why would they

[nugnug]

The same could be said for L&B police, 100's of witnesses, the justice system, the press and his very own brother. The difference is, they were not paid a fee for their opinion by producers of sensationalized documentaries.

The only one of these so-called expert's opinion that is worth anything, is Busttilli, although this has been asked multiple times, i have yet to see anyone point in the direction, that he has ever put his name towards the innocent campaign.

Really need to try harder.

well the answeris obios in the case of the police theywanted a convition an they dident weather the person they convite wass guilty or not.

[Germane]

And that is why, over the years, they have tried to discredit her sighting, they focus on this much more than any of the others. They have even gone as far as trying to connect her to the Jones. Simply because, she told the truth in court that she did not know that Mitchell was in court that day. We know why, it was actually quite a clever move from Donald Findley, he knew Bryson was due up that day, he knew what he was going to ask her what a better way to confuse her, by getting Luke to change his appearance, quite considerably as well.  But the fact she told the truth, tells us, she is an honest person, she probably knew it was Luke, just not the Luke she saw on the day of the murder. From a scruffy teen, to some kind of slick pornstar.

The dumb and dumber with daughter in tow, reconstruction. It was something out of a Benny Hill sketch. Wonder what those two are up to these days? Exactly, nothing, drowning in their sorrows after getting bumped off the force.

Davie2, are you from the area where this crime took place? Were you at the trial at any point? Did you know anyone associated or involved with the whole thing? Just curious, as I think you mentioned previously that you knew the local area well.

Doesn’t surprise me that DF advised Luke to go out of his way to look as different as possible on the days the eyewitnesses were due up at court; it’s standard tactics for the defence and goes with the territory.

As regards the two private detectives from the C5 doco, I don’t know anything about them. Obviously, AB’s evidence was part of the jigsaw, and her evidence per se is worthless without the rest of it; it’s only when each piece of the circumstantial evidence is put together that they become important, and I think when it is all combined it makes for a very compelling and robust case against LM. While you’re here, Davie2, do you know which one of the 3 boys who met up with LM at the abbey that night saiid he looked more cleaner than normal and less unkempt? Someone I know recently asked David High via messenger about LM looking cleaner that night and he allegedly said he never noticed. That means it must have been one (or both) of the other 2 boys. Who were they (think one of the other guys was called David Tulloch)?

[guest29835]

I am fairly knowledgeable about the case.  The reason I asked for you to bullet list the points of concern is that I don't pretend to know everything about it and I am always interested in hearing other people's views, whether it's Davie2 or yourself.

My stance is neutral.  I think, like the Jeremy Bamber case, the question of Luke Mitchell's guilt is very much in the grey zone.  If I were a trial juror, I might well find him Not Guilty on the basis of the case not meeting the criminal standard of proof in Scots law.  That does not mean I think he is innocent.  To the contrary, as with the Jeremy Bamber case, it does look quite probable that he did it, but there are things that I am not happy about.

Regarding how the Forum moves forward in discussing this case, my personal view is that we need to somehow get hold of case documents, especially the trial transcripts, the pathology report, any report done on the type of knife used, and the records of DNA evidence obtained.  (It may help to start a thread in which we discuss what is needed and how we could go about it.  I will also be starting a thread about the Scots law of disclosure, once I have completed my research).

Until we have this information, it seems to me that it is hard to assess the strength of the case against Luke.  He looks guilty from a distance, but like the Bamber case, it's one of those cases where if you look at things in detail, some of it starts to unravel and doubts arise.  That does not augur well for the prosecution.  When a conviction is safe, how it should work is that the more you look at it in detail, the safer it looks because a closer look at the evidence assuages any concerns and answers doubts.  When the opposite happens, it's a bit like finding a critical fault with a complex machine.  The machine may still function day-to-day, but the fault shakes your confidence and makes you wonder if the machine might break down at any moment.

Now, let me turn to your points.  Thanks for listing these.  I respond in green below.

