the media would say that - I haven't actually seen any media coverage of it, so I'd appreciate any links you could provide. The knife in question was found approximately 500 yards from the murder scene near a drystane dyke (but not in one) and certainly not by a farmer - I've no idea where that came from.

Quote
I suspect this knife is probably not connected to the murder anyway.  When I was young, I found a machete behind my house in a bush.  There was a lot of gang related violence nearby though, but these sort of finds do happen.  Look at how many knives and weapons the police find and confiscate from the public each year.

There are details about where the knife was found and the reaction of police officers when it was handed in that suggested there was a possibility (nothing more) that it may have been connected but, overall, I agree, knives, etc, turn up in many places without having been connected to anything untoward.

Quote
I guess the location makes it look a bit more dubious, but if you’re saying it wasn’t in a dry-stone dyke 300yds from the scene, perhaps it was found 5 miles away? I’m also assuming if anything was to come from this development it would have already.

See my answer above - it was, definitely, around 500m from the murder scene and there was a drystane dyke involved, it's just that the accuracy of the media reports  about the relationship to the dyke and the person who found it was off. Unfortunately, those responsible for taking the required action on Luke's behalf, at the time of the find, failed to do so. That information has just begun to break publicly this evening, hence my unwillingness to comment further previously.

Quote
Out of curiosity - why have the media just begun to talk about this knife anyway? It was found what, four years ago or something? Why now?

Because Corinne mentioned it in her James English interview. Having only just discovered that those responsible for taking the required action, at the time, had failed to do so, she decided to go public with the information. I was not party to that decision (or the earlier failure to take action).

Quote
I’m not forcing you to answer anything about it though, but I suppose the other argument is that your lack of response in relation to this weapon sort of suggests that it will be part of the investigation.  I do get this which you did sort of mention.  I just don’t get why now, given it was found what, three or four years ago?

As always, I'll answer what I can, when I can; I was aware of developments behind the scenes but was not prepared to comment publicly on them for a number of reasons.

Quote
Forgive me for any factual inaccuracies with this post.  The only source of information for this is the media at the minute, sadly.

I understand - the problem is that for so long, the only source of much of the misinformation about the case was mainstream media, which is why the facts to counter it remained buried for so long. It would be somewhat counter-productive to give MSM sensitive information about planned next moves - firstly, it would give them an opportunity to distort that information and cause even more confusion and secondly, as anyone working in these circumstances will tell you, there are some things that just cannot go into the public domain in advance for legal reasons.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 05, 2019, 07:37:PM
why did criag dobbie refuse a lot on crimewatch its almost like he dident want witness to come forward.

Indeed!

Why was the area first flooded with pictures of a 4/5 year old Jodi and then an 8 year old Jodi when the claim was they were trying to find witnesses who might have seen 14 year old Jodi that day?

Why was the reconstruction video so inaccurate - it was (by the final claims about timings) around 15 minutes too late, there was no depiction of a "Stocky Man" following Jodi, or of a man in fishing clothing with thick hair standing up in a clump at the back, his arms by his sides, palms facing forward, standing in the lane leading to the path, with Jodi standing on the pavement looking towards him.

How could anyone's memory be "jogged" by a video that didn't reflect the known details and was too late to have helped anyway?

And, as nugnug points out, why refuse Crimewatch? It had one of the biggest viewing audiences at the time and, by July 7th, the case was already so massive that L&B were drowning in the deluge of "information" pouring into the enquiry (so much so that they missed masses of important information). Why not accept the offer of help from Crimewatch and lessen their direct burden?

Retrospectively, it would be easy to conclude that there was a concerted effort to keep "prying" outside eyes out and to control the public narrative of the case (in a way that, perhaps, would not have been possible had Crimewatch been involved).
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 05, 2019, 08:07:PM
Sandra, again thank you for the response.  It is an interesting development, but I guess after all these years there’s probably no forensic material on the knife anyway.  I never knew Corrine had mentioned it.  I knew she had mentioned a number of interesting developments, but not the knife.

The part about a farmer finding it may have been my fault as an error, sorry.  However, here is a link to where I originally read about it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-jodi-jones-killer-fresh-16534131.amp

Here is a second link:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615.amp

What were the reactions of the Police officers like that you mention? And what type of knife was it anyway? Can you reveal that? I am interested in this knife, but again the media do seem to report factual inaccuracies. 

So, it wasn’t “in” the dry-stone dyke, but rather next to it would you say? The forensic material will certainly be gone forever if that’s the case.

What information is breaking publicly this evening sorry?

Have you seen the knife yourself? And has there been any other knives or objects found near the scene?






Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 05, 2019, 09:48:PM
Indeed!

Why was the area first flooded with pictures of a 4/5 year old Jodi and then an 8 year old Jodi when the claim was they were trying to find witnesses who might have seen 14 year old Jodi that day?

Why was the reconstruction video so inaccurate - it was (by the final claims about timings) around 15 minutes too late, there was no depiction of a "Stocky Man" following Jodi, or of a man in fishing clothing with thick hair standing up in a clump at the back, his arms by his sides, palms facing forward, standing in the lane leading to the path, with Jodi standing on the pavement looking towards him.

How could anyone's memory be "jogged" by a video that didn't reflect the known details and was too late to have helped anyway?

And, as nugnug points out, why refuse Crimewatch? It had one of the biggest viewing audiences at the time and, by July 7th, the case was already so massive that L&B were drowning in the deluge of "information" pouring into the enquiry (so much so that they missed masses of important information). Why not accept the offer of help from Crimewatch and lessen their direct burden?

Retrospectively, it would be easy to conclude that there was a concerted effort to keep "prying" outside eyes out and to control the public narrative of the case (in a way that, perhaps, would not have been possible had Crimewatch been involved).




 the thing is though if you were conviced luke was the killer than you would want people to come forward becouse you would know that they would confirm your suspicions and make the case agianst him  stronger the fact they dident want people to come forward suggests they were by no means convinced luke was the killer.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 06, 2019, 12:20:AM
Do you know what I find so utterly ridiculous and bizarre about this whole situation? The number of people that could have potentially seen something or indeed carried out the murder.  People in fishing clothing with the deceased staring at him; stocky men walking behind her; people on mopeds shaving their hair afterwards; people with scratches all over their face; people’s sperm on clothing; people known to violently attack others with knives; dodgy alibis; other individuals in the vicinity who may be involved; knives found near the scene with names on them; inscriptions on knife pouches; dodgy Police investigations; strangling sounds coming from behind brick walls; used condoms near the locus.  The whole story is like Cluedo.  How did so many things come together here to skew the truth? The average murder usually has a couple of witnesses here and there and maybe some people walking past near the time of death or whatever, not guys in fishing suits staring at people or dudes with stocky builds following people, all the while knife pouches are being found with mad writing, followed by semen on bodies and guys who dump fresh condoms in dark wooded areas.  The number of individual developments and circumstances that actually took place is unreal.  It’s as though because all of these developments happened together throughout the investigation, a blanket was pulled over the truth which makes it impossible to know WHO it was.  It’s like Cluedo.  There are so many dodgy individual aspects in this case from a number of people it is unreal.  You’d be lucky to report even one or two of this stuff in a normal investigation.  Strangling sounds from behind brick walls?  People in fishing gear looking at the deceased? I mean it gets more and more ridiculous by the minute.  It’s like trying to crack a 10 digit code to a safe.  Honestly.  It’s mind boggling.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Steve_uk on July 06, 2019, 08:14:AM
I can't picture the murder scene if anyone has a diagram or a link?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 06, 2019, 10:48:AM
Do you mean the V break in the wall or the actual place where Jodi was found? To my knowledge, there are no pictures in the public domain of the latter.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 06, 2019, 01:34:PM
Try these images.  I took then about a month ago.

This one shows the V-Break
https://m.imgur.com/a/TEYKH9L

This one looks through the V-break
https://m.imgur.com/a/boXpjV7

This one shows the Roans Dyke Path
https://m.imgur.com/a/OnOcDes

The second one, looking through the V-break, probably does not encapsulate where the body was found as I wasn’t prepared to climb over.  However, according to the court description as to where the body was, I think off the top of my head it was around 13m to the left of the V.  In the image, my camera is indeed pointing to this direction.  So if you can approximate what 13m might look like in this picture, you can maybe imagine where it would be near.  It was also found relatively close to the wall I think.

As for the other pictures, you can see the V-break itself and also the location of the crime.  I was actually on a short break with my partner around six weeks ago through in the Dalkeith area and passed this place as we went to the large Tesco.  I thought to myself - let’s go and put a place to the hype.  A little bit on the morbid side of adventures, but hey ho.  Hope the images shed some light on the crime scene.  Bearing in mind that in 2003, the whole path would probably have been closed off to the public.

 




Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 06, 2019, 03:17:PM
Sandra might be able to draw a sketch of where the body was located in comparison with other surroundings maybe? Im not sure if this is something she would do though.

Sandra, I’m curious - have you seen the crime scene pictures? I always wondered if you had ever seen them...
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 06, 2019, 04:39:PM
If you look at the picture of the woodland strip through the V from your previous post, you'd go 16.3 metres to your left. Jodi was found at a right angle to the wall, her feet maybe 3 - 4' from the wall, her head somewhere around 8 - 9' from the wall. It's worth noting that the woodland strip is not densely wooded (as you can see from the picture).

Yes, I've seen the crime scene photographs, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 06, 2019, 06:48:PM
Oh dear... Why has James English taken down the interviews?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Steve_uk on July 06, 2019, 07:36:PM
If you look at the picture of the woodland strip through the V from your previous post, you'd go 16.3 metres to your left. Jodi was found at a right angle to the wall, her feet maybe 3 - 4' from the wall, her head somewhere around 8 - 9' from the wall. It's worth noting that the woodland strip is not densely wooded (as you can see from the picture).

Yes, I've seen the crime scene photographs, unfortunately.
If I compare this case to Carl Bridgewater for a moment it was noted that he looked relaxed on the settee before he was shot in the head. Is there any indication whether Jodie had been forced to undress or any other indication of her mental state in the run-up to the murder?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Steve_uk on July 06, 2019, 07:48:PM
Try these images.  I took then about a month ago.

This one shows the V-Break
https://m.imgur.com/a/TEYKH9L

This one looks through the V-break
https://m.imgur.com/a/boXpjV7

This one shows the Roans Dyke Path
https://m.imgur.com/a/OnOcDes

The second one, looking through the V-break, probably does not encapsulate where the body was found as I wasn’t prepared to climb over.  However, according to the court description as to where the body was, I think off the top of my head it was around 13m to the left of the V.  In the image, my camera is indeed pointing to this direction.  So if you can approximate what 13m might look like in this picture, you can maybe imagine where it would be near.  It was also found relatively close to the wall I think.

As for the other pictures, you can see the V-break itself and also the location of the crime.  I was actually on a short break with my partner around six weeks ago through in the Dalkeith area and passed this place as we went to the large Tesco.  I thought to myself - let’s go and put a place to the hype.  A little bit on the morbid side of adventures, but hey ho.  Hope the images shed some light on the crime scene.  Bearing in mind that in 2003, the whole path would probably have been closed off to the public.
Thank you Armchair (may I call you that for convenience, though it seems you might need a different monicker now you got up from your chair in investigating this case.)
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 06, 2019, 09:16:PM
Ah, yes - the ‘Armchair’ was indeed left behind on this occasion.  From a physical point of view, the location of the crime is simply what you would expect a secluded area in woodland to look like - nothing particularly striking.  However, if you are a psychical type who tunes in with meta-physical energy, I guess there does seem to be a bit of unease where the V-break is located.  Looking over this felt a little bit like looking over the edge of a small boat at sea; a somewhat nauseous sensation developing in the pit of the stomach.  Over the side of the wall is a bunch of trees, but you can see how someone could have got away with what they did.  I just simply cannot believe the number of developments that all came together at once in this case which helped pull a blanket over the truth. 
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Steve_uk on July 06, 2019, 09:23:PM
Ah, yes - the ‘Armchair’ was indeed left behind on this occasion.  From a physical point of view, the location of the crime is simply what you would expect a secluded area in woodland to look like - nothing particularly striking.  However, if you are a psychical type who tunes in with meta-physical energy, I guess there does seem to be a bit of unease where the V-break is located.  Looking over this felt a little bit like looking over the edge of a small boat at sea; a somewhat nauseous sensation developing in the pit of the stomach.  Over the side of the wall is a bunch of trees, but you can see how someone could have got away with what they did.  I just simply cannot believe the number of developments that all came together at once in this case which helped pull a blanket over the truth.
I haven't read all the contributions to this case and came to it late anyhow. I would only add that the Scottish press seem determined to blacken Luke Mitchell's character at every opportunity and seem certain that it's a secure conviction.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 06, 2019, 09:24:PM
Try these images.  I took then about a month ago.

This one shows the V-Break
https://m.imgur.com/a/TEYKH9L

This one looks through the V-break
https://m.imgur.com/a/boXpjV7

This one shows the Roans Dyke Path
https://m.imgur.com/a/OnOcDes

The second one, looking through the V-break, probably does not encapsulate where the body was found as I wasn’t prepared to climb over.  However, according to the court description as to where the body was, I think off the top of my head it was around 13m to the left of the V.  In the image, my camera is indeed pointing to this direction.  So if you can approximate what 13m might look like in this picture, you can maybe imagine where it would be near.  It was also found relatively close to the wall I think.

As for the other pictures, you can see the V-break itself and also the location of the crime.  I was actually on a short break with my partner around six weeks ago through in the Dalkeith area and passed this place as we went to the large Tesco.  I thought to myself - let’s go and put a place to the hype.  A little bit on the morbid side of adventures, but hey ho.  Hope the images shed some light on the crime scene.  Bearing in mind that in 2003, the whole path would probably have been closed off to the public.

Inconceivable that Jodi climbed in there with someone other than Luke.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Steve_uk on July 06, 2019, 09:25:PM
Inconceivable that Jodi climbed in there with someone other than Luke.

Was the case that they climbed over for sexual intercourse upon which Jodie was attacked whilst undressing?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 06, 2019, 09:26:PM
‘Lithium’ makes a good point - James English has taken down the YouTube video podcasts with both Corrine and Sandra.  Why has this happened?

To me, it sounds as though something has been said, maybe even leaked, that perhaps shouldn’t have.  Or, perhaps people have commented on the video and said things that shouldn’t be said.

Whatever way, the only person active on the forum who may be able to help is Sandra.

Can you shed light on why James English has taken these videos down, Sandra?  Seems a bit odd given all his other ones are still there...
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 06, 2019, 09:27:PM
Was the case that they climbed over for sexual intercourse upon which Jodie was attacked whilst undressing?

Quite the opposite. They were over there having an argument about a girl Luke was two-timing Jodi with (Kimberley Thomson of Perth). She had been texting Luke regarding meeting up during the summer holidays and this came to light at school that day. This is why Luke deleted the texts from Jodi from his phone, they would have detailed all of this. (In my opinion) Luke possibly lost his temper and knocked Jodi out with a large tree branch when she stormed away from him, and subsequently removed the clothing and inflicted the knife injuries post-mortem to make it look like the murder was carried out by a rapist or deranged killer. He had a knife on him all the time anyway. Luke's own friends said that he jabbed her in the leg with a knife not long before the murder and was treating her like shit.


and gordo, I haven't left the building, I deleted my posts because we were going round in circles again, the same conversations we have been having for years and I was getting sick of it. Sandra just repeatedly refusing to accept any of the evidence etc. I provided the names of multiple direct neighbours of Luke who told police they SAW and SMELLED burning coming from the Mitchell log burner. Sandra refused to acknowledge. I started asking myself why I'm even wasting my time. The right guy is in jail. That being said... there seems to be some new accounts posting though so I felt I should come and give another side to it and balance the discussion before anyone new gets hoodwinked and sucked in by it, like John Lamberton was, for example.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 06, 2019, 09:39:PM
‘Lithium’ makes a good point - James English has taken down the YouTube video podcasts with both Corrine and Sandra.  Why has this happened?

To me, it sounds as though something has been said, maybe even leaked, that perhaps shouldn’t have.  Or, perhaps people have commented on the video and said things that shouldn’t be said.

Whatever way, the only person active on the forum who may be able to help is Sandra.

Can you shed light on why James English has taken these videos down, Sandra?  Seems a bit odd given all his other ones are still there...


I know James English had contacted Jodi's family regarding a possible interview to tell their side of it. Maybe he's heard/seen enough to realise he's backing the wrong horse and has been misled by Sandra Lean or Corrine Mitchell?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 06, 2019, 09:43:PM
If you look at the picture of the woodland strip through the V from your previous post, you'd go 16.3 metres to your left. Jodi was found at a right angle to the wall, her feet maybe 3 - 4' from the wall, her head somewhere around 8 - 9' from the wall. It's worth noting that the woodland strip is not densely wooded (as you can see from the picture).

Yes, I've seen the crime scene photographs, unfortunately.

Now can you point out where Falconer's condom was found and honestly tell everyone he would have to have "StEpPeD ovEr JoDi'S BoDy TwIcE!" to leave it there.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 07, 2019, 02:52:AM
Inconceivable that Jodi climbed in there with someone other than Luke.

I’m not so sure, she knew the 2 boys on the moped that were there at the v at 1715 i think she would go over with them. She could have had a quick smoke with them before they left, it has always seemed they 2 knew more than they did, maybe they were the last to see her alive, right at the place she was murdered and were to scared to say.

Quite the opposite. They were over there having an argument about a girl Luke was two-timing Jodi with (Kimberley Thomson of Perth). She had been texting Luke regarding meeting up during the summer holidays and this came to light at school that day. This is why Luke deleted the texts from Jodi from his phone, they would have detailed all of this. (In my opinion) Luke possibly lost his temper and knocked Jodi out with a large tree branch when she stormed away from him, and subsequently removed the clothing and inflicted the knife injuries post-mortem to make it look like the murder was carried out by a rapist or deranged killer. He had a knife on him all the time anyway. Luke's own friends said that he jabbed her in the leg with a knife not long before the murder and was treating her like shit.

This has never sat right with me, if she found out about the other girl when she was at school then by the time she got home she would be very upset, the mum would noticed this. She thought she might have been in love with Luke, if she knew or even though he was cheating she would be devastated and would not have been the happy girl the mum remembers that evening before she left. I think it’s more likely, if it was Luke, then this was something he had been thinking about and wanting to do for a while and for some simple and horrible reason it happened that night. Maybe he told her about the other girl when they met up, but I don’t think she knew before she left the house as she was too happy.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 07, 2019, 12:12:PM
Not sure about anyone else, but I find it particularly strange that James English has taken the Luke Mitchell videos down from YouTube.  I suspect something has happened and he’s felt they are better offline.  I read some of the comments - nothing in the comments is unknown public information.  Everything people have said is all very relevant.  Seems a bit strange given his other videos are still online.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 05:16:PM
I’m not so sure, she knew the 2 boys on the moped that were there at the v at 1715 i think she would go over with them. She could have had a quick smoke with them before they left, it has always seemed they 2 knew more than they did, maybe they were the last to see her alive, right at the place she was murdered and were to scared to say.

This has never sat right with me, if she found out about the other girl when she was at school then by the time she got home she would be very upset, the mum would noticed this. She thought she might have been in love with Luke, if she knew or even though he was cheating she would be devastated and would not have been the happy girl the mum remembers that evening before she left. I think it’s more likely, if it was Luke, then this was something he had been thinking about and wanting to do for a while and for some simple and horrible reason it happened that night. Maybe he told her about the other girl when they met up, but I don’t think she knew before she left the house as she was too happy.

That's a fair point re Jodi seeming carefree after school. Keep in mind they were sighted arguing at Jodi's end of the path soon after she left the house, so something was definitely amiss. Maybe Luke was dumping her behind the wall? I really wonder why the text messages between Luke and Jodi were deleted from Luke's phone. Why would he delete them before police took his phone? Was he in the habit of deleting texts immediately after reading them? No idea. Sandra will try and downplay Kimberley Thomson but Luke was def excited about spending time with her now that school was finished. They were saying "love you" to each other. Kimberley stayed over at Luke's over new year and they spent Valentines Day together which was after Luke started seeing Jodi.  Not sure how he was hoping to pull the summer holiday meets off one  with Jodi still being in the picture. Almost like he expected her not to be. It's certainly enough to be a potential motive or at least catalyst if not premeditated.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 05:38:PM
Not sure about anyone else, but I find it particularly strange that James English has taken the Luke Mitchell videos down from YouTube.  I suspect something has happened and he’s felt they are better offline.  I read some of the comments - nothing in the comments is unknown public information.  Everything people have said is all very relevant.  Seems a bit strange given his other videos are still online.

They're back up now.  :o
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 06:36:PM
Still need clarification as to why Corinne is heavily implying Stocky Man aka Joseph confessed? Not only is Joseph "Stocky Man" but he was also the person on the bike with Dickie, who Ferris cut his hair to look like. But also Joseph was MIA and the person the search party was originally looking for. So much contradictory bullshit to get through.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 06:50:PM
It was always a bit early to speculate about the interviews!

It’s easy to put it in such a rudimentary way about Joesph when discussion on different people take many paths. A witness came forward and identified the stocky man but it was never released to the defence and for similar reason people draw their own conclusions
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 06:57:PM
A witness came forward and identified the stocky man but it was never released to the defence and for similar reason people draw their own conclusions

Yeah but what I'm wondering is why is Corinne implying that this individual is the person who confessed? Deliberately misleading viewers. I've actually spoken with him recently (albeit online) and his stance on this case and Luke's guilt hasn't changed one bit.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 07:05:PM
I can understand it not changing but surely you can understand why we have questions when things like witness statements weren’t given to the defence, albeit not corroborated but then neither was the Bryson sighting.
Did he mention why he was identified following Jodi?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 07:15:PM
Why will you readily accept that sighting but not the sightings of Luke? Confirmation bias.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 07:18:PM
So he followed her to the V and managed to convince her to climb over it with him even though he was stalking her from behind. It just doesn't add up when looked at seriously.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 07:33:PM
I don’t accept the Bryson sighting because she didn’t pick him out at court, I feel she was making a big statement there’s
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 07:49:PM
I again feel the double standards that riddle this case when the other sighting of F&W. On one occasion Luke is considered guilty because corriene is accused of be decisive and deceitful but the witnesses were and even the judge commented on it
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 08:07:PM
I don’t accept the Bryson sighting because she didn’t pick him out at court, I feel she was making a big statement there’s

Luke looked like a completely different person by the time of the trial. Taller, broader, hair in a pony tail / down his back. Smartly dressed. She wasn't making any statement, just being an honest and good witness stating that she couldn't say these 2 were one and the same:

(https://imgur.com/OEep0Vs.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/F1jbqdH.png)

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 08:08:PM
(https://imgur.com/OEep0Vs.jpg)

Upon seeing this photo, said she was "as sure as she could be" that this was the boy she seen that day.

He looked nothing like this at trial and you know it Gordo.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 08:11:PM
(https://i.imgur.com/WVw8ubn.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/zxnf9Xu.png)
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 08:12:PM
The funny part is, if she did identify him at trial, I have no doubt you and Sandra would be posting these comparisons saying "HOW COULD SHE POSSIBLY SWEAR THAT THIS IS THE SAME PERSON?! LOOK HOW DIFFERENT HE LOOKS!" and using that to undermine her evidence.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 08:31:PM
That’s reversed phycology there mate. It did happen and Luke hasn’t changed that much when you consider the detail she describes the two who were at the entrance, it also wasn’t a problem with F&W.

I’m also impartial as I have no connection with anyone involved, I do this because a firmly believe Luke is innocent. I have never met anyone connected to either family so claiming what I would do is way off the mark when and if concrete proof was put before me.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 07, 2019, 09:28:PM
I also believe Stocky Man is indeed Joseph Jones.  It is glaringly obvious once you read Sandra’s book Innocents Betrayed. 

So this confession - does it carry any weight?  Who was it made to, and when? If it was Joseph Jones who confessed, then it’s likely to be downplayed due to his mental health conditions.   

Confessing to a murder could’ve just been a crazy, cannabis induced delusion!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 09:46:PM
Surprised Luke Mitchell supporters don't require any evidence when it comes to believing anything that implicates someone else.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 09:51:PM
We do require evidence and it’s what our discussion is based on. There was someone who identified JoJ as the stocky man. That witness was independent from both families, non corroborated and cannot be admitted as evidence at court but then nothing was corroborated that jailed Luke
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:07:PM
Witness had nothing to do with the Jones family but identified Joseph. Cool. Joe has never had curly ginger hair.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZJSadmX.jpg)

It loses all credibility when Corinne is also saying that he confessed.

And this all came from some ex cop who approached Sandra.

Sure it did.

I'm all ears for when Sandra or Corinne come up with anything remotely believable.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 10:13:PM
It’s not clear if that was her description
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:24:PM
Think it's time to get back to reality.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:26:PM
It’s not clear if that was her description

Mate this "sighting" of Joseph Jones is by far the flimsiest one yet and you've jumped right on it without a shred of the scepticism the you approach other important sightings and evidence with.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 10:30:PM
Why is it the flimsiest! It’s real and it exists, if you can’t take the others at face value why not this one, he was never found .
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:32:PM
Why is it the flimsiest! It’s real and it exists, if you can’t take the others at face value why not this one, he was never found .

Source please? I can't take it at face value when Corinne is reporting it along with the information that he also confessed.

Throw enough shite and hoping some of it sticks eh Corinne...
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:33:PM
Why is it the flimsiest! It’s real and it exists, if you can’t take the others at face value why not this one, he was never found .

The mystery couple arguing at the foot of the path were also never found. That's 2 people who nobody knew, that apparently didn't hear about the local murder or police appeals and vanished off the face of the Earth.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 07, 2019, 10:33:PM
Joseph fits the profile anyway - he was around 21 when she was murdered, very well known to the victim, and had shown aggressive, violent tendencies and outbursts involving knives.  He was unstable mentally
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:34:PM
Joseph fits the profile anyway - he was around 21 when she was murdered, very well known to the victim, and had shown aggressive, violent tendencies and outbursts involving knives.  He was unstable mentally

Proof?  (other than Sandra's book)

There's more stories  of Luke's violent tendencies and outbursts involving knives. Let's ignore those though eh. Coming from his own friends and ex girlfriends no less... Let's ignore the fact he was referred to the school psychiatrist for violent outbursts. His close friends agreeing he jabbed at Jodi's leg with a knife shortly before the murder and thought it was funny. His ex in the cadets who had a knife held to her throat. His pals saying he spoke about knowing how to decapitate someone.  (There is none of this with Joseph Jones, no criminal record, no incidents since) I'd love to know what you're basing all that on. Because he was on anti-depressants? Wouldn't you be if your dad hung himself.

Real people who put their name on the line have testified to Luke's violent and concerning behaviour.

Please post your source for Joseph's violent behaviour and knife incidents? Utter bullshit.

Sandra even wrote in the SCCRC that he stabbed his mother.

Absolute nonsense all of it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:39:PM
Just take a Luke at Luke's writings and revenge fantasies since being jailed.

Poems about getting revenge on the police etc. Killing them with sticks, drinking their blood and other mental shit. Had it up on his wall in HMP Shotts. He's never said anything about getting revenge on the person who killed his girlfriend... Why? "they should just be put away!" is that all yeah. But the people who testified against you should be brutally killed with sticks???


(https://i.imgur.com/vD5xLct.png)

"As I walk through the shadow of the valley of death, I will fear no evil, I will embrace and stab it with a big f*****' stick.

"I will watch it bleed, blood and life it took from me and others, and as I drink this life blood, I will regain my life and theirs.

"I will watch, as those who took so much from us spill their blood on the soil, for they will have no redemption, no mercy, for they gave none.

"I will watch as they wither and die, and I shall seek vengeance for those no longer capable.

"For I am immortal, I cannot die, not untill (sic) I have spilt the life blood of those who would spill mine."

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:45:PM
Joseph fits the profile anyway - he was around 21 when she was murdered, very well known to the victim, and had shown aggressive, violent tendencies and outbursts involving knives.  He was unstable mentally

How do dickie and ferris fit into this theory?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 07, 2019, 10:50:PM
I don’t underestimate the probability that Mitchell was indeed the assailant, and I do also admit that the source of the information is from Sandra’s Book.  I do hope that she is able to release official documents at some point for reference.  She does claim that she will be able to do this soon, but if she can’t even confirm with evidence that Mitchell habitually phoned the Speaking Clock - as she states - then we’re clutching at straws.

In terms of the confession, all I was saying was, I consider it possible that, if all her evidence is indeed fact, then Joseph Jones would fit the profile to a T.  She’s not revealed the person who confessed.  All they said was that stocky man was seen following her, and the person who confessed was the one following her.  How do we know this was the brother anyway? Nothing has been mentioned unless I have missed it? It does heavily hint towards this in her book, albeit she claims this wasn’t her intention.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 10:51:PM
Care to make the same montage about Joey? His violence? And of course you know our source being the investigation files and the person who has access to them.
The very same person who not so long ago you were asking to confirm information you put out, you can’t really believe her credibility is anymore than valid or you wouldn’t be asking her to do that now would you!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:53:PM
I said she could confirm, for that very reason. You trust it if it comes from her. Wasn't asking her to. I already knew it.

Someone who is so violent and unstable enough to kill their wee sis. why has nothing happened to Sandra?

Wasn't he at the door in tears asking her to take the site down? The forum which was essentially a circle-jerk of people sharing theories of how all of the male relatives of Jodi might be involved. I even saw it suggested a teenage Joseph murdered his dad and staged the suicide. Mental.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:54:PM
Care to make the same montage about Joey? His violence?

Why don't you?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 10:55:PM
I don’t believe he killed his wee sis and I have been staying that for a while now, are you saying there are no violent episodes relating to joey?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 10:59:PM
I don’t believe he killed his wee sis and I have been staying that for a while now, are you saying there are no violent episodes relating to joey?

Are you saying you have any proof that there are? I'm just questioning that.  Feel free to share it...
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 11:04:PM
I don’t believe he killed his wee sis and I have been staying that for a while now

Yeah but just tonight I see you stating it as fact that he was following her onto Roan's Dyke before she was murdered.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 07, 2019, 11:16:PM
Yeah but that all I said, nothing about him murdering her.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 11:38:PM
Well you don't have any evidence of that. There's not even evidence anyone was following Jodi. Someone was spotted walking behind her. It's Sandra who has twisted this into "following Jodi". It's the usual.

He wasn't walking behind Jodi on the same road. He was "following her"

things weren't explained by the Jones family, they were "explained away"

Falconer didn't pass the body, he "stepped directly over it twice"

Mark Kane bore a "striking resemblance" to Luke

Ferris didn't cut his hair, he "hacked it all off!"

Jones family didn't later remember certain things like Shane and Corinne did, the Joneses suddenly "remembered" (in quotations.)

The list really is endless.

She's being dishonest and she knows it. That's my main issue.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 07, 2019, 11:47:PM
Why does Sandra still refuse to acknowledge the evidence of Mr and Mrs Frankland and Mr Ramage. She keeps trying to "explain this away" by attributing it to the unrelated fire in Newtongrange. These are Luke's neighbours, real people who exist and testified independently to seeing a fire in the garden. Can you please acknowledge and address this without trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and "explaining it away" as it being confused with the Newtongrange fire. These people testified. I don't care if one of them called Corinne a tart. Irrelevant.

That's why I got annoyed and decided to stop trying to have a discussion and deleted my posts. She tried to attribute the fire to an unrelated person in Newtongrange (who wasn't a "suspect" btw as stated by Sandra), and when I pointed out, no Sandra, it was Luke's nextdoor neighbours and another neighbour whose garden backs onto Luke's, their names are... she replies "Oh the one who referred to Corinne as the tart in tight pants?" and didn't address it any further. How can people accept this?

In the book (paraphrasing) "the fire was in Newtongrange, but by the time it got to trial, it was Corinne who was being accused of this" - erm, no. She was accused well before that by her neighbours who gave evidence at trial. Absolutely nothing to do with the Newtongrange fire. Why are you blatantly lying to your readers?

Getting wound up again so logging off...
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 08, 2019, 12:57:AM
Sandra’s demeanour and driving force behind this whole agenda is one of sheer desperation, infatuation and obsession.  The tone in which she uses towards the Criminal Justice System as a whole is drizzled in bitterness, which comes from her failings in a subject that she so passionately studied at PhD level for three years.  It is probable that her infatuation with the Mitchell case led her to this, but listening to her speak in those podcasts shows a woman lost in an endless dark, black hole.  Her disgust towards the Criminal Justice System, by in large, plagues her like a disease.  It’s as though she can’t accept that society is not just, never will be just, and never has been just.  Human beings are not democratic.  They are swines, through and through.  They are greedy, vengeful and evil, and the sooner she let’s go of this hunch, she may then be able to dig her way out the dark hole.  I don’t agree with the system either, but I don’t let it impinge on my life.  I don’t agree with capitalism, but I also don’t let it adversely affect my life.  I don’t harbour bitterness towards those involved in such systems because, quite simply, it won’t change.  It can’t change.  Sandra, in my opinion, albeit has been very helpful in answering my previous posts, is deluded, infatuated and obsessed.  To allow such a crime to take over your life for the best part of 16 years is a sign of someone who can’t see the wood for the trees.  This woman has to stop.  Someone has to stop her.  Someone has to say, listen, I commend all your efforts of which there is no greater accolade to criminology, but please withdraw from it and put it to bed.  The case will never be solved.   Any forensic evidence is lost, and has been lost, forever.  Mitchell is detained for life, and it is simply tough titty.  A Jury convicted him.  Game over.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 08, 2019, 09:16:AM
I think that's a bit much. I do believe she thinks she's doing the right thing. But you're right her absolute desperation for Luke to be innocent is lead her down a dark path and into a corner. She need Luke to be innocent and will refuse to consider any evidence which suggests differently. She put her reputation on the line with Simon Hall (whose guilt she is still in denial about despite him confessing and killing himself) and Adrian Prout who also turned out to be guilty so she's really betting everything on this being her big achievement. Freeing Luke will make it all worth it to her. The truth is, if she is willing to be honest with herself, Luke's guilt is a very realistic possibility and there is evidence of it regardless of her refusal to accept, and she has no idea if he's innocent or not. There is a lot of misinformation out there that Sandra is the source of. I agree that her bitterness and anger is palpable... not just with the criminal justice system, but sadly with Jodi's family.

