I’ve read this whole thread and my first set of posts are in response to posts by Lamberton (who is, of course, infamous from many forums) and Janet. Lamberton seems to have disappeared from this forum now, thank goodness, and Janet seems to have had a change of heart (unless it’s a different Janet) , which is great, but I still feel these posts had to be responded to, as there are other people getting their information from the same sources and posting the same kind of non-arguments (i.e. no facts, they just think Luke is guilty).
Replies to Janet
It’s no surprise that you don’t understand why so many people believe the conviction of Luke Mitchell to be unsafe. You get all your information from the gutter press. So many of your links are to the some of the most biased reporting I’ve ever read. Was no surprise that you eventually posted an article by the hysterical Melanie Reid, trying her best as usual to create moral panics. If she’s to be believed, given the high incidence of divorce and the large number of single parents in this country, we must be raising a new race of Hitlers.
And just when you think the the filth at NOW couldn’t stoop any lower we find out about them hacking poor Milly Dowler’s phone, giving her family false hope that she was still alive. And the police have known about this (and about all the other illegal hacking) for years and did nothing. Why? Because these are the same wretched excuses for human beings that the police use any time they want someone ripped apart by the press, any time they want someone tried in the court of public opinion not in a court of law. They’re as bad as each other.
If knowing what they did to Milly Dowler’s family doesn’t make you stop and think about all the other people they’ve harmed for no reason other than to sell their rags then nothing will.
Janet wrote:
You are trying to tell me that every single thing ever printed about Luke Mitchell or his family is all lies? Not one shred of truth in anything ever said if it is bad for Mitchell? Is that what you are trying to say here? Its not just the Mail you say this about. Its every single news paper. You are very naïve. I don’t have time to give you a lesson on how these hacks work, but they’re experts at taking everyday occurences or behaviour, never mind anything even slightly eccentric, and making it seems sinister. They spread lies and disinformation like the plague. It’s their foul job to write the most sensational, lurid stories they can to sell their rags – truth doesn’t come in to it. Just give the people what they want. There’s so much material already to work with that when they do finally set their sights on the Jones family (and they will when the truth about Jodi’s murder comes out) God help them.
Janet quote:
We all know the papers get things wrong but come on they do not get everything wrong now do they? No, they don’t ALL always get everything wrong, and the decent papers will at least try to be balanced. Why don’t you read an article from September 2003 that was published in the Guardian and you’ll find that journalists were not only perfectly aware of what the police were doing to Luke but most of them actively colluded in it. You might find the last paragraph very ironic:
'Hate Me,' sang Kurt Cobain. I suppose there are some small mercies left in this horrible tale. At least, unlike in America, nobody is claiming the music was responsible for this crime. Dobbie hadn’t been to the Feds yet, to get the winning idea of using ownership of a Marilyn Manson CD/DVD, bought AFTER Jodi died, to prove Luke committed murder!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/07/ukcrime.comment?INTCMP=SRCH You read every rag in the country so you never get a balanced opinion based on good investigative journalism. You read lazy, sensationalist rubbish, from journos who have just as much vested interest in seeing Luke stay in prison as the cops and courts do seeing as how they, as much as the police, ensured that he would never get a fair trial. How I’m looking forward to those vile excuses for human beings having to eat their own foul words.
Janet quote:
No one takes what is said by the mitchell brigade seriously anyway.
Thought you didn’t know anyone involved, are a complete outsider, so why do you find it impossible to keep a sense of proportion and resort to personal insult when you don’t like what someone says? If no-one was taking the ‘mitchell brigade’ seriously why are people like you so defensive, and why did JoJ threaten Sandra Lean with ABH? Did it make him feel like a big man to threaten a tiny little woman, or is it just his violent impulses out of control again?
Janet quote:
Do you know who said what in court?
It’s what wasn’t said in court that’s more pertinent to finding out the truth!