1. Within in the first few hours of this investigation a complete lack of crime scene management was obvious by  Leaving the victim out in the rain , no cover of the victim to a. Retain vital evidence and b. Give the victim some dignity.

I agree this is not good, but I'm not sure we can blame the police for this.  It's quite likely that arrangements to cover the body would have been difficult due to the location and the time of day.

2. Police where instructed  to collect all the clothing in a hap hazard fashion which created cross contamination.

I would need to know more detail, but yes, this doesn't sound good.

3. Forensic officer who arrived could not get over the v in the wall due to a bad back so instead of going in another way decided to leave again leaving potential evidence to be damaged and lost . A different forensic officer officer then turned up at 8:00 am the following day to walk the scene and gather evidence.

Not good, I agree, but points like this have to be assessed against what could have been found had the crime scene been managed more efficiently.  The reality is that there will always be mistakes and mishaps in police investigations.  It's a human system.  The simple fact that mistakes were made does not, in itself, make a conviction unsafe.

4. No time of death given or assessed properly

It's a canard of forensic medicine that a doctor can give you the time of death, or even a reasonably accurate rough estimate.  He can't.  Medical knowledge has not advanced that far.  Obviously, this is a generalisation: in particular cases, the evidence apparent or inferable at the scene may reliably allow an estimation of time of death, but those are special circumstances, not the general run of things.

5. Police disturbed the scene before forensic officer appeared with cutting down branches with blood splatter on them.

Again, this doesn't sound good, but what do you mean by "cutting down branches"? Were they out with the shears? Or do you mean that branches were snapped by officers on the scene as they went about their business there?  Furthermore, was the presence of the blood spatter recorded, in pocketbooks and statements, and ideally in photographs?  The important point here is whether the evidence was preserved in some way.

6. Jodi body was moved by rolling on to plastic covering , who knows Jodi position when body was initiall moved by police

If you mean the police moved that poor girl's body prior to forensic photography, and this was not done for any proper reason (such as an attempt to resuscitate her), then I agree that's bad in principle, regardless of the forensic significance of it.  However, we still have to consider the forensic significance of this.  Does it actually make any difference to any relevant point of proof?  We know her injuries, don't we? (At least, we do in general terms, as we haven't seen the pathology evidence).

7. The Forensic officer admitted at trial it was not an ideal situation as the body being moved and not covered would of course cause problems with assessing the scene as it was left by the murderer.

Agreed.  It's bad.

8. An order to bleach the scene therefor destroying any escape scent by the murderer and then the best bit getting the dogs brought in to help find a scent however the scene being bleached meant the dogs could not do their job.

Not good, but to be fair, dogs probably would not have been of much use.  I think I know what you are getting at: it seems intuitively likely that the killer retreated to a spot nearby where he could collect himself and clean or change, and given what we know about Luke's appearance on the day, this suggests that the killer may in fact have lived very close by rather than on the housing estate.  Hence, the possibility of a scent trail to a nearby location, but I doubt this would have been of much evidential value.

9 No cancellation of bins being picked  up , maybe the murderer disposed of clothing, knife etc but it would not matter as bins are gone.

Again, I can't disagree with you.  That does sound slack. 

10. A person who's fresh semen was found in a condom ( not identified for 3 years) went back to the same spot the following day to masturbate again , he must have been unaware of the police presence and walked over what should have been a cordoned off area and did his business again , I can only assume no police presence the day after a wee girl was murdered to be of little deterennt for this weirdo who liked to do his thing in a public area.

I've heard about this individual, but I didn't realise his conduct was as egregious at this. I don't know what to say really.  It's quite bizarre.

11. Only one of Jodi hand was forensically covered and that was done incorrectly going by the evidence outlined at court , a common and very unusual result yielding no reportable result, this was 2003 not the 80's

Noted.  But what do you think a forensic examination of her hands, fingers and nails would have revealed? Are you saying there was evidence of a struggle?  If so, how does this fit with the evidence that she suffered a blow to the head?