I do think she is losing it and the latest book was quite alarming to even me. Any respect for the victims family is well and truly out the window and she sits in these Youtube videos with her smug "knowing" grin, when really she knows fuckall. She has built a circumstantial case against every male close to Jodi Jones and Luke didn't even get a chapter in the book. She'll go as far as lying about Luke and embellishing his past. "explaining away" Satanic quotes as being from video games, because one single one sentence was. The guy was ordering Satanic books in prison relatively recently. On James English saying the only incident in school was throwing half a Mars bar. Utter bullshit that I know first hand to be false. Just disregarding the teacher who testified Luke owned a parka and resembled a "hooded monk" in school. Disregarding Jodi's family remembering this Parka. They're all just confused and mistaken. Just like the neighbours... apparently enough for Sandra to disregard these statements. Sandra who didn't know Luke before the murder knows better than Luke's pals, exes, neighbours and teachers.

I'll also say it again - Shane Mitchell only tells people his brother did it. Sandra and Corinne are lying about Shane supporting him. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask him yourself.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 08, 2019, 09:24:AM
Sandra’s demeanour and driving force behind this whole agenda is one of sheer desperation, infatuation and obsession.  The tone in which she uses towards the Criminal Justice System as a whole is drizzled in bitterness, which comes from her failings in a subject that she so passionately studied at PhD level for three years.  It is probable that her infatuation with the Mitchell case led her to this, but listening to her speak in those podcasts shows a woman lost in an endless dark, black hole.  Her disgust towards the Criminal Justice System, by in large, plagues her like a disease.  It’s as though she can’t accept that society is not just, never will be just, and never has been just.  Human beings are not democratic.  They are swines, through and through.  They are greedy, vengeful and evil, and the sooner she let’s go of this hunch, she may then be able to dig her way out the dark hole.  I don’t agree with the system either, but I don’t let it impinge on my life.  I don’t agree with capitalism, but I also don’t let it adversely affect my life.  I don’t harbour bitterness towards those involved in such systems because, quite simply, it won’t change.  It can’t change.  Sandra, in my opinion, albeit has been very helpful in answering my previous posts, is deluded, infatuated and obsessed.  To allow such a crime to take over your life for the best part of 16 years is a sign of someone who can’t see the wood for the trees.  This woman has to stop.  Someone has to stop her.  Someone has to say, listen, I commend all your efforts of which there is no greater accolade to criminology, but please withdraw from it and put it to bed.  The case will never be solved.   Any forensic evidence is lost, and has been lost, forever.  Mitchell is detained for life, and it is simply tough titty.  A Jury convicted him.  Game over.


What an appalling post based on what exactly! Her demeanour on sites like these? When always answering what’s put before with candour and honesty. Doing while always being wary of attacks like these and having to keep within the moral and legal constraints placed upon her when working on these cases. She is driven that’s for sure and her drive comes from trying her best to wright what’s went wrong, brave also in having to bring up a family in an area where tensions and hostility towards her are real. Taking things to a level where she was in the position to get a doctorate to be qualified in her assumptions. How exactly are you qualified to make such a scathing attack based on nothing.

Why do you spend so much of your time on two forums debating this case if you feel it’s is unprovable? Some sick form of enjoyment? Questioning Sandra about crime scene photos, taking the time out to go to the scene itself to take pictures, are you some weird sort of fantasist who gets there kicks from brutal crimes? Of course my assessment of you is probably wrong but then I’m not qualified to make them but you can see where I derive them from.

She doesn’t hide behind a fancy moniker, she’s assessable and available unlike the majority of those who would attack her. She won’t be put off by this as it’s the normal run of the mill post she has had to put up with for years. She will carry on and that’s admirable.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 08, 2019, 09:45:AM
You never been to the scene Gordo?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 08, 2019, 09:53:AM
Gordo, I’m not even going to write back to you as I would be here all day.

One thing I will draw your attention to though is a twitter post of Sandra’s where she speaks about the podcast with James English.  She makes reference to the truth eventually coming out, and that those who are hiding things should “Be afraid.  Be very afraid”

Now to me, that is a bit pot-kettle - she claims she is the victim and is under attack from online trolls.  It’s difficult to deal with this, however, when she’s making remarks like this.  She does this through her wording in the book too, which by the way is massively biased towards Mitchell, of course.

It’s as though it is ok for her to point blame at others yet can’t seem to take any criticism when matters are reversed.  She’s a professional.  She’s telling people to be afraid.  To me, that sounds like she’s getting a rise from doing what she’s doing.  I’m my opinion, all she is doing is mixing the pot over and over and over and over. 

She needs to stop.

Reference - https://mobile.twitter.com/sandralean5?lang=en

Post - June 13
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 08, 2019, 10:18:AM
You never been to the scene Gordo?

Never felt the need to mate and I’m about a 45 min drive away. What would I gain from it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 08, 2019, 10:24:AM
Gordo, I’m not even going to write back to you as I would be here all day.

One thing I will draw your attention to though is a twitter post of Sandra’s where she speaks about the podcast with James English.  She makes reference to the truth eventually coming out, and that those who are hiding things should “Be afraid.  Be very afraid”

Now to me, that is a bit pot-kettle - she claims she is the victim and is under attack from online trolls.  It’s difficult to deal with this, however, when she’s making remarks like this.  She does this through her wording in the book too, which by the way is massively biased towards Mitchell, of course.

It’s as though it is ok for her to point blame at others yet can’t seem to take any criticism when matters are reversed.  She’s a professional.  She’s telling people to be afraid.  To me, that sounds like she’s getting a rise from doing what she’s doing.  I’m my opinion, all she is doing is mixing the pot over and over and over and over. 

She needs to stop.

Reference - https://mobile.twitter.com/sandralean5?lang=en

Post - June 13




You've put into words what I was getting at with the smug thing. In her Youtube video answering questions, she replied to a post someone telling her to stop with a smug grin along the lines of "nahhh, I'll decide when I stop.  ;)" It made me feel a bit sick. Agreed she's taking some weird joy in the notoriety. She's deluded and thinks these posts are from the Jones family scared that she's "getting close" and she's playing some detective-style cat and mouse game with them hahaha.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 08, 2019, 02:35:PM
been a couple of things on the red forum I’ve been chatting about, a few questions have come up, can Sandra or anyone else help?  Also was wondering Sandra, if there is any reason you don’t post there, I assume it’s due to all the stuff that gets posted, don’t think I could be arsed with all that either!

Shane’s knife collection? Did he have one? How many did he have? Did the police take them, where were they kept.

Where was Shane when Luke went out with the dog after the call from Jodi’s mum?

Where was the knife pouch found and was the knife from the pouch the same one that was handed in by Luke’s mum? Was this also the brown handled knife witnesses have seen him with?

Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 08, 2019, 03:38:PM

(https://imgur.com/OEep0Vs.jpg)


Mark Kane

(https://i.imgur.com/3dT3cg6.png)

"an absolutely striking resemblance " - Sandra Lean

"when you see this guy, it's like WOW! It's Luke! I mean they could be twins!" - Corinne Mitchell

STOP FUCKIN LYIN

He also "reportedly owned a parka around the time of the murder" - Sandra.

But apparently the parka is an irrelevant red herring? Now it might have been MK because he owned one? You can't have it both ways.

"He was also reportedly a fan of Marilyn Manson" - Sandra

despite constantly reiterating how irrelevant Manson/Black Dahlia is to this murder.




Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 08, 2019, 06:58:PM
Are we all feeling better having got all of that off our chests? None of you know me, none of you know why I do what I do and, anyway, your opinions are none of my business. I do think, however, that continually misquoting me to "prove" what you say is somewhat hypocritical. Anyway, back to the discussion.

been a couple of things on the red forum I’ve been chatting about, a few questions have come up, can Sandra or anyone else help?  Also was wondering Sandra, if there is any reason you don’t post there, I assume it’s due to all the stuff that gets posted, don’t think I could be arsed with all that either!

I've never posted there and have no intention of doing so because of (a) the way it's run and (b) the things that are allowed there.

Quote
Shane’s knife collection? Did he have one? How many did he have? Did the police take them, where were they kept.

No, he didn't have one, to the best of my knowledge.

Quote
Where was Shane when Luke went out with the dog after the call from Jodi’s mum?

In his house. Luke went up to ask if he could borrow the torch, Shane got it for him and then went back up to his room.

Quote
Where was the knife pouch found and was the knife from the pouch the same one that was handed in by Luke’s mum? Was this also the brown handled knife witnesses have seen him with?

In Luke's bedroom, on a shelf/chest of drawers (i.e. not hidden away). From memory, the knife Corinne handed to Luke's solicitor, who then handed it to the police, was the knife that belonged to the pouch - they were bought together. The solicitor's statement is in the case papers. The brown handled knife is one that was described by Ferris as belonging to Luke. He (Ferris) later accepted it was his own knife, not Luke's. It was not the knife that belonged to the pouch.

Quote
Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?

Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Guiltyascharged on July 08, 2019, 07:33:PM


I've never posted there and have no intention of doing so because of (a) the way it's run

Will your new forum be run just like your old wap one, more control over posts and accounts? Is billy involved at all?

http://longroadtojustice.com/community/luke-mitchell/

Edit: stuff on forum has since been deleted
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 08, 2019, 07:52:PM
Quote
This woman has to stop.  Someone has to stop her.
 

Really? Who might that be ... and why?

Quote
STOP FUCKIN LYIN

Yes, please do!

Quote
He also "reportedly owned a parka around the time of the murder" - Sandra.

But apparently the parka is an irrelevant red herring? Now it might have been MK because he owned one? You can't have it both ways.

This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.

Quote
"He was also reportedly a fan of Marilyn Manson" - Sandra

despite constantly reiterating how irrelevant Manson/Black Dahlia is to this murder.

Another misrepresentation (did you actually read the book?) There was information in the police investigation that someone had offered information to the police regarding someone who had accessed the Marilyn Manson website, specifically to view the Dahlia paintings, and had shown these to others. The point I made in the book was that this information was later drafted into the "evidence" against Luke, even though the initial reports named a different person. The Manson/Black Dahlia connection is irrelevant - it always has been - what I was trying to demonstrate was how it came to be involved in the case at all and how it later became "linked" to Luke.

I've neither the time nor the inclination to keep going round in these ludicrous circles. I've explained all of this many times before, I've put it in the book for everyone to read and make up their own minds - I'm done with it now.

Quote
In her Youtube video answering questions, she replied to a post someone telling her to stop with a smug grin along the lines of "nahhh, I'll decide when I stop

Demonstrably incorrect. Replying to someone who said "Please don't answer back, you've said enough already," I replied, "No, I decide when I've said enough, thank you very much."

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 08, 2019, 07:56:PM
I just don’t understand why anyone would waste 16 years of their life to a fuckwit who frankly doesn’t care if he’s on the inside or out anyway
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 08, 2019, 08:18:PM
In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 08, 2019, 08:38:PM
In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.

Exactly
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 08, 2019, 08:42:PM
It is about him.  It always has been about him and you know it.  The way Sandra writes the book is done in an attempt to make it look and seem as though it could happen to anyone.  We know it could.  There’s no mistaking that.  However, she’s clearly built up an extremely strong relationship with his mother over the years which in my opinion is why she is still continuing to work on it.  Clearly, Corrine is her friend and she would be doing her an injustice if she dropped the case.  Dropping the case would jeopardise their relationship.  She’s clearly not wanting to do this.  Anyone looking at such a case has to do so from an objective standpoint.  How can she be objective when Corrine is clearly her best buddy?  Is Sandra going to dispute this? If she does, then it shows you that she’s not even being reasonable or realistic.  I’ve thought it all along - she’s too heavily involved to be able to offer this case any more value, and I consider her portrayal of the Criminal Justice System to be more of an attack rather than a perspective.  At points during the reading of her book, I actually had to give myself a shake and remind myself that it’s Corrine Mitchell’s son who this happened to.  Not Sandra’s.   I would actually be surprised if she isn’t sued for it to be honest.  It’s bitter, scathing and harsh.  It goes beyond the point of honesty and, in my opinion, reveals too many hints and opinions.  She’s overly critiques what appear to be the case papers, and goes off on tangents towards avenues of blame.  Moreover, not only is it a biased account, but lacks an objective summary and profile of Mitchell himself.  An objective author would have included this to highlight the importance of how a biased story may be misleading.  Again, she’s friends with Corrine so clearly this book will tilt this way.  The book is merely a scathing attack on as many people as possible.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 08, 2019, 08:42:PM
Thanks for the info Sandra.

In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.

Spot on
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 01:25:PM
I disagree.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 01:32:PM
It could happen to you I suppose if you have an obsession with knives and your girlfriend is murdered with a knife while meeting you. Seriously how many people would all the factors that convicted Luke apply to? This "it could happen to anyone" just isn't true. It would never happen to me.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 09, 2019, 03:40:PM
This has probably never been mentioned before, but does anyone else get the impression that Corrine Mitchell might be into the occult/witchcraft? She strikes me as the type who would have a darkened house, dark curtains, spiritual ornaments and references to the occult in her house.  Does she have skulls and candles in her house? I’m just trying to pinpoint precisely where her son developed his interest and knowledge of satanism.  After watching her videos with James English, I got a very strong feeling that she’s into all of this.  I don’t know why.  I’d have said that even without the knowledge of what her son has done.  He must have developed this interest from somewhere.  His school jotters and knife pouch were covered in satanic slogans.  Even his writings during his time behind bars have suggested this, as has his desire to have satanic material delivered to him.  Is his mother a witch or something? She doesn’t look the full shilling.  She seems unhinged and I suspect she has an array of Ouija boards at her disposal.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 09, 2019, 03:46:PM
It could happen to you I suppose if you have an obsession with knives and your girlfriend is murdered with a knife while meeting you. Seriously how many people would all the factors that convicted Luke apply to? This "it could happen to anyone" just isn't true. It would never happen to me.

I don't know much about this case but I was thinking the very same thing. People say the same thing about Bamber but not many people find themselves in the same circumstances!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 09, 2019, 03:47:PM
I just don’t understand why anyone would waste 16 years of their life to a fuckwit who frankly doesn’t care if he’s on the inside or out anyway

I see it as someone who believes something to be true and has the courage to stand up and say so. We all have to stand up for what we believe including those who believe Luke to be guilty, don’t we? I for one still can’t say one way or another but I respect Sandra for taking a stand and fighting for what she believes all these years. But if it is proven to her that Luke is in fact guilty, I’m sure that would be a dark day, but her work over the past 16 years is more than just Luke.

What makes you say Luke couldn’t care if he got out or not?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 09, 2019, 04:07:PM
It could happen to you I suppose if you have an obsession with knives and your girlfriend is murdered with a knife while meeting you. Seriously how many people would all the factors that convicted Luke apply to? This "it could happen to anyone" just isn't true. It would never happen to me.

We’re talking of a 14 year old! The word obsession is used to create an idea that Luke was always with a knife, except no one at school that day and the police that night found a knife on him! No witness has came forward to say that he had a knife on him that day at school.
We here that he put a knife to the throat of someone at cadets yet it wasn’t his knife!
There nothing to say he even met Jodi that evening, no evidence to prove anything. There are many people who could be described as being obsessed with knives and who might even need one but not Luke .
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 09, 2019, 04:10:PM
This has probably never been mentioned before, but does anyone else get the impression that Corrine Mitchell might be into the occult/witchcraft? She strikes me as the type who would have a darkened house, dark curtains, spiritual ornaments and references to the occult in her house.  Does she have skulls and candles in her house? I’m just trying to pinpoint precisely where her son developed his interest and knowledge of satanism.  After watching her videos with James English, I got a very strong feeling that she’s into all of this.  I don’t know why.  I’d have said that even without the knowledge of what her son has done.  He must have developed this interest from somewhere.  His school jotters and knife pouch were covered in satanic slogans.  Even his writings during his time behind bars have suggested this, as has his desire to have satanic material delivered to him.  Is his mother a witch or something? She doesn’t look the full shilling.  She seems unhinged and I suspect she has an array of Ouija boards at her disposal

If so then how does the occult make a difference? Much of it is founded on the natural as opposed to the supernatural of secular religions we have come to live with in our day to day life’s. I’m more afraid of the fact that there are many people involved with the distribution and procurement of drugs in this case than I ever would be of someone who might believe in something others fear
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 09, 2019, 04:15:PM
I see it as someone who believes something to be true and has the courage to stand up and say so. We all have to stand up for what we believe including those who believe Luke to be guilty, don’t we? I for one still can’t say one way or another but I respect Sandra for taking a stand and fighting for what she believes all these years. But if it is proven to her that Luke is in fact guilty, I’m sure that would be a dark day, but her work over the past 16 years is more than just Luke.

What makes you say Luke couldn’t care if he got out or not?

Exactly why we need more people willing to stick their necks  out for people wrongfully accused
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 04:41:PM
This has probably never been mentioned before, but does anyone else get the impression that Corrine Mitchell might be into the occult/witchcraft? She strikes me as the type who would have a darkened house, dark curtains, spiritual ornaments and references to the occult in her house.  Does she have skulls and candles in her house? I’m just trying to pinpoint precisely where her son developed his interest and knowledge of satanism.  After watching her videos with James English, I got a very strong feeling that she’s into all of this.  I don’t know why.  I’d have said that even without the knowledge of what her son has done.  He must have developed this interest from somewhere.  His school jotters and knife pouch were covered in satanic slogans.  Even his writings during his time behind bars have suggested this, as has his desire to have satanic material delivered to him.  Is his mother a witch or something? She doesn’t look the full shilling.  She seems unhinged and I suspect she has an array of Ouija boards at her disposal.


She's a gypo. So yeah probably into all that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 04:48:PM
We’re talking of a 14 year old! The word obsession is used to create an idea that Luke was always with a knife, except no one at school that day and the police that night found a knife on him! No witness has came forward to say that he had a knife on him that day at school.
We here that he put a knife to the throat of someone at cadets yet it wasn’t his knife!
There nothing to say he even met Jodi that evening, no evidence to prove anything. There are many people who could be described as being obsessed with knives and who might even need one but not Luke .

Come on Gordon, he's hardly going to still have the knife on him that night when the police come. Corinne bought him a knife after the murder. Seriously who would want to even look at a knife ever again. He got into trouble for carrying a knife at army cadets. ( https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/mitchell-found-with-knife-while-in-army-cadets-1-563053 ) He was caught showing it to another boy and the leader told him at had no place in the army cadets. He had empty knife sheaths with messages scribbled on it. What's the chances the knife that was found with 'Luke' on it wasn't his? even if not the murder weapon?  There was even a knife hidden in with Mia's food in the house. There's the bladed instrument he used to carve LM + JJ into a tree with on Roan's Dyke. 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40745000/jpg/_40745981_joditree203.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/7bye7DT.jpg

https://imgur.com/Ve7MLgO

Note the big fuckoff sword by his bedroom door.

Please lets not even attempt to deny that he had an unhealthy interest in knives. His own best pal David High testified Luke carried a knife for "protection"
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 04:52:PM
I see it as someone who believes something to be true and has the courage to stand up and say so. We all have to stand up for what we believe including those who believe Luke to be guilty, don’t we? I for one still can’t say one way or another but I respect Sandra for taking a stand and fighting for what she believes all these years. But if it is proven to her that Luke is in fact guilty, I’m sure that would be a dark day, but her work over the past 16 years is more than just Luke.

What makes you say Luke couldn’t care if he got out or not?


The fact that learning the right person has been behind bars for this crime and there isn't a murderer on the loose and an innocent guy has lost half of his life would be a "dark day" to Sandra says it all really.  Surely personal-agendas aside, we're all HOPING it was Luke? Right?!?


Simon Hall admitted his guilt and subsequently took his own life over it, and Sandra still refuses to admit she was wrong.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 05:07:PM
Can you imagine as a 14 year old boy hanging about waiting for someone for an hour, to suddenly not care anymore and patch it for the rest of the night, and go to bed without trying to ask the person why they never turned up. Doesn't seem realistic to me at all. Luke wanted to be seen "waiting", he went ouf of his way to mention it in the Sky interview.

Quote
JAMES MATTHEWS:   But you have an alibi for that night because you were with friends?

LUKE:   Yes. I was, first I was waiting just at the end of the estate where I was in full view, cars were passing, people were just getting home from work on buses, then I met up with my friends.

I find this strange. Also how would he know this cleared him unless he had an idea of the time of murder?

Why didn't he mention being home cooking dinner? I thought that was his alibi?!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 05:21:PM
I think after about 10 mins of waiting I'd just walk the short distance and go in for her. You don't wait an hour for someone you don't care enough about to even check in with that night to see what happened. He was there trying to be seen for as long as possible, by as many people as possible. And his answer in the Sky interview gave this away imo.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 09, 2019, 05:35:PM
... However, she’s clearly built up an extremely strong relationship with his mother over the years which in my opinion is why she is still continuing to work on it.  Clearly, Corrine is her friend and she would be doing her an injustice if she dropped the case.  Dropping the case would jeopardise their relationship.  She’s clearly not wanting to do this.  Anyone looking at such a case has to do so from an objective standpoint.  How can she be objective when Corrine is clearly her best buddy?  Is Sandra going to dispute this?

Yes, Sandra most certainly is! I do not have an "extremely strong relationship" with Corinne, she is not "my friend,"  or my "best buddy." My reasons for continuing with Luke's case have nothing to do with any relationship I have with Corinne - good or bad.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 09, 2019, 05:40:PM
This has probably never been mentioned before, but does anyone else get the impression that Corrine Mitchell might be into the occult/witchcraft? She strikes me as the type who would have a darkened house, dark curtains, spiritual ornaments and references to the occult in her house.  Does she have skulls and candles in her house? I’m just trying to pinpoint precisely where her son developed his interest and knowledge of satanism.  After watching her videos with James English, I got a very strong feeling that she’s into all of this.  I don’t know why.  I’d have said that even without the knowledge of what her son has done.  He must have developed this interest from somewhere.  His school jotters and knife pouch were covered in satanic slogans.  Even his writings during his time behind bars have suggested this, as has his desire to have satanic material delivered to him.  Is his mother a witch or something? She doesn’t look the full shilling.  She seems unhinged and I suspect she has an array of Ouija boards at her disposal.

I see you've returned to the armchair. This is utter conjecture, based on nothing at all (other than a warped imagination). Corinne Mitchell has no such interests, her house was nothing like you suggest here - she had lace curtains in her living room windows, plants everywhere, a beautifully kept garden. To my knowledge, she never had a single Ouija board at her disposal, far less an array of them.

I, however, have spiritual ornaments and candles in my house, but I'm not into the occult in any way.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 09, 2019, 05:44:PM

She's a gypo. So yeah probably into all that.

A what Lithium? Do you mean a gypsy? Wrong again. She grew up in Corstorphine, where here parents ran a small business. They later bought Scotts Caravans, where they sold caravans as well as camping and caravan supplies. They were never travelling people of any sort and Corinne never has been (unless you count holidays, in which case, that's all of us). Once more, just making stuff up.

But even if she had been a gypsy (which she's not), what on earth would that have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 09, 2019, 06:01:PM

The fact that learning the right person has been behind bars for this crime and there isn't a murderer on the loose and an innocent guy has lost half of his life would be a "dark day" to Sandra says it all really.  Surely personal-agendas aside, we're all HOPING it was Luke? Right?!?

It might have "said it all" if it had been me who said it would be a "dark day" for me if Luke was proven to be guilty, but it wasn't me, was it?

I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.


Quote
Simon Hall admitted his guilt and subsequently took his own life over it, and Sandra still refuses to admit she was wrong.

Wrong again! The details of the confession were never made public. It was never revealed whether Simon Hall had legal representation when making the confession. It was never revealed whether he had been assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist or what his mental state was in the lead up to the confession - was he in sound mind, fully aware of what he was saying/doing? I can see no reason why those details were not publicly known -- they should have been, in order to confirm that the confession actually fitted the details of the crime and that he was not, for example, suffering some sort of mental breakdown and just saying anything.

Once again, I'm searching for the truth. If the confession contains details that all fit with the crime and it can be shown that he was in sound mind and was fully aware of what he was saying and doing, then it would be reasonable to accept that he did, in fact, commit the murder and managed to conceal that fact for all those years, aided by a bungled police investigation which brought a case lacking the necessary elements of proof (even Keir Starmer admitted that, without the fibre evidence, "the case disappears.")
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 06:02:PM
So Corrine doesn't come from an Irish Traveller background? My point was merely that they are usually very superstitious people etc :-\ Not saying it has anything to do with Luke's interest in Satanism. How did you feel when he requested Satanic books in Shotts prison after years of attempts by you to downplay this interest of his? Slightly annoyed? lol.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 06:04:PM
Once again, I'm searching for the truth. If the confession contains details that all fit with the crime and it can be shown that he was in sound mind and was fully aware of what he was saying and doing, then it would be reasonable to accept that he did, in fact, commit the murder and managed to conceal that fact for all those years, aided by a bungled police investigation which brought a case lacking the necessary elements of proof (even Keir Starmer admitted that, without the fibre evidence, "the case disappears.")

So you still refuse to accept Simon Hall's guilt?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 09, 2019, 06:46:PM

The fact that learning the right person has been behind bars for this crime and there isn't a murderer on the loose and an innocent guy has lost half of his life would be a "dark day" to Sandra says it all really.  Surely personal-agendas aside, we're all HOPING it was Luke? Right?!?


Simon Hall admitted his guilt and subsequently took his own life over it, and Sandra still refuses to admit she was wrong.

You make me laugh, You like to put your own spin on stuff people say don’t you lol  you really don’t help yourself. I only meant it would be hard, as I’m sure it would be for all involved in the Luke campaign.

If it was shown Luke did it and it had been the right person all along, another life was not ruined and a killer was not free all this time, I think everyone, including Luke campaigners and those that had any doubt, would take some sort of comfort from that. But it’s how he got found guilty that’s at the root of it all and that will never change, there was doubt for many from the start due to how the whole case was handled start to end. That’s what the real fight is about imo, trying to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 06:50:PM
Why did Corinne tell James English the police done nothing about the guys who vandalized Scotts Caravans? They were charged, convicted and sentenced for it.

STOP.

LYING.

!!!!

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 09, 2019, 07:28:PM
It might have "said it all" if it had been me who said it would be a "dark day" for me if Luke was proven to be guilty, but it wasn't me, was it?

I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.


Wrong again! The details of the confession were never made public. It was never revealed whether Simon Hall had legal representation when making the confession. It was never revealed whether he had been assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist or what his mental state was in the lead up to the confession - was he in sound mind, fully aware of what he was saying/doing? I can see no reason why those details were not publicly known -- they should have been, in order to confirm that the confession actually fitted the details of the crime and that he was not, for example, suffering some sort of mental breakdown and just saying anything.

Once again, I'm searching for the truth. If the confession contains details that all fit with the crime and it can be shown that he was in sound mind and was fully aware of what he was saying and doing, then it would be reasonable to accept that he did, in fact, commit the murder and managed to conceal that fact for all those years, aided by a bungled police investigation which brought a case lacking the necessary elements of proof (even Keir Starmer admitted that, without the fibre evidence, "the case disappears.")

I think Steph has made it clear to you many times that the confession was legitimate. There are things you say you can't reveal in your recent posts for whatever reasons, perhaps you should respect other people's reasoning for doing the same. There is no reason for you to know.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 08:13:PM
This total unwillingness to accept the truth just because it doesn't match her own beliefs is why I don't consider anything she says credible.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 09, 2019, 10:17:PM
Damn, that bedroom absolutely reeks of aggression.  The colour of the paint on the walls and the amount of items, including wall posters and pictures that are actually in that bedroom give it an unhealthy vibration.  It’s actually like a den rather than a bedroom.  The sword, and what appears to be a knife above it, are hanging like trophies.  His so called love of horses appears to on display, but I am actually getting more of a power thing from this than love.  Horses can mean power, as they provide the rider with authority and strength.  The overall ‘vibe’ and feel to this bedroom is dark.  The blood red wall paint does little but add a sense of unease.

I am by no means psychic, and of course what I have said above is simply an opinion - I do feel uneasy looking at this bedroom.  It’s dark.  It’s dingy.  It’s cluttered.  It’s red.  It shouts pain and aggression to me, if I am honest.  I have seen young people’s bedrooms before.   This has to be the first time I’ve felt uneasy looking at one.

It shouts death
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 09, 2019, 10:46:PM
I'm wondering where he got that Diesel flag  :o
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 09, 2019, 10:57:PM
The Diesel flag probably replaces skulls and animal carcasses that were there before the Police came
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 01:01:AM
Swear I can smell the bottles of stale pish through my screen just looking at that pic.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 11:18:AM

She's a gypo. So yeah probably into all that.

i thin tht coment says more about you.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 11:28:AM
wht the fuck h the decore of a house got to do with weather they comited a crime or not.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 11:36:AM
Damn, that bedroom absolutely reeks of aggression.  The colour of the paint on the walls and the amount of items, including wall posters and pictures that are actually in that bedroom give it an unhealthy vibration.  It’s actually like a den rather than a bedroom.  The sword, and what appears to be a knife above it, are hanging like trophies.  His so called love of horses appears to on display, but I am actually getting more of a power thing from this than love.  Horses can mean power, as they provide the rider with authority and strength.  The overall ‘vibe’ and feel to this bedroom is dark.  The blood red wall paint does little but add a sense of unease.

I am by no means psychic, and of course what I have said above is simply an opinion - I do feel uneasy looking at this bedroom.  It’s dark.  It’s dingy.  It’s cluttered.  It’s red.  It shouts pain and aggression to me, if I am honest.  I have seen young people’s bedrooms before.   This has to be the first time I’ve felt uneasy looking at one.

It shouts death

no it shouts teenagers bedroom to me
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 10, 2019, 11:39:AM
Using terms like gypo, and the past few comments about Luke’s room really are pathetic. Is this the kind of evidence you have to prove his guilt to us who are not sure, you guys really are not helping yourself or your attempts to show Luke guilt. Just making yourself look ridiculous imo.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 12:06:PM
Was just pointing out the sword in response to Gordo saying he wasn't interested in blades. I don't remember me or any of my 14 year old pals having an actual saber by our bedroom door. The gypo comment didn't have anything to do with his guilt, it was in response to AD asking if she was into witchcraft etc. Yes I should have probably said "gypsy" but that's just how I speak. Do I really have to dig up some of the things Sandra/Corinne have called Jodi's family?

The evidence I'd highlight to prove his guilt would be the missing knife, the missing parka, both replaced after the murder the knife sheath "tribute",possibly the burning in the garden that multiple independent neighbours reported, the brother destroying the alibi, the witnesses to Luke and Jodi arguing, Luke's history and interests, Luke deleting his texts to Jodi to cover up the fact he arranged to meet her at Easthouses (I saw Sandra in her book claiming "oh but Judith deleted them too!, emm no, what kind of teenage girl would leave texts of her arguing with her boyfriend on her mums phone for her mum to read... why did Luke delete the texts? And also his call history?)

Luke phoning the speaking clock, the fact she would only be over there with a boyfriend, Luke's complete lack of emotion throughout the entire thing, his violent writings, the stabbing of Jodi's leg shortly before the murder - confirmed by several friends of Luke. The previous knife attack on his girlfriend at the army cadets, the partial DNA match, finding the body in the dark, claiming it was the dog despite the dog not alerting him on the way up, walking directly past it. Being able to describe the body down to a "red scrunchie" which was hidden underneath Jodi's hair. Waiting for an hour on Jodi then suddenly meeting with friends then going home and not trying to find out why Jodi didn't turn up. Some common sense has to applied to this case. Everything from hanging around for an hour "looking suspicious" then spending the night with pals getting himself dirty, was all an attempt at an alibi. The other girlfriend he was arranging to meet. The fact Luke's close friends at the time have no problem believing he did it, much like his dad and brother Shane. I could go on all day.

I'd really love to see the circumstancial case Sandra would build against "the boyfriend" if it was JJ, MK, GD, SK, or JF sitting in jail right now for the murder claiming they were innocent.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 12:06:PM
Why did Corinne tell James English the police done nothing about the guys who vandalized Scotts Caravans? They were charged, convicted and sentenced for it.

STOP.

LYING.

!!!!

do you have any proof of this.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 12:08:PM
do you have any proof of this.

Quote
THREE teenagers who vandalised caravans on a site belonging to the mother of Luke Mitchell have been placed on probation for two years and ordered to perform 240 hours' community service.
Liam Burnett, 17, of Waverley Street, Jonathan Ryan, 17, of Mayfield Place and Bryce Yuill, 18, of Lime Grove, all Mayfield, Dalkeith, pleaded guilty at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to maliciously damaging caravans at Scott's Caravan Park, Easthouses Road, Mayfield, on June 26 last year.

Fiscal Dev Kapadia said a total of 24 caravans on the site had been damaged with the cost of the damage put at 25,000. The three teenagers had met up to consume alcohol and decided to go to the caravan park.

Mr Kapadia told Sheriff Noel McPartlin that the caravan park was owned by Corrine Mitchell, the mother of Jodi Jones' killer. However, he said that the Crown accepted that was not the motivation behind the youths' actions.

Hello, this is the first of your 5 free articles for this week

Subscribe today
The youths' agents said their clients had gone into the caravan park to drink and, "as the alcohol took effect", they had started playing with fire extinguishers and the matter escalated from there.

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/probation-for-vandal-attack-on-mitchell-mother-s-site-1-981769

(These boys are not Joey's friends either ftr - random local neds who had no idea it was Luke's mum's business)

Why did Corinne tell James the police did nothing?

I'm just sick of all the lying.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 12:14:PM
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/probation-for-vandal-attack-on-mitchell-mother-s-site-1-981769

(These boys are not Joey's friends either ftr - random local neds who had no idea it was Luke's mum's business)

Why did Corinne tell James the police did nothing?

I'm just sick of all the lying.

probely becouse there was more than one atack

and why do ou say they were not mates of joe i dont recall anybody saying they were.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 12:23:PM
Did Sandra address Corinne lying about Stocky Man confessing yet?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 12:25:PM
Was just pointing out the sword in response to Gordo saying he wasn't interested in blades. I don't remember me or any of my 14 year old pals having an actual saber by our bedroom door. The gypo comment didn't have anything to do with his guilt, it was in response to AD asking if she was into witchcraft etc. Yes I should have probably said "gypsy" but that's just how I speak. Do I really have to dig up some of the things Sandra/Corinne have called Jodi's family?