Janet quote:
It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case
No it isn’t. All the 'facts’ weren’t put before the jury. And if investigations into MOJs only stuck to the ‘facts’ of the original trials no one innocent would ever be released!
Janet quote on the 'not proven' verdict meaning someone is innocent:
It might mean it in law, but we all know what it really means don't we?
What a smug comment from someone who claims to be interested in justice! Just one of many reasons so many innocent people do get convicted – too many people who think like you. No doubt there are guilty people who walk free, just as there are innocent people who are convicted, but if a case isn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then the person is innocent, whether the verdict is ‘Not Guilty’ or ‘Not Proven’. This is supposed to be not just a sacrosanct legal principle but a moral one too.
Posting a photo of a teenager’s school jotter to prove he’s a maniacal killer – clutching at straws, just like the cops, but secure in the knowledge that so many people are too stupid to see these tactics for what they are or too lazy to look beyond the rubbish you’re fed by the gutter press every day.
Janet quote:
I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason. –
Funny how some folk love to dish it out...
Janet quote:
Are you trying tell us that the police, the prosecutors, defence QC's, lawyers and the pathologists and any other person doing testing on Jodi totally ignored all this sperm and evidence? I do not believe it.Doesn’t matter whether you believe it – it’s true. You could read all about this if you wanted to - I believe nugnug has posted links several times to a site with information about this - but perhaps that’s too much effort to make to try and learn the truth. Much easier to read the rags.
Janet quote:
Pathologists gave evidence in court. No mention of all this DNA at trial.
And it doesn't strike you as wrong that it wasn't? Again I say, why don’t you read about why this wasn’t raised at trial? Why don’t you question why such deals are done? Why don’t you consider how you’d feel if your own advocate sold you down the river like that. He should be disbarred, or at least censured for his handling of what is laughingly referred to as a defence.
Janet quote:
Which according to things I have read, Luke Mitchell said he saw the night the body was found yet the pathologist said it was not easily visible.
Luke couldn’t give a detailed description of what he saw, yet despite this poor visibility Alice Walker managed to give a vivid and graphic description of what Jodi’s body looked like when she first saw it, in stark contrast to Luke’s or SKs. Is it usual for a 65 (or thereabouts) year old woman to have better eyesight than a 14 year-old boy with a torch?
And you’re really happy to just ignore all the statements changing, lies about phone calls and texts, people being in places they just could not have got to in the time scales they claim, all the male members of the extended Jones family being kept well out the picture, police disregarding the most incredibly suspicious behaviour by members of the Jones family, collusion between family members, etc. etc.? There’s really nothing at all that makes you wonder what the hell really went on that night and during the subsequent investigation?
If the answer is no, why don’t you post why you believe so strongly that Luke is guilty, and upon what evidence you base that belief. Funny how no members of the Jones family, or SK, will do that either. Why don’t you explain all the contradictions, inconsistencies and lies. Why don’t you explain why you think it’s ok for all the Jones family to completely change their statements over a significant period of time but Shane Mitchell was pilloried for once asking to add a detail to his statement which he dared to remember after talking to his mother.
Janet quote:
Frontlines clearly biased agendaWhat about the press bias that you so happily overlook as you post link after link to articles from the worst of the gutter press?
Janet quote:
Luke Mitchell Support hint very strongly that the Jones family are involved in some way
I’m afraid that it’s the evidence that more than hints that the family lied about very many things. To read the details of the way all their stories changed so dramatically, including all forgetting the same stuff, to all remembering the same stuff, from all remembering the same things, to all remembering something completely different, is breathtaking. All the details that they didn’t know: when Jodi left, what she was wearing, no recollection of Jodi using Judy’s phone to send any texts. Yet after about a month of kind assistance from the cops they were able to present such a loving story of a happy family sitting together listening to a ’meaningful’ song, before Jodi was ‘ungrounded’ and set off so happily to meet her boyfriend – that according to Dobbie she was about to confront over having another girlfriend in such a manner he’d go mental and kill her!