12. I will go back in my notes and quote the Forensic persons words at trial
13 . Liaison officer who was at Mitchell's house said at court the investigation was a shambles, and that is one of their own ( do people think this is made up , it's all out there to be found if you research every single side of this case

Noted.

14. The search party clothes should have all been taken at the same time as Luke's, Jodi grans held her grandchild she could have had transfer on her clothes , she had no idea what she was wearing five days later when police thought yeah we probably should check her/ their clothes.

OK, but the police have obviously quickly come to the conclusion that Luke was the probable killer.  I accept that the police have been sloppy because they should have taken the other evidence as well for the purpose of elimination (and apart from that, they should have been trying to eliminate Luke).  However, a pro-guilt person will just say that the police did not need to do this, as (in their belief) Luke was the killer.

15. Donald Finlay at appeal was dumbfounded that the Detective in charge of a brutal murder was unaware of basic procedures when it came to Identity parade , Mr Dobie a man of his rank had no idea of BASIC procedures , if he was unaware of the most basic areas of policing how can anyone trust his ability , total and completly incompetent.

What was the procedural defect in the identification evidence?  If this defect was signifcant, then why wasn't the relevant evidence excluded from the trial?

probably missed other areas of incompetence but I think this little list gives you an idea to why I have no faith in this investigation.

And I have not even started on the outrageous and deplorable conduct by these officers on a 15 year old boy.

But a 15 year-old is not a boy.  Young men do not mature as quickly as females, but a 15 year-old is to be considered a young man and certainly old enough to know right from wrong and understand the situation he was in.  The prosecution at the Scots appeal hearing pointed out that he gave as good as he got.  I don't buy that argument per se.  I regard a 15 year old as a young man, but I accept there is a nuance to it: that he will be immature and inexperienced and will have had a particular need for the presence of an appropriate adult to monitor what was happening.  This partly boils down to a peculiarity of Scots law that existed at that time but is no longer extant: he had no right to a solicitor and it seems not to have occurred to the officers that his age made him vulnerable in a way that could undermine later in the legal process any admissions or a confession he might make.  It was not just uncouth, it was bad investigative practice on the part of the officers to treat him that way.  They could have hobbled the prosecution case, but overall I am inclined to agree with the prosecution on the broad point, even if I think they put it across a little crudely.

Let me ask a question of you , are/ where you unaware of these issues around the police investigation , my research consists of BBC Documentary, Media reporting on trial and after. Donald Findlay touched on these areas at appeal. Sandra Leans book and further podcasts .  She is one person who has access to the defence information no one here has that access so forgive me if I find her information relevant you may choose to ignore but I believe in a murder investigation these many areas of flaws , evidence of incompetence are all just a bit too much and completely unacceptable. 

That is why a full Independent Enquiry should be completed on this case, fully transparent . If the police did an ace job then an Enquiry will highlight that. Only the truth must be sought for this case , it's the right thing to do for Jodi, for the community and for Luke and for all of us who are still arguing about a magical fishing jacket and a boy calling the talking clock.??

[Davie2]

Perfect and detailed supportive material with reference to court, articles to substantiate all the facts surrounding this case.

Dave this post is for you son

It's old news. It's boring going over and over and over and over the same old.

Instead of Lean, copy & paste all that, she should head over to the other thread and answer Gascoigne question around the legality of posting case papers. Why she cant post it all, but just bits that suits the narrative. What does the law say?  Now that's more important.

[Davie2]

Davie2, are you from the area where this crime took place? Were you at the trial at any point? Did you know anyone associated or involved with the whole thing? Just curious, as I think you mentioned previously that you knew the local area well.

Doesn’t surprise me that DF advised Luke to go out of his way to look as different as possible on the days the eyewitnesses were due up at court; it’s standard tactics for the defence and goes with the territory.

Well since me/my family have been threatened in the past by these nut jobs, for my content of this forum (most was deleted) I'll refrain from answering personal questions.

As regards the two private detectives from the C5 doco, I don’t know anything about them.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/four-detectives-elite-anti-terrorist-unit-1941239

Probably explains, why they are no longer in the force.

