Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
That’s not what I asked though is it. Did the Jones know Luke prior to his relationship with Jodi?
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?
sndra who did the mopd actully belong to.
i think the jones family were very sensble not talking to the press.
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.
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.
Just because you refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
And considering all 3 members of the Mitchell household ate dinner in 3 different rooms and can't remember seeing each other that night, does Corinne know for sure Luke wasn't burning anything that night out the back garden?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke sometimes cooked and burned old jotters when his mother was having a fire - there's never been any evidence he lit fires in the burner by himself, if his mother wasn't there.
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.
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.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10