The evidence I'd highlight to prove his guilt would be the missing knife, the missing parka, both replaced after the murder the knife sheath "tribute",possibly the burning in the garden that multiple independent neighbours reported, the brother destroying the alibi, the witnesses to Luke and Jodi arguing, Luke's history and interests, Luke deleting his texts to Jodi to cover up the fact he arranged to meet her at Easthouses (I saw Sandra in her book claiming "oh but Judith deleted them too!, emm no, what kind of teenage girl would leave texts of her arguing with her boyfriend on her mums phone for her mum to read... why did Luke delete the texts? And also his call history?)

Luke phoning the speaking clock, the fact she would only be over there with a boyfriend, Luke's complete lack of emotion throughout the entire thing, his violent writings, the stabbing of Jodi's leg shortly before the murder - confirmed by several friends of Luke. The previous knife attack on his girlfriend at the army cadets, the partial DNA match, finding the body in the dark, claiming it was the dog despite the dog not alerting him on the way up, walking directly past it. Being able to describe the body down to a "red scrunchie" which was hidden underneath Jodi's hair. Waiting for an hour on Jodi then suddenly meeting with friends then going home and not trying to find out why Jodi didn't turn up. Some common sense has to applied to this case. Everything from hanging around for an hour "looking suspicious" then spending the night with pals getting himself dirty, was all an attempt at an alibi. The other girlfriend he was arranging to meet. The fact Luke's close friends at the time have no problem believing he did it, much like his dad and brother Shane. I could go on all day.

I'd really love to see the circumstancial case Sandra would build against "the boyfriend" if it was JJ, MK, GD, SK, or JF sitting in jail right now for the murder claiming they were innocent.

the only person who cliamed luke stabed jodi in the leg was john ferris the man who could not explian what he was doing t the murder scene.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 12:31:PM
talking of swords dident jodis brother own one as well
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 12:34:PM
talking of swords dident jodis brother own one as well

Proof?

e.g. a picture of Joseph's bedroom at the time?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 12:36:PM
Which of the Mitchells hid the Bowie knife in the dog food before the police searched the place? Just some more strange but perfectly innocent behaviour eh.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 12:39:PM
Proof?

e.g. a picture of Joseph's bedroom at the time?

the prood being he atacked somebody with one

that woud sort of suggest ownership.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 12:41:PM
the prood being he atacked somebody with one

that woud sort of suggest ownership.

Proof of that?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 12:41:PM
Which of the Mitchells hid the Bowie knife in the dog food before the police searched the place? Just some more strange but perfectly innocent behaviour eh.

non it never happend
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 12:45:PM
non it never happend

No knife was found hidden in Mia's dog food? Are you sure?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 10, 2019, 01:14:PM
Was just pointing out the sword in response to Gordo saying he wasn't interested in blades. I don't remember me or any of my 14 year old pals having an actual saber by our bedroom door. The gypo comment didn't have anything to do with his guilt, it was in response to AD asking if she was into witchcraft etc. Yes I should have probably said "gypsy" but that's just how I speak. Do I really have to dig up some of the things Sandra/Corinne have called Jodi's family?

The evidence I'd highlight to prove his guilt would be the missing knife, the missing parka, both replaced after the murder the knife sheath "tribute",possibly the burning in the garden that multiple independent neighbours reported, the brother destroying the alibi, the witnesses to Luke and Jodi arguing, Luke's history and interests, Luke deleting his texts to Jodi to cover up the fact he arranged to meet her at Easthouses (I saw Sandra in her book claiming "oh but Judith deleted them too!, emm no, what kind of teenage girl would leave texts of her arguing with her boyfriend on her mums phone for her mum to read... why did Luke delete the texts? And also his call history?)

Luke phoning the speaking clock, the fact she would only be over there with a boyfriend, Luke's complete lack of emotion throughout the entire thing, his violent writings, the stabbing of Jodi's leg shortly before the murder - confirmed by several friends of Luke. The previous knife attack on his girlfriend at the army cadets, the partial DNA match, finding the body in the dark, claiming it was the dog despite the dog not alerting him on the way up, walking directly past it. Being able to describe the body down to a "red scrunchie" which was hidden underneath Jodi's hair. Waiting for an hour on Jodi then suddenly meeting with friends then going home and not trying to find out why Jodi didn't turn up. Some common sense has to applied to this case. Everything from hanging around for an hour "looking suspicious" then spending the night with pals getting himself dirty, was all an attempt at an alibi. The other girlfriend he was arranging to meet. The fact Luke's close friends at the time have no problem believing he did it, much like his dad and brother Shane. I could go on all day.

I'd really love to see the circumstancial case Sandra would build against "the boyfriend" if it was JJ, MK, GD, SK, or JF sitting in jail right now for the murder claiming they were innocent.

Thanks for that, I have put below my thoughts on this below
 
Missing Knife and missing parka – I’m not convinced there was a missing knife, but I’m not 100% on the parka, due to the teachers statement
 
Knife sheath tribute – seems the knife from this was handed in to police, but it’s too small to be the murder weapon, could be a tribute to someone he loved and lost or could be a trophy as a reminder of the murder, but not enough info and not enough to show guilt
 
Burning in the garden – does not mean it was disposing stuff, also if there was a parka I don’t think it would be burned here.
 
Brother alibi – This for me is the biggest flag,lyn it’s been said he did say Luke was home and that he could not be sure, would love to hear him confirm now
 
Luke and Jodi - witness them argue – if this is AB she did not identify Luke in court, which for me is huge, ok he may have looked a bit different but she knew that was Luke so it’s a simple yes or no, she said she could not be sure), therefore not a positive sighting, I discarded this info
 
Luke’s history and interests – this information is hugely conflicted, I’m sure everyone had a story about Luke after he was arrested. Find it hard sort the fact from the hearsay
 
Luke deleting text, did he usually do this> if not then its suspicious (but nothing to say, as you do, that it was to cover up the fact he arranged to meet Jodi, we do not know the contents of the messages, please can we keep to the facts at hand)
 
You asked why he would delete the texts, the phones back then did not have a lot of space, I use to delete all my texts after I was done with them as it filled up my phone fast, but as I said it be good to know if this was usual practice for his messages to be deleted.
 
Luke phoning the speaking clock, not in any way suspicious to me
 
Jodi only going over the wall with Luke - As already discussed she would also go over there with the 2 boys who were at the v at 1715, I’m sure there are a few more people she would go over there with also, not just Luke.
 
Luke complete lack of emotion (been explained he was on medication) I can accept that but it is a bit suspicious to me also.
 
Violent writings – cannot comment without seeing the facts and not hearsay but does not mean he was a killer, could just be
 
stabbing Jodi in leg, threats to ex gf, - hearsay (was this used in court)not something I’d take as evidence if not.
 
Partial DNA, is a partial and can be a number of people including Luke, also there were partials that were not Luke. Semen full profile, not Luke, etc. More dna evidence for others rather than Luke.
 
Finding the body in the dark – he had a dog that was trained as a tracker, I’d be more surprised if he did not find her.(and I’m sure you guys would be using it to prove his guilt also if the dig did not find her)
 
Dog not alerting on way up as not asked to search for Jodi on way up and also Luke was pulling her up the path, a trained dog does what its told, if its told to search it does if its told to move it also does.
 
Describing the red scrunchie, does sound strange but without seeing the crime scene hard for me to say but yes sounds fishy
 
Waiting for Jodi then going to meet friends, not suspicious, I accept the explanation that he thought she had gone elsewhere, or got grounded, did not call back as did not want to get her in any trouble.
 
We do not know if Shane and his dad supports Luke or not, have been assured the both do but until the speak out sorry I do not take your word on that, again hearsay
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 10, 2019, 01:16:PM
No knife was found hidden in Mia's dog food? Are you sure?

Was it not found in a bag under the table that’s mia’s dog bowl/food sat on?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 01:36:PM
I'm not saying a parka was burned in the garden either. Things could easily have been disposed of in a bin somewhere. Unchecked by L&B. Something was burned though. I'm not saying it was Corinne or that Corinne even knows about it. I don't think she would have noticed if Luke was out there burning something like gloves, or whatever it was that the eye witness seen bulging from his pocket.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 01:37:PM
Was it not found in a bag under the table that’s mia’s dog bowl/food sat on?

Yes, a bag of dog biscuits lol.

And the speaking clock is suspicious to me when it was during a time he was claiming to be at home. Just doesn't make sense. Like I said, some common sense has to be applied here with regards to strange and unrealistic behaviour.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 10, 2019, 01:40:PM
I'm not saying a parka was burned in the garden either. Things could easily have been disposed of in a bin somewhere. Unchecked by L&B. Something was burned though. I'm not saying it was Corinne or that Corinne even knows about it. I don't think she would have noticed if Luke was out there burning something like gloves, or whatever that's what the eye witness seen building from his pocket.

Agreed, I think if there was a parka that could be disposed of elsewhere. Anyone could have been burning anything, the neighbours may also be mistaken on the day or who was having the fire. Again to many questions and not enough answers on this.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 01:43:PM
Luke's lack of reaction upon verdict is evidence of something amiss mentally to me. Who cares if the judge says you can't show emotion (and I don't believe he said this to the defendant, this usually is aimed at people in the gallery), it's not something you can choose to show. If I get convicted for a murder I didn't commit I'd be screaming and shouting and having a total meltdown. Luke was calmly escorted to the reliance van and didn't look one bit bothered. He  possibly was already resigned to this being a likely outcome from the minute he decided to murder Jodi, either that or he's just a psychopath/sociopath. Pictures taken through the blacked out windows of reliance vans show him smirking. He swaggered about Polmont smirking and lapping up his notoriety. He was also enjoying the police interviews, playing the villain and provoking them. Turning up at his appeals with ridicuous haircuts and facial piercings. Writings and letters from Luke throughout his entire incarceration show someone who doesn't give a fuck. He's probably secretly laughing at Sandra. Yes in the past few years he's actually came out and said a few things (at the request of his mum and Sandra), but really what has he got to lose.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 10, 2019, 01:46:PM
Yes, a bag of dog biscuits lol.

And the speaking clock is suspicious to me when it was during a time he was claiming to be at home. Just doesn't make sense. Like I said, some common sense has to be applied here with regards to strange and unrealistic behaviour.

Ah I did not know it was a dog food bag I thought it was an ordinary bag, do you know that for a fact?

Luke called the speaking clock all the time, phone records show this, if he was home I think he may have called the speaking clock for timing as he was making dinner. You said common sense needs to be applied, I can only go by my constant use of the speaking clock when I was younger. Just because you don’t use it does not mean it was suspicious, I’d say that’s common sense also.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 01:49:PM
Have you seen these phone records? And how do they prove that he was at home when placing those calls, if they do indeed exist?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 10, 2019, 01:54:PM
Have you seen these phone records? And how do they prove that he was at home when placing those calls, if they do indeed exist?

I have not seen them, going by info give here which I trust, but I don’t think you would to be fair.

Does not prove he was home  but also does not prove he was out. Not unusual behaviour to call 123 for him tho.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 10, 2019, 01:56:PM
Luke's lack of reaction upon verdict is evidence of something amiss mentally to me. Who cares if the judge says you can't show emotion, it's not something you can choose to show. If I get sentenced for a murder I didn't commit I'd be screaming and shouting and having a total meltdown. Luke was calmly escorted to the reliance van and didn't look one bit bothered. He  possibly was already resigned to this being a likely outcome from the minute he decided to murder Jodi, either that or he's just a psychopath/sociopath. Pictures taken through the blacked out windows of reliance vans show him smirking. He swaggered about Polmont smirking and lapping up his notoriety. He was also enjoying the police interviews, playing the villain and provoking them. Turning up at his appeals with ridicuous haircuts and facial piercings. Writings and letters from Luke throughout his entire incarceration show someone who doesn't give a fuck. He's probably secretly laughing at Sandra. Yes in the past few years he's actually came out and said a few things, but really what has he got to lose.

Agreed, if I was found guilty of something I did not do the judge could go and f*** himself,  Id be going nuts and everyone in the courthouse and outside would here me scream I was innocent
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 10, 2019, 02:30:PM
Luke's lack of reaction upon verdict is evidence of something amiss mentally to me. Who cares if the judge says you can't show emotion (and I don't believe he said this to the defendant, this usually is aimed at people in the gallery), it's not something you can choose to show. If I get convicted for a murder I didn't commit I'd be screaming and shouting and having a total meltdown. Luke was calmly escorted to the reliance van and didn't look one bit bothered. He  possibly was already resigned to this being a likely outcome from the minute he decided to murder Jodi, either that or he's just a psychopath/sociopath. Pictures taken through the blacked out windows of reliance vans show him smirking. He swaggered about Polmont smirking and lapping up his notoriety. He was also enjoying the police interviews, playing the villain and provoking them. Turning up at his appeals with ridicuous haircuts and facial piercings. Writings and letters from Luke throughout his entire incarceration show someone who doesn't give a fuck. He's probably secretly laughing at Sandra. Yes in the past few years he's actually came out and said a few things (at the request of his mum and Sandra), but really what has he got to lose.

its the same reaction more or less everybody has.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 04:38:PM
Maybe you're right... I'd be interested to see pictures of an exonerated person just after conviction to compare.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 10, 2019, 07:12:PM
I'm not going to quote all the individual posts - I'll just list the pertinent points. I'll indicate where I have documents that I can post (either in full, or excerpts, depending on what the legal situation allows) but please bear with me - there are hundreds of documents in no order whatsoever, and I have to sort all of them - I will post what I find, as I find it, rather than searching through all the boxes for specific documents. If someone wants to keep a record of this post, they can tick off the information I've made public and keep a list of what I haven't yet found.

The knife hidden in the dog food.
It wasn't a "bowie knife" as stated and it wasn't hidden in a bag of dog biscuits. It was in a holdall under a table on which the dog's food and water bowls sat. (Statements available).

Luke and Jodi's texts
No evidence that the arrangement was to meet at Easthouses or that they were arguing. Bryson's evidence was used to suggest Jodi went down the path in the direction of Newbattle - why would Luke walk all the way to Easthouses if they were going to be hanging out in Newbattle? Jodi's gran said, if Jodi was going to Newbattle, she would walk down the path alone and Luke would meet her at the Newbattle end. Janine said in court her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone. (AW statement and JaJ court transcript available).

Luke deleting texts and call history
He had no recollection of deleting texts. We now know that the call history was deleted just after 12.30am on July 1st - when the phone was in the possession of the police. We also know a text was sent from Luke's phone in this same time period and, although Luke was later grilled about "checking his voicemail" while standing on the path, waiting for the police, the records show, quite clearly, that this was a log of an incoming voicemail from Corinne asking where he was, being recorded on his phone, not Luke checking it . Since the police clearly interfered with the phone by deleting the call record  and allowing a text to be sent while the phone was in their possession, we can never be sure if it was Luke who deleted the earlier texts or not. All we have are his police statements that he had no recollection of doing so - from that, the police questioned him about what reasons he might have had for deleting them. Fair enough, you'd think, but that was exactly the line of questioning they used  when questioning him about why he thought Jodi hadn't turned up. Luke tried to think of various reasons and they later used that against him to suggest he was "lying." (Phone records and interview transcripts available).

Red scrunchie
A news reporter interviewed Luke "off the record" - he'd scribbled a note in his notebook, "red scrunchie?" He could not remember whether that was his own wording or a comment directly from Luke, or what the circumstances surrounding it were. This was several weeks after the murder - from memory, after the August 14th interrogation in which officers asked Luke what Jodi usually used if her hair was tied up. It was used in court to suggest it "must have been" a direct comment from Luke, since the reporter wouldn't, ordinarily, have used the term "scrunchie." That was then expanded to infer that the comment in the notebook was Luke saying, when he found Jodi that night, he saw a red scrunchie in her hair (something he couldn't have seen from where he was standing - the inference being he was much closer to Jodi than he claimed). The fact is, we don't know what the reference in the note book to a "red scrunchie" was about. This was also weeks after the post mortem, when the pathologist reported finding a scrunchie tangled in Jodi's hair - there's every possibility that this information was passed to Luke by police officers inadvertently. (Reporter statement, possibly transcript, interrogation transcript available.)

Stabbing Jodi in the leg
Reported by only one witness. I don't remember if it was used in court - I'll check the transcripts. (If used, transcript available).

Burning something in the garden
"maybe something like gloves?" Never been suggested by anyone, no evidence whatsoever to support it. Interesting, though, that Ferris appeared to be trying to hide, or explain away, a pair of wet, muddy gloves found in Yvonne Walker's flat. There are two sets of statements, one referring to these gloves being "down the back of a radiator" another that they were "in a drawer under the bed." One interpretation could be that they were originally behind the radiator, but were moved to the drawer before being handed to police. (Statements available).

Bulging from his pocket
This reference followed on from the suggestion that gloves might have been burned in Luke's garden - that the gloves might have been what were "bulging" from "his" pocket (ref the Bryson sighting). There's a bit of a problem there - Andrina Bryson described a "fishing style jacket with the collar up" and matching fishing style trousers. The bottom of the jacket was straight (no "tail" like a parka) and stopped just below the waist. In other words, it was not a parka jacket she was describing and the parka owned by Luke after the murder (from memory) had a hood (not a collar) and had no pocket on the upper left sleeve. (Statements and photographs available). The likelihood of the witness noticing the left sleeve, in particular, is undermined by police reconstruction photographs (available).

I also have copies of Shane's original statements and the phone data regarding the speaking clock, which shows Luke called the speaking clock numerous times in the period covered by the data (leading up to the murder) within roughly similar timescales - in the morning, before he would leave for school and in the afternoon, between getting in from school and his mother arriving home for dinner around 5.15pm.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 10, 2019, 07:26:PM
I wonder how we can define anything regarding being found guilty in a courtroom, shock must have played a massive part. I remember myself being shunted from feeling he was guilty to think my god he’s going to get off with this, imagine what he must have been thinking. His life was over and he had to spend most of it as a child murderer. These guys don’t get much leeway in jail but I believe since he has become a bit of an enigma to himself in that manner.
What do we do when faced with that kind of hardship! Fight like mad to try and free himself and fight for any scrap that could prove so. Once time and time again this falls on deaf hears maybe just maybe you become who everyone says you are. They want to hear the satanic ramblings, the weird doodles on paintings or other scribbling. I think many times like gave up but it’s something in his personality that seems to drive him to keep carrying on.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 08:07:PM
the records show, quite clearly, that this was a log of an incoming voicemail from Corinne asking where he was, being recorded on his phone, not Luke checking it .

 ??? ??? ??? ???

Any idea why Corinne would be calling Luke at this time wondering where he was? Hadn't he just been at home cooking dinner and told his mum he was off out and to tell Jodi where to find him? Why would Corinne be calling his mobile at this time?

Had he been missing???
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 10, 2019, 08:17:PM
hold on a sec...

 "I'm off out mum, if Jodi turns up tell her I'll be in the abbey"

<proceeds to go and wait for Jodi for one hour>

(which one is it Luke?)

How on Earth was Jodi going to turn up at his door for without bumping into Luke on the way?

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 10, 2019, 08:23:PM
Twisting that to fit with what you want.

The call from Corrine to Luke asking where he was wasn’t long after finding the body, at that time of night why would t she?

Luke had waited for Jodi and called his mother afterwards to tell Jodi if she turned up where he would be
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 03:20:AM
hold on a sec...

 "I'm off out mum, if Jodi turns up tell her I'll be in the abbey"

<proceeds to go and wait for Jodi for one hour>

(which one is it Luke?)

How on Earth was Jodi going to turn up at his door for without bumping into Luke on the way?

I agree, in one of the video's his mum said that there were no firm plans for him and Jodie to meet but that he went to wait for her at the end of the street anyway. Why wouldn't he have just waited at home or told his mum to send her on to the Abbey if she did call? Randomly waiting at the end of the street just doesn't sound right.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 11, 2019, 09:05:AM
Dr Sandra Lean -

I also have copies of Shane's original statements and the phone data regarding the speaking clock, which shows Luke called the speaking clock numerous times in the period covered by the data (leading up to the murder) within roughly similar timescales - in the morning, before he would leave for school and in the afternoon, between getting in from school and his mother arriving home for dinner around 5.15pm.

I would like to see the phone data.  Can you please release this information publicly?


Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:27:AM
I agree, in one of the video's his mum said that there were no firm plans for him and Jodie to meet but that he went to wait for her at the end of the street anyway. Why wouldn't he have just waited at home or told his mum to send her on to the Abbey if she did call? Randomly waiting at the end of the street just doesn't sound right.

This might not be relevant but I do this every Thursday night with a mate, we meet up at 8pm and head to the pub. The first two times I waited in the house but then after that I walk up to the end of my street around 7:50. He only texts me if he’s not going so there’s no real plan in place as sometimes it 20-30 mins later when he arrives.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 09:29:AM
I agree, in one of the video's his mum said that there were no firm plans for him and Jodie to meet but that he went to wait for her at the end of the street anyway. Why wouldn't he have just waited at home or told his mum to send her on to the Abbey if she did call? Randomly waiting at the end of the street just doesn't sound right.

None of Luke's actions that night sound realistic. When you forget about everything else and just look at it from a common sense stand point and ask yourself "would I do this if..." - it just becomes a bit ridiculous. The most logical explanation for the aimlessly waiting around for an hour for someone he hadn't really made any plans to meet, then completely patching it, is that he was deliberately wanting to be seen. Telling Sky's James Matthews that there "would have been loads of cars etc that seen him" I find telling.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 09:33:AM
This might not be relevant but I do this every Thursday night with a mate, we meet up at 8pm and head to the pub. The first two times I waited in the house but then after that I walk up to the end of my street around 7:50. He only texts me if he’s not going so there’s no real plan in place as sometimes it 20-30 mins later when he arrives.

Luke had been texting Jodi back n forth earlier though and had been in constant contact, so there must have been something arranged. Whereas your routine sounds like just a kind of unwritten agreement you and your pal have.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 09:35:AM
No evidence that the arrangement was to meet at Easthouses or that they were arguing. Bryson's evidence was used to suggest Jodi went down the path in the direction of Newbattle - why would Luke walk all the way to Easthouses if they were going to be hanging out in Newbattle? Jodi's gran said, if Jodi was going to Newbattle, she would walk down the path alone and Luke would meet her at the Newbattle end. Janine said in court her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone. (AW statement and JaJ court transcript available).

Jodi said herself she'd just be hanging around up Easthouses. Why did Luke think she was going to turn up in Newbattle or at his door?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:38:AM
Luke had been texting Jodi back n forth earlier though and had been in constant contact, so there must have been something arranged. Whereas your routine sounds like just a kind of unwritten agreement you and your pal have.

I agree but unless the content of those texts are retrieved there’s no way of knowing, certainly the timing of Jodi leaving kinda has a similar context to it as she left early than she normally would and if she was meeting him why not stay in the house for him to come to her.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 09:51:AM
I agree but unless the content of those texts are retrieved there’s no way of knowing

Yeah it's a pity Luke deleted them all at some point between arranging to meet Jodi and giving his phone to police.

Not suspicious at all though.

And now Sandra is saying the police deleted these texts. They had already decided to fit him up a few hours after Jodi was found.

Is this what we're being asked to believe here.


Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:55:AM
Would it not be the case that seeing as Luke went off to the Abbey that he knew has friends were going there and that was the arrangement all along with Jodi also? That would suggest that the plan was to come to his end as it was closer to the Abbey.

I can’t remember at what point Jodi has claimed to be staying up her end and is it possible that the plans had changed after the texts! This was a period confused from the start from the initial 5:30pm to almost 45 mins earlier.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 09:56:AM
hold on a sec...

 "I'm off out mum, if Jodi turns up tell her I'll be in the abbey"

<proceeds to go and wait for Jodi for one hour>

(which one is it Luke?)

How on Earth was Jodi going to turn up at his door for without bumping into Luke on the way?
I agree, in one of the video's his mum said that there were no firm plans for him and Jodie to meet but that he went to wait for her at the end of the street anyway. Why wouldn't he have just waited at home or told his mum to send her on to the Abbey if she did call? Randomly waiting at the end of the street just doesn't sound right.


And if she did somehow manage to arrive at Luke's door without passing him, he wouldn't have been at the abbey. So...
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 09:57:AM
Would it not be the case that seeing as Luke went off to the Abbey that he knew has friends were going there and that was the arrangement all along with Jodi also? That would suggest that the plan was to come to his end as it was closer to the Abbey.

Why bother waiting around at the gate for an hour then?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:59:AM
Yeah it's a pity Luke deleted them all at some point between arranging to meet Jodi and giving his phone to police.

Not suspicious at all though.

And now Sandra is saying the police deleted these texts. They had already decided to fit him up a few hours after Jodi was found.

Is this what we're being asked to believe here.

The ability to retrieve the content was available at the time, indeed they did retrieve one of Corrine s. The mast technology was also available to determine where Luke was when calling the speaking clock. It’s not Luje that’s making this suspicious but the failure of the police
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 10:01:AM
Why bother waiting around at the gate for an hour then?

If Jodi was included in that plan then of course he would wait, AO had told him she had left which was another reason to wait as long as he felt before he got pissed off waiting
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 11, 2019, 10:05:AM
Dr Sandra Lean -

I also have copies of Shane's original statements and the phone data regarding the speaking clock, which shows Luke called the speaking clock numerous times in the period covered by the data (leading up to the murder) within roughly similar timescales - in the morning, before he would leave for school and in the afternoon, between getting in from school and his mother arriving home for dinner around 5.15pm.

I would like to see the phone data.  Can you please release this information publicly?

The post from which you took this quote said, in the first paragraph

"I'll indicate where I have documents that I can post (either in full, or excerpts, depending on what the legal situation allows) but please bear with me - there are hundreds of documents in no order whatsoever, and I have to sort all of them - I will post what I find, as I find it, rather than searching through all the boxes for specific documents. If someone wants to keep a record of this post, they can tick off the information I've made public and keep a list of what I haven't yet found."
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 10:05:AM
You're the one saying they probably didn't have any plans gordo. For someone who had been texting her all afternoon he seemed a bit clueless as to what he was doing. Hanging around for an hour, telling his mum where to direct her if she turned up. Phoning AO. Then going about his night as though were never any plans at all with Jodi.

You know it stinks.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 10:08:AM
Please quote me were I said that? I understand that there were texts between the two and those would constitute a plan, I am saying however is that plan may not have been as definite as is made out here. The possibility that Jodi has bumped into a friend when leaving the house for instance and would be much later at getting to Luke’s is a possibility
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 10:16:AM
What friend? Jodi's friends were Luke's friends and Luke told his mum they'd be in the abbey. Who is this mystery friend that Corinne, Sandra etc say Jodi could've been believed by Luke to have randomly bumped into in the short distance between her house and the path? According to Luke he knew Jodi was coming to see him.

I don't buy that Luke assumed she must have met with a friend thus didn't bother contacting her all night to ask why she no-showed.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 11, 2019, 10:17:AM
I can’t remember at what point Jodi has claimed to be staying up her end and is it possible that the plans had changed after the texts! This was a period confused from the start from the initial 5:30pm to almost 45 mins earlier.

The story that Jodi was supposed to be hanging out in Easthouses/Mayfield that night came from Jodi's mum. In one of her earliest statements, she said (after Jodi came home from school and went up to her room then came back down again), "Jodi said she was going out. I took that to mean she was meeting Luke and they'd be mucking about up here."

Quote
For someone who had been texting her all afternoon he seemed a bit clueless as to what he was doing

Why the continual misinformation? There were three texts between 4.34 and 4.38pm - that's it. They didn't recover the content of the texts, but they did get the logs showing the exchange of texts between Judith's phone and Lukes. The people who were texting each other "all afternoon" were Jodi's mum and her partner, not Jodi and Luke.

That was before all the grounding lifting, Rod Stewart playing,  keep some lasagne for me, there was a standing arrangement for Luke to meet Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path and walk her down to Newbattle confusion that emerged later.

According to Jodi's gran, for example, there was no such "standing arrangement"  - Jodi would walk down the path and Luke would meet her at the Newbattle end. According to AW and Janine, there was no grounding in place that evening. And initially, according to Judith, she had no idea where Jodi was going, or with whom - she just made an assumption.

Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message - these are their own words.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 10:18:AM
I just feel like if I thought my girlfriend was walking down that path to come and meet me, rather than waiting an hour, I'd just start heading down the path knowing I'd intercept her. Especially after AO told him she was on her way.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 10:19:AM
The story that Jodi was supposed to be hanging out in Easthouses/Mayfield that night came from Jodi's mum. In one of her earliest statements, she said (after Jodi came home from school and went up to her room then came back down again), "Jodi said she was going out. I took that to mean she was meeting Luke and they'd be mucking about up here."

Yes I know. That's what I was referring to. What's your point? Nice wording though with "the story" that's up there with your other favourite, "it was claimed" when referring to any information provided by the Jones family.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 10:22:AM
I really feel for any newcomer to the case reading that book, unaware of the insinuations. Like what is this entire chapter tediously outlining the mobile phone situation between Jodi's immediate family...  :o :o :o
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 11, 2019, 10:28:AM
What friend? Jodi's friends were Luke's friends and Luke told his mum they'd be in the abbey. Who is this mystery friend that Corinne, Sandra etc say Jodi could've been believed by Luke to have randomly bumped into in the short distance between her house and the path? According to Luke he knew Jodi was coming to see him.

I don't buy that Luke assumed she must have met with a friend thus didn't bother contacting her all night to ask why she no-showed.

Let's see, Jodi (apparently) left home at 4.50pm and was "seen" at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 4.54pm (if the Andrina Bryson evidence is accepted.) Just six minutes later Ferris and Dickie entered the Newbattle end of the path with the Moped. The path takes around 11 minutes to walk, end to end, at a brisk pace (according to police timings). Wonder who Jodi might have been able to bump into in those circumstances?

The police were pushing Luke for an "explanation" of why he thought Jodi might not have turned up - he didn't know why, but that wasn't a good enough answer, and they pushed some more, so Luke started giving possible reasons - maybe she bumped into someone, maybe she got grounded again, etc. This was during the interrogation in which even the appeal judges agreed that the treatment by these officers was "outrageous and to be deplored." I don't think anyone who's never been subjected to these interrogation techniques can have any idea of how massively they're geared towards eliciting the answers the officers want (for their own purposes) rather than truthful answers which, invariably, they will reject.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 10:29:AM
Why not? It’s details like that that could mean so much to someone. It is complicated though as with the calls that evening from the Jones house hold.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 11, 2019, 10:30:AM
Yes I know. That's what I was referring to. What's your point? Nice wording though with "the story" that's up there with your other favourite, "it was claimed" when referring to any information provided by the Jones family.

I was responding to Gordo's post that he didn't remember when the story about Jodi hanging about at the Easthouses end first appeared - I even quoted it!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 10:45:AM

The police were pushing Luke for an "explanation" of why he thought Jodi might not have turned up - he didn't know why, but that wasn't a good enough answer, and they pushed some more, so Luke started giving possible reasons - maybe she bumped into someone, maybe she got grounded again, etc. This was during the interrogation in which even the appeal judges agreed that the treatment by these officers was "outrageous and to be deplored." I don't think anyone who's never been subjected to these interrogation techniques can have any idea of how massively they're geared towards eliciting the answers the officers want (for their own purposes) rather than truthful answers which, invariably, they will reject.

Ok so he only volunteered these suggestions when prompted by police. So what was his real reason for not wondering why Jodi never showed or trying to contact her that night to ask? Has he ever explained, other than when pressured by police, why he went from hanging around for an hour, to forgetting Jodi existed for the rest of the night?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 10:50:AM
Why not? It’s details like that that could mean so much to someone. It is complicated though as with the calls that evening from the Jones house hold.

Must be really confusing reading though. A footnote stating that the author believes there is a Jones family cover up would make for much easier reading. Any newcomer unaware of such theories must be really confused by some parts of the book.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 10:54:AM
It’s a confusing case and from the feedback I have seen it doesn’t seem to have had that effect, most new comers do so with an open mind though and are not connected to either party.

I don’t think Luke’s thoughts of what and why Jodi hasn’t turned up mean anything as he probably didn’t know either way, she had done it before. Also didn’t help that he was unable to contact Jodi through the lack of a phone.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 10:55:AM
It's been a while since I read it but my copy is covered in highlighter. One part I can't quite remember offered an innocent explanation for something regarding the Jones' and the search arrangements which Sandra went on to say could "technically" be true. Nothing technical about it. The book is chock-full of this suggestive wording, and I just think that any reader who doesn't know what is being implied by the author will be very confused. Where can I see this feedback?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 11:01:AM
Well posts from various social media and other sources, it’s there if you look for it. The wording is in place to show that the case isn’t as clear cut, it shows that Sandra believes Luke’s innocence but that’s what you would expect, if Luke’s innocent then someone else is guilty.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 11:03:AM
Well posts from various social media and other sources, it’s there if you look for it. The wording is in place to show that the case isn’t as clear cut, it shows that Sandra believes Luke’s innocence but that’s what you would expect, if Luke’s innocent then someone else is guilty.

Do you not think it's only fair that the guy in jail for it at least has a chapter dedicated to what put him there?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 11:17:AM
Why does Shane tell people his brother's guilty. The same Shane who destroyed his alibi. The same one who section himself just before his brother was arrested for it.

Sounds to me like someone who was struggling with giving the false alibi after pressure from his mum.

We need to hear from him tbh.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 11:20:AM
If it’s true and I doubt it to be honest, there could be more of a self preservation thing.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 11, 2019, 11:21:AM
Sandra you said a few times in your book in reference to statements, call logs etc ‘information not available to the defence’  I assume the information was there at the time, as the statements were taken so need to be somewhere for example, but would this information still exist today or would it all now have been destroyed, not sure what the police procedures is for keeping this kind of stuff as the case is closed. If there was a retrial would the defence be able to get their hands on all this or is it still upto the police what they are given?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 11, 2019, 11:31:AM
Why does Shane tell people his brother's guilty. The same Shane who destroyed his alibi. The same one who section himself just before his brother was arrested with it.

Sounds to me like someone who was struggling with giving the false alibi after pressure from his mum.

We need to hear from him tbh.

If I remember correct you have said you have spoken to Shane directly on this and heard it from the horses mouth, Sandra has also stated both Shane and the dad have always supported Luke and believe he is innocent, I’m not sure if that’s from Luke’s mum or them direct but either way until Shane is willing to speak out himself the rest of us will never know, unless we want to invade his privacy. Please don’t post his personal details again.

If it’s true and I doubt it to be honest, there could be more of a self preservation thing.