Davie2, do you know which one of the 3 boys who met up with LM at the abbey that night saiid he looked more cleaner than normal and less unkempt? Someone I know recently asked David High via messenger about LM looking cleaner that night and he allegedly said he never noticed. That means it must have been one (or both) of the other 2 boys. Who were they (think one of the other guys was called David Tulloch)?

The other lad name is not in the public domain, as far as I'm aware.

[Davie2]

1. Within in the first few hours of this investigation a complete lack of crime scene management was obvious by  Leaving the victim out in the rain , no cover of the victim to a. Retain vital evidence and b. Give the victim some dignity.

I won't quote the rest.

But all these points you make, are the reason why i cannot take you seriously. Not only is some of it made up nonsense, you also fail to apply common sense too much of it.  Was it even possible to erect a tent? What experience did the first police on scene have? Who did they call? What is the procedure? How long does it take? Did Luke not volunteer his clothes? Was he not interviewed as a witness? Was there an adult from social services present?

What is your source for all this?

I think in future, it is best you provide sources to back up anything you are typing.

Blood splattered branches getting cut.
JF going back to the crime scene.

How on earth can you possibly know this? Have you even bothered to get this information you are fed, fact-checked?

[Fairplay1]

It's old news. It's boring going over and over and over and over the same old.

Instead of Lean, copy & paste all that, she should head over to the other thread and answer Gascoigne question around the legality of posting case papers. Why she cant post it all, but just bits that suits the narrative. What does the law say?  Now that's more important.

I agree Dave , shock horror . I want all this case warts and all out in the open and it's frustrating that we don't have it all out and transparently clear.

I want to see all those original statements and how they morphed into something completely different again transparency would help us come to a balanced judgement.

I have looked into this and found some things under the code of conduct in criminal law and some other document that I could not grasp as it's very detailed and has some jargon that may be easy for a legal person or someone able to understand a lot better than I do.

The only thing I will say is Sandra has been saying the same thing for a long time I'm sure she has ruffled a few feathers within legal circles , you would think if she is talking shi** someone , anyone would have came after her by now , just my opinion

But as I say I would like this explained in more detail

[Fairplay1]

I am fairly knowledgeable about the case.  The reason I asked for you to bullet list the points of concern is that I don't pretend to know everything about it and I am always interested in hearing other people's views, whether it's Davie2 or yourself.

My stance is neutral.  I think, like the Jeremy Bamber case, the question of Luke Mitchell's guilt is very much in the grey zone.  If I were a trial juror, I might well find him Not Guilty on the basis of the case not meeting the criminal standard of proof in Scots law.  That does not mean I think he is innocent.  To the contrary, as with the Jeremy Bamber case, it does look quite probable that he did it, but there are things that I am not happy about.

Regarding how the Forum moves forward in discussing this case, my personal view is that we need to somehow get hold of case documents, especially the trial transcripts, the pathology report, any report done on the type of knife used, and the records of DNA evidence obtained.  (It may help to start a thread in which we discuss what is needed and how we could go about it.  I will also be starting a thread about the Scots law of disclosure, once I have completed my research).

Until we have this information, it seems to me that it is hard to assess the strength of the case against Luke.  He looks guilty from a distance, but like the Bamber case, it's one of those cases where if you look at things in detail, some of it starts to unravel and doubts arise.  That does not augur well for the prosecution.  When a conviction is safe, how it should work is that the more you look at it in detail, the safer it looks because a closer look at the evidence assuages any concerns and answers doubts.  When the opposite happens, it's a bit like finding a critical fault with a complex machine.  The machine may still function day-to-day, but the fault shakes your confidence and makes you wonder if the machine might break down at any moment.

Now, let me turn to your points.  Thanks for listing these.  I respond in green below.

I agree this is not good, but I'm not sure we can blame the police for this.  It's quite likely that arrangements to cover the body would have been difficult due to the location and the time of day.

I would need to know more detail, but yes, this doesn't sound good.

Not good, I agree, but points like this have to be assessed against what could have been found had the crime scene been managed more efficiently.  The reality is that there will always be mistakes and mishaps in police investigations.  It's a human system.  The simple fact that mistakes were made does not, in itself, make a conviction unsafe.

It's a canard of forensic medicine that a doctor can give you the time of death, or even a reasonably accurate rough estimate.  He can't.  Medical knowledge has not advanced that far.  Obviously, this is a generalisation: in particular cases, the evidence apparent or inferable at the scene may reliably allow an estimation of time of death, but those are special circumstances, not the general run of things.

Again, this doesn't sound good, but what do you mean by "cutting down branches"? Were they out with the shears? Or do you mean that branches were snapped by officers on the scene as they went about their business there?  Furthermore, was the presence of the blood spatter recorded, in pocketbooks and statements, and ideally in photographs?  The important point here is whether the evidence was preserved in some way.
 

If you mean the police moved that poor girl's body prior to forensic photography, and this was not done for any proper reason (such as an attempt to resuscitate her), then I agree that's bad in principle, regardless of the forensic significance of it.  However, we still have to consider the forensic significance of this.  Does it actually make any difference to any relevant point of proof?  We know her injuries, don't we? (At least, we do in general terms, as we haven't seen the pathology evidence).


Agreed.  It's bad.

Not good, but to be fair, dogs probably would not have been of much use.  I think I know what you are getting at: it seems intuitively likely that the killer retreated to a spot nearby where he could collect himself and clean or change, and given what we know about Luke's appearance on the day, this suggests that the killer may in fact have lived very close by rather than on the housing estate.  Hence, the possibility of a scent trail to a nearby location, but I doubt this would have been of much evidential value.

Again, I can't disagree with you.  That does sound slack. 

I've heard about this individual, but I didn't realise his conduct was as egregious at this. I don't know what to say really.  It's quite bizarre.

Noted.  But what do you think a forensic examination of her hands, fingers and nails would have revealed? Are you saying there was evidence of a struggle?  If so, how does this fit with the evidence that she suffered a blow to the head?

Noted.

OK, but the police have obviously quickly come to the conclusion that Luke was the probable killer.  I accept that the police have been sloppy because they should have taken the other evidence as well for the purpose of elimination (and apart from that, they should have been trying to eliminate Luke).  However, a pro-guilt person will just say that the police did not need to do this, as (in their belief) Luke was the killer.

What was the procedural defect in the identification evidence?  If this defect was signifcant, then why wasn't the relevant evidence excluded from the trial?

But a 15 year-old is not a boy.  Young men do not mature as quickly as females, but a 15 year-old is to be considered a young man and certainly old enough to know right from wrong and understand the situation he was in.  The prosecution at the Scots appeal hearing pointed out that he gave as good as he got.  I don't buy that argument per se.  I regard a 15 year old as a young man, but I accept there is a nuance to it: that he will be immature and inexperienced and will have had a particular need for the presence of an appropriate adult to monitor what was happening.  This partly boils down to a peculiarity of Scots law that existed at that time but is no longer extant: he had no right to a solicitor and it seems not to have occurred to the officers that his age made him vulnerable in a way that could undermine later in the legal process any admissions or a confession he might make.  It was not just uncouth, it was bad investigative practice on the part of the officers to treat him that way.  They could have hobbled the prosecution case, but overall I am inclined to agree with the prosecution on the broad point, even if I think they put it across a little crudely.

Thank you for sharing your view , I found it interesting and fair .

You have taken the time to detail each point with a good balance view and certainly gives me some things to think about , I will come back to your points  you asked me about once I have put the thought and care you showed in your response , a little busy just now but will address as soon as I can as I would like to show the same respectfull thought out reply , Many thanks

[Fairplay1]

I won't quote the rest.