I also doubt this is true, or I doubt lithium has heard this directly from Shane but if it is then for me it would be case closed tbh, what he remembers and believes is crucial
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 11:32:AM
Why does Shane tell people his brother's guilty. The same Shane who destroyed his alibi. The same one who section himself just before his brother was arrested for it.

Sounds to me like someone who was struggling with giving the false alibi after pressure from his mum.

We need to hear from him tbh.

have you got  any evedence to back this up.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 11:35:AM
If I remember correct you have said you have spoken to Shane directly on this and heard it from the horses mouth, Sandra has also stated both Shane and the dad have always supported Luke and believe he is innocent, I’m not sure if that’s from Luke’s mum or them direct but either way until Shane is willing to speak out himself the rest of us will never know, unless we want to invade his privacy. Please don’t post his personal details again.

I also doubt this is true, or I doubt lithium has heard this directly from Shane but if it is then for me it would be case closed tbh, what he remembers and believes is crucial

I never said that. I might have said that I know first hand because I know people he has said it to. Maybe you're remembering me saying I heard from JJ. I have never posted any personal details unless you're including his name which is public knowledge regarding this case. I've said myself feel free to ask him. If I'm wrong I'll admit it but I wouldn't be making such libelous claims if I wasn't sure.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 11:42:AM
have you got  any evedence to back this up.

afraid not other than local knowledge.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 11, 2019, 11:48:AM
I never said that. I might have said that I know first hand because I know people he has said it to. Maybe you're remembering me saying I heard from JJ. I have never posted any personal details unless you're including his name which is public knowledge regarding this case. I've said myself feel free to ask him. If I'm wrong I'll admit it but I wouldn't be making such libelous claims if I wasn't sure.

Thanks for clarifying, my apologies I must be mixing you up with another poster who said they had spoken to Shane.

Also someone else posted his work place which I thought was totally out of order, that was not aimed at you that was at them
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 12:03:PM
I don’t know any other poster that could and lithium did post his work place
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 12:08:PM
I don’t know any other poster that could and lithium did post his work place

I did not.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 12:31:PM
found it

Normal teenagers dont threaten girls with knifes

Its no secret that shane mitchell
Luke mitchells brother runs his own company *REMOVED* so why does sandra make out thats why we dont hear from.
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont because he knows his brother is guilty

that wasn't me
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 12:48:PM
This might not be relevant but I do this every Thursday night with a mate, we meet up at 8pm and head to the pub. The first two times I waited in the house but then after that I walk up to the end of my street around 7:50. He only texts me if he’s not going so there’s no real plan in place as sometimes it 20-30 mins later when he arrives.

This being the case, it would be usual for Luke to be waiting and no one said that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 12:55:PM
I'm also curious as to why Luke asked Alan Ovens "is Jodi home?"

He called at 17:32 and received no answer.

Then called again 8 minutes later when AO answered. Luke asked if Jodi was home. Wouldn't the previous  unanswered call already indicate that she wasn't?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 12:57:PM
Yeah it's a pity Luke deleted them all at some point between arranging to meet Jodi and giving his phone to police.

Not suspicious at all though.

And now Sandra is saying the police deleted these texts. They had already decided to fit him up a few hours after Jodi was found.

Is this what we're being asked to believe here.

The phone data would reveal when they were deleted so it would be stupid for the police to have done this as it would show the phone to be in their care at the time.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:03:PM
The phone data would reveal when they were deleted so it would be stupid for the police to have done this as it would show the phone to be in their care at the time.

well the timing proves they did.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:05:PM
afraid not other than local knowledge.

in other wrds you made it up.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:08:PM
I'm also curious as to why Luke asked Alan Ovens "is Jodi home?"

He called at 17:32 and received no answer.

Then called again 8 minutes later when AO answered. Luke asked if Jodi was home. Wouldn't the previous  unanswered call already indicate that she wasn't?

shhock horor guy phones to see if his girlfriend is home.

no how oes not nswering the phone once mean  your not home
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 01:10:PM
in other wrds you made it up.

i'm not really bothered if that's what you believe. I know Shane tells people it. I've said you can ask him yourself.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 01:14:PM
shhock horor guy phones to see if his girlfriend is home.

no how oes not nswering the phone once mean  your not home

If it was me and I was expecting Jodi to turn up, and had just tried to phone the house to no answer (indicating no one's home) I'd conclude that she was on her way to me.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 01:15:PM
well the timing proves they did.

Have you seen this proof or do you just believe it exists because someone said so?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:16:PM
If it was me and I was expecting Jodi to turn up, and had just tried to phone the house to no answer (indicating no one's home) I'd conclude that she was on her way to me.

no it concludes tht nobody was albel to answer tha minute.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 01:16:PM
I think your right and what else would you do but wait for her, he did just that but what would be the point if she hadn’t arrive to try and find her? He couldn’t call her, he hadn’t got an answer later on, what else to do but what you intended that evening.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 01:17:PM
found it

that wasn't me

Ok sorry I tend to lump these things on you .
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 01:18:PM
Have you seen this proof or do you just believe it exists because someone said so?

The times were put before the court.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:21:PM
Have you seen this proof or do you just believe it exists because someone said so?

i looked at the timline on previos forum we worked this out years ago.

the reporting of the case at the time states when the texts were deleted.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:42:PM
the fact is lue was taken in to the station that night his phone was taken from him as is normally the case when your taken into custudy

anything deleted after that time couldd not have been deleted by him.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 01:42:PM
Real solid source there nugget
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:44:PM
Real solid source there nugget

re you saying he wasnt taken into custoody that night.

the source is simple logic.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 01:48:PM
re you saying he wasnt taken into custoody that night.

the source is simple logic.

My post was in response to you citing the old deleted forum as a source.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 01:51:PM
the fact is lue was taken in to the station that night his phone was taken from him as is normally the case when your taken into custudy

anything deleted after that time couldd not have been deleted by him.

The fact the Corinne call was still there indicates the deleting of everything else took place between the contact with Jodi and the finding of the body/phone being handed to police.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:53:PM
The fact the Corinne call was still there indicates the deleting of everything else took place between the contact with Jodi and the finding of the body/phone being handed to police.

it indicates nothing of the sort it indicates that one call wasnt deleted.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 01:55:PM
It indicates that everything was wiped and Corinnes call was the only call that followed the deletion.

Why would he delete everything else individually and leave one call?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 01:57:PM
It indicates that everything was wiped and Corinnes call was the only call that followed the deletion.

Why would he delete everything else individually and leave one call?

that does not prove who deleted the texts.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 01:58:PM
The fact the Corinne call was still there indicates the deleting of everything else took place between the contact with Jodi and the finding of the body/phone being handed to police.

There is proof that the phone has been accessed and used once in the possession of the police, no one can say for sure when the logs were deleted.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 02:02:PM
that does not prove who deleted the texts.

Maybe not but applying common sense it's the most reasonable explanation:

1) Luke deleted everything off his phone earlier that night and there was no logs up until his mum phoned after midnight.

2) Luke sat and deleted individual calls and messages all except the one from his mum after finding the body, apparently not preoccupied with everything that was unfolding.

3) The police deleted all calls after taking Luke's phone other than Corinne's (and messages from the murder victim which could be vital evidence) because they were already framing him so early on.


Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 02:03:PM
There is proof that the phone has been accessed and used once in the possession of the police, no one can say for sure when the logs were deleted.

Where is this proof?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 02:04:PM
If you're saying Luke deleted certain calls such as the one to the speaking clock but chose to keep the one from his mum. This raises even more questions.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 02:07:PM
Maybe not but applying common sense it's the most reasonable explanation:

1) Luke deleted everything off his phone earlier that night and there was no logs up until his mum phoned after midnight.

2) Luke sat and deleted individual calls and messages all except the one from his mum after finding the body, apparently not preoccupied with everything that was unfolding.

3) The police deleted all calls after taking Luke's phone other than Corinne's (and messages from the murder victim which could be vital evidence) because they were already framing him so early on.

how could luke have deleted he texts after finding the body other people would of seen him.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 02:24:PM
Where is this proof?

Sandra addressed this only a few pages ago
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 02:32:PM
how could luke have deleted he texts after finding the body other people would of seen him.

Exactly. I'm saying this is unlikely.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 02:33:PM
Sandra addressed this only a few pages ago

Will she back it up with proof.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 02:39:PM
Exactly. I'm saying this is unlikely.

why would he have deleted them thres is noting incrimating in them anyway.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 02:47:PM
i looked at the timline on previos forum we worked this out years ago.

the reporting of the case at the time states when the texts were deleted.

Using what?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 02:49:PM
why would he have deleted them thres is noting incrimating in them anyway.

There is if he's calling people to find out where she is and texting her at the same time. It means he knew where she was the the waiting around is just a smoke screen.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 02:54:PM
Will she back it up with proof.

Sandra has put much out via publications and other media outlets if this was not true where’s the litigation ?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 02:55:PM
There is proof that the phone has been accessed and used once in the possession of the police, no one can say for sure when the logs were deleted.

Nugs has just said there was a timeline and from that 'they' were able to work out that the texts were deleted when the phone was in the hands of the police?

I can see why Luke might delete them, but not why the police would and there should be a record of WHEN they were deleted.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 02:56:PM
Sandra has put much out via publications and other media outlets if this was not true where’s the litigation ?

So no proof?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 03:01:PM
why would he have deleted them thres is noting incrimating in them anyway.

How can you possibly know that?!

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 03:02:PM
If there were texts showing that Luke and Jodi were arguing, or agreed to meet at Easthouses, these ofcourse would be incriminating.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 03:06:PM
How can you possibly know that?!

Did they never recover the texts? What about her phone?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 03:06:PM
So no proof?

The proof that they were deleted are in the logs as part of the investigation files, the phone was in the possession of the police when things were deleted.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 03:07:PM
Did they never recover the texts? What about her phone?

No only the times the texts were sent. She didn’t have one she through it at a wall!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 11, 2019, 03:17:PM
I'm sorry, I seem to have caused a bit of a misunderstanding. Of the incoming voicemail call on Luke's phone that night, I said

Quote
the records show, quite clearly, that this was a log of an incoming voicemail from Corinne asking where he was, being recorded on his phone, not Luke checking it

I didn't mean the actual call was still on Luke's phone - I should have made that clearer. The record of the call going to voicemail is in the phone logs, Corinne said in her statement that she was trying to call Luke to find out what was going on, but got his voicemail - the timings given in her statement and both her and Luke's phone records all matched up. My point was that the police deliberately lied about Luke "checking his voicemail" when the log is clearly labelled "incoming."

All of the police assertions regarding the phone calls, texts, etc, were put to Luke in the Section 14 interrogation 6 weeks after the murder. By then, the police had the phone logs - they also recovered a text from Corinne to Luke saying, "Right, you tell me right now what's going on - I'm coming up to get you" (not recovered from Luke's phone).

The statement from the phone expert who examined the phone appears to suggest that the police may have inadvertently wiped the call logs, etc, not that they did so deliberately.Either way, according to their own statements, the police officers who put Luke in the back of the police vehicle and took his phone did so before 12.30, the time the expert said the logs were deleted.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 11, 2019, 03:23:PM
Will she back it up with proof.

I'm not sure which part of this some posters don't seem to understand. I've listed the documents I know are in the case files

Quote
"I'll indicate where I have documents that I can post (either in full, or excerpts, depending on what the legal situation allows) but please bear with me - there are hundreds of documents in no order whatsoever, and I have to sort all of them - I will post what I find, as I find it, rather than searching through all the boxes for specific documents. If someone wants to keep a record of this post, they can tick off the information I've made public and keep a list of what I haven't yet found."

This "no proof" argument is ridiculous - I can only provide the "proof" required from the case papers which I'd have to search through to find the various bits and pieces being requested. Some of them I won't be able to post in full anyway - not that I don't want to but because legally, I'm not allowed to.

But I don't have time to spend searching through the boxes at the instant demands of anonymous posters on a forum - I do have a life to live as well. I'll post the stuff when I can - if people don't like that, I'm sorry, but that's the way of it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 03:25:PM
Did they never recover the texts? What about her phone?

She was using her mums phone to text Luke and arrange meeting him. These were deleted but most likely by Jodi who didn't want her mum reading texts between her and her bf.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 03:36:PM
How can you possibly know that?!

well its very simple who would he be texting jodi on her mums phone if so jodis mum would have the texts wouldent she and i think she might mention it.

his friends well i dont think they would have kept uite would they his own mum well they looked at her phone as well and they could ceranly trace anytexts between him nd his mums phone.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 11, 2019, 03:42:PM
Did they never recover the texts? What about her phone?

I think her phone was broken and she was putting her SIM card in her mums phone to send the txt to Luke. As far as its know the txt messages were never recovered from either phone by police, or location data of calls or texts made that evening.



Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 11, 2019, 04:01:PM
On the afternoon of June 30th, the text exchange between Jodi and Luke (4.34pm to 4.38pm) was not conducted between Luke's phone and Jodi's sim - it was her mother's number that showed up in the phone logs.

There were suggestions that Jodi did, sometimes, put her sim in other people's phones after her own was broken, but not that afternoon.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 11, 2019, 04:08:PM
On the afternoon of June 30th, the text exchange between Jodi and Luke (4.34pm to 4.38pm) was not conducted between Luke's phone and Jodi's sim - it was her mother's number that showed up in the phone logs.

There were suggestions that Jodi did, sometimes, put her sim in other people's phones after her own was broken, but not that afternoon.

That explains why Jodi’s text were deleted if it was her mums phone and number.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 04:10:PM
On the afternoon of June 30th, the text exchange between Jodi and Luke (4.34pm to 4.38pm) was not conducted between Luke's phone and Jodi's sim - it was her mother's number that showed up in the phone logs.

There were suggestions that Jodi did, sometimes, put her sim in other people's phones after her own was broken, but not that afternoon.

so anytext that was deleted should of shown up on jodis mums phone.

so why the hell would he delte texts knowing full well jodis mum would still have them.

simple logic says somone else deleted them.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 05:06:PM
That isn't simple logic at all.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 05:10:PM
That isn't simple logic at all.

refute it then.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 11, 2019, 05:22:PM
You're really saying the simple logical explanation for Luke's texts being deleted is that it must have been the police? You're a fkn weapon.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 05:25:PM
You're really saying the simple logical explanation for Luke's texts being deleted is that it must have been the police? You're a fkn weapon.

thats not a refution its just insult.

seems you cant refute my point.

why would lue delted incriminating texts knowing full well jodis mum would still have them

why would jodis mum not go t the police and say she had them.

come on whats the nser to that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 07:19:PM
thats not a refution its just insult.

seems you cant refute my point.

why would lue delted incriminating texts knowing full well jodis mum would still have them

why would jodis mum not go t the police and say she had them.

come on whats the nser to that.

But Jodie's mum didn't have them, they were deleted from her phone too.

Was this phone found on Jodie's body?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 07:24:PM
well its very simple who would he be texting jodi on her mums phone if so jodis mum would have the texts wouldent she and i think she might mention it.

his friends well i dont think they would have kept uite would they his own mum well they looked at her phone as well and they could ceranly trace anytexts between him nd his mums phone.

If she was using her own sim, then it wouldn't matter who's phone she used.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 07:37:PM
But Jodie's mum didn't have them, they were deleted from her phone too.

Was this phone found on Jodie's body?

no it was with jodis mum.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 07:41:PM
If she was using her own sim, then it wouldn't matter who's phone she used.

i dont she was using her own sim

and even if she was it would still be in her house and any texts from look could have been found on it so it would be pointless for luke to delete the texts.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 07:52:PM
no it was with jodis mum.

No phone found on her or the crime scene, have you heard otherwise?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 07:54:PM
no it was with jodis mum.

Yes, I have just read that. Looks like the last text was sent by Jodie at 16:38, it seems odd that Luke didn't send any text messages after this time?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 07:58:PM
No phone found on her or the crime scene, have you heard otherwise?

no thats wht i said the phone was still in jodis house making it pointless for lue to  have delted ny texts from his phone to hers..
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 08:06:PM
Yes, I have just read that. Looks like the last text was sent by Jodie at 16:38, it seems odd that Luke didn't send any text messages after this time?

That would depend on what was said and the fact he knew she didn’t have a phone
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 08:21:PM
Yes, I have just read that. Looks like the last text was sent by Jodie at 16:38, it seems odd that Luke didn't send any text messages after this time?

well he knew she dident have a phone on her and he thught she ha left the house so what point would there be texting her.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 08:49:PM
well he knew she dident have a phone on her and he thught she ha left the house so what point would there be texting her.

He knew she had left the house?

This appeal documentation appears to be indicating that Luke was waiting for Jodie to turn up at his house

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
 He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.

[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody.

His mother (in one of the video's) stated that they had no firm plans to meet however, the above suggests they did - so when she didn't turn up why wouldn't he have texted her again. Also, Luke could have instigated her to delete the texts before she left the house.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 08:52:PM
He knew she had left the house?

This appeal documentation appears to be indicating that Luke was waiting for Jodie to turn up at his house

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
 He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.

[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody.

His mother (in one of the video's) stated that they had no firm plans to meet however, the above suggests they did - so when she didn't turn up why wouldn't he have texted her again. Also, Luke could have instigated her to delete the texts before she left the house.

ecactly so it would be a bit pointless texting her as he knew she dident haave a phone on her.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 08:55:PM
ecactly so it would be a bit pointless texting her as he knew she dident haave a phone on her.

He said he thought something had happened that resulted in her NOT coming out and he could have instigated the deletion of the text messages.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 08:57:PM
He knew she had left the house?

This appeal documentation appears to be indicating that Luke was waiting for Jodie to turn up at his house

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
 He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.

[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody.

His mother (in one of the video's) stated that they had no firm plans to meet however, the above suggests they did - so when she didn't turn up why wouldn't he have texted her again. Also, Luke could have instigated her to delete the texts before she left the house.

These online appeal documents although not in accurate as such have many mistakes that all parties would agree with.

Luke instigating her to delete the texts is pure conjecture, there’s no way of knowing. I agree with lithium here it’s more likely to be a teenage daughter not wanting her mum to know her plans as opposed to anything more sinister.
The possibility that if the texts contained something like”ok meet you at 5” then why delete them, again she may just have done so out of routine
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 09:03:PM
He said he thought something had happened that resulted in her NOT coming out and he could have instigated the deletion of the text messages.

but it would be totally pountless becouse the other phone would of still had the messagess on it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 09:06:PM
These online appeal documents although not in accurate as such have many mistakes that all parties would agree with.

Luke instigating her to delete the texts is pure conjecture, there’s no way of knowing. I agree with lithium here it’s more likely to be a teenage daughter not wanting her mum to know her plans as opposed to anything more sinister.
The possibility that if the texts contained something like”ok meet you at 5” then why delete them, again she may just have done so out of routine

Of course it's conjecture - but we aren't in a court, we're simply trying to piece together what may have happened. Its conjecture that the police deleted them in the face of no posted proof.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 09:08:PM
but it would be totally pountless becouse the other phone would of still had the messagess on it.

Not with you Nugs? Two phones, Luke's and Jodie's mothers right? He COULD have asked Jodie to delete the messages from her mothers phone before leaving the house and them deleted them from his own phone.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 09:11:PM
Not with you Nugs? Two phones, Luke's and Jodie's mothers right? He COULD have asked Jodie to delete the messages from her mothers phone before leaving the house and them deleted them from his own phone.

and how would he knew she would do it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:13:PM
The first text at 4:34 was initiated by Jodi so you can be almost certain Luke was in the house at that point, no point being anywhere else if there were no plans made. There were a total of 4 text 2 from each of them not a lot to instigate much of what your saying. Let surmise that Luke was in the house at the last text at 4:38 pm he would have had to have left straight away to walk the 11 min road to be seen by Bryson at the entrance to that path. What time did he have to get everything needed to carry out a murder and forensically clean the scene and not be seen by anyone.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 09:19:PM
and how would he knew she would do it.

But she did.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:22:PM
But she did.

There’s no way of knowing who deleted the texts from Luke , it could easily have been Judy.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 09:29:PM
But she did.

but how coulf he know for a fact she would.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 09:32:PM
but how coulf he know for a fact she would.

Because he knew her well enough.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 09:33:PM
There’s no way of knowing who deleted the texts from Luke , it could easily have been Judy.

Not from Luke, from Jodie's mum's phone.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 11, 2019, 09:34:PM
Because he knew her well enough.

how did he know her mum wouldent grab the phone back before she could.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:36:PM
Not from Luke, from Jodie's mum's phone.

No proof from either phone about actually who deleted those texts
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 09:46:PM
how did he know her mum wouldent grab the phone back before she could.

 I doubt that was even a consideration.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 09:47:PM
No proof from either phone about actually who deleted those texts

I thought there was supposed to be proof that the police deleted them?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:50:PM
I think we were all under the impression it was Luke’s texts you were meaning sey
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 09:57:PM
The one thing about going round in circles is that it shows just how bad the investigation was. They could have retrieved the texts, logs when something was deleted and more. What we’re left with are logs showing action was undertaken by the police on Luke’s phone after it was in their possession. So many things unanswered.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 10:02:PM
I think we were all under the impression it was Luke’s texts you were meaning sey

Had I meant Luke's, I wouldn't have referred to Jodie's mothers phone.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 10:05:PM
The one thing about going round in circles is that it shows just how bad the investigation was. They could have retrieved the texts, logs when something was deleted and more. What we’re left with are logs showing action was undertaken by the police on Luke’s phone after it was in their possession. So many things unanswered.

That is true of any case and I think it's pretty normal for 'action to be taken' on a suspects mobile phone.

I think the most likely people to have deleted the texts ate Luke and Jodie themselves but that will always be a best guess.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 11, 2019, 10:28:PM
That is true of any case and I think it's pretty normal for 'action to be taken' on a suspects mobile phone.

I think the most likely people to have deleted the texts ate Luke and Jodie themselves but that will always be a best guess.

Yes if that action was undertaken by specialists and not and joe copper
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2019, 11:07:PM
Yes if that action was undertaken by specialists and not and joe copper

I believe this case was in 2002? Mobile phone forensics was in it's infancy and so I would assume in the early days some data extraction would be carried out by police officers. I think Joe Copper would receive training.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 12, 2019, 09:00:AM
I believe this case was in 2002? Mobile phone forensics was in it's infancy and so I would assume in the early days some data extraction would be carried out by police officers. I think Joe Copper would receive training.

No joe copper wouldn’t have been trained to do anything! That should have been bagged and tagged and sent off to forensics as he had used it very soon after he supposedly murdered Jodi. This was most probably a push button phone and hard to clean forensically.

I am wondering if it had been sent off for testing and what results came from that phone .
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 12, 2019, 11:35:AM
Any news on the launch of Long Road to Justice?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 12, 2019, 12:06:PM
Nothing concrete, you can register and navigate the site but nothing active atm
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 12, 2019, 02:42:PM
isnt a bit strange jodi used her mums sim card insted of her own was she in that much of a hurry to send a text.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 12, 2019, 02:58:PM
isnt a bit strange jodi used her mums sim card insted of her own was she in that much of a hurry to send a text.

Maybe she was going out and wanted to txt Luke to say she would be down later?

I just believe she would be meeting Luke after 1730 at their usual time and she was going somewhere first before heading to Luke’s, if she did in fact leave at 1650

But nothing at all to prove or disprove this
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2019, 03:19:PM
No joe copper wouldn’t have been trained to do anything! That should have been bagged and tagged and sent off to forensics as he had used it very soon after he supposedly murdered Jodi. This was most probably a push button phone and hard to clean forensically.

I am wondering if it had been sent off for testing and what results came from that phone .

Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.

I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 12, 2019, 03:22:PM
Maybe she was going out and wanted to txt Luke to say she would be down later?

I just believe she would be meeting Luke after 1730 at their usual time and she was going somewhere first before heading to Luke’s, if she did in fact leave at 1650

But nothing at all to prove or disprove this

i just wonder why she was in that much of a hurry that she dident change the sim card.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2019, 03:41:PM
i just wonder why she was in that much of a hurry that she dident change the sim card.

Why does that mean she was in a hurry? Her sim may not have fitted her mothers phone or there may have been no money on it. It does explain why the texts were deleted though.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 12, 2019, 03:51:PM
Why does that mean she was in a hurry? Her sim may not have fitted her mothers phone or there may have been no money on it. It does explain why the texts were deleted though.

Or could just be her mum was using it too and told here to be quick with it. Either way she sent a couple of text and I assume deleted them right away so her mum did not see them.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 12, 2019, 03:51:PM
Why does that mean she was in a hurry? Her sim may not have fitted her mothers phone or there may have been no money on it. It does explain why the texts were deleted though.

well it seems to have fitted it at other times
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2019, 04:13:PM
well it seems to have fitted it at other times

Not much use if it's not topped up!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 12, 2019, 06:53:PM
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.

I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.

Please read back what you have said! You really think every copper has some training in mobile data and how to extract it from phones that change at that time almost monthly! This should have went to forensics to be tested, the aim taken out and given to the RELEVANT department to extract was was needed.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 12, 2019, 06:56:PM
This was the same force that allowed the body to be moved, allowed it uncovered overnight,allowed many people to circumvent the crime scene. Allow contaminated articles to be misdescribed!! You still think joe copper back then was trained in every aspect of forensic detail , ffs!!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2019, 07:04:PM
Please read back what you have said! You really think every copper has some training in mobile data and how to extract it from phones that change at that time almost monthly! This should have went to forensics to be tested, the aim taken out and given to the RELEVANT department to extract was was needed.

Every copper didn't extract the data, it just takes one, it's simply connected to a machine and the data is downloaded. Not rocket science - the police can and DO extract phone data https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5558511/Police-download-phones-data-minutes-NO-warrant.html
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2019, 07:07:PM
This was the same force that allowed the body to be moved, allowed it uncovered overnight,allowed many people to circumvent the crime scene. Allow contaminated articles to be misdescribed!! You still think joe copper back then was trained in every aspect of forensic detail , ffs!!

I said trained in BASIC forensic methods!!

Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.

I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 12, 2019, 07:39:PM
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.

I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.

(1) Police officers are trained in policing, not forensic analysis. They are supposed to be trained in preserving crime scenes for forensic analysis, not actually carrying it out.

(2)
Quote
You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages.

Jodi died mid 2003. Mobile phone experts had been around for 8 - 10 years by then. Tell everyone here exactly how you would have "check[ed] text messages, retrospectively, in 2003" - step by step, if you don't mind.

(3)
Quote
One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off )

So the officer who "seized" Luke's phone, in the back of the police vehicle, while Luke's mum was trying to call him, didn't "switch it off" and then have to "switch it back on" 5 minutes later in order to get Luke to dial his mum's number so that the officer could call Luke's mum to tell her they were taking Luke to the police station (the only legal obligation police officers in Scotland had at the time)?





Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 12, 2019, 07:57:PM
I said trained in BASIC forensic methods!!

I’m sorry but your way off here and no officer will be trained basic anything when it takes more than the basics to make this investigation right.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 12, 2019, 07:58:PM
Sandra was there any forensics that came back from the mobile phone itself? Was it tested?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2019, 08:18:PM
(1) Police officers are trained in policing, not forensic analysis. They are supposed to be trained in preserving crime scenes for forensic analysis, not actually carrying it out.

(2)
Jodi died mid 2003. Mobile phone experts had been around for 8 - 10 years by then. Tell everyone here exactly how you would have "check[ed] text messages, retrospectively, in 2003" - step by step, if you don't mind.

(3)
So the officer who "seized" Luke's phone, in the back of the police vehicle, while Luke's mum was trying to call him, didn't "switch it off" and then have to "switch it back on" 5 minutes later in order to get Luke to dial his mum's number so that the officer could call Luke's mum to tell her they were taking Luke to the police station (the only legal obligation police officers in Scotland had at the time)?

I didn't say they were trained in forensic analysis, I said they take part in basic forensic methods - securing a crime scene is part of that, collecting evidence is another BUT as far as mobile phones are concerned they most certainly do extract data or are you suggesting they don't in the face of all of the information available to the contrary? In 2003 I would imagine they looked at the information on the phone itself and just photographed it. In thus case when they realised the texts had been deleted, they passed it to an "expert" to try and recover it - however, given that mobile forensics had only been a field of study dating back to the late 1990's/early 2000's such experts would have been few!

You're asking me how I would have checked text messages in 2003? Seriously? Well, I would make sure my phone was switched on, navigate to 'text messages' and then read them. Much the same as I do now. Why? How do you check yours?

As for your last point, I have no idea what the police officer did with Luke's mobile phone, nor did I suggest I did. My post was general NOT specific!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2019, 08:19:PM
I’m sorry but your way off here and no officer will be trained basic anything when it takes more than the basics to make this investigation right.

I'm not talking about testing the phone for DNA etc. I'm talking about the data!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 12, 2019, 08:26:PM
Maybe you should read up on the BASICs these officers hould be schooled in then, they fucked up big time on this one .
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2019, 09:24:PM
Maybe you should read up on the BASICs these officers hould be schooled in then, they fucked up big time on this one .

So people keep saying and yet post no proof. Where is the proof that police deleted Luke's text messages?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 13, 2019, 06:50:AM
I see we are still debating this.  Let’s face it, we know what the truth is anyway.

- Mitchell done it
- Bryson seen him
- Nobody was ever identified or came forward to suggest it was someone else
- He is, and always has been, emotionless
- It was him
- Game over

Mr Stoneman was arrested and charged for all the right reasons.  His lack of emotion has been noted time and time again, as has his failure to show or prove to anyone he’s innocent.  His satanism and poems about death were not a teenage life stage as stated by Sandra in a YouTube comment due to his adult requests and interests.

The murder was satanic

Her eyelids and throat were mutilated

He shows no emotion and prefers to keep trophies of it.

This debate is pointless.

It was him.

I rest my case.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 13, 2019, 09:19:AM
Well, that'll be that, then. We can all rest easy because an anonymous poster decides what's fact and what isn't based on ... well, whatever!

Gordo asked
Quote
Sandra was there any forensics that came back from the mobile phone itself? Was it tested?

From memory, the phone wasn't tested for forensic material, it was only the data that was examined. I've had a mobile phone expert tell me there is no way, with the style of phone (push button keypad) that all forensic traces could be removed. The prosecution claimed Luke's calls to Jodi's mum's landline at 5.30 and again at 5.38 were to "cover his tracks," yet, by their own timings, Luke would still have been at the murder scene at 5.30pm - If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, the stripping, tying and mutilation of her body had to take place thereafter. The claim has always been that the murderer became extremely calm, inflicting post mortem injuries with some deliberation, so not in any rush.

That being the case, if he then used his phone, it seems reasonable to assume the phone would harbour trace evidence of the murder - even the police themselves at the time said the murderer would have been heavily bloodstained.

But no other phones were ever tested for forensic traces either (again, from memory). We know Ferris and Dickie had phones on them that afternoon. We know the bike, by their own admission, was at the V point at 5.15pm but they couldn't say where they were. Wouldn't it have seemed obvious to check out their phones for forensic traces, if for no other reason than they couldn't remember where they were at such a critical time? Of course, by the time they figured out these two had lied about the time they were on the path, there would be no guarantee they still had the same phones anyway (and just about everyone connected to the investigation, except Luke, had at least two mobile numbers - who would ever have been able to tell which phones were in use that evening?)
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 11:53:AM
I see we are still debating this.  Let’s face it, we know what the truth is anyway.

- Mitchell done it
- Bryson seen him
- Nobody was ever identified or came forward to suggest it was someone else
- He is, and always has been, emotionless
- It was him
- Game over

Mr Stoneman was arrested and charged for all the right reasons.  His lack of emotion has been noted time and time again, as has his failure to show or prove to anyone he’s innocent.  His satanism and poems about death were not a teenage life stage as stated by Sandra in a YouTube comment due to his adult requests and interests.

The murder was satanic

Her eyelids and throat were mutilated

He shows no emotion and prefers to keep trophies of it.

This debate is pointless.

It was him.

I rest my case.

Have a nice day.

dna evedence and forensics say otherwise your not much of a detective if you cant look those issues.

and brson did not cliam to have seen him see him she couldent identify him in court if you cliam to be a detective do some basic resarch.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 13, 2019, 02:32:PM
Caroline said:

Quote
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis!

Four and a half hours later, Caroline said:

Quote
I didn't say they were trained in forensic analysis, I said they take part in basic forensic methods

Does Caroline not read his/her own posts?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 02:45:PM
dna evedence and forensics say otherwise your not much of a detective if you cant look those issues.

and brson did not cliam to have seen him see him she couldent identify him in court if you cliam to be a detective do some basic resarch.

What do the forensics say?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 02:58:PM
What do the forensics say?

well theres several dna profiles none of the them belong to luke.

thers also the fact that luke had not washe or changed clothe that day.

theres also the fact that jodi back agianst her attacker ut luke dident have a mark on him.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 03:08:PM
Caroline said:

Four and a half hours later, Caroline said:

Does Caroline not read his/her own posts?

Firstly Caroline didn't 'say', Caroline 'wrote' - however. funny you didn't highlight the word 'basic'. I think you know exactly what I meant - they have 'some' training in the basics of forensics. Playing aspects of my posts down doesn't make you right. I live about two miles from the police forensic training college - it's called Harpley Hall. They run various courses from the basics to fully qualified CSI.
https://www.college.police.uk/News/archive/2014jul/Pages/Police-forensics-inder-the-microscope.aspx

By the way, I see you have ignored the FACT that police do indeed extract data from mobile phones - such extraction is part of the forensic process albeit basic is function. Deeper analysis of the data would be done by a lab.

Also, why would I read my own posts? I'm not that self obsessed and how many men do you know called Caroline?

I have already stated that I don't know much about this case but I can already see that it attracts the same kind of zealots as the Bamber case, I was intending to ask you some questions to learn more but I don't think I'll bother because you're too emotionally involved to just present facts! If you want to hurl crap back and forth, I can do that all day but it won't further your mission to prove Luke is innocent. I had an open mind to learn more - now I just can't be arsed - I'm not here to feed your ego!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 03:11:PM
well theres several dna profiles none of the them belong to luke.

thers also the fact that luke had not washe or changed clothe that day.

theres also the fact that jodi back agianst her attacker ut luke dident have a mark on him.

DNA from where?

How is it known that he didn't change his clothes and wasn't there something about a parka?

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 03:23:PM
DNA from where?

How is it known that he didn't change his clothes and wasn't there something about a parka?

he was strip searched at the station his fingernials were still dirty as was his hair proving he hadent had a wash.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 03:25:PM
he was strip searched at the station his fingernials were still dirty as was his hair proving he hadent had a wash.