But all these points you make, are the reason why i cannot take you seriously. Not only is some of it made up nonsense, you also fail to apply common sense too much of it.  Was it even possible to erect a tent? What experience did the first police on scene have? Who did they call? What is the procedure? How long does it take? Did Luke not volunteer his clothes? Was he not interviewed as a witness? Was there an adult from social services present?

What is your source for all this?

I think in future, it is best you provide sources to back up anything you are typing.

Blood splattered branches getting cut.
JF going back to the crime scene.

How on earth can you possibly know this? Have you even bothered to get this information you are fed, fact-checked?

What are you talking about Dave , this is why I don't take you seriously !

Roadrunner post clearly outlines sources from the trial , appeal, Donald Findlay and the media reporting on events as they were happening, WTAF are you on , what would I gain from detailing these failings.  Don't you think these failures had consequences, the consequences of those initial police failures are part of the reason why we are still arguing about this case today nearly 20 years later

You clearly have blocked yourself off to any information that goes against your belief and that is why you can not properly discuss this case , your bias is out of control as you only wish to discredit anybody that says their are problems , you are literally closed off to learning or evolving your belief system even when you are shown fact after fact of the incompetence of that police investigation, your a lost cause we're this is concerned.

Hopefully that Independent Enquiry will prove you were right or maybe it will prove you have been wrong in your assessment , to base opinion on a one side view and gleefully denying facts out in the public domain as nonsense is just a dumb ass move in my opinion not that you care about anybody else's opinion Dave , your purpose on this forum is just to discredit, belittle and stop any type of useful discussion.

I accept their are areas within this case that are compelling against Mitchell but that's it , it's all the missing REAL evidence that supports guilt it's all Missing that's what I find more compelling the missing evidence that would support guilt . Run those tests put us both out of our misery and maybe put a lid on this finally , don't you think 18 years is a rather long time to be discussing an air tight case , matter of time the right thing will happen with this and no matter what your belief is it will bring resolution and finally allow Jodi Jones to rest in peace ??
.

[Davie2]

transparency would help us come to a balanced judgement.

Well done, I'm glad you think that. Now the problem you have, you are asking the wrong people for transparency.

The only thing I will say is Sandra has been saying the same thing for a long time

Now this is the person you need to be asking the questions too. The harder the questions, the more you start to see the cracks appear, the hypocrisy and the blatant lies.

[Davie2]

What are you talking about Dave , this is why I don't take you seriously !

I used to do what you do today. But i have seen thought it all. You asking me these questions is boring, been there done that, got the tshirt. If you want transparency, you need to go back to your source.   

Roadrunner

Is a spamming troll.

You clearly have blocked yourself off to any information that goes against your belief and that is why you can not properly discuss this case

You misunderstand my position, I have no interest going over the same stuff i did 10 years ago, but i will confront those that spread misinformation, sensationalism and blatant lies. 

Hopefully that Independent Enquiry

I have already addressed this, it won't happen. Simply because most of the stuff you are complaining about, has already been addressed by the authorities.

[Bullseye1]

Davie2 is right in saying it’s the same old stuff that we all go over but there are new people looking into the case all the time that have the same questions and it’s always good to hear people fresh thought on the information out there. Like it or hate it Sandra’s book is full of details and other than the little information on the internet it really is one of the only sources of case details out there.

Things like AB description of Jodi and not identifying Luke in court, the lack of forensic evidence, the dog finding the body?, the changing of statements etc does shed doubt on the case and the reason many of us still have an interest in the case all these years later but without more information, an independent documentary or something similar we really are going in circles.

Unfortunately Fairplay1 as much as I would love to see an independent enquiry i really don’t think it’s going to happen. Imo the police are not going to release any documents they may still hold (if anything, does anyone know how long the stuff is kept?) Any evidence still in their possession has no reason to be released for forensic retesting that we are aware  (even though I don’t see why not if someone else is paying for the testing and any other costs) It would take a new break in the case imo. Scottish law is just crazy. As for Sandra releasing any information she may have, that also is not going to happen, we have been asking for years and she has said a number of times she won’t put full documentation out to public. She would be putting herself at too much risk if she was to release sensitive information (like the channel 5 documentary did when it showed names listed) I think the closest we came to seeing it was the statement from Lisa C Reynolds Peden last year, even that turned into nothing

“Luke has also advised that all documents that have been withheld for years be released immediately. Were law allows of course, Luke's new lawyer will be looking over everything and advising what inform can be made more readily available.”

I honestly think Luke has more chance of parole in a few years before getting an independent review.

[Davie2]

Here's Bullseye, hope your keeping well.

Davie2 is right in saying it’s the same old stuff that we all go over but there are new people looking into the case all the time that have the same questions and it’s always good to hear people fresh thought on the information out there.

Yep, you are right, I may be a little dismissive towards these so-called new people and their questions. Although you will probably know how suspicious i'm of new screen handles that pop up.

Like it or hate it Sandra’s book is full of details and other than the little information on the internet it really is one of the only sources of case details out there.

This is where we differ, I think it's full of lies and misinformation. And as Parky likes to say > Waffle.

as much as I would love to see an independent enquiry i really don’t think it’s going to happen.

It certainly won't come out of the public purse. Which means it would have to be independently funded, and even then, how would they get the powers to get access to the information they require for the enquiry? And how much would it cost? I have no idea to be honest, but my best guess, would be in to the 100's of thousands.

Imo the police are not going to release any documents they may still hold (if anything, does anyone know how long the stuff is kept?)

Also something i that have mentioned, iv'e tried to look up this imformation, but could never find anything offical. I came accross articles, that said 15 years, but also came accross articles, that said as soon as the conviction by the jury, although i find this hard to belive, i will try find these articles again.

It would take a new break in the case imo.

As hard as they have tried to senstionalise (claimed) new evidance, confessions etc etc. They keep hitting a brick wall, do the supporters ever ask why? Multiple failed appeals, why? They cant just keep resorting back to the same old excuses, the systum is corrupt, the media is against us etc. These appeal rejections would have had outcomes and the reasons for it, maybe it is best they go back to the source and ask for more transparency.

she won’t put full documentation out to public.

Very true, but what documentation does she really have? It has been of great debate over the past few years by some individuals. I'm of the opinion, that if these documents were released, then Luke's guilt would become very apparent.

I honestly think Luke has more chance of parole in a few years before getting an independent review.

LOL, thats saying something. He aint getting out, maybe when he is a frail old man. 

[Bullseye]

Hey Davie2, I’m good thanks hope you are well too.

I think it’s clear Sandra does/did have access to a lot of the defence papers but agree there is a hell of a lot missing and that might shed light on some of the questions we had over the years. Even Sandra herself admits in her book and here on this forum that there is alot missing. So for her to say things like, for example, there was no further investigation into other people, there may have been a lot but as it was not connected to the court case it’s not in the documents she has?
But with the information she does have it’s caused enough of a stir for us all to still be debating and talking about it.

Sandra’s reply to when I asked her

Q
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!

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

Q
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?

A
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.

If he is guilty I hope he never gets out but considering his age when convicted, he was a young offender. Remember the Bulger killers and Mary Bell were out after a few years, they were younger though. He would have served his punishment part of the sentence-20 years. If he kept his nose clean all these years who knows what could happen. Personally I agree it should be a long time, considering the nature of the crime.

[Fairplay1]

Davie2 is right in saying it’s the same old stuff that we all go over but there are new people looking into the case all the time that have the same questions and it’s always good to hear people fresh thought on the information out there. Like it or hate it Sandra’s book is full of details and other than the little information on the internet it really is one of the only sources of case details out there.

Things like AB description of Jodi and not identifying Luke in court, the lack of forensic evidence, the dog finding the body?, the changing of statements etc does shed doubt on the case and the reason many of us still have an interest in the case all these years later but without more information, an independent documentary or something similar we really are going in circles.