But he still could have changed his clothes or wore the coat over them? Did they take fingernail scrapings?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 13, 2019, 03:28:PM
he was strip searched at the station his fingernials were still dirty as was his hair proving he hadent had a wash.

Proves nothing. He was playing in the woods with pals for hours after the murder. Messing about on a rope swing etc.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 03:34:PM
But he still could have changed his clothes or wore the coat over them? Did they take fingernail scrapings?

the dna would still be on his body and under his nails

i asume they would of done fingernail scrapings.

theres also the fact that is body was unmarked dispite the fact jodi had put up a big fight.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 03:36:PM
Proves nothing. He was playing in the woods with pals for hours after the murder. Messing about on a rope swing etc.

and tht acounts for his hair being unwashed does it.

you can dirty dirty from a rope swing can you.

and how does that  explian there being marks on his bdy when he was strip searched.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 13, 2019, 03:44:PM
Your hair can't get dirty playing in the woods? Can you provide your source that his hair was definitely not washed?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 13, 2019, 03:46:PM
Also a source that Jodi must have marked her attackers body, thanks.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 03:54:PM
Also a source that Jodi must have marked her attackers body, thanks.

ok that can be done.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 05:33:PM
ok that can be done.

This is a section from an appeal document from 2011 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The pathologist mentions nothing about her putting up a fight, he stated that she had wounds consistent with trying to defend herself. In other words 'defense wounds'.

[5] The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 06:21:PM
This is a section from an appeal document from 2011 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The pathologist mentions nothing about her putting up a fight, he stated that she had wounds consistent with trying to defend herself. In other words 'defense wounds'.

[5] The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.

that is pathologist spea for putting up a fight.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Jane on July 13, 2019, 07:13:PM
that is pathologist spea for putting up a fight.


You're misunderstanding the difference between defense and attack, surely. The poor child was victim to such an horrendous attack, the most she could have done before lapsing into unconsciousness/death -two minutes according to the pathologist- was raise her arms in futile attempt to stave off the repeated blows. I don't know the case as you appear to so I'm sure you'll be able to tell me that the judge said that she'd put up a spirited fight. However, IMO, that NOT what the pathologist implied.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 07:26:PM

You're misunderstanding the difference between defense and attack, surely. The poor child was victim to such an horrendous attack, the most she could have done before lapsing into unconsciousness/death -two minutes according to the pathologist- was raise her arms in futile attempt to stave off the repeated blows. I don't know the case as you appear to so I'm sure you'll be able to tell me that the judge said that she'd put up a spirited fight. However, IMO, that NOT what the pathologist implied.

no i am not as will be made;
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 07:35:PM
that is pathologist spea for putting up a fight.

No it isn't - it means she tried to protect her herself from the blows and as such received injuries - like putting her hands in front of her face etc. It has nothing to do with fighting the assailant. 
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 07:38:PM
no i am not as will be made;

She was struck repeatedly with a blunt object - she had no chance to put up a fight. If you have evidence that refutes what the pathologist said then post it?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 07:40:PM
She was struck repeatedly with a blunt object - she had no chance to put up a fight. If you have evidence that refutes what the pathologist said then post it?

yes she had and she did.

that is what i am just aout to do
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 07:43:PM
yes she had and she did.

that is what i am just aout to do

Cheers
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 07:59:PM
well heres one ill try find another

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwis6P_cybLjAhU2QEEAHXInD3QQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F1480608%2FJodi-Jones-death-similar-to-Hollywood-killing.html&usg=AOvVaw0EzeGIFf_iGmQ6j07ZgtHl
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 08:29:PM
well heres one ill try find another

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwis6P_cybLjAhU2QEEAHXInD3QQFjACegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F1480608%2FJodi-Jones-death-similar-to-Hollywood-killing.html&usg=AOvVaw0EzeGIFf_iGmQ6j07ZgtHl

Thanks Nugs, I take 'fought to the death' to mean that she tried to defend herself (to the death), which is obvious by all of the injuries she sustained. Whoever killed her was armed with both a blunt object and a knife, it is plausible that she didn't get near him but in trying to do so, received the defensive injuries.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 08:38:PM
Thanks Nugs, I take 'fought to the death' to mean that she tried to defend herself (to the death), which is obvious by all of the injuries she sustained. Whoever killed her was armed with both a blunt object and a knife, it is plausible that she didn't get near him but in trying to do so, received the defensive injuries.

i belive though do not take this as gospel that there was skin under her fingernails though ill have to onfirm this so i wont state it as fact straght away.

jodi would of been no push over she was big or a girl her age 5 foot 7

luke was actully smaller than her.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 08:59:PM
i belive though do not take this as gospel that there was skin under her fingernails though ill have to onfirm this so i wont state it as fact straght away.

jodi would of been no push over she was big or a girl her age 5 foot 7

luke ws actully smaller than her.

OK

Well, her size might be the reason why she received a severe blow to the 'back' of her head.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Jane on July 13, 2019, 10:26:PM
This is a section from an appeal document from 2011 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The pathologist mentions nothing about her putting up a fight, he stated that she had wounds consistent with trying to defend herself. In other words 'defense wounds'.

[5] The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.


This catalogue of wounds is in no way conducive to anyone having "fought to the death" or, indeed, being able to/having time to. Whilst she was unlikely to have been compliant with the attack, any actions she took would, I think, have been far more likely to be defensive than aggressive, as suggested by the "extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms". I can't find anything in his report which reads like "pathologist speak for putting up a fight". It was counsel, not he, who used the expression "fought to the death", which might be interpreted as having fought to defend herself.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 10:46:PM

This catalogue of wounds is in no way conducive to anyone having "fought to the death" or, indeed, being able to/having time to. Whilst she was unlikely to have been compliant with the attack, any actions she took would, I think, have been far more likely to be defensive than aggressive, as suggested by the "extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms". I can't find anything in his report which reads like "pathologist speak for putting up a fight". It was counsel, not he, who used the expression "fought to the death", which might be interpreted as having fought to defend herself.

if you read the rtical i posted the patholgist clerly states she fought for her life.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 11:14:PM
if you read the rtical i posted the patholgist clerly states she fought for her life.

The passage is open to interpretation. However, trying to fend off blows would be fighting for your life but you wouldn't need to injure to assailant to do so.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 11:26:PM
The passage is open to interpretation. However, trying to fend off blows would be fighting for your life but you wouldn't need to injure to assailant to do so.

donald ask him did jodi fight for life and he says yes what other interpretation can there be.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 13, 2019, 11:31:PM
donald ask him did jodi fight for life and he says yes what other interpretation can there be.

I have just told you, fending off blows is fighting for your life but that doesn't mean the assailant will be injured.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 13, 2019, 11:35:PM
I have just told you, fending off blows is fighting for your life but that doesn't mean the assailant will be injured.

there will not necarsrly e injurys but there will be sighns of a strugel

if she jst tried to hold her killer back there would be sighns of that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 14, 2019, 12:09:AM
there will not necarsrly e injurys but there will be sighns of a strugel

if she jst tried to hold her killer back there would be sighns of that.

There were signs of a struggle on her because she was defending herself against weapons but there doesn't need to be any sign on the assailant. If someone hits a person with a Baseball bat, the person being hit will raise their arms to protect their head. The victim will have bruising on their arms where they tried to defend themselves but the attacker doesn't have to have any sign of injury.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 12:30:AM
There were signs of a struggle on her because she was defending herself against weapons but there doesn't need to be any sign on the assailant. If someone hits a person with a Baseball bat, the person being hit will raise their arms to protect their head. The victim will have bruising on their arms where they tried to defend themselves but the attacker doesn't have to have any sign of injury.

if i try and stab you and you grab my arm to stop me do it there will will be evedence of it on my arm even if you dont hurt me there would be marks and inprints.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 14, 2019, 12:42:AM
if i try and stab you and you gra my arm to stop me do it there will will e evedence of it on my arm even if you dont hurt there would be marks and inprints.

IF I got near enough to do that but more likely, the person with the knife will lash out and there would be cuts on the victims hands. Of course it is possible for a victim to leave a mark on the assailant but not necessarily.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2019, 04:36:AM
There doesn’t need to be a massive fight for an attacker to be marked, even the most subdued frightened defensive struggle would and could cause marking.

The pathology report stated that Jodi has bruising to her knuckles suggesting that she had fought back at some level. The knife was possibly produced at a letter point in the struggle that almost certainly started as an argument as per the prosecutions cases.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Jane on July 14, 2019, 09:40:AM
There doesn’t need to be a massive fight for an attacker to be marked, even the most subdued frightened defensive struggle would and could cause marking.

The pathology report stated that Jodi has bruising to her knuckles suggesting that she had fought back at some level. The knife was possibly produced at a letter point in the struggle that almost certainly started as an argument as per the prosecutions cases.


If we accept that the fatal attack was the escalation of an argument, the bruising on her knuckles could have occurred then. Therefore they could not be construed as evidence of her having "fought for her life".
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2019, 09:48:AM
Yes I agree the likelihood that they occurred during the argument is the most sensible however I’m sure the most sensible explanation for those bruises is that the knuckles were used to defend and came into contact with the attacker.

Jodi could be a feisty character and if she was  about to accost Luke regarding his friendship with another girl it’s also likely that she lashed out first, not set in stone but likely.   
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 14, 2019, 11:13:AM
There doesn’t need to be a massive fight for an attacker to be marked, even the most subdued frightened defensive struggle would and could cause marking.

The pathology report stated that Jodi has bruising to her knuckles suggesting that she had fought back at some level. The knife was possibly produced at a letter point in the struggle that almost certainly started as an argument as per the prosecutions cases.

Or that they received a blow from the blunt object! The attacker could easily have escaped without being marked.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 14, 2019, 11:16:AM
Some clips from the Frontline Scotland documentary in 2007, including the pathologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIdhoCwnLc&list=PLZLSdT-uIALVzhEtjFZyHSWqegmyeJPOZ&index=2&t=0s
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 11:24:AM

If we accept that the fatal attack was the escalation of an argument, the bruising on her knuckles could have occurred then. Therefore they could not be construed as evidence of her having "fought for her life".

if she had bruised knuckels the mot likely explantion of that is she hit somone rather unlikely that after punching someone theres going to be no sighn of it on them.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 14, 2019, 11:30:AM
Yes I agree the likelihood that they occurred during the argument is the most sensible however I’m sure the most sensible explanation for those bruises is that the knuckles were used to defend and came into contact with the attacker.

Jodi could be a feisty character and if she was  about to accost Luke regarding his friendship with another girl it’s also likely that she lashed out first, not set in stone but likely.

Of course t's possible that that's how the bruises happened BUT it's not the only explanation.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 11:32:AM
Some clips from the Frontline Scotland documentary in 2007, including the pathologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIdhoCwnLc&list=PLZLSdT-uIALVzhEtjFZyHSWqegmyeJPOZ&index=2&t=0s

well theres hardly clearly evdence than that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 14, 2019, 11:58:AM
Some clips from the Frontline Scotland documentary in 2007, including the pathologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIdhoCwnLc&list=PLZLSdT-uIALVzhEtjFZyHSWqegmyeJPOZ&index=2&t=0s

Will watch it later.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 14, 2019, 12:30:PM
Something I want to clarify - I've seen a number of posts maintaining that Jodi was struck, or struck repeatedly, with a blunt object and that the attacker also had a knife.

The most that can be said is that she may have been struck with a "blunt object" (other than a fist) - one suggestion, for example, was that the large area of bruising to the back of her head may have been the result of the attacker slamming her head against the wall. The "struck by a branch" suggestion came from SIO Dobbie - there was nothing to support it (for example, no impact staining on any of the branches, only drips). Some of the facial injuries could have been attributable to punching and kicking (the pathologist's opinion). There was also the pathologist's suggestion that bruising to the back of Jodi's hand could have been caused either by a bite, or by her hand coming into contact with someone's teeth during a struggle. Although that suggestion was "ruled out" by another expert, I've never seen the report giving the reasons for ruling it out.

Nobody knows what sort of bladed instrument was used to harm Jodi - the most that can be said is that it was large and sharp.

In terms of the "struggle" during which Jodi was, literally, fighting for her life, there is evidence that the attacker was close enough to her to pull bits of her hair out by the roots - some of those were found entangled in Jodi's hands and arms. One of the worst facial injuries was not postmortem, so, again, very close contact. The distribution of blood spots in the woodland strip and the soil staining on Jodi's socks and hands suggest Jodi was being attacked and breaking away until she was finally overpowered.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 01:33:PM

Jodi could be a feisty character and if she was  about to accost Luke regarding his friendship with another girl it’s also likely that she lashed out first, not set in stone but likely.

relationship*
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 01:33:PM
Some clips from the Frontline Scotland documentary in 2007, including the pathologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTIdhoCwnLc&list=PLZLSdT-uIALVzhEtjFZyHSWqegmyeJPOZ&index=2&t=0s

Will you upload the Sky interview?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 01:41:PM
Will you upload the Sky interview?

well we are more intrested in actull forensic evidence.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 01:47:PM
well we are more intrested in actull forensic evidence.

Really? I thought you were more interested in circumstantial "evidence" against others, lie detector tests, mobile phone sims, random unrelated students and other such straws to clutch at.

Luckily for Luke the police let the rain wash vital forensic evidence away overnight.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2019, 01:51:PM
It’s a bit rich when you were last discussing how violent a room was based on it decoration, but a science so advanced that they have managed to determine its abilities as well as frailties should be considered circumstantial and a joke.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 01:56:PM
It’s a bit rich when you were last discussing how violent a room was based on it decoration,

quote me doing this. Second time you've falsely attributed something to me in this thread.

I merely pointed out a saber by the door.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2019, 01:58:PM
C’mon now you wee discussing it with that other guy, I think it was even you who posted the picture and then agreed with him about his analysing
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 01:58:PM
Really? I thought you were more interested in circumstantial "evidence" against others, lie detector tests, mobile phone sims, random unrelated students and other such straws to clutch at.

Luckily for Luke the police let the rain wash vital forensic evidence away overnight.

no the forensic evdence tht shows the killer would of been marked and luke was complely unmarked.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 14, 2019, 02:15:PM
Will you upload the Sky interview?

I would if I could, but I don't have access to it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 04:11:PM
no the forensic evdence tht shows the killer would of been marked and luke was complely unmarked.

Disagree.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 04:15:PM
Disagree.

ok its only the word of the pahtolgist who examend the body.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 07:17:PM
Pathologist didn't say there would be marks on the attacker.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2019, 07:42:PM
He didn’t say there wouldn’t be either, that’s why were discussing it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 07:49:PM
wow...
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 07:50:PM
he probely thought he dident need to say it.

seeing as its more less the only logicall conclusion.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2019, 07:57:PM
wow...

You can do better than that mate it’s a boring Sunday evening give me some more of your Feng Shui type evidence , I could do with a laugh
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 14, 2019, 08:57:PM
Pathologist didn't say there would be marks on the attacker.

OK, so why do you think SIO Dobbie instructed his team to have Luke checked for bruises, scratches, fresh marks on his body that might connect him to the attack on Jodi?

Could it be that they thought there would be evidence of that nature that could be run by experts for their interpretation of what those connections might be? What might the pathologist have been asked to conclude, in his professional opinion, if any such bruises, scratches or marks had been found?

Why do you think they took samples from under Jodi's fingernails? Could it be that they believed there would be evidence that she had scratched her attacker, or grabbed onto items of his clothing that may have left fibres there? Shame the police botched that as well - no results could be obtained from under Jodi's fingernails because they used the wrong techniques.

For what it's worth, it wouldn't have been the pathologist's job to comment on whether the attacker would have had marks on him unless evidence from the post mortem had suggested that (and the botching of the police gathering of evidence had made that impossible).

His comments in the documentary are (just like his evidence in court) dependent on the questions asked of him. He wasn't asked, directly, if he thought the attacker would have marks on him as a result of the tremendous struggle he testified Jodi put up during the attack. What we're left with is working out a reasonable assumption of what he would have said, had he been asked directly.

There's a clue to the possible answer. He wasn't asked, directly, in court, about the likelihood of the attacker having traces of Jodi's blood on him. He was asked directly in the Frontline documentary and his answer was unequivocal - "very likely". He wasn't asked in court what measures the attacker would have had to take to avoid becoming contaminated with forensic evidence from the murder. He was asked, directly, in the Frontline documentary, and his answer was unequivocal - "ensuring that his body and clothing did not come into direct contact with the deceased."

Just because he didn't say something in court or in the documentary doesn't mean he wouldn't have said it, had he been asked!

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 09:06:PM

Just because he didn't say something in court or in the documentary doesn't mean he wouldn't have said it, had he been asked!

So this means we should work on the assumption that he did say it?

No thanks.

And you really don't think scraping the victim's fingernails is a given?



How does

"They checked the victim's fingernails to see if there was"

get twisted into

"They checked the victim's fingernails, so they must have known..."

Behave Sandra.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 09:41:PM
There must be marks on the attacker, because the pathologist didn't say there wouldn't be.


Is this what is has come to?

brb gonna delete my posts again and remove myself from this ridiculousness.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 09:42:PM
You can do better than that mate it’s a boring Sunday evening give me some more of your Feng Shui type evidence , I could do with a laugh

The only laughable thing is your theory on who done it.

Why don't you share with us all.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 09:43:PM
The big hard man from Hamilton who wanted to meet me at a petrol station a few years ago is now laid back and chilled out on here for a laugh. Nae bother
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 09:49:PM
a lesson on reading comprehension of statements from nugget might be where I draw the line...

(https://imgur.com/mfEZ0mA.gif)

Luke done it, the overwhelming circumstantial (and potential forensic) evidence is overwhelming to the point its almost laughable.

(https://i.imgur.com/6qX20ED.jpg)

^ This freakshow cunt as an adult requesting Satanic books a few years ago and plastering poems about murdering people to his cell walls. Thank fuck he's not out. He's getting worse with age.

I really believe L&B caught a serial killer on their first kill here.

and what's this pish about him living off the grid when he's out. Nae bother Ted Kazynski.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2019, 10:01:PM
Potential forensic evidence is a lot of noise about nothing. How about the forensic evidence pointing away from Luke ?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 10:04:PM
a lesson on reading comprehension of statements from nugget might be where I draw the line...

(https://imgur.com/mfEZ0mA.gif)

Luke done it, the overwhelming circumstantial (and potential forensic) evidence is overwhelming to the point its almost laughable.

(https://i.imgur.com/6qX20ED.jpg)

^ This freakshow cunt as an adult requesting Satanic books a few years ago and plastering poems about murdering people to his cell walls. Thank fuck he's not out. He's getting worse with age.

I really believe L&B caught a serial killer on their first kill here.

and what's this pish about him living off the grid when he's out. Nae bother Ted Kazynski.

deafeted in debate so resorts to personal abuse.

i dont like quating donald trump but sad.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 14, 2019, 10:10:PM
nugnug: I Defeated you in debate

also nugnug, in debate: "he probely thoguht he dident need to say it"



ahahah


solid argument buddy
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 10:18:PM
Potential forensic evidence is a lot of noise about nothing. How about the forensic evidence pointing away from Luke ?

what this potential forensic evedence then. gordo
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 14, 2019, 11:17:PM
Well potentially there’s a lot of evidence that has the potential to be potential evidence .
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 14, 2019, 11:21:PM
Well potentially there’s a lot of evidence that has the potential to be potential evidence .

but only potentailly or has that been comfirmed yet.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 15, 2019, 07:50:AM
So this means we should work on the assumption that he did say it?

No thanks

That's not what I said, is it? You were basing your conclusion on the assertion that the pathologist "didn't say there would be marks on the attacker." I was pointing out that an explanation for that could have been that he wasn't asked since the other evidence and basic common sense points to it being likely that the attacker would have been marked in the "violent struggle."

Quote
And you really don't think scraping the victim's fingernails is a given?

Again, not the point being made. The question is why are victim's fingernails scraped? Answer - to see if there is any forensic evidence from the attacker under them. If there was evidence of a violent struggle with the attacker, that's exactly what they would be looking for in fingernail scrapings.

Quote
How does

"They checked the victim's fingernails to see if there was"

get twisted into

"They checked the victim's fingernails, so they must have known..."

Behave Sandra.

It's not me who has to behave here, Lithium. Deliberately twisting other people's words isn't reasoned debate, it's game playing. What I actually said in my post was:

Quote
Could it be that they believed there would be evidence that she had scratched her attacker, or grabbed onto items of his clothing that may have left fibres there?

Must have known? My whole point was that if the police had found evidence either of marks on Luke's body or forensics under Jodi's nails (or both), the pathologist's comments would have been different because he would have been asked his opinion on what those pieces of evidence meant in relation to the murder. They didn't get that evidence, so there was nothing to ask (in terms of the investigation).

Since there was no post mortem for the defence, there was no real opportunity for them to explore the question about lack of marks on Luke further and none whatsoever to address the fingernail scrapings because the police botched the taking of them.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 08:35:AM
When was the last time Jodi was at her grand over the weekend prior to the killing and what was it they were doing, can you remember ?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 15, 2019, 02:04:PM
That's not what I said, is it? You were basing your conclusion on the assertion that the pathologist "didn't say there would be marks on the attacker." I was pointing out that an explanation for that could have been that he wasn't asked since the other evidence and basic common sense points to it being likely that the attacker would have been marked in the "violent struggle."

Again, not the point being made. The question is why are victim's fingernails scraped? Answer - to see if there is any forensic evidence from the attacker under them. If there was evidence of a violent struggle with the attacker, that's exactly what they would be looking for in fingernail scrapings.

It's not me who has to behave here, Lithium. Deliberately twisting other people's words isn't reasoned debate, it's game playing. What I actually said in my post was:

Must have known? My whole point was that if the police had found evidence either of marks on Luke's body or forensics under Jodi's nails (or both), the pathologist's comments would have been different because he would have been asked his opinion on what those pieces of evidence meant in relation to the murder. They didn't get that evidence, so there was nothing to ask (in terms of the investigation).

Since there was no post mortem for the defence, there was no real opportunity for them to explore the question about lack of marks on Luke further and none whatsoever to address the fingernail scrapings because the police botched the taking of them.

The professor didn't say that she put up a 'violent struggle' that was inferred by the reporter. He actually said that she had severe defensive wounds and these are usually consistent with the victim trying to deflect blows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_wound.

Not sure what you mean by 'post mortem for the defense'?

Did you not interview the pathologist for your book? If they didn't, I am surprised that finger nail scrapping were not taken?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 15, 2019, 02:30:PM
Been trying to make sense of the time frame, if she was killed at around 1715 to 1730 at the v as it’s believed then I think the joint she had could speak volumes. Where and when did she get it. I’ve tried to list any possibilities below that I can think of that might fit, but I’m sure there are lots I’ve not come up with.

It Takes 20-30 mins to show in blood meaning 1645 to 1710 is the latest she could have had a smoke. It could not be at school, or on way home as friends confirmed this I believe so has to be after, putting her at home, maybe between the time of txting Luke and leaving the house she stole a few puffs from a j her bro had without him knowing before she left. he was smoking cannabis in his room that evening, was he not with his mum when Jodi nipped back upstair before heading out?

Or if not at home it has to be somewhere very close as 1710 latest she could have had this joint. Could she have popped into somewhere close by before heading down the path, is there time?

If she did not go somewhere before down the path then she might have met the boys on the moped at the v at, they could have been having a smoke with Jodi, but if they left at 1715 that only leaves 15 mins for Luke to meet Jodi, argue, fight, kill, strip, mutilate, tidy up, is that enough time?

If it was Luke, earliest Luke could meet Jodi is 1705 and dead at 1725, going by call made to ao at 1732. Only way I can see this fit is If Luke gives her a joint at 1705 soon as she gets to v, maybe a fight broke out, she was unconscious at 1715, so boys on moped did not see or hear anything, once they leave he started to strip her she wakes up, kills her at 1725, can’t be before as joint would not show up in her system if he gave her it, giving him a few mins to strip rest of her, if not already done, cause the injuries that were post-mortem (im not 100% sure what these were)check himself and the scene, taking of any soiled clothes ie parka and start down the path to call ao at 1732, very tight fit, but could it be done in your opinion? I think it’s far to tight a timeframe.

Only other options i can see is she was not killed at 1715 -1730 and can’t be Luke.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 03:27:PM
There is time if the acknowledged time isn’t the 5:15 pm. She had been grounded before once her mum found out she smoked it so I doubt she should have had it at home, saying that it not impossible as you say to knock a few puffs. Then again how can you disabling a child to not do something when you allow that very thing to happen in the house.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 04:09:PM
Been trying to make sense of the time frame, if she was killed at around 1715 to 1730 at the v as it’s believed then I think the joint she had could speak volumes. Where and when did she get it. I’ve tried to list any possibilities below that I can think of that might fit, but I’m sure there are lots I’ve not come up with.

It Takes 20-30 mins to show in blood meaning 1645 to 1710 is the latest she could have had a smoke. It could not be at school, or on way home as friends confirmed this I believe so has to be after, putting her at home, maybe between the time of txting Luke and leaving the house she stole a few puffs from a j her bro had without him knowing before she left. he was smoking cannabis in his room that evening, was he not with his mum when Jodi nipped back upstair before heading out?

Or if not at home it has to be somewhere very close as 1710 latest she could have had this joint. Could she have popped into somewhere close by before heading down the path, is there time?

If she did not go somewhere before down the path then she might have met the boys on the moped at the v at, they could have been having a smoke with Jodi, but if they left at 1715 that only leaves 15 mins for Luke to meet Jodi, argue, fight, kill, strip, mutilate, tidy up, is that enough time?

If it was Luke, earliest Luke could meet Jodi is 1705 and dead at 1725, going by call made to ao at 1732. Only way I can see this fit is If Luke gives her a joint at 1705 soon as she gets to v, maybe a fight broke out, she was unconscious at 1715, so boys on moped did not see or hear anything, once they leave he started to strip her she wakes up, kills her at 1725, can’t be before as joint would not show up in her system if he gave her it, giving him a few mins to strip rest of her, if not already done, cause the injuries that were post-mortem (im not 100% sure what these were)check himself and the scene, taking of any soiled clothes ie parka and start down the path to call ao at 1732, very tight fit, but could it be done in your opinion? I think it’s far to tight a timeframe.

Only other options i can see is she was not killed at 1715 -1730 and can’t be Luke.

I understand the complexity of this case but much of what you said makes sense to a point. Imagine though what happens at the scene let alone getting to the point where the murder occurs. A fight ensues and there is evidence to suggest Jodi is knocked unconscious , at this point the stripping may have began but then Jodi get away as the main point with the most blood is further into the woodland area. She has to be moved back and then calmly mutilated post mortem. The scene then has to be cleaned and Luke has to make his way home to clean himself up to be seen at the end of the road at 15:50.
There is also evidence to suggest this time isn’t accurate as the boys claimed they would normally wait till the father was home before going on to play on their bikes. The father usually came home around the 17:30-35 so it’s possibly earlier that the boys so Luke. How does he do it!!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 15, 2019, 06:19:PM
i allways thught that 530 or so would be to early to comit a murder in a public place without being seen

as we know fought back she must of made a noise.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 06:23:PM

as we know fought back she must of made a noise.

again with the "must have"?

How must she have made a noise to fight back and defend herself?

She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force before she knew she was being murdered.

Defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We're talking minutes here before she's unconscious. Not that hard to believe no one was passing at that exact moment even if she was shouting or something or whatever you're implying she "Must" have been doing while fighting back.

On the contrary, blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away after realising what was unfolding.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 06:24:PM
i allways thught that 530 or so would be to early to comit a murder in a public place without being seen

OK no one has ever been murdered during the day.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 06:24:PM
Sometimes I think nugnug is a double agent sent to discredit Luke's supporters.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 06:30:PM
Been trying to make sense of the time frame, if she was killed at around 1715 to 1730 at the v as it’s believed then I think the joint she had could speak volumes. Where and when did she get it. I’ve tried to list any possibilities below that I can think of that might fit, but I’m sure there are lots I’ve not come up with.

It Takes 20-30 mins to show in blood meaning 1645 to 1710 is the latest she could have had a smoke. It could not be at school, or on way home as friends confirmed this I believe so has to be after, putting her at home, maybe between the time of txting Luke and leaving the house she stole a few puffs from a j her bro had without him knowing before she left. he was smoking cannabis in his room that evening, was he not with his mum when Jodi nipped back upstair before heading out?

Or if not at home it has to be somewhere very close as 1710 latest she could have had this joint. Could she have popped into somewhere close by before heading down the path, is there time?

If she did not go somewhere before down the path then she might have met the boys on the moped at the v at, they could have been having a smoke with Jodi, but if they left at 1715 that only leaves 15 mins for Luke to meet Jodi, argue, fight, kill, strip, mutilate, tidy up, is that enough time?

If it was Luke, earliest Luke could meet Jodi is 1705 and dead at 1725, going by call made to ao at 1732. Only way I can see this fit is If Luke gives her a joint at 1705 soon as she gets to v, maybe a fight broke out, she was unconscious at 1715, so boys on moped did not see or hear anything, once they leave he started to strip her she wakes up, kills her at 1725, can’t be before as joint would not show up in her system if he gave her it, giving him a few mins to strip rest of her, if not already done, cause the injuries that were post-mortem (im not 100% sure what these were)check himself and the scene, taking of any soiled clothes ie parka and start down the path to call ao at 1732, very tight fit, but could it be done in your opinion? I think it’s far to tight a timeframe.

Only other options i can see is she was not killed at 1715 -1730 and can’t be Luke.


She was smoking weed that lunchtime at school at the china gardens.

Even if the murder wasn't 1715-1730, this doesn't eliminate Luke.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 15, 2019, 06:36:PM
again with the "must have"?

How must she have made a noise to fight back and defend herself?

She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force before she knew she was being murdered.

Defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We're talking minutes here before she's unconscious. Not that hard to believe no one was passing at that exact moment even if she was shouting or something or whatever you're implying she "Must" have been doing while fighting back.



On the contrary, blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away after realising what was unfolding.

how do you know we are minutes talking theres no evdence of how long it was the only person who would know would be the person who killed her..
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 15, 2019, 06:51:PM
OK no one has ever been murdered during the day.

well its very hard to comit a murder in a public place in a public place in broad daylight without witness.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 15, 2019, 07:08:PM

She was smoking weed that lunchtime at school at the china gardens.

Even if the murder wasn't 1715-1730, this doesn't eliminate Luke.

If correct, that would account for it. But I thought her friends confirmed they didn’t smoke at school, lunch or after school that day, meaning it was more than likely to between the time she got home and was killed, if the police guess at the time of death was correct then that’s between 1600 and 1710 apx.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 15, 2019, 07:34:PM
Please bear with me - I'll try to get to everyone's points this evening - it' likely to be a long post, though!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 07:45:PM
again with the "must have"?

How must she have made a noise to fight back and defend herself?

She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force before she knew she was being murdered.

Defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We're talking minutes here before she's unconscious. Not that hard to believe no one was passing at that exact moment even if she was shouting or something or whatever you're implying she "Must" have been doing while fighting back.

On the contrary, blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away after realising what was unfolding.

I must admit I agree with you here!! There’s no need to make a noise if you know the person who is attacking you, until that point where even they exceed the ability to produce a knife and actually kill you. I don’t believe Jodi was expecting what was to come but then again that’s pretty certain wether it was luke  or someone else.

To say that no one was there to hear her is crazy though mate when two close family members/friends were exactly where the murder took place at the exact time. Unless your trying to say that’s not the case?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 07:48:PM
again with the "must have"?

How must she have made a noise to fight back and defend herself?

She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force before she knew she was being murdered.

Defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We're talking minutes here before she's unconscious. Not that hard to believe no one was passing at that exact moment even if she was shouting or something or whatever you're implying she "Must" have been doing while fighting back.

On the contrary, blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away after realising what was unfolding.

Can you explain to why you know the injury that might have made Jodi unconscious was to the back of the head????
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 15, 2019, 07:54:PM
I must admit I agree with you here!! There’s no need to make a noise if you know the person who is attacking you, until that point where even they exceed the ability to produce a knife and actually kill you. I don’t believe Jodi was expecting what was to come but then again that’s pretty certain wether it was luke  or someone else.

To say that no one was there to hear her is crazy though mate when two close family members/friends were exactly where the murder took place at the exact time. Unless your trying to say that’s not the case?

he you ever seen a fight happen in complete silence.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 07:59:PM
I never said complete silence! In the end there was a supposed argument so no there was noise but not necessarily enough to alert people that someone was in danger.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 08:08:PM
I must admit I agree with you here!! There’s no need to make a noise if you know the person who is attacking you, until that point where even they exceed the ability to produce a knife and actually kill you. I don’t believe Jodi was expecting what was to come but then again that’s pretty certain wether it was luke  or someone else.

To say that no one was there to hear her is crazy though mate when two close family members/friends were exactly where the murder took place at the exact time. Unless your trying to say that’s not the case?

I'm saying it's obviously not the case or they would have.

The cyclist heard it.

He didn't encounter any moped at the V.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 08:12:PM
If correct, that would account for it. But I thought her friends confirmed they didn’t smoke at school, lunch or after school that day, meaning it was more than likely to between the time she got home and was killed, if the police guess at the time of death was correct then that’s between 1600 and 1710 apx.

That's not true. Alister Leitch testified to smoking hash with Luke and Jodi in the chinese gardens on the day of the murder. school lunchtime.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 15, 2019, 08:14:PM
That's not true. Alister Leitch testified to smoking hash with Luke and Jodi in the chinese gardens on the day of the murder. school lunchtime.

why have you avioded gordos qustion.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 15, 2019, 08:15:PM
Can you explain to why you know the injury that might have made Jodi unconscious was to the back of the head????

yes how do you know that lithum
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 08:24:PM
I'm saying it's obviously not the case or they would have.

The cyclist heard it.

He didn't encounter any moped at the V.

The bike was witnessed there by more then one individual, it was part of the court case. Jelly was most probably mistaken in what time he was one the path. Jodi was there at the same time as those two on the bike that’s for sure, she didn’t make a noise because she didn’t expect things to get to the extent they became.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 08:26:PM
oh right

cos i did it obviously

You were pretty clear as to what happened! She was running away and received a blow to the back of the head is what you said. Pretty easy can you explain why you know this!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 08:56:PM
Was her throat not cut from behind when she was trying to crawl away after being struck? Hence no blood spurt on Luke?