Unfortunately Fairplay1 as much as I would love to see an independent enquiry i really don’t think it’s going to happen. Imo the police are not going to release any documents they may still hold (if anything, does anyone know how long the stuff is kept?) Any evidence still in their possession has no reason to be released for forensic retesting that we are aware  (even though I don’t see why not if someone else is paying for the testing and any other costs) It would take a new break in the case imo. Scottish law is just crazy. As for Sandra releasing any information she may have, that also is not going to happen, we have been asking for years and she has said a number of times she won’t put full documentation out to public. She would be putting herself at too much risk if she was to release sensitive information (like the channel 5 documentary did when it showed names listed) I think the closest we came to seeing it was the statement from Lisa C Reynolds Peden last year, even that turned into nothing

“Luke has also advised that all documents that have been withheld for years be released immediately. Were law allows of course, Luke's new lawyer will be looking over everything and advising what inform can be made more readily available.”

I honestly think Luke has more chance of parole in a few years before getting an independent review.

Yes I agree parole may come first but I absolutely believe an Enquiry will happen , it may happen after the evidence that is left ( I read but would have to go back and source , that evidence at least some of it his held for a certain time it might be 30 years but I really need to check where I read it.

 I would hope in particular Jodi trousers which had male unidentified DNA on zip, button and inside leg will be there.  People have a right to appeal esp with a case like this where  there was no forensic analysis giving any conclusive evidence. Stefan Kiszco held for 17 years for a murder in 1975 so their was evidence from that trial retested that got the right killers profile , so if they just throw evidence away whilst a. A person is says their innocent and b. The case is purely cicumstansctial , the advancements in forensic technology could become available that could bring more conclusive results, that I would think is fair.

I also agree Sandra Lean has the most detailed information that is why she can dedicate hundreds of pages in a book to outline the flaws in this full investigation.  I find it laughable that people think she is lying about everything . If they read the book it is full of detail and can really be backed up with some media reporting and the crumbs we get via Scot court on the appeal docs.

But then their is the question of why , why stay in an area where the abuse and hate for her opinion and something she feels strongly about is faced with rude, bullying and just horrible behaviour esp on forums.

Someone thinks Sandra is not being transparent , she didicated a book to the case , she furthers her own knowledge by achieving qualifications relating to the subject. She PUBLICALLY with her OWN name out here in the public , opened to all sorts of questions which again she does PUBLICALLY. Whereas we have a Scottish criminal justice system that hide most away from the public, never come out to defend their case . Not one expert has PUBLICALLY came out and tell us why they have faith in guilt, not one book, not one documentary supporting guilt , the only people not being transparent is the criminal justice system in Scotland.

Further , Sandra lean had two daughters ages with Jodi and Luke why would she make up lies to get a murderer out in the same streets as her own children , she does not come across as some type of nutter who has no concern for her own children safety .  So their is no logical sense why she would put her own children at harm unless she feels very strongly that the person in prison is not correct, now I can see that being motivational the fact that the killer is still in her area therefore her children are not safe.

The character assignation of this lady by computer bods who's only agenda is to discredit , troll and just horrible vile comments about a lady who's only crime is to report on the bias and unfair treatment of a 15 year old , I'm thankful she has shown courage , determination and has been as transparent as this Scottish legal systems allow.  She has said for years she cannot put all out in the public, my feelings are if their was no truth in this then legal minded person would come out and say she is lying she can show it , in light of that never been done I can only concur that Sandra Lean is telling the truth.

I believe a fresh forensic analysis will bring resolve for all, and that will be followed by the Enquiry if that real evidence points to another person , the Enquiry will  follow suit depending on results. 15- 25 years can be an averag time for these type of cases getting sorted out , it's painthfully slow as ther s many parties involved and these institutes don't take accountability freely but it will happen as more fair minded people read about this the more out rage will be built forcing an fair review esp when it comes to the forensic analysis on this case, that needs explaining its not an area that doesn't matter this type of evidence far out weighs a phone log of Luke calling the talking clock . We need real unmovable evidence to seal this case with reassurance and certainty.