The way I picture it is an altercation became physical, Jodi tried to get away, was struck from behind, and ultimately killed with the cut to the carotid while incapacitated, defenceless and on the ground, possibly barely conscious or unconscious. I believe the tying up and the mutilation were all post-mortem and was just Luke's morbid curiosity after the fact, when he found himself there with a lifeless body. Or maybe even the staging of a random lunatic murder to hide the fact it was a domestic got out of hand...

Just postulating same way nugnug apparently "Knows" she must have marked her attacker and must have been making a load of noise.

He must've been there eh.

I'm sure you have your own scenarios gordo?


You and nugnug are really doing your side no favours by implying it must have been me because I'm postulating. Aren't we all.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:03:PM
So you saying you basically came up with it?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 09:04:PM
So you saying you basically came up with it?

Yes it's my personal theory based on the trial evidence.

What's yours?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:06:PM
Was her throat not cut from behind when she was trying to crawl away after being struck? Hence no blood spurt on Luke?

The way I picture it is an altercation became physical, Jodi tried to get away, was struck from behind, and ultimately killed with the cut to the carotid while incapacitated, defenceless and on the ground, possibly barely conscious or unconscious. I believe the tying up and the mutilation were all post-mortem and was just Luke's morbid curiosity after the fact, when he found himself there with a lifeless body. Or maybe even the staging of a random lunatic murder to hide the fact it was a domestic got out of hand...

Just postulating same way nugnug apparently "Knows" she must have marked her attacker and must have been making a load of noise.

He must've been there eh.

I'm sure you have your own scenarios gordo?


You and nugnug are really doing your side no favours by implying it must have been me because I'm postulating. Aren't we all.

The tying up couldn’t be post-mortem as the blood on the trousers is testimony to that, it was not on the twisted parts or in the tied areas of the trousers but substantial enough to suggest it was part of the murder itself
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 09:12:PM
So Jodi put up a violent fight to the end but ended up with her jeans off and kneeled there letting someone tie her up?

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:12:PM
In saying that I have been discussing this case for nearly 16 years and although I know the injuries inflicted I’m not of the same opinion. I certainly wouldn’t put out as fact that she had been incapacitated due to a blow on the back of the head while trying to run away. If you do indeed believe you have a better understanding of the case than nugnug I don’t remember him ever having said that either
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 09:12:PM
I don't think I've put anything out as fact. I'm just an anonymous forum poster discussing a case the same as you.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:15:PM
So Jodi put up a violent fight to the end but ended up with her jeans off and kneeled there letting someone tie her up?

Jodi put a fight up that’s for sure! She was unconscious at some point also as testimony I feel from the blood and saliva on the inside of the hood of the hoodie she had on. Once that was the case the stripping tying etc would follow. She was not dead at that point though.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:20:PM
I don't think I've put anything out as fact. I'm just an anonymous forum poster discussing a case the same as you.

I can get that also as we all have our own theories and thought about the possibilities of that night. We might come to things from a different angle and belief but in the end it’s not fair to ourselves to put that into prose. You are an intelligent person and when things that have never came up before suddenly enter the discussion it’s hard to simple dismiss them as merely a mistake.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 15, 2019, 09:29:PM
I can get that also as we all have our own theories and thought about the possibilities of that night. We might come to things from a different angle and belief but in the end it’s not fair to ourselves to put that into prose. You are an intelligent person and when things that have never came up before suddenly enter the discussion it’s hard to simple dismiss them as merely a mistake.

I have seen similar comments about  blow to the back of the head.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 09:32:PM
I have seen similar comments about  blow to the back of the head.

It was discussed at trial and isn't new information at all.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:32:PM
Really! Where as the police only surmised that there was a blow to the head. The fact Jodi was unconscious kinda supported the conclusion but exactly where to the head I don’t remember ever coming out.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:34:PM
It was discussed at trial and isn't new information at all.

In a circumstantial case the finer details of where the blow to the head took place was discussed at trial? I honestly don’t remember that ever being put forward.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 15, 2019, 09:40:PM
Really! Where as the police only surmised that there was a blow to the head. The fact Jodi was unconscious kinda supported the conclusion but exactly where to the head I don’t remember ever coming out.

Surely all of the head injuries will be detailed in the autopsy report?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:43:PM
I’m not sure about that but I would expect so to, I wouldn’t expect lithium to be party to the report though!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 09:44:PM
Ok well I'm gonna do again what you pulled me up for last time because I too have followed this case from the start but have forgotten a lot, but perhaps Sandra can discuss the blunt force blow to the back of the head, since she has everything at hand.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 15, 2019, 09:46:PM
I’m not sure about that but I would expect so to, I wouldn’t expect lithium to be party to the report though!

No, but things do get leaked and perhaps like me, he just read it. Thing is, she did have extensive head injuries so likely did receive a blow to the back of the head. Perhaps Sandra has seen the autopsy report?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 09:50:PM
I’m not disagreeing with the head injuries, she had extensive bruising to the head and areas of hair being Luke’s out. She also had signs of being struck with a blunt instrument possible causing unconsciousness but to be that precise!!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 09:54:PM
Will Innocents Betrayed ever be released in ebook format? Would be handy to be able to search by word etc.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 15, 2019, 10:07:PM
I don’t think so as it become quite cheap and all the proceeds go to the long road to justice campaign. The charges or fees for it are also crippling
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 15, 2019, 10:33:PM
I’m not sure about that but I would expect so to, I wouldn’t expect lithium to be party to the report though!

unless he is one of loathen and borders finist.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 15, 2019, 11:00:PM
unless he is one of loathen and borders finist.

(https://i.imgur.com/gg5Sy4b.gif)
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 16, 2019, 06:19:AM
Good morning. As you’re about to see, keeping up with this rate of posts/questions is extremely difficult – if I’ve missed anything, let me know and I’ll try to get back to it as soon as I can.

Caroline said,
Quote
The pathologist didn’t say she put up a violent struggle, that was inferred by the reporter
then quoted Wikipedia in support.

Donald Findlay asked the pathologist, at trial, if Jodi's injuries suggested she had "fought literally to the death". Prof Busuttil said: "Indeed so, yes." Findlay pointed out that when a doctor examined Luke, "not a bump, scratch, bruise or abrasion" was found which could be linked to the time Jodi died. Busuttil replied "That is so."

Quote
not sure what you mean by post mortem for the defence

I mean exactly that – the defence had no opportunity to carry out its own examination of the body because Jodi was buried 10 weeks after the murder, before any arrest was made. Therefore, the defence had to rely on information produced by the Crown.

Quote
Did you not interview the pathologist for your book?
Not for Innocents Betrayed, no. I did speak to him when I was writing No Smoke, though.

Quote
If they didn’t, I am surprised that fingernail scrapping were not taken

I didn’t say they weren’t taken, I said they used the wrong technique and therefore destroyed the opportunity for forensic evidence to be properly recovered.

Bullseye asked about timings – I’ll answer that in a separate post.

Lithium said
Quote
She was likely beat unconscious with blunt force… blunt force injury to the back of the head shows she actually tried to run away

No, it doesn’t! The only mention of Jodi being rendered semi or unconscious in the pathology report was in relation to strangulation, not blunt force injury. The pathologist suggested the blow to the back of the head may, in fact have been caused by Jodi’s head being hit against e.g the wall.

The suggestion that she was hit over the head with a “blunt instrument” came from Craig Dobbie, who suggested she was hit with a large branch – there was zero evidence to support that. None of the recovered branches had impact staining – they all had only drips or spots of blood, none of them consistent with a blow.

Quote
She was smoking weed that lunchtime in the China Gardens

Even if she was (and the evidence of Alistair Leitch isn’t specific about whether Jodi was smoking), the cannabis in her system, according to the toxicologist, had been ingested less than 2 hours before she died - if the lunchtime cannabis accounts for the cannabis in her system when she was killed, she must have died before 3pm – while she was still at school.

Quote
defensive injuries for a skinny 14 year old girl unfortunately probably mean she was futilely able to block a couple of blows. We’re talking minutes here before she was unconscious

According to the pathology report, Jodi was strangled into semi or unconsciousness at some point during the attack. There was evidence to suggest punching (e.g. lip burst on the inside by being brought into contact with teeth, bruising to eye and temple area), kicking/stamping (including a possible partial shoe imprint on Jodi’s skin), dragging by the hair (hair pulled out by the roots, soil staining on socks), struggle taking place in different areas of the woodland strip (distribution of blood spots), walking or crawling on soil without shoes (soil staining on socks, soil in fingernails) – none of this could have happened when Jodi was semi or unconscious or “within a couple of minutes” – in particular, the bruising had developed and was visible, which is rarely immediate. Nor could the deep defence wounds to her arms, one of which would, in itself, have been life threatening, according to the pathologist. So either, the strangling was the last thing to happen before the cut-throat injuries that killed her (and after all of the above), or it happened at an earlier point and Jodi regained consciousness and tried (again) to get away from her attacker. It’s unlikely Jodi would have been able to crawl after the injuries to her arms.

Quote
the cyclist heard it

Not in his original statements he didn’t. He initially said he heard a sound behind the wall “like branches moving.” He stopped to listen, but heard no more. That was later changed to “a struggling sound” which was changed again to “a strangling sound.” This is the guy who said, in his evidence, that he was extremely nervous because he felt like the police were treating him as a suspect, in response to Donald Findlay’s questions about how the sound of branches moving became “a struggling sound” and then a “strangling sound” – make of that what you will.

Quote
was her throat not cut from behind as she tried to crawl away after being struck, hence no blood spurt on Luke?

Almost certainly not. The prosecution contention was that her throat was cut from behind while she was sitting or kneeling, facing the wall. For this to be even remotely possible, she would have to be kneeling (because of the distribution of blood on the trousers). But, if this was the final act, after the blows to the arms, etc, it’s unlikely Jodi would have been able to sit or kneel on her own – the attacker would have had to hold her in that position making it extremely unlikely he would have escaped bloodstaining (by then, Jodi was bleeding heavily from a number of wounds – lip, face, arms). If she was trying to crawl away, that had to be before the injuries to the arms. There is, in fact, no solid evidence to suggest Jodi’s throat was cut from behind – for example, the cuts were in both directions laterally, not the result of a “sawing motion,” but slash injuries. It would be virtually impossible to inflict such injuries from behind.

Quote
surely all the head injuries will be detailed in the autopsy report

Yes, they are. All of the injuries are. I’m not sure what that adds to the discussion. There was a large area of bruising to the back of the head caused by “blunt force” but not necessarily a blow by an object. There was extensive bruising to Jodi’s face, cheek, jaw, temple, forehead, hands, the cut from her mouth to her ear was inflicted while she was alive, the knife wound that pierced her tonsil was inflicted post mortem, it’s unclear whether the cut to her earlobe or the puncture wound in her forehead were inflicted before or after death. Clumps of hair were pulled out by the roots, some of these were found entangled in her hands and fingers.

I’ll come back to the timing of the stripping and tying of Jodi’s body in a separate post.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 16, 2019, 07:40:AM
Been trying to make sense of the time frame, if she was killed at around 1715 to 1730 at the v as it’s believed then I think the joint she had could speak volumes. Where and when did she get it. I’ve tried to list any possibilities below that I can think of that might fit, but I’m sure there are lots I’ve not come up with.

The prosecution contention is that Jodi was killed at exactly 5.15pm, in order to fit with their other timings. A time frame of between 5.15 and 5.30 makes all of that timing untenable, but that's another discussion in its own right. I, too, believe the joint she had is significant.

Quote
It Takes 20-30 mins to show in blood meaning 1645 to 1710 is the latest she could have had a smoke. It could not be at school, or on way home as friends confirmed this I believe so has to be after, putting her at home, maybe between the time of txting Luke and leaving the house she stole a few puffs from a j her bro had without him knowing before she left. he was smoking cannabis in his room that evening, was he not with his mum when Jodi nipped back upstair before heading out?

Since the cannabis was ingested "less than 2 hours before she died" according to the toxicologist, if Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, the latest she could have smoked was 4.45 - 4.55pm. If she was the person seen by Bryson at 4.54pm, she wasn't smoking then. She wasn't smoking when she was listening to the Rod Stewart track around 4.40pm, (the last text in the exchange with Luke was at 4.38) so there's only a tiny window of opportunity for her to have smoked that joint if she was killed at 5.15pm.

It's difficult to know exactly when Jodi "nipped back upstairs" because her mum's statements kept changing. In her early statements, she said Jodi came in from school, dropped her bag in the hall and went upstairs. She came down later (about 5 o'clock) and announced she was going out. Later statements said Jodi came in from school, chatted to her mum, may have gone into the kitchen for something to eat before going upstairs, coming back down, going back up again and then leaving (this is the statement in which Judith said Jodi was sitting on the couch "trying to talk to me" - Judith was telling her to "be quiet, shoo and go out." She later explained this as being her way of letting Jodi know she was no longer grounded.) The final account was that Jodi came in from school, went upstairs to get changed then came down and sat in the living room with her mother and brother, chatting, and they listened to the Rod Stewart track. In this account, Jodi went back upstairs "for about three minutes," came back down, kissed her mum, asked her to keep some lasagne for later and left. There are no other statements to confirm or refute any of this - AO, for example, said he heard the door banging when he was in the toilet and assumed that was Jodi leaving (meaning he'd been in the toilet approximately 10 minutes, if the timings are correct), but he didn't say he heard anyone going upstairs or coming back down.

The amount of cannabis in Jodi's system suggested she'd smoked a joint (not just a few puffs)

Quote
Or if not at home it has to be somewhere very close as 1710 latest she could have had this joint. Could she have popped into somewhere close by before heading down the path, is there time?

Probably not. If she left home at 4.50pm and was the person seen by AB at 4.54pm, there are just 21 minutes for her to get from the entrance to the path to the V break, over the wall, for the whole attack to take place (see my previous post) before the fatal wound at 5.15pm. She would have needed around 10 - 11 minutes minimum to get to the V point (police timings), leaving just 11 minutes for her to have gone elsewhere first, smoked a joint and then for all of the above to have happened.

Quote
If she did not go somewhere before down the path then she might have met the boys on the moped at the v at, they could have been having a smoke with Jodi, but if they left at 1715 that only leaves 15 mins for Luke to meet Jodi, argue, fight, kill, strip, mutilate, tidy up, is that enough time?

The evidence doesn't support them leaving the V point at 5.15pm. According to their amended statements, they got back to Dickie's house "about 5.30pm" - it would only have taken them a couple of minutes on the moped, which, according to these statements, they'd got going again.

There were exactly 17 minutes between 5.15pm and Luke's call to Jodi's landline at 5.32pm. Again, in view of what we know about the attack prior to the fatal wound and the post mortem events (stripping, tying, mutilation etc), if Luke did it in this timescale, it raises a number of questions quite aside from the timing (which, I believe is too tight.)

(Why would he take the risk of alerting Jodi's family that she was not where she was supposed to be at 5.32pm - he couldn't have known the call would go unanswered, or that Jodi's family wouldn't have immediately sent someone out to look for her, since she'd been gone 40 minutes by then).

Other questions:

Who was the male seen at the Easthouses end of the path if Luke wasn't in the woodland strip until 5.15pm?

If Luke was the person seen by AB, then he would have been present if Jodi met the boys on the moped - they have never said they met either Jodi or Luke that day, even though their bike was propped against the wall at 5.15pm and they didn't get back to Dickie's house until "about 5.30pm"

If Jodi wasn't killed until nearer 5.30pm, allowing for all the post mortem events, etc, the person seen by Fleming and Walsh on the Newbattle Road (originally timed at "about quarter to six") would have been there literally within a few minutes of stripping, tying and mutilating Jodi's body, yet there was no sign of him being agitated, trying to flee, being bloodstained - he was simply standing there, looking at the pavement.


Quote
If it was Luke, earliest Luke could meet Jodi is 1705 and dead at 1725, going by call made to ao at 1732. Only way I can see this fit is If Luke gives her a joint at 1705 soon as she gets to v, maybe a fight broke out, she was unconscious at 1715, so boys on moped did not see or hear anything, once they leave he started to strip her she wakes up, kills her at 1725, can’t be before as joint would not show up in her system if he gave her it, giving him a few mins to strip rest of her, if not already done, cause the injuries that were post-mortem (im not 100% sure what these were)check himself and the scene, taking of any soiled clothes ie parka and start down the path to call ao at 1732, very tight fit, but could it be done in your opinion? I think it’s far to tight a timeframe.

Depends what you mean about the earliest Luke could have met Jodi - there was never a suggestion that he met her "at the V" (although, of course, that's a possibility that should have been checked out). As previously stated, if Jodi was the person seen at 4.54pm by AB, the earliest she could have arrived at the V, as you say, is 5.05pm but, that being the case, there are only 10 minutes left for everything, up to the fatal blow (and including the smoking of a joint) to take place. (On another note, I don't use cannabis, but from what I know of others who do, would it not be strange for such a violent argument to erupt after two people had just smoked a joint?)

If, as the evidence suggests, the person seen by AB was not Jodi, but the person seen by other witnesses on the Easthouses Road at about 5.05pm was Jodi, this pushes the earliest time Jodi could have reached the V point to 5.17pm (allowing the extra two minutes for her to reach the entrance to the path). If she smoked at that point, the earliest she could have been killed (and have cannabis detectable in her system) is 5.37pm - just one minute before Luke's 5.38 call to the landline.

Both of these possible times of death (5.25pm and 5.37pm) then run into difficulties with the various sightings at the Newbattle end. The original timing of Fleming and Walsh's sighting was about quarter to six. The post mortem events were not "rushed," according to the prosecution case - the attacker became "icily calm" and, according to the pathologist, the post mortem injuries were inflicted with some precision and deliberation. The claimed post mortem events are:

Possible further cuts to the throat after the fatal wound (there were betweeen 12 and 20 cuts - we don't know which one was the fatal one inflicted at 5.15pm and neither do the police).
Jodi's t shirt and bra cut and pulled off
Her trousers and underwear taken off (not cut)
Her hands tied behind her back with her trousers
Her abdomen and breast slashed
Cuts to her eyelids inflicted (not penetrating through to the eyeballs)
Knife pushed into her mouth, piercing a tonsil
Body moved from the foot of the wall to the position, at right angles to the wall, where she was found

Other post mortem events which would have to have occurred if Luke was the killer:
Scene cleared of any DNA/forensic evidence that would place him there (leaving the DNA of others and various other forensic traces, e.g. short, colourless hairs)
Disposal of any bloodstained clothing
Removal of every trace of the murder from himself
Disposal of the murder weapon.

If he was the person seen by Fleming and Walsh, allowing the 5 minutes he'd need to get from the scene to the Newbattle Road, he had either 15 minutes if ToD was 5.25pm based on the discredited Bryson sighting, or 3 minutes if the ToD was 5.37pm, based on the more realistic 5.05pm sighting on the Easthouses Road, to achieve all of that. We know, for certain, he was seen sitting on a wall at the end of his street at about five to six - if he was still in possession of the clothing he needed destroyed at 5.45pm (wearing the parka in plain view, according to F & W) he had just 10 minutes to get from the Newbattle end of the path to his home (7 minutes at a brisk pace), dump the clothing, get himself forensically clean and be back on the wall (another 2 minutes at a brisk pace) at five to six. 

Quote
Only other options i can see is she was not killed at 1715 -1730 and can’t be Luke.

I agree - not only is there nothing to support the claim that Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, all of the credible evidence points away from that as ToD.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 16, 2019, 11:24:AM
How could the tying of the jeans be post-mortem when there was no blood in the bounds of the knot but on the surface of the jeans themselves ? She had to have been wearing the t-shirt when killed as it was saturated so certainly partially clothed at the time of the murder.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 16, 2019, 12:11:PM
Hi Sandra, thanks for the reply - a lot to digest but the point about the defense not being able to have their own post mortem? A post mortem isn't for the prosecution or the defense - the pathologist is independent of the police. I know this is the case for England and Wales, is this not the case in Scotland?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 16, 2019, 12:14:PM
Thanks for the info Sandra. I think every answer just raises another load of questions, sorry lol.

If it was a full joint that usually takes a wee bit time to smoke, more than a quick couple, so I don’t think that could be at home going on what you have said. A quick couple of puffs maybe but not a full j, so places her on route to the path or on the path itself. I can’t see her walking along her street puffing on a j at 5pm (or anytime), so more likely to be the path. Giving the time for the weed to show in her system I just feel it’s too tight a time frame to be Luke imo.

I’ve been a smoker for over 20 years. Never seen anyone arguments turn violent because of weed, unless they were fighting over who it belongs too or money being due, IMO never turned violent due to smoking, drink yes, smoking no. But I have heard if you have violent tendencies it can enhance that, I’ve just never witnessed it, more the complete opposite, too stoned to bother lol.

Regards the 2 boys on the bikes, Gordo had said “There is also evidence to suggest this time isn’t accurate as the boys claimed they would normally wait till the father was home before going on to play on their bikes. The father usually came home around the 17:30-35 so it’s possibly earlier that the boys so Luke. How does he do it!!”

If this is correct, was there any other sightings of Luke after this time, just always wondered what other theory’s police were looking at and any other times of death. I.e jodi did meet Luke at end of his street,  went back to the v for a smoke, giving him an hour between 6 and 7 to carry it all out.  Not saying that’s what I think happened just wondered if this was ever a working theory.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 16, 2019, 12:15:PM
Some more questions, totally understand if you don’t have the time to answer, must take up so much time replying to everything on here.

Did the guy on the bike on the path smell any weed?

Did the police have any other reason to put tod at 1715, did they know about the 2 boys on moped when this time was accepted or was this info brought to light after?

Was there then or has there been since, any other possible sightings of Jodi or Luke that evening, or anything not used by police?

Was there any footprints at the scene? From the possible partial shoe print were they able to pull any info from that, what type of shoe it may have been, or size.

I think it’s possible, tho unlikely, the killer was not covered in blood but I think their shoes would certainly have had blood on them. Was there ever a pair of Luke’s shoes they suggested were missing? Also their hands would be covered in blood I think. If they wore gloves then that’s premeditated as it was summer so no need to have gloves on them, personally I think it was spur of the moment so no gloves. I was wondering if there is a steam or water near the area where they may have cleaned up a little?

I think the knife and any soiled clothing could have simply been put in a bin. Did the police not allow the bin men to empty the bins in the area very soon after the murder?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 16, 2019, 12:20:PM
How could the tying of the jeans be post-mortem when there was no blood in the bounds of the knot but on the surface of the jeans themselves ? She had to have been wearing the t-shirt when killed as it was saturated so certainly partially clothed at the time of the murder.

That's what I don't understand Gordo - the lack of blood in the knots suggests they were tied before blood was shed, but the prosecution contention is that they were tied after Jodi was dead. It doesn't make any sense. Likewise, whether she was sitting or kneeling at the wall when the cut-throat injuries were inflicted, it's highly unlikely that the jeans would have escaped blood staining, with the exception of a few drips to the bottom back of one of the legs.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 16, 2019, 12:24:PM
Hi Sandra, thanks for the reply - a lot to digest but the point about the defense not being able to have their own post mortem? A post mortem isn't for the prosecution or the defense - the pathologist is independent of the police. I know this is the case for England and Wales, is this not the case in Scotland?

Apologies, I should have worded that more clearly. Yes, the pathologist is independent of the police, but the prosecution case is based on the Crown's interpretation of the post mortem results in conjunction with the other evidence supplied to them by the police. If there are contentious issues in that interpretation, it is open for the defence to request a second examination (rather than simply a second opinion), but, since Jodi was buried 10 weeks after the murder, that possibility was lost.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 16, 2019, 12:47:PM

Regards the 2 boys on the bikes, Gordo had said “There is also evidence to suggest this time isn’t accurate as the boys claimed they would normally wait till the father was home before going on to play on their bikes. The father usually came home around the 17:30-35 so it’s possibly earlier that the boys so Luke. How does he do it!!”

If this is correct, was there any other sightings of Luke after this time, just always wondered what other theory’s police were looking at and any other times of death. I.e jodi did meet Luke at end of his street,  went back to the v for a smoke, giving him an hour between 6 and 7 to carry it all out.  Not saying that’s what I think happened just wondered if this was ever a working theory.

It's never been a working theory, Bullseye, because they were looking at tod of 5.15pm from very early in the investigation. To my knowledge, no other time of death was considered - an expert was brought in to identify a "window of opportunity" for Luke to have been the killer (but not for anyone else) - she pinpointed 5.15pm and that was the time they ran with.

If Jodi met Luke at the end of his street after 6pm (the boys on the bikes didn't see her either on their way down the Newbattle Road or with Luke on the wall at the end of the street), you'd then be looking at the two of them getting to the V point without being seen by anyone (they could have gone through the Abbey grounds and into the woodland strip from there, but that would bring them out at the Easthouses end of the path at the opposite side of the wall. To get from there to the V point (behind the wall, not in front of it) would then mean they'd have to make their way back down towards Newbattle - it would take them about 10 - 12 minutes to the top of the path from the Abbey at a "brisk pace", they'd need another 7 - 10 minutes to get down from there to the V point, leaving around 30 minutes for the attack, murder, clean up to happen before Luke made his way back to the Abbey to meet his friends. In that same time, he'd have to dispose of all incriminating evidence and remove all traces of the attack from himself, since his friends noticed nothing at all untoward about him that evening.

No-one has ever come forward to say they saw a couple matching Luke and Jodi's descriptions walking up the Newbattle Road around 6pm that evening, or anyone matching Jodi's description walking down the Newbattle Road between say, 5.50 and 6pm, even though, initially, the "window" police were focusing on for witnesses was between 5pm and 10pm.

It would also beg the question, where was Jodi between 4.50pm, when it is claimed she left home, and 6pm (if she met Luke at the end of his street then)? That's a period of 70 minutes for a walk that should only have taken her 20 - 25 minutes.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 16, 2019, 01:02:PM
Some more questions, totally understand if you don’t have the time to answer, must take up so much time replying to everything on here.

This will have to be my last lot for now!!!

Quote
Did the guy on the bike on the path smell any weed?

He never mentioned it in any of his statements.

Quote
Did the police have any other reason to put tod at 1715, did they know about the 2 boys on moped when this time was accepted or was this info brought to light after?

No, the boys on the moped lied about the time they were at the V point and it wasn't until weeks later that the truth was uncovered - tod had been decided by then. Unfortunately, the truth of the time they were on the path was available to the investigation, it just wasn't properly followed up on until weeks later.

Quote
Was there then or has there been since, any other possible sightings of Jodi or Luke that evening, or anything not used by police?
That's a big question! There was loads of information not used by the police, but, if there were other possible sightings of Luke or Jodi that evening, they were never released to the defence.

Quote
Was there any footprints at the scene? From the possible partial shoe print were they able to pull any info from that, what type of shoe it may have been, or size.

From memory, there were 11 footwear marks identified, casts taken of just 4. No usable information was discovered (or, if it was, it wasn't released to the defence). The soles of Luke's boots had very distinctive treads - if marks from those had been found close to the body, that would have been quite strong evidence, but, since such evidence was never produced, we have to assume there was none (otherwise they would have used it.

Quote
I think it’s possible, tho unlikely, the killer was not covered in blood but I think their shoes would certainly have had blood on them. Was there ever a pair of Luke’s shoes they suggested were missing? Also their hands would be covered in blood I think. If they wore gloves then that’s premeditated as it was summer so no need to have gloves on them, personally I think it was spur of the moment so no gloves. I was wondering if there is a steam or water near the area where they may have cleaned up a little?

None of Luke's shoes/boots were ever claimed to be missing. The only gloves ever to come into the investigation were the ones found in Yvonne Walker's flat - they were "damp and muddy" having been immersed in water,but not run through a washing machine. Ferris claimed he'd worn them the previous weekend and denied any attempt had been made to hide them. No gloves attributable to Luke were ever claimed to be missing.

There's the Mary Burn (accessible at the Easthouses end of the path) or the River Esk where a person could, feasibly, have washed hands. But I think, considering Busuttil's comments in the Frontline documentary, it would have taken more than just hand washing in the river to remove all evidence of the attack.

Quote
I think the knife and any soiled clothing could have simply been put in a bin. Did the police not allow the bin men to empty the bins in the area very soon after the murder?

Possibly, but what bin, where and when? Anyone sharing a home with others and putting clothing and a knife in a bin would be taking the risk of another family member noticing. The person would still have to get from the murder scene to a bin, carrying the murder weapon and carrying (or wearing) blood stained clothing - it was broad daylight and Jodi could have been found at any minute. The bin collections for Easthouses/Newtongrange did go ahead as normal the following morning, that's correct.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 16, 2019, 01:06:PM
Apologies, I should have worded that more clearly. Yes, the pathologist is independent of the police, but the prosecution case is based on the Crown's interpretation of the post mortem results in conjunction with the other evidence supplied to them by the police. If there are contentious issues in that interpretation, it is open for the defence to request a second examination (rather than simply a second opinion), but, since Jodi was buried 10 weeks after the murder, that possibility was lost.

OK, thanks again, I will reply later but can I ask if you have seen the pathologist report and if you know where on Jodie's head was the contusion (referred to by the pathologist) located?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 16, 2019, 03:32:PM

There's the Mary Burn (accessible at the Easthouses end of the path) or the River Esk where a person could, feasibly, have washed hands. But I think, considering Busuttil's comments in the Frontline documentary, it would have taken more than just hand washing in the river to remove all evidence of the attack.

Possibly, but what bin, where and when? Anyone sharing a home with others and putting clothing and a knife in a bin would be taking the risk of another family member noticing. The person would still have to get from the murder scene to a bin, carrying the murder weapon and carrying (or wearing) blood stained clothing - it was broad daylight and Jodi could have been found at any minute. The bin collections for Easthouses/Newtongrange did go ahead as normal the following morning, that's correct.

If the bins were emptied the following day any bin they passed could be the one they used. If they remove jacket/top, roll up the knife/weapon in this, left the scene and dump in a bin, either domestic or commercial. I don’t think they would put it in their own bin, just some random bin they passed on the route they took ASAP after the murder. They might have been noticed with a bloody top or jacket (and a weapon!) but not many would notice blood on the lower trousers or shoes on someone they passed in the street. Also that’s why I was wondering if there was somewhere near they could wash their hands, not to get rid of evidence as such but just so they were clean enough to go un-noticed by anyone they might have passed on their route to wherever they went next.

I just can’t see how the killer could not have some blood on their hands/gloves, sleeves/arms and their top and surely would be worried they could be seen by someone. I know some say it’s possible and I suppose it is, but really what are the chances of that?

No trace on Jodi I can understand as she was left in the rain (how that can happen I’ve no idea, forget about preserving a crime scene, how about treating her like a young girl and a human being!!) But nothing on Luke, his home etc seems unlikely if he did it. Imo he would need to have had a shower to be sure as he could be that he was clean, but when he was at police station he was dirty and grubby. And not even the smallest trace of anything was found. The places Luke was spotted between 1740 and 6pm, were these ever tested for any trace evidence, for transfer from Luke directly after he is meant to have killed her?

How far a walk is it from Luke’s house to the caravan site, I assume quite far, too far for him to have cleaned up there and got back in time to meet his mates? And I’m sure the police would have carried out a full search there also.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 16, 2019, 03:45:PM
Yeah the caravan was closer to Jodi. He must have been in a rush also to do everything needed and I’m still not sure it’s possible to completely decontaminate yourself from a crime like that.

There was a case where someone was wrongly convicted of microscopic bloodlets being found on him. These were caused when he lifted the body and these were expelled from the lungs. Jodi has been moved and it’s that type of dna that he can’t see that would be impossible to remove and leave other samples there.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 16, 2019, 04:29:PM
Yeah the caravan was closer to Jodi. He must have been in a rush also to do everything needed and I’m still not sure it’s possible to completely decontaminate yourself from a crime like that.

There was a case where someone was wrongly convicted of microscopic bloodlets being found on him. These were caused when he lifted the body and these were expelled from the lungs. Jodi has been moved and it’s that type of dna that he can’t see that would be impossible to remove and leave other samples there.

That’s what first tweaked my interest in the case, I always assumed there was some dna linking Luke to the murder, when I read there wasn’t, with it being such a bloody murder, her being found so quick after being reported missing and the fact they had Luke in the police station that night taking samples and clothes, that they would have found something, no matter how small but they didn’t so I started to read up and the more I read the more concerned I got that this was an unsafe conviction. Hence all the questions, I’m still trying to make it fit to Luke. I hope it was Luke, but IMO it looks more like it wasn’t, just want something more than circumstantial evidence based on a time of death best guess by the police. I use to agree Luke “seems the type” and his reading material and stuff he has been reported as writing in jail makes him look even worse, but I’ve learnt from past mistakes of believing all I read in the news and how people can “seem the type” just because of what the papers say, but turns out they were totally wrong remember Christopher Jefferies
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 16, 2019, 04:37:PM
Yeah I’m very similar, I think your right coming at it from the perspective as in the end Luke was convicted of the crime.

I remember everyday listing to what the media was putting out as the trial went on, I was angry as I was like you so confident that they had the right guy. It wasn’t till I listened to the reporter once the verdict came back that I was shocked as I was sure he was going to get off with it. I started to question why I thought that way and I realised that it’s what was said in the media that forced me to think like that. I definitely learned something about myself that day.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 16, 2019, 05:56:PM
If the bins were emptied the following day any bin they passed could be the one they used. If they remove jacket/top, roll up the knife/weapon in this, left the scene and dump in a bin, either domestic or commercial. I don’t think they would put it in their own bin, just some random bin they passed on the route they took ASAP after the murder. They might have been noticed with a bloody top or jacket (and a weapon!) but not many would notice blood on the lower trousers or shoes on someone they passed in the street. Also that’s why I was wondering if there was somewhere near they could wash their hands, not to get rid of evidence as such but just so they were clean enough to go un-noticed by anyone they might have passed on their route to wherever they went next.

I just can’t see how the killer could not have some blood on their hands/gloves, sleeves/arms and their top and surely would be worried they could be seen by someone. I know some say it’s possible and I suppose it is, but really what are the chances of that?

No trace on Jodi I can understand as she was left in the rain (how that can happen I’ve no idea, forget about preserving a crime scene, how about treating her like a young girl and a human being!!) But nothing on Luke, his home etc seems unlikely if he did it. Imo he would need to have had a shower to be sure as he could be that he was clean, but when he was at police station he was dirty and grubby. And not even the smallest trace of anything was found. The places Luke was spotted between 1740 and 6pm, were these ever tested for any trace evidence, for transfer from Luke directly after he is meant to have killed her?

How far a walk is it from Luke’s house to the caravan site, I assume quite far, too far for him to have cleaned up there and got back in time to meet his mates? And I’m sure the police would have carried out a full search there also.

the bins were emptied its alsmost like the police dident want to find the knife well not the police as such the emptying of the bins was entirly the decisn of one policeman and that was criag dobbie.

it was lso him i belive who ordered the crime scene  be cleaned with bleach im not sure if sandra can confirm this.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 16, 2019, 06:08:PM
solving ahih high profile murder genarly leads to promotion but in dobbies case it led to retirement a bit strange.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 16, 2019, 06:40:PM
The walk from Luke's house to Scott's caravans was about 15 minutes from the junction of the paths and 22 minutes from the V point, so if Luke killed Jodi between 6 and 7pm, he'd need 22 minutes from there to Scotts Caravans, 15 minutes back to the big break at the Easthouses end of the path and 10 -12 minutes from there to the Abbey - that's a total of 47 - 49 minutes out of the hour available, leaving 11 minutes for everything else.

That's the thing with this case - every alternate explanation to try to make it Luke runs into the same obstacles. Just like the 5.15pm claimed tod, there's also not enough time for the alternatives.

There was a question about Luke possibly killing Jodi between 9pm and 10pm (on the basis that he arrived home earlier than usual that night because of Jodi's no-show and was seen by a neighbour walking towards his own home around 10pm).

In that scenario, it was suggested, Corinne could have disposed of incriminating evidence between then and when Luke set out to Luke for Jodi (or, at least, before she went to the police station later that night). Luke's alibi for that period is (a) he parted company with his friend at the Abbey gates at "about 9 o'clock" and headed for home, where he watched a video in his room until his mum asked him to take Mia out for her last walk of the evening. The neighbour's sighting, he suggested, was while he was out with the dog and therefore, nearer to 10.30pm.

Again, it's possible that this was when the murder happened and, again, there are problems. The journey to and from the V break would still have been in broad daylight, so he'd have had to get there and back on a public road without being seen, the time to get there and back taking 24 minutes, leaving him 36 minutes to do everything. But if Jodi was murdered at exactly the midpoint of this timeframe 9.30), the attack and murder were happening (a) when Condom Man was there doing what he was doing and (b) the same timescale Ferris abruptly left Dickie's for Yvonne Walker's flat.

We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed".  He'd have to get dirt under his fingernails, make his neck, knees and ankles appear "grubbby" and "unwashed" and meanwhile, Corinne would have to be re-lighting an earlier (innocent) fire in order to dispose of the incriminating clothing. That, in turn, would make it highly unlikely that she burned a fire hot enough to completely incinerate clothing then managed to cool the ashes enough to remove them before she headed for the police station a little after 12.30am.

The other difficulty with this timescale is that Jodi's curfew was 10pm. If her mother had called at, say 10.15pm, the alarm would have been raised then - she could have sent her partner or Jodi's brother down the path right away, raising the chances of Jodi being found very soon after being killed and leaving little to no time for Luke and his mother to do what would have been necessary.

All of this guesswork, however, should have been unnecessary. There was evidence gathered (and examined by experts) that would have given a much more accurate estimate of the actual time Jodi died. That evidence has never been released to the defence, nor was it ever used by the prosecution. I can't say more about that at the moment, unfortunately.



Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 16, 2019, 06:58:PM
I don't know who ordered the scene to be bleached, since we only found out about it because the Yorkshire dog experts included the information in their reports, stating that the dogs were "hampered" by the scene having been bleached. We don't even know when it was bleached, other than that it was within the first 10 - 12 days, which means it was bleached while the police were still searching it for evidence (the path wasn't re-opened until July 16th).

The bins being emptied seems to have been a complete oversight - one of the workers at the skip (as it was then - recycling centre now) - took a decision to hold off emptying the bin lorries in anticipation of a call from the police, but that call simply never came.

Returning to Bullseye's theory that the clothing and knife were disposed of in a bin, there would have been no bins on Roan's Dyke path or Lady Path. There may have been bins behind the school (they're usually behind locked gates though), in the grounds of the garage at the Easthouses Road just before the entrance to the path, in the grounds of Redwood House at the Newbattle End, or in the various business premises within the grounds of Newbattle Abbey. If the murder happened at 5.15pm, the chances of being seen disposing of stuff in commercial bins would be higher than if the murder was later.

I think it's unlikely the killer would have gone into a random garden to dump the stuff in a domestic bin and this was before dog bins - the dog fouling act (Scotland) was only at its draft stage in June 2003. So, again, while it's possible the killer dumped the stuff in a random bin, there are difficulties with that theory as well although, as has already been discussed, the failure to check bins in the area means we'll probably never know. If the killer did put it in a bin, he couldn't possibly have known the police would allow the bins to be emptied without checking (an oversight I believe came about because they were so sure Luke was the killer) - a very, very lucky break for him, whoever he is.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 16, 2019, 07:08:PM
I don't know who ordered the scene to be bleached, since we only found out about it because the Yorkshire dog experts included the information in their reports, stating that the dogs were "hampered" by the scene having been bleached. We don't even know when it was bleached, other than that it was within the first 10 - 12 days, which means it was bleached while the police were still searching it for evidence (the path wasn't re-opened until July 16th).

The bins being emptied seems to have been a complete oversight - one of the workers at the skip (as it was then - recycling centre now) - took a decision to hold off emptying the bin lorries in anticipation of a call from the police, but that call simply never came.

Returning to Bullseye's theory that the clothing and knife were disposed of in a bin, there would have been no bins on Roan's Dyke path or Lady Path. There may have been bins behind the school (they're usually behind locked gates though), in the grounds of the garage at the Easthouses Road just before the entrance to the path, in the grounds of Redwood House at the Newbattle End, or in the various business premises within the grounds of Newbattle Abbey. If the murder happened at 5.15pm, the chances of being seen disposing of stuff in commercial bins would be higher than if the murder was later.

I think it's unlikely the killer would have gone into a random garden to dump the stuff in a domestic bin and this was before dog bins - the dog fouling act (Scotland) was only at its draft stage in June 2003. So, again, while it's possible the killer dumped the stuff in a random bin, there are difficulties with that theory as well although, as has already been discussed, the failure to check bins in the area means we'll probably never know. If the killer did put it in a bin, he couldn't possibly have known the police would allow the bins to be emptied without checking (an oversight I believe came about because they were so sure Luke was the killer) - a very, very lucky break for him, whoever he is.

so they have suspect that they have absolutely no forensic evidence against.

and they hen bleach the crime scene they have absolutely of finding any forensic evidence against him

it most like somebody knew they wouldn't anyway.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 16, 2019, 07:59:PM
OK, thanks again, I will reply later but can I ask if you have seen the pathologist report and if you know where on Jodie's head was the contusion (referred to by the pathologist) located?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 17, 2019, 02:23:PM
Is there any update on when the long road to justice site will be up and running?

Also I read in the news last month that James English was trying to get an interview with Luke, is that likely to go ahead any time soon?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2019, 02:34:PM
Is there any update on when the long road to justice site will be up and running?

Also I read in the news last month that James English was trying to get an interview with Luke, is that likely to go ahead any time soon?

i think that will be a long coming it will take a fir bit of negotaion with prison athuritys.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 17, 2019, 05:52:PM
Is there any update on when the long road to justice site will be up and running?

Also I read in the news last month that James English was trying to get an interview with Luke, is that likely to go ahead any time soon?

Unfortunately, the website was hit with a serious of technical problems, which I'm dependent on others to fix for me (and which they're very kindly doing free of charge), so it's out of my hands at the moment. I'll update as soon as I'm able.

I imagine the prison will take its time over the decision about whether or not to allow the interview with James to go ahead or not. There's no reason why they should refuse as there's another lifer, maintaining innocence, who has been allowed to be interviewed on camera, but as with everything in this case, we can't be sure until the decision's finally made.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 17, 2019, 07:18:PM
I see the usual suspects are still on here talking about this scum until the birds start chirping in the morning.  Sandra, do you have other hobbies or interests? Or, do you spend 24 hours a day thinking and talking about Mitchell? I see we are now on the 330th page on the forum.  How many comments must that be? Easily over 1000.  I don’t understand what there is to debate.  It was him and that’s it.  The stoneman done it.  Debating and even considering that it could’ve been someone else is an insult to the victims family. 

It was him.  The debate should cease.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 17, 2019, 07:34:PM
Why don’t you go back to the forum set up to discuss this one!!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2019, 07:52:PM
I see the usual suspects are still on here talking about this scum until the birds start chirping in the morning.  Sandra, do you have other hobbies or interests? Or, do you spend 24 hours a day thinking and talking about Mitchell? I see we are now on the 330th page on the forum.  How many comments must that be? Easily over 1000.  I don’t understand what there is to debate.  It was him and that’s it.  The stoneman done it.  Debating and even considering that it could’ve been someone else is an insult to the victims family. 

It was him.  The debate should cease.

could somone get rid of this werido.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2019, 08:08:PM
Unfortunately, the website was hit with a serious of technical problems, which I'm dependent on others to fix for me (and which they're very kindly doing free of charge), so it's out of my hands at the moment. I'll update as soon as I'm able.

I imagine the prison will take its time over the decision about whether or not to allow the interview with James to go ahead or not. There's no reason why they should refuse as there's another lifer, maintaining innocence, who has been allowed to be interviewed on camera, but as with everything in this case, we can't be sure until the decision's finally made.

well its happend a fair few times in england as they let luke do the lie detecter id be suprised if they dident let him do an interiew.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 17, 2019, 09:31:PM
Would be nice to see Luke trip himself up, unfortunately English is a thick ned with no interview skills. Painful to watch.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 17, 2019, 09:43:PM
Unfortunately, the website was hit with a serious of technical problems, which I'm dependent on others to fix for me (and which they're very kindly doing free of charge), so it's out of my hands at the moment. I'll update as soon as I'm able.

I imagine the prison will take its time over the decision about whether or not to allow the interview with James to go ahead or not. There's no reason why they should refuse as there's another lifer, maintaining innocence, who has been allowed to be interviewed on camera, but as with everything in this case, we can't be sure until the decision's finally made.

It's likely that you missed this question so I will ask once more.

OK, thanks again, I will reply later but can I ask if you have seen the pathologist report and if you know where on Jodie's head was the contusion (referred to by the pathologist) located?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2019, 09:44:PM
Would be nice to see Luke trip himself up, unfortunately English is a thick ned with no interview skills. Painful to watch.

im sure sombody will trip themselves up sooner or later if they havent allready.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 17, 2019, 09:48:PM
im sure ombody will trip themselves up sooner or later if they havent allready.

Well nobody has in 16 years. Also no one else has been butchered. The right man is in jail.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2019, 09:58:PM
Well nobody has in 16 years. Also no one else has been butchered. The right man is in jail.

are you totally sure they havent.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 17, 2019, 09:59:PM
are you totally sure they havent.

Ominous!

You got something to tell us nugget?

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2019, 10:16:PM
Would be nice to see Luke trip himself up, unfortunately English is a thick ned with no interview skills. Painful to watch.

james has offred to presnt the other side hes offred to interview people who think lukes guilty

and h has ofred people mentioned in th interviews right of reply up to them if they want to acept of course.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 17, 2019, 11:42:PM
Why would any of Jodi's family take up his offer to go on there and convince people Luke did it? What planet do you come from? What is there to gain? The conviction speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 17, 2019, 11:47:PM
Why would any of Jodi's family take up his offer to go on there and convince people Luke did it? What planet do you come from? What is there to gain? The conviction speaks for itself.

well im not talking just about jodis family the cops could go on there to tell uus how they cought him craig dobbie could go on there if he wanted to of course.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 17, 2019, 11:54:PM
Get real mate.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 12:04:AM
Get real mate.

why would he not if knows he did a good job in catch why wuld he not want to.

surely he wants to tell us all what a good job he did catching luke and puting him away.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 18, 2019, 12:12:AM
why would he not if knows he did a good job in catch why wuld he not want to.

surely he wants to tell us all what a good job he did catching luke and puting him away.

I think he probably believes the conviction shows that.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 12:19:AM
I think he probably believes the conviction shows that.

most cops would jump at the chance.


Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 18, 2019, 12:39:AM
most cops would jump at the chance.

I take it that this 'English' is someone who is a campaigner? There is no what that the police would enter into a discussion of that nature. Think about the Bamber case, how many officers have allowed the campaign team to interview them?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 12:42:AM
I take it that this 'English' is someone who is a campaigner? There is no what that the police would enter into a discussion of that nature. Think about the Bamber case, how many officers have allowed the campaign team to interview them?

no he just interveiws people.

the only campaghning his ever done has been about homlessnes not criminal justice
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 18, 2019, 12:49:AM
no he just interveiws people.

the only campaghning his ever done has been about homlessnes not criminal justice

I thought someone posted a Youtube video of him talking to Sandra? Anyway, regardless, police sometimes take part in documentaries but not usually interviews. I can't think of such an instance?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 01:03:AM
James English is a ned with criminal ties in glasgow and a wannabe celeb. Cast member of failed Glasgow reality tv show "GLOW" which has for some reason lead to a youtube channel interviewing literally any random person who will agree to it. I'm sure he started out interviewing faces of the underworld (because he knew them personally) and other wannabe celebs peddling themselves, (porn star Georgie Lyall, the lassie from Niddrie who was in the news for being Scotland's youngest lottery winner and "internet sensation - Naked Martin" to name a few). Now he'll interview literally anyone, if you can call it that. He heard of Luke Mitchell while interviewing Glasgow gangster Joe Steele about his wrongful murder conviction. He sits there mumbling with a vacant stare without asking anything really. I'm not sure what his endgame is and I'm not quite sure he does either, other than views/followers/some sort of fame.

We're not exactly talking "Making a Murderer" here.

He seems like an ok lad but he doesn't have a clue how to conduct an interview (can barely string a coherent question together) and there's no journalistic credibility there to speak of.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 01:13:AM
I thought someone posted a Youtube video of him talking to Sandra? Anyway, regardless, police sometimes take part in documentaries but not usually interviews. I can't think of such an instance?

interviewing  someone does not make you a campaigner does it

Hamish Campbell.

Jeremy Paine

mark wilam Tomas

our own mr bews.

john stalker
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 01:17:AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIr2Q8pNsCM

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 18, 2019, 05:59:AM
I see the usual suspects are still on here talking about this scum until the birds start chirping in the morning. Sandra, do you have other hobbies or interests? Or, do you spend 24 hours a day thinking and talking about Mitchell?

Funny you should ask - I was just talking the other day about what a fantastic life I have and how blessed I am.  I love studying and discussing metaphysics, energy exchange and transfer and the nature of transformation. I'm an avid D-I-Yer, love gardening, designing campervan conversions, cooking (especially for friends and family),  sewing and reading. I'm a fully qualified clinical hypnotherapist and have a long-term interest in alternative healthcare. My family, of course, is everything to me and I spend as much time as I possibly can with them. I write about many subjects and in my "down time" (of which there's very little) I like to get away in nature (especially by the sea or rivers) and (my guilty pleasure) watching youtube videos on a huge range of subjects.

I'm usually up at 5.30am and go to bed between 10.30 and 11pm - that gives me 17 - 17.5 "usable" hours a day, 7 days a week. If there are lots of questions of me online, I try to answer them when I first get up, so that I'm free to get on with the rest of my day. Occasionally, I have time during the day or early evening to post.

How about you AD? How do you spend your time?

Quote
  I don’t understand what there is to debate.  It was him and that’s it.  The stoneman done it.  Debating and even considering that it could’ve been someone else is an insult to the victims family.

I'd love to see the reasoning behind that!  What was the insult to Rachel Nickell's family - the consideration that it wasn't Colin Stagg who murdered her or the fact that it took 16 years to find her real killer? What was the insult to the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings - the consideration that it wasn't the six convicted men who were responsible for them or the fact that, to this day, they still don't know who was really responsible? The insult to Jill Dando and her family, or Lesley Molseed's, or Philip Saunders' or Lynette White's? I could go on - you'll get the point, I'm sure.

It's not an insult to anyone to seek true justice - it's a massive insult to the deceased and their families to allow questions to remain unanswered and, potentially, the real perpetrator free to strike again. That uncovering the truth might be painful for victims and/or their families is unavoidable, but that doesn't- and shouldn't - make it untouchable.

Quote
It was him.  The debate should cease.

Said in the midst of a massive scandal currently rocking the CJS concerning false accusations of rape and sexual abuse/assault on the basis that alleged victims must be believed - i.e. "S/he did it."
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 18, 2019, 06:02:AM
Caroline has asked a couple of times
Quote
can I ask if you have seen the pathologist report and if you know where on Jodie's head was the contusion (referred to by the pathologist) located?

Yes. I've seen it and I've already answered the other question.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 18, 2019, 06:12:AM
Why would any of Jodi's family take up his offer to go on there and convince people Luke did it? What planet do you come from? What is there to gain? The conviction speaks for itself.

The invitation to Jodi's family wasn't intended to "convince people Luke did it," though, was it? It was to give their side of the story regarding the changes to the search trio's statements, the developments of narratives far removed from original accounts, the airbrushing of certain people and events from the investigation for as long as possible, the claim that the Gran told the boys on the moped not to come forward. the fact that even Jodi's mum said she thought Ferris and Dickie knew more than they were letting on, but has never pushed to try to find out (or to have investigators ifnd out) what they knew, and so on.

"What is there to gain?" If someone were saying those things about me and my family and they weren't true, I'd be livid - I'd want the record set straight asap. But they are true and there are documents to prove it.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 18, 2019, 07:21:AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIr2Q8pNsCM

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I must admit I have to agree with you lithium not the most professional guy, saying that is didn’t really matter as it was about getting the message out but I wouldn’t be jumping to watch him on anything else.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 12:37:PM
The invitation to Jodi's family wasn't intended to "convince people Luke did it," though, was it? It was to give their side of the story regarding the changes to the search trio's statements, the developments of narratives far removed from original accounts, the airbrushing of certain people and events from the investigation for as long as possible, the claim that the Gran told the boys on the moped not to come forward. the fact that even Jodi's mum said she thought Ferris and Dickie knew more than they were letting on, but has never pushed to try to find out (or to have investigators ifnd out) what they knew, and so on.

"What is there to gain?" If someone were saying those things about me and my family and they weren't true, I'd be livid - I'd want the record set straight asap. But they are true and there are documents to prove it.

well i think most fmilys would they wuld want to get there ide across.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 12:42:PM
I must admit I have to agree with you lithium not the most professional guy, saying that is didn’t really matter as it was about getting the message out but I wouldn’t be jumping to watch him on anything else.

james give a vioce to people the mintream media cant be arsed to.

lie lura here.

https://youtu.be/RGHi_YZlimM
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 18, 2019, 01:01:PM
james give a vioce to people the mintream media cant be arsed to.

lie lura here.

https://youtu.be/RGHi_YZlimM

he shld get shane on ; thers someone with REAL info abt the details of th case and what happen that evenin, not jst speculation. right sandra?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 01:27:PM
he shld get shane on ; thers someone with REAL info abt the details of th case and what happen that evenin, not jst speculation. right sandra?

im sure he will in time.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 18, 2019, 01:38:PM
Caroline has asked a couple of times
Yes. I've seen it and I've already answered the other question.

I haven't seen the answer and would it kill you to answer it again? As I have said, I am new to this dicussion and don't get why you just didn't answer the question? Was it at the back of her head?

Later edit
Apologies Sandra, I missed your reply. So the injuries were to the back of the head which supports the notion that she was struck from behind. Cheers.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 18, 2019, 01:41:PM
James English is a ned with criminal ties in glasgow and a wannabe celeb. Cast member of failed Glasgow reality tv show "GLOW" which has for some reason lead to a youtube channel interviewing literally any random person who will agree to it. I'm sure he started out interviewing faces of the underworld (because he knew them personally) and other wannabe celebs peddling themselves, (porn star Georgie Lyall, the lassie from Niddrie who was in the news for being Scotland's youngest lottery winner and "internet sensation - Naked Martin" to name a few). Now he'll interview literally anyone, if you can call it that. He heard of Luke Mitchell while interviewing Glasgow gangster Joe Steele about his wrongful murder conviction. He sits there mumbling with a vacant stare without asking anything really. I'm not sure what his endgame is and I'm not quite sure he does either, other than views/followers/some sort of fame.

We're not exactly talking "Making a Murderer" here.

He seems like an ok lad but he doesn't have a clue how to conduct an interview (can barely string a coherent question together) and there's no journalistic credibility there to speak of.

Thanks Lithium, clearly the police are not going to take part in an interview of this kind.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 01:59:PM
Thanks Lithium, clearly the police are not going to take part in an interview of this kind.

of what kind an iterview is an interview and i a nt talking about the police i  talking about retired policeman.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 18, 2019, 02:01:PM
of what kind an iterview is an interview and i a nt talking about the police i  talking about retired policeman.

Some bloke on Youtube - unprofessional etc.!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 18, 2019, 02:04:PM
I haven't seen the answer and would it kill you to answer it again? As I have said, I am new to this dicussion and don't get why you just didn't answer the question? Was it at the back of her head?

Is this not it?


Yes, they are. All of the injuries are. I’m not sure what that adds to the discussion. There was a large area of bruising to the back of the head caused by “blunt force” but not necessarily a blow by an object. There was extensive bruising to Jodi’s face, cheek, jaw, temple, forehead, hands, the cut from her mouth to her ear was inflicted while she was alive, the knife wound that pierced her tonsil was inflicted post mortem, it’s unclear whether the cut to her earlobe or the puncture wound in her forehead were inflicted before or after death. Clumps of hair were pulled out by the roots, some of these were found entangled in her hands and fingers.


Thanks Lithium, clearly the police are not going to take part in an interview of this kind.

I really don’t see why the police or Jodi’s family would want to take part in an interview. They believe the right person is in jail, so nothing to discuss. I would not either in their shoes.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:06:PM
he shld get shane on ; thers someone with REAL info abt the details of th case and what happen that evenin, not jst speculation. right sandra?

Shane wouldn't, and Corinne wouldn't allow it. Shane openly admits his brothers guilt to folk and wants nothing to do with any of it. He's been more or less disowned by Corinne for this reason and hasn't visited Luke in years. A handful of times in total. Even during his police interview he was open to the idea his brother was capable of this, and told police that. Guess Sandra and nugnug know 14 year old Luke better than his brother though eh.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 02:09:PM
Shane wouldn't, and Corinne wouldn't allow it. Shane openly admits his brothers guilt to folk and wants nothing to do with any of it. He's been more or less disowned by Corinne for this reason and hasn't visited Luke in years. A handful of times in total. Even during his police interview he was open to the idea his brother was capable of this, and told police that. Guess Sandra and nugnug know 14 year old Luke better than his brother though eh.


ive asked you for a source for this sevral times yu have yet t provide one.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:11:PM
Is this not it?


I really don’t see why the police or Jodi’s family would want to take part in an interview. They believe the right person is in jail, so nothing to discuss. I would not either in their shoes.

Sandra's suggestion that they should be on there "explaining themselves" for god knows what is a total brass neck tbh.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:11:PM

ive asked you for a source for this sevral times yu have yet t provide one.

My source is Shane. People I know and trust have heard it from him. Want his number?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:12:PM
Ask Sandra how many times Shane has visited HMP Shotts?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:17:PM
He came in from work and shouted "Hello?" to make sure no one was home before going online and watching porn with the door open to listen for his brother coming home.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 02:17:PM
My source is Shane. People I know and trust have heard it from him. Want his number?

so in other words you havent got one.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:19:PM
so in other words you havent got one.

Ok then I don't have mutual associates. His mobile number ends in 107, feel free to confirm with Corinne.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 18, 2019, 02:19:PM
My source is Shane. People I know and trust have heard it from him. Want his number?

Can I just ask, if you do have his number would you really give it out to random people on a chat forum?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:23:PM
I was being flippant.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:26:PM
Sandra knows I'm telling the truth lol. Why isn't he on here correcting misinformation. I would be if I was him?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:27:PM
The guy was in tears at the trial when shown pictures of the crime scene.

Where were Luke's tears?

The stone man.

(https://i.imgur.com/bjSlbqa.png)

Here's a challenge, post a pic of Luke where he isn't completely dead behind the eyes.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 18, 2019, 02:30:PM
Sandra knows I'm telling the truth lol. Why isn't he on here correcting misinformation. I would be if I was him?

I would be too if someone was saying stuff about me that was not true and other people happily giving out his work address etc. But that’s just me, he might have had enough of everything and just want to keep clear of all this which I could fully understand too.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:31:PM
Here's a challenge, post a pic of Luke where he isn't completely dead behind the eyes.

(https://i.imgur.com/VkOdrlj.gif)

"Midlothian Psycho"

 :))
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 02:33:PM
The guy was in tears at the trial when shown pictures of the crime scene.

Where were Luke's tears?

The stone man.

(https://i.imgur.com/bjSlbqa.png)

Here's a challenge, post a pic of Luke where he isn't completely dead behind the eyes.

here's a challenge debate actual evidence.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 18, 2019, 02:54:PM
here's a challenge debate actual evidence.

He told David High Jodi won't be out she's grounded, despite Alan Ovens telling him she had left to meet him, and telling his mum to direct her to the abbey. Why?

He told police she was wearing a red scrunchy although the pathologist said it was buried beneath her hair under her head and Luke wasn't near the body, plus it was dark. How?

Shane Mitchell told the court/police he came home, shouted "Hello?" and when no one answered, he watched porn and masturbated with the door open to listen out for Luke or Corinne coming home. He admitted the story about the burnt pie was fed to him by his mum. Why?

Luke's next door neighbour and the neighbours whose garden backed directly onto Luke's both, independently, along with their partners, reported smelling and seeing burning from the Mitchell log burner that night. Why?

Luke's friends, teachers and Jodi's family all seen him wearing a parka before the murder. His teacher testified in court that staff would joke about Luke resembling a "hooded monk" walking around in school with the coat on and hood up. No such jacket was ever recovered. Why?

A knife Luke was known to carry vanished off the face of the earth. The empty pouch for this knife was later found in his garage with a disturbing "tribute" to Jodi Jones, marking her birth year and death, and "666" scribbled onto it. Why?

After the murder, and before handing his phone to police, Luke had deleted his last texts ever sent to Jodi in which he arranged to meet her. Why?

Luke hung around the same spot for an hour doing nothing, pretending to wait on her, rather than just walking ten mins or checking the path... then suddenly changed his mind and no longer cared. He went home and never bothered to enquire as to why Jodi never showed, despite being told she was on her way to meet him. Why not?

Luke walked directly past Jodi's body with Mia, who apparently didn't alert him to anything on the way up the path to meet with the search party. On the way back Mia decided she smelled a body. She scrabbled at a wall and this was enough for Luke to know to climb over the V, shine his torch instantly left, in a narrow gap where no one would think someone would be, and immediately know it was a body. How?



Could go on all day but have to go.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Bullseye on July 18, 2019, 03:41:PM
Lithium I really do want you to convince me he did it but if the below is all you have to go on then sorry not as yet

He told David High Jodi won't be out she's grounded, despite Alan Ovens telling him she had left to meet him, and telling his mum to direct her to the abbey. Why?

So what, she didn’t meet him, might have gone elsewhere he was not worried but imo not evidence

He told police she was wearing a red scrunchy although the pathologist said it was buried beneath her hair under her head and Luke wasn't near the body, plus it was dark. How?

Did he? Proof please

Shane Mitchell told the court/police he came home, shouted "Hello?" and when no one answered, he watched porn and masturbated with the door open to listen out for Luke or Corinne coming home. He admitted the story about the burnt pie was fed to him by his mum. Why?

Shane could not say if his bro was home or not, only Shane can confirm. Even court said his evidence is not unequivocal. Would love to hear what he had to say nowadays tho

Luke's next door neighbour and the neighbours whose garden backed directly onto Luke's both, independently, along with their partners, reported smelling and seeing burning from the Mitchell log burner that night. Why?

Hear-say no evidence in log burner or anywhere else

Luke's friends, teachers and Jodi's family all seen him wearing a parka before the murder. His teacher testified in court that staff would joke about Luke resembling a "hooded monk" walking around in school with the coat on and hood up. No such jacket was ever recovered. Why?

Here-say no evidence, but you would think there would be a pic somewhere of him wearing it, cctv, photo etc Shame police could not find this. If there was, that would be enough proof for me that he did it due to what would be lies about it since.

A knife Luke was known to carry vanished off the face of the earth. The empty pouch for this knife was later found in his garage with a disturbing "tribute" to Jodi Jones, marking her birth year and death, and "666" scribbled onto it. Why?

Proof it was in the garage please, I believe  it was in his room, i believe the knife that fitted the pouch was also too small to be murder weapon?

After the murder, and before handing his phone to police, Luke had deleted his last texts ever sent to Jodi in which he arranged to meet her. Why?

The phone messages were gone but no proof as to how, I agree more likely to be Luke but no evidence.

Luke hung around the same spot for an hour doing nothing, pretending to wait on her, rather than just walking ten mins or checking the path... then suddenly changed his mind and no longer cared. He went home and never bothered to enquire as to why Jodi never showed, despite being told she was on her way to meet him. Why not?

That’s how he chose to handle the situation but not proof he killed Jodi, again not evidence

Luke walked directly past Jodi's body with Mia, who apparently didn't alert him to anything on the way up the path to meet with the search party. On the way back Mia decided she smelled a body. She scrabbled at a wall and this was enough for Luke to know to climb over the V, shine his torch instantly left, in a narrow gap where no one would think someone would be, and immediately know it was a body. How?

Been discussed many times.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 18, 2019, 06:44:PM
a bit from the sckptics forum.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12757819#post12757819
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 18, 2019, 08:04:PM
He told David High Jodi won't be out she's grounded, despite Alan Ovens telling him she had left to meet him, and telling his mum to direct her to the abbey. Why?

There's only David High's word for this. The other two boys who were there said there was no such conversation.

Quote
He told police she was wearing a red scrunchy although the pathologist said it was buried beneath her hair under her head and Luke wasn't near the body, plus it was dark. How?

I believe I explained this before. It was a reporter who noted the words "red scrunchie" in his notebook during an off the record interview with Luke. He could not say whether these were Luke's words or what they were in relation to. I know, for example, that Luke was asked on one of the police interviews, "How did Jodi usually wear her hair?"

BTW, the pathologist said nothing of the sort. If that's where the scrunchie actually was at some point, only the killer could know that.

Quote
Shane Mitchell told the court/police he came home, shouted "Hello?" and when no one answered, he watched porn and masturbated with the door open to listen out for Luke or Corinne coming home. He admitted the story about the burnt pie was fed to him by his mum. Why?

Nicely misrepresented! That was the prosecution's contention, not Shane's evidence. And the information about the burnt pie wasn't "fed to him" - it was mentioned as the only unusual or memorable event that evening prior to the realisation that Jodi was missing.

Quote
Luke's next door neighbour and the neighbours whose garden backed directly onto Luke's both, independently, along with their partners, reported smelling and seeing burning from the Mitchell log burner that night. Why?

It's like Groundhog Day on here. None of them claimed to see burning - all of them claimed to have smelled smoke and none of them were certain it was that night.

Quote
Luke's friends, teachers and Jodi's family all seen him wearing a parka before the murder. His teacher testified in court that staff would joke about Luke resembling a "hooded monk" walking around in school with the coat on and hood up. No such jacket was ever recovered. Why?

I don't recall the teacher ever testifying about staff joking about a "hooded monk" - I believe that was the description he gave of his own opinion. It was claimed this teacher left St David's High before the murder, but he would have been as open as the rest of us to the zillions of pictures of Luke in a Parka that the media published from six weeks after the murder for over a year before trial. As for the others, none of them said so initially (since the police were looking for descriptions of Luke in a German Army shirt from 14th August 2003), the first pictures of Luke in a Parka emerged on August 15th, and we know some witnesses were taken media pictures of Luke in a Parka and asked if this was the person they saw. Not rocket science!

Quote
A knife Luke was known to carry vanished off the face of the earth. The empty pouch for this knife was later found in his garage with a disturbing "tribute" to Jodi Jones, marking her birth year and death, and "666" scribbled onto it. Why?

Again, total misrepresentation - this has been discussed repeatedly.

Quote
After the murder, and before handing his phone to police, Luke had deleted his last texts ever sent to Jodi in which he arranged to meet her. Why?

Factually, the texts were deleted when police investigators tried to check them. We know know that various events concerning the phone took place while it was in the custody of the police (the deleting of the call log, for example, definitely happened after the police had taken his phone from him, before he was even taken to the police station, so no one can ever be sure who deleted the texts, or why.
Quote
Luke hung around the same spot for an hour doing nothing, pretending to wait on her, rather than just walking ten mins or checking the path... then suddenly changed his mind and no longer cared. He went home and never bothered to enquire as to why Jodi never showed, despite being told she was on her way to meet him. Why not?

Already been discussed numerous times.

Quote
Luke walked directly past Jodi's body with Mia, who apparently didn't alert him to anything on the way up the path to meet with the search party. On the way back Mia decided she smelled a body. She scrabbled at a wall and this was enough for Luke to know to climb over the V, shine his torch instantly left, in a narrow gap where no one would think someone would be, and immediately know it was a body. How?

So you accept the dog alerted? Good, that makes the search trio and you. He didn't shine his torch "in a narrow gap where no-one would think someone would be" - he walked almost exactly the same distance as Kelly, stopped at exactly the same point, and both of them realised (independently) that it was a body. By your reckoning, if Luke couldn't have known it was a body, unless he had prior knowledge, the same applies to Kelly.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 18, 2019, 08:13:PM
I haven't seen the answer and would it kill you to answer it again? As I have said, I am new to this dicussion and don't get why you just didn't answer the question? Was it at the back of her head?

Later edit
Apologies Sandra, I missed your reply. So the injuries were to the back of the head which supports the notion that she was struck from behind. Cheers.

It wouldn't kill me, Caroline, but a cursory glance at this thread will show how many times I've answered the same questions over and over again. I consider it a basic courtesy when I'm posting on forums etc, to read what's gone before. If I haven't, I say so up front - if I ask a question and someone says "already answered" I go back and read to find the answer. I answered your most recent question, just two days previously, in a response to one of your own questions!

Unfortunately, you seem to have misunderstood my posts regarding the bruising to the back of the head. The pathologist was quite clear the injury did not necessarily support that Jodi was struck from behind, but that her head may have been bashed against the wall. There were reasons for that consideration (obviously - pathologists don't just sit and think up alternative explanations for the sake of it).
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 18, 2019, 08:33:PM
It wouldn't kill me, Caroline, but a cursory glance at this thread will show how many times I've answered the same questions over and over again. I consider it a basic courtesy when I'm posting on forums etc, to read what's gone before. If I haven't, I say so up front - if I ask a question and someone says "already answered" I go back and read to find the answer. I answered your most recent question, just two days previously, in a response to one of your own questions!

Unfortunately, you seem to have misunderstood my posts regarding the bruising to the back of the head. The pathologist was quite clear the injury did not necessarily support that Jodi was struck from behind, but that her head may have been bashed against the wall. There were reasons for that consideration (obviously - pathologists don't just sit and think up alternative explanations for the sake of it).

Yes, my fault, I completely missed your reply which is why I apologised when I realised and added the edit.

I agree, it doesn't mean she was hit from behind, however, that still remains a 'possibility'. Which is what is intonated here "Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. "

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7





Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 18, 2019, 09:06:PM
Ok then I don't have mutual associates. His mobile number ends in 107, feel free to confirm with Corinne.

ha yer not wrong but yeh dont go givin his detail.

honestly think he can live life with head held high an dont blame him for not getin involved with his bro and mum and wantin a quiet life with nothin to do with them

reason i said james should have him on is because it would never happen, he would tear into his bros claims of innocence and have to deal with media after
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 07:48:AM
It's like Groundhog Day on here. None of them claimed to see burning - all of them claimed to have smelled smoke and none of them were certain it was that night.

How many times?

Quote
Mr Ramage, whose home backs onto the Mitchell family home in Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, said he told his wife it was a strange time for them to be having a barbeque.

He had been busy doing DIY and clearing his tools away when he became aware of burning.

He told the court on Monday: "I could see it and smell it. It wasn't a food smell."

So why are you dishonestly going about denying there ever were such reports, and trying to convince people the mention of burning is related to a fire in Newtongrange? Luke's direct neighbours both independently reported a fire and testified at trial. Total dishonesty from you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y


1:40 - Q: why did his mother/brother burn his clothes?

A: "Luke was taken straight to the police station and held til the next morning, a LO was appointed the next day and was with them the whole time. There was no opportunity. The media was camped outside. "

But you know fine well the witnesses testify to the burning being on June 30th... no one ever suggested anything was burned after Jodi was found. Why are you being dishonest?

You then, after completely ignoring the trial evidence of the neighbours or mentioning it at all, go on to say:

"There was however the story of a mother of a suspect burning clothing in the back of a back garden on the night of the murder in a house in Newtongrange. Somehow that story got transferred onto the Mitchell family "

Not only is that completely unsubstantiated, nor was this person ever a "suspect"... that's not what happened with regards to the burning story at all. Deliberate dishonesty/deflection. You're ignoring the log burner evidence and statements, which were mentioned in trial, which is surely the burning this viewer is refering to, whether you believe them or not (is that impartial?), and introducing misinformation. No story was "transferred" or confused. You'd really have viewers believe that this is where the claim that something was burned in the Mitchell log burner originated? The story about the fire in Luke's garden came from his neighbours, multiple independent neighbours who testified to it in court and yes they were all certain it was June 30th. Why are you lying and not answering this viewer's question honestly and telling them this???

You're a liar and know fine well what you're doing.

Didn't Luke even admit to there being a fire in early police interviews and try and blame his mum and brother?

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 08:00:AM
At least you acknowledged the existence of it in your reply to me:

"None of them claimed to see burning - all of them claimed to have smelled smoke and none of them were certain it was that night."

Why not at the very least say this in the video in reply to the guy asking about it?

Just putting complete bullshit out there to muddy the waters.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 08:02:AM
Funny you should ask - I was just talking the other day about what a fantastic life I have and how blessed I am.  I love studying and discussing metaphysics, energy exchange and transfer and the nature of transformation. I'm an avid D-I-Yer, love gardening, designing campervan conversions, cooking (especially for friends and family),  sewing and reading. I'm a fully qualified clinical hypnotherapist and have a long-term interest in alternative healthcare. My family, of course, is everything to me and I spend as much time as I possibly can with them. I write about many subjects and in my "down time" (of which there's very little) I like to get away in nature (especially by the sea or rivers) and (my guilty pleasure) watching youtube videos on a huge range of subjects.

I'm usually up at 5.30am and go to bed between 10.30 and 11pm - that gives me 17 - 17.5 "usable" hours a day, 7 days a week. If there are lots of questions of me online, I try to answer them when I first get up, so that I'm free to get on with the rest of my day. Occasionally, I have time during the day or early evening to post.

How about you AD? How do you spend your time?


Do you have a job? How do you make a living?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 19, 2019, 11:36:AM
How many times?

So why are you dishonestly going about denying there ever were such reports, and trying to convince people the mention of burning is related to a fire in Newtongrange? Luke's direct neighbours both independently reported a fire and testified at trial. Total dishonesty from you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y


1:40 - Q: why did his mother/brother burn his clothes?

A: "Luke was taken straight to the police station and held til the next morning, a LO was appointed the next day and was with them the whole time. There was no opportunity. The media was camped outside. "

But you know fine well the witnesses testify to the burning being on June 30th... no one ever suggested anything was burned after Jodi was found. Why are you being dishonest?

You then, after completely ignoring the trial evidence of the neighbours or mentioning it at all, go on to say:

"There was however the story of a mother of a suspect burning clothing in the back of a back garden on the night of the murder in a house in Newtongrange. Somehow that story got transferred onto the Mitchell family "

Not only is that completely unsubstantiated, nor was this person ever a "suspect"... that's not what happened with regards to the burning story at all. Deliberate dishonesty/deflection. You're ignoring the log burner evidence and statements, which were mentioned in trial, which is surely the burning this viewer is refering to, whether you believe them or not (is that impartial?), and introducing misinformation. No story was "transferred" or confused. You'd really have viewers believe that this is where the claim that something was burned in the Mitchell log burner originated? The story about the fire in Luke's garden came from his neighbours, multiple independent neighbours who testified to it in court and yes they were all certain it was June 30th. Why are you lying and not answering this viewer's question honestly and telling them this???

You're a liar and know fine well what you're doing.

Didn't Luke even admit to there being a fire in early police interviews and try and blame his mum and brother?

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Point 144
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 12:17:PM
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Point 144

Quote
[144] The first passage that had been founded upon by the Crown was to be found at page 17 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant agreed that on 30 June 2003 his mother and brother had had a fire in the log burner. However, there had been evidence of that fire from Mr and Mrs Frankland and also from Mr Ramage.


Whether you believe there was a fire or not, for Sandra to suggest the entire claim of a fire was only because a random incident in Newtongrange had been "transferred" onto the Mitchells over time is a ridiculously dishonest misrepresentation.

The guy on Youtube asked the question and Sandra's answer more or less denied the existence of this part of the prosecution and trial, and the 3 witnesses. This is why she cannot be trusted as a source.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 12:25:PM
The most worrying part is she has been left unchallenged to do this online for over a decade.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 19, 2019, 01:16:PM
see also

"no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained" found on her body."
+prosecution / defense agreement to not consider this evidence as it'd be constant back an forth

gradualy becomin

"none at all, not a shred!"
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 19, 2019, 01:22:PM

Whether you believe there was a fire or not, for Sandra to suggest the entire claim of a fire was only because a random incident in Newtongrange had been "transferred" onto the Mitchells over time is a ridiculously dishonest misrepresentation.

The guy on Youtube asked the question and Sandra's answer more or less denied the existence of this part of the prosecution and trial, and the 3 witnesses. This is why she cannot be trusted as a source.

they said they smelt smoke nothing about a fire as they would not be in poistin to say there was a fire or not.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 01:33:PM
see also

"no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained" found on her body."
+prosecution / defense agreement to not consider this evidence as it'd be constant back an forth

gradualy becomin

"none at all, not a shred!"

Spot on

Finally someone sees what's happening here

Findlay had to explain lukes dna away at trial and as u say with them being boyfriend and girlfriend it couldn't really be used

Not to mention the partial matches to luke on the body. As much chance of belonging to luke as anyone else Sandra has tried to link.

Luke is seriously lucky they messed up the crime scene so badly.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 19, 2019, 01:43:PM
Spot on

Finally someone sees what's happening here

Findlay had to explain lukes dna away at trial and as u say with them being boyfriend and girlfriend it couldn't really be used

Not to mention the partial matches to luke on the body. As much chance of belonging to luke as anyone else Sandra has tried to link.


will you stop talking to yourself.
Luke is seriously lucky they messed up the crime scene so badly.

will you stop talking to yourelf.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 19, 2019, 03:50:PM

Whether you believe there was a fire or not, for Sandra to suggest the entire claim of a fire was only because a random incident in Newtongrange had been "transferred" onto the Mitchells over time is a ridiculously dishonest misrepresentation.

The guy on Youtube asked the question and Sandra's answer more or less denied the existence of this part of the prosecution and trial, and the 3 witnesses. This is why she cannot be trusted as a source.

These things are simply explanations when faced with question after question, of course a fire in another area cant explain smoke from Luke’s house. It’s possible that people smelt burning in another area at some point and that transfers over time to the night of the murder. This is not a definitive answer but a possible explanation, you either accept it or denounce it but whatever  it is it’s up to you.

Corrine said that nothing was burnt that night, Luke didn’t know so it comes down to two people who if I remember claim the smell was at different times. That’s hardly corroboration.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: maggie on July 19, 2019, 04:19:PM
see also

"no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained" found on her body."
+prosecution / defense agreement to not consider this evidence as it'd be constant back an forth

gradualy becomin

"none at all, not a shred!"
Hello Wakey/Wakey it's forum policy for new members to introduce themselves in The Foyer. please would you do so.  Thanks Maggie
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 19, 2019, 04:49:PM
These things are simply explanations when faced with question after question, of course a fire in another area cant explain smoke from Luke’s house. It’s possible that people smelt burning in another area at some point and that transfers over time to the night of the murder. This is not a definitive answer but a possible explanation, you either accept it or denounce it but whatever  it is it’s up to you.

Corrine said that nothing was burnt that night, Luke didn’t know so it comes down to two people who if I remember claim the smell was at different times. That’s hardly corroboration.

Luke said his mother and brother set the fire - that's kind of an admission that there was a fire on their property.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 19, 2019, 05:00:PM
Luke said his mother and brother set the fire - that's kind of an admission that there was a fire on their property.

untill you hear the interview you dont actull i think it was more along the lines of he id know  maybe not

it was an increible agressive interview that the sccrc agread breached his human rights.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 05:38:PM
untill you hear the interview you dont actull i think it was more along the lines of he id know  maybe not

it was an increible agressive interview that the sccrc agread breached his human rights.

Why didn't sandra publish that part in the book then in the section where she was attempting to show how aggressive the interview was?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 19, 2019, 05:48:PM
Luke said his mother and brother set the fire - that's kind of an admission that there was a fire on their property.

When he was interviewed. With no adult representation he was told the smoke had been smelt from his garden, his reply was that either his mother or brother must have been burning something, totally different. The fact that 2003 was a record breaking hot season throughout Europe many people spent a lot of time in gardens, the Mitchell’s obviously were used to burning things in their garden evident by the fact they had a garden burner! Something I don’t have what about you?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 19, 2019, 05:58:PM
Why didn't sandra publish that part in the book then in the section where she was attempting to show how aggressive the interview was?

I don't know but its a fact the scrcc said it breached his human rights.

and a fact that the appeal court said the interview was to be deplored.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 19, 2019, 06:10:PM
When he was interviewed. With no adult representation he was told the smoke had been smelt from his garden, his reply was that either his mother or brother must have been burning something, totally different. The fact that 2003 was a record breaking hot season throughout Europe many people spent a lot of time in gardens, the Mitchell’s obviously were used to burning things in their garden evident by the fact they had a garden burner! Something I don’t have what about you?

Yes we have one, don't burn it on hot nights though.

Bit stupid of the police to interview him without an adult.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 06:56:PM
When he was interviewed. With no adult representation he was told the smoke had been smelt from his garden, his reply was that either his mother or brother must have been burning something, totally different.

You got a transcript of this?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 19, 2019, 07:04:PM
Quote
Mr Ramage, whose home backs onto the Mitchell family home in Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, said he told his wife it was a strange time for them to be having a barbeque.

He had been busy doing DIY and clearing his tools away when he became aware of burning.

He told the court on Monday: "I could see it and smell it. It wasn't a food smell."

How many times?

So why are you dishonestly going about denying there ever were such reports, and trying to convince people the mention of burning is related to a fire in Newtongrange? Luke's direct neighbours both independently reported a fire and testified at trial. Total dishonesty from you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y

Ok, let's back up a little, because the various aspects of the fire arguments are becoming confused. The whole point to the fire argument is to prove or disprove that Corinne Mitchell disposed of Luke's parka by burning it in the back garden.

The next door neighbours said they smelled woodsmoke around 7pm and later, around 10pm - they didn't have to close their kitchen window (which was yards from where the log burner in the Mitchell garden was) and the smell was "pleasant" - the husband said he "likes the smell of woodsmoke."

So, nothing there to support the incineration of a bulky item of clothing - in fact, quite the opposite. Their evidence, if the fire was that evening, supports the claim that no items of clothing were burned in the garden. They weren't entirely sure about the date, but nor did they offer any statements or evidence of strange smelling smoke at any other time.

I agree, Mr Ramage's evidence in court was that he saw and smelled smoke (not burning), however, what people said in court in this case and what they said in their original statements does not always agree. I don't have Mr Ramage's original statement to hand (so my comments about his original statement are from memory). I do, however, have his wife's statement, in which she reported him as saying, "I wouldn't eat off it 'cos it's stinking" - no mention of seeing smoke, only smelling it. Also, the wife (who had seen the Mitchell garden from her upstairs window) said the Mitchells had a barbecue next to the conservatory, but not (to her knowledge) a log burner "or anything like that." The barbecue in the Mitchell garden was gas, which starts to take us into the realms of the ridiculous in terms of burning clothing.

I apologise if I was not clear that Mr Ramage's evidence in court is not reliable (I didn't mean to give the impression he'd never said such a thing, only that it wasn't supported by previous and other statements that were not before the jury), but it doesn't change the substance of the argument - I have the other 32 neighbour statements, all saying either that there was no fire in the Mitchell garden, they had no recollection of a fire, there were no "untoward" smells from fire (except the citronella candle in a neighbour's garden just after the murder  which caught fire and caused a noticeable smell), so to this day, the only evidence of strange smelling smoke from the Mitchell family is from one witness's court testimony (regardless of his original statements). Even if he genuinely believed he did see and smell strange smelling smoke emanating from the Mitchell garden, his evidence is refuted by two other neighbours who were in a better position to see what was happening in the Mitchell garden - the next door neighbours - and is certainly undermined by the 32 other statements. His own wife said they could only see into the Mitchell garden from an upstairs window (because of the 6' fence separating the gardens at the back). Basically, it's 34 against one on his evidence being reliable.

The fire in Newtongrange. Why did the Sky reporter say to  Luke: "This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned"? To what was he referring? Up to that point, Luke had never been questioned about the burning of clothing anywhere. It was a story in the local media which claimed that police were investigating the mother of a suspect burning clothing in a back garden in Newtongrange. The article is no longer available online, but I am working on finding a copy of it so that I can finally put this one to bed.


Quote
1:40 - Q: why did his mother/brother burn his clothes?

A: "Luke was taken straight to the police station and held til the next morning, a LO was appointed the next day and was with them the whole time. There was no opportunity. The media was camped outside. "

But you know fine well the witnesses testify to the burning being on June 30th... no one ever suggested anything was burned after Jodi was found. Why are you being dishonest?

Perhaps you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. There was no opportunity for anyone to dispose of incriminating ash (2.18) between 6pm and when Luke was taken to Dalkeith Police Station just after half past midnight on July 1st and the morning of July 4th (the morning of the police raid). I've explained elsewhere, repeatedly, why theories of jacket burning prior to the finding of Jodi's body fail - at no point have I ever tried to suggest "the burning" was after Jodi was found. Maybe it's me who's misunderstanding your point? If so, again, I apologise.

Quote
You then, after completely ignoring the trial evidence of the neighbours or mentioning it at all, go on to say:

"There was however the story of a mother of a suspect burning clothing in the back of a back garden on the night of the murder in a house in Newtongrange. Somehow that story got transferred onto the Mitchell family "

Not only is that completely unsubstantiated, nor was this person ever a "suspect"... that's not what happened with regards to the burning story at all. Deliberate dishonesty/deflection.

This video was made to answer questions that followed the James English interview, so parts of the answers were already "out there" - it would have been tedious for viewers who had seen the first video to hear it all again in order to clarify specific points. Tell me what did happen with regards to the burning story and (apart from the fact that we now know there was only one suspect) who is the "this person" who was never a suspect?

Quote
You're ignoring the log burner evidence and statements, which were mentioned in trial, which is surely the burning this viewer is refering to, whether you believe them or not (is that impartial?), and introducing misinformation.

I'm evidently not ignoring the log burner evidence and/or statements - couldn't have been more clear about that, but now I'm supposed to know which "burning evidence" random posters are talking about?

Quote
No story was "transferred" or confused. You'd really have viewers believe that this is where the claim that something was burned in the Mitchell log burner originated? The story about the fire in Luke's garden came from his neighbours, multiple independent neighbours who testified to it in court and yes they were all certain it was June 30th. Why are you lying and not answering this viewer's question honestly and telling them this???

Because it's not true. 34 out of 35 neighbours could not say with any certainty whether there was a fire in the Mitchell garden on June 30th or, if there was, whether it was anything other than an innocent log fire. One - only one - suggested otherwise. I don't suggest for a minute that you're lying or being dishonest, but I do think it might be worth fact checking your claims before accusing others of dishonesty.

Quote
You're a liar and know fine well what you're doing.

Easy, Lithium, let's keep it civil. Personal attacks and name-calling don't do your arguments any favours.

Quote
Didn't Luke even admit to there being a fire in early police interviews and try and blame his mum and brother?

No. But even if he did, he'd still have to be "admitting" to a log fire, and therefore "blaming" his mum and brother for having a log fire on an initially beautiful June evening,  not something that could completely incinerate every scrap of evidence from a blood soaked parka.

Finally, to go back to the opening quote, why would 10pm in Scotland on June 30th be a "strange time for them to be having a barbecue"? It's actually the perfect time for considerate neighbours to do so - it's light until after 10.30pm, by-laws (no longer in force) dictated that anyone wanting to have fires or barbecues wait until dusk, so as not to interfere with others' washing out on the line, etc and all of the statements used to bring the "burning evidence" to court were taken in October, when a 10pm barbecue in Scotland might have seemed strange (well after dark).


 
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 19, 2019, 07:05:PM
I'm late to this discussion, obviously. Can't possibly keep up in real time - I'll do what I can!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 19, 2019, 07:20:PM
Yes we have one, don't burn it on hot nights though.

Bit stupid of the police to interview him without an adult.

Caroline, it was entirely legal for police to interview anyone in Scotland, in 2003, without legal representation - "responsible adults" were not allowed to intervene in the interview process at any point, so what was them point of them being there at all?

Luke's "responsible adult" (social worker) during the Section 14 interview spoke not  single word except to confirm his name and presence - the appeal court judges not only agreed with that, they used it to infer that there was nothing untoward going on. I'll just leave that there fore people to think about
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 19, 2019, 07:34:PM
Yes we have one, don't burn it on hot nights though.

Bit stupid of the police to interview him without an adult.

Try up here in Scotland the midges and general pests need a good
Smoking
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 19, 2019, 07:36:PM
You got a transcript of this?

Another question! Why don’t you discuss what being discussed? Sandra put forward some great material showing how impossible it was for Luke to have done everything needed to get to the position the investigation got to but nothing from you.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 07:55:PM
Sandra put forward some great material showing how impossible it was for Luke to have done everything needed to get to the position the investigation

I don't feel like she did.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 19, 2019, 08:00:PM
It would be nice to hear exactly how Luke managed to do so much that meant no normal case could be brought before the court.

Your own perspective !
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 08:05:PM
I don't feel like she did.

nor do endless appeal judges or the SCCRC.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 19, 2019, 08:22:PM
nor do endless appeal judges or the SCCRC.

I’m not asking appeal judges or anyone else, im asking you the only one who may put up a cohesive argument for the safe verdict on the Mitchell case.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 19, 2019, 08:25:PM
Hello Wakey/Wakey it's forum policy for new members to introduce themselves in The Foyer. please would you do so.  Thanks Maggie

done thanks , sorry i didnt realise this policy. beeen reading here for a while thought it time to sign up to contribute where i can
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 19, 2019, 10:03:PM
prof alan jamison.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881797.luke-mitchell-interview-forensic-scientist-professor-alan-jamieson/
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 19, 2019, 10:04:PM
I’m not asking appeal judges or anyone else, im asking you the only one who may put up a cohesive argument for the safe verdict on the Mitchell case.

don't think the burden of proof is on me mate he had his day in court and was convicted by a jury who seen all the evidence, so its up to the conspiracy theorists to convince us everyone is wrong.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 19, 2019, 10:23:PM
more from prof jamision.

https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle-2-15039/casting-light-on-dark-science-at-scene-of-crime-1-1054921

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: gordo30 on July 19, 2019, 11:07:PM
don't think the burden of proof is on me mate he had his day in court and was convicted by a jury who seen all the evidence, so its up to the conspiracy theorists to convince us everyone is wrong.

Of course it isn’t! The burden of discussion is though or otherwise there’s no point being here. Theres no use in reproducing the prosecution case when we’re here because that very case doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I know you don’t agree with that but that’s the reason why discussion is so important.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2019, 07:37:AM
don't think the burden of proof is on me mate he had his day in court and was convicted by a jury who seen all the evidence, so its up to the conspiracy theorists to convince us everyone is wrong.

The jury didn't see all of the evidence, though, did they? Not ever before the jury were:

32 statements of other neighbours about fires on the night of the murder
Ferris' claim that AW told him not to go to the police
The other boys with Luke that evening who refuted David High's claims that Luke said Jodi wasn't coming out
All of the condom evidence
Claims of intimidation and bullying of witnesses by the police
The true circumstances of the section 14 interview
The extent of the crime scene contamination by police officers
The timing anomalies throughout that evening
The fact that, according to all of the family statements, Jodi was not grounded that evening
Claims that police were telling people from the first day that Luke was the killer and they only had to find the evidence to prove it - and that they'd be arresting him within the week.
The change, without explanation, from police focus on a german army shirt to a parka jacket and the disappearance of "dozens" of witnesses who'd apparently described Luke in a german army shirt that evening

There's plenty more - trials are not an arena where the jury hears "all of the evidence" and anyone still believing that simply doesn't understand how our courts work.



Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2019, 07:40:AM

Do you have a job? How do you make a living?

Cheap shot, Lithium. I was asked by another poster if I had any hobbies or interests, so I listed that I like to do in my spare time.

What relevance does what I (or anyone else) do for a living have, with regard to an online discussion about a case of claimed wrongful conviction?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 20, 2019, 10:33:AM
Cheap shot, Lithium. I was asked by another poster if I had any hobbies or interests, so I listed that I like to do in my spare time.

What relevance does what I (or anyone else) do for a living have, with regard to an online discussion about a case of claimed wrongful conviction?

What did your hobbies and interests have to do with it? You were happy to answer that. I think what your occupation is quite a bit more relevant. Do you consider this work your profession?

Also how many copies of Innocents Betrayed have you sold?

Why won't you admit Shane and Luke's dad believe him to be guilty?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2019, 10:56:AM
The question was, did I spend 24 hours a day thinking about this case or did I have other hobbies or interests? That was why I answered - to demonstrate that I don't spend all my time working on this case.

Why is my occupation relevant? In the time I've been involved with this case, I've worked in a Natural Health Centre, as a care assistant, an events co-ordinator for a government organisation, in a d-i-y store, as a guest lecturer and as a clinical hypnotherapist. What relevance do any of those have to the case?

The number of copies of Innocents Betrayed sold is none of your business and I'm not even going to dignify your last question with an answer.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 20, 2019, 11:13:AM
I'm not even going to dignify your last question with an answer.

Despite it being major hang-up for anyone comin new to th case wantin to believe innocent, and a total valid question for anyon critically evaluation the info you present?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2019, 11:18:AM
No, Wakey, wakey, because I've answered it many, many, many times before,
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2019, 12:47:PM
Sandra do you think prof jamsion would be wiling to be interviewed do you think he would have anything intrsting to say.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 20, 2019, 02:56:PM
He didn't even work on the Jodi Jones murder.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2019, 06:48:PM
not at the time but he has been recently.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881797.luke-mitchell-interview-forensic-scientist-professor-alan-jamieson/
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: sandra L on July 20, 2019, 08:25:PM
I don't think Prof Jamieson would agree to an interview while he is likely to be a significant contributor to a review of the case (no expert would, for obvious reasons).

However, I think he might do an interview about the misuse of forensic evidence generally, since it's something he's expressed concerns about many times.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 20, 2019, 09:04:PM
that would certanly be worth watching.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on July 21, 2019, 12:49:PM
Sandra Lean -

All you seem to do on here is regurgitate the same pieces of information.  You continuously claim to have this ‘inside knowledge’, yet nobody else has ever been allowed to see it.  What do you expect people’s opinion to be if they have never had access to this ‘other’ stuff?

I think at this stage, you ought to start putting some evidence out there to support your claims.  What is the delay? Why can’t we see some of the evidence? How long is it going to take? People are frustrated.  People want answers.  I want answers.  In fact, I want you to proceed with the process of having this other stuff released to the public domain, and I would like to see it sooner rather than later - preferably before my 60th birthday, if possible, which is around 29 years and 10 months away (approx).

I’m also still unconvinced that Mitchell habitually used the Speaking Clock service.  Had he done this, then I think this would have been excellent grounds for appealing the time he phoned it in question - that being at 16:54 the day Jodi was murdered.  His defence counsel did not appear to use this so-called ‘habitual use of the Speaking Clock’ at any of the appeals, which tends to suggest it was a one off incident on June 30th.  I’m sure if he used it regularly as you claim, this would’ve been adequate grounds for an appeal.

At present, you’re full of hot air. Your claims are, quite simply, unfounded due to lack of evidence.  You’ve failed to support any of your claims about the Mitchell case throughout your time spent working on it.  I appreciate that your hands may well be tied.  However, you’ve had 15 years to release some of this stuff.  Some of it has been known for years. 

It’s all hot air at the moment, and to be frankly honest - the book is biased, which I am sure you already know from the previous feedback I gave you. 

When are we going to start seeing some proof?

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 21, 2019, 03:49:PM
hmm now was it coincedence john lamberton was in the same holding cell as luke f course it could well be.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 21, 2019, 06:17:PM
Wtf u smoking nugnug
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 22, 2019, 01:00:AM
Wtf u smoking nugnug


golden virgina at the moment.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 22, 2019, 10:43:AM
Sandra Lean -

All you seem to do on here is regurgitate the same pieces of information.  You continuously claim to have this ‘inside knowledge’, yet nobody else has ever been allowed to see it.  What do you expect people’s opinion to be if they have never had access to this ‘other’ stuff?

I think at this stage, you ought to start putting some evidence out there to support your claims.  What is the delay? Why can’t we see some of the evidence? How long is it going to take? People are frustrated.  People want answers.  I want answers.  In fact, I want you to proceed with the process of having this other stuff released to the public domain, and I would like to see it sooner rather than later - preferably before my 60th birthday, if possible, which is around 29 years and 10 months away (approx).

I’m also still unconvinced that Mitchell habitually used the Speaking Clock service.  Had he done this, then I think this would have been excellent grounds for appealing the time he phoned it in question - that being at 16:54 the day Jodi was murdered.  His defence counsel did not appear to use this so-called ‘habitual use of the Speaking Clock’ at any of the appeals, which tends to suggest it was a one off incident on June 30th.  I’m sure if he used it regularly as you claim, this would’ve been adequate grounds for an appeal.

At present, you’re full of hot air. Your claims are, quite simply, unfounded due to lack of evidence.  You’ve failed to support any of your claims about the Mitchell case throughout your time spent working on it.  I appreciate that your hands may well be tied.  However, you’ve had 15 years to release some of this stuff.  Some of it has been known for years. 

It’s all hot air at the moment, and to be frankly honest - the book is biased, which I am sure you already know from the previous feedback I gave you. 

When are we going to start seeing some proof?

that is not grounds for appeal any lawyer will tell you that.

i dont need new evdence to qustion the conviction a basic knowledge of forensic sceince leads me to

as it lead most people who have such basic knowledge.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 22, 2019, 10:45:AM
is it possble the rest of the frontline documentry could be uploaded.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: marty on July 22, 2019, 01:15:PM
Yeah, the speaking clock isnt new evidence either so no grounds for appeal and the phone mast data as to where lukes phone was is lost.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 22, 2019, 01:23:PM
Yeah, the speaking clock isnt new evidence either so no grounds for appeal and the phone mast data as to where lukes phone was is lost.

His phone was lost?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 22, 2019, 01:28:PM
His phone was lost?

we are not talking about jodis pone we are talking about lukes.

phone calles
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: marty on July 22, 2019, 01:40:PM
The phone data as to the phones location at the time he called the speaking clock is lost
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 22, 2019, 02:20:PM
we are not talking about jodis pone we are talking about lukes.

phone calles

Which is why I used the word HIS!
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 22, 2019, 02:21:PM
The phone data as to the phones location at the time he called the speaking clock is lost

OK, you mean the location of the phone when the 'data' was lost?
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 22, 2019, 02:56:PM
OK, you mean the location of the phone when the 'data' was lost?

no were re talking about the speaking clock stuf.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: marty on July 22, 2019, 04:05:PM
Yeah, the data was only kept for a year at that timeso is lost now. It would have been able to tell you where the call to the speaking clock was made and whether the phone went down the path to easthouses or not.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: David1819 on July 22, 2019, 10:04:PM
Its been a long while since I looked into this case. I will admit I have only had a brief look into it.

If memory serves me correctly. Did they not find in Luke's possession an empty knife holder with Jodi's initials craved into it along with the date she was born and the date she died?

Does anyone know if the knife found at the scene fits into the holder?

Regardless, its rather damning IMO. When I read that I more or less gave up thinking this could be a potential MOJ.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 22, 2019, 10:06:PM
Its been a long while since I looked into this case. I will admit I have only had a brief look into it.

If memory serves me correctly. Did they not find in Luke's possession an empty knife holder with Jodi's initials craved into it along with the date she was born and the date she died?

Does anyone know if the knife found at the scene fits into the holder?

Regardless, its rather damning IMO. When I read that I more or less gave up thinking this could be a potential MOJ.

there wasnt a knife found at the scene and the missing knife was acounted for.

wha about luke passing a polygrph how can you say polygraph how can you polygraphs mean somthing in bambers case but not in lukes.

if lukws pass doesnt mean anything the neather does jeremys.

Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Caroline on July 22, 2019, 10:16:PM
there wasnt a knife found at the scene and the missing knife was acounted for.

wha about luke passing a polygrph how can you say polygraph how can you polygraphs mean somthing in bambers case but not in lukes.

if lukws pass doesnt mean anything the neather does jeremys.

It doesn't mean anything in both cases.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 22, 2019, 10:19:PM
It doesn't mean anything in both cases.

yes i know you think that but david seems to think i means somthing in jeremys case but not in lukes and i cant really see the logic there.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: marty on July 22, 2019, 11:07:PM
Its been a long while since I looked into this case. I will admit I have only had a brief look into it.

If memory serves me correctly. Did they not find in Luke's possession an empty knife holder with Jodi's initials craved into it along with the date she was born and the date she died?

Does anyone know if the knife found at the scene fits into the holder?

Regardless, its rather damning IMO. When I read that I more or less gave up thinking this could be a potential MOJ.

Don’t think it was carved into the knife pouch it was written on it with pen
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 22, 2019, 11:28:PM
there wasnt a knife found at the scene and the missing knife was acounted for.


press reported "kitchen knife" was found 300 yard from scene this year buried in drystane dyke. whether is has anything to do with anything is anyone guess. havent heard anymore about it and i would be suprised to hear that police test it, they are satisfied with conviction.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

2008 appeal section [20] doesnt reckon missin knife was account for


Don’t think it was carved into the knife pouch it was written on it with pen

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-police-luke-picture-id52042946?s=612x612

bit of both really carved and pen
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 22, 2019, 11:34:PM
press reported "kitchen knife" was found 300 yard from scene this year buried in drystane dyke. whether is has anything to do with anything is anyone guess. havent heard anymore about it and i would be suprised to hear that police test it, they are satisfied with conviction.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

2008 appeal section [20] doesnt reckon missin knife was account for


https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-police-luke-picture-id52042946?s=612x612

bit of both really carved and pen


yes 200 yards from the scene can hardly be called the scene especially when it ws found 16 years later.

it could be the murder weapn but then it could be knife somone droped til its tested and as yet i see know sihn of that happening

john feerris handed in a knife and said luke ha droped it at a part now if ferris is teling the truth then that is the knife accounted for.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: Lithium on July 23, 2019, 01:59:AM
2008 appeal section [20] doesnt reckon missin knife was account for

This is just another thing Sandra has been saying for years without backing it up or having proof or even knowing herself. The missing knife was accounted for, it was another house burning stuff, parka didn't exist. not a shred of dna, Luke always phoned the speaking clock, etc. etc. She just makes these claims and sadly after repeating them enough they start be be considered proven facts to newcomers to the case.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 23, 2019, 02:08:AM
This is just another thing Sandra has been saying for years without backing it up or having proof or even knowing herself. The missing knife was accounted for, it was another house burning stuff, parka didn't exist. not a shred of dna, Luke always phoned the speaking clock, etc. etc. She just makes these claims and sadly after repeating them enough they start be be considered proven facts to newcomers to the case.

will it clearly was acouned for becouse john ferris had it he handed it in to the police saying luke had droped it a a party.

so it is acounted for and theres pleny of evdence to back that up you know that full well.

of coure ferris could be lying about it being  lukes knife buut why would he.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: David1819 on July 23, 2019, 07:17:AM
yes i know you think that but david seems to think i means somthing in jeremys case but not in lukes and i cant really see the logic there.

A polygraph result is simply one piece of evidence. You need to take everything into account.

I don't put much weight on the polygraph in Jeremy's case. Or any case for that matter.
Title: Re: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
Post by: nugnug on July 23, 2019, 10:22:AM