Many people are gobsmacked at the extent of the lies and the amount of family members involved in lying, including, let's not forget, cousins JoF and GD. People want an explanation. Until more details from their statements, and the progression of the changed stories, came into the public domain the extent of the lying by the Jones family was not public knowledge, so even people who were disquieted at the lies that were exposed at trial, felt they could not discuss these feelings openly as it was unthinkable surely that Jodi's family could have had any involvement in the murder, or be shielding the guilty parties.
Yet how a jury could ignore the lies and suspicious behaviour of JF, GD and SK, with such a history of violence, drug abuse and involvement in drug dealing (and they aren't the only ones), and find it was proved beyond doubt that a 14 year old with no history of violence (except a fight at school when he was about 10!), and no evidence to link him to the crime, is truly terrifying. And thanks to the police determining it was Luke who was guilty from the very beginning (many of the facts that prove this to be true have been made public on WAP), they weren’t the only people whose history could have been relevant but who were never properly investigated.
And unlike the police and the Jones family, I for one do not for a second buy any 'transfer' rubbish about why SKs sperm was not just on Jodi’s t-shirt but on her underwear too. It beggars belief that no one in the Jones family, not Jodi’s mother, not Jodi’s sister who was SKs fiancé (who even married him), had any problems with this at all. It wasn’t even him who offered the explanation that Jodi must have been wearing Janine’s t-shirt. The first suggestion of this was made by the POLICE themselves (read about it on WAP). And the Jones family don’t find anything strange about that? No. In fact, Janine is quite happy to go along with that suggestion, although her statements regarding it seem to have been very vague. And what a happy coincidence that she had two identical t-shirts! And so into this police theory do the Jones family get that auntie Agnes even works into the appeal for information that Jodi was always borrowing Janine’s clothes WITHOUT ASKING! WTF was that included in such an appeal, if not to establish as fact something that has never been proven as fact.
And why was the t-shirt not shown on the reconstruction – Jodi was known to wear her hoody unzipped and hanging off her shoulders. Seeing the t-shirt could have helped jog memories. Why couldn’t the police even get that right?
Such was the horror of what happened to Jodi that for many years the Jones family have not had to answer for anything, with the police and the media practically elevating Judy to sainthood, and ignoring very many nasty problems within that family that
might have had a bearing on what happened that night. Such was the public sympathy for the Jones family that Donald Findlay wouldn't even cross-examine them on all the inconsistencies, contradictions and lies because it would alienate the jury! Shame on him for not doing right by Luke and exposing all these things. Shame on him for not having an independent forensic report done and introducing the DNA evidence at trial. Shame, shame, shame on L&B police for ignoring ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT POINTED TO OTHER PEOPLE in their determination not to concede that they’d screwed up big time in going after a 14 year-old kid without any evidence whatsoever. Shame, shame, shame on everyone who has denied Jodi justice by lying and covering up for the real killer/s.
Replies to Lamberton
You are a seriously disturbed person. Attacking people for not having much money – well, hardly surprising. Money is obviously more important to you than anything else. Your greed led you to become a convicted criminal.
Lamberton criticising nugnug -
He cannot even provide a single shred of evidence in support of Luke Mitchell yet he claims to be the saviour for everyone else. His hypocrisy knows no bounds. Well, Lamberton, you started out being one of LMs strongest supporters yet now you hate him – but it’s you that can’t provide one shred of proof that Luke Mitchell killed Jodi. The police couldn’t do it either. You are the hypocrite.
I don’t know, nor do I care, if you’re innocent or not, but I do know that you have an ego the size of Mount Everest – you only do Luke down now because people on WAP wouldn’t allow you to keep posting wild theories, and you’re so mad at them that you’ve turned into their biggest detractors.
I don’t know or care whether Janet and John are one and the same (although the use of ‘Janet’ as an alter-ego would seem to reflect Lamberton’s juvenile sense of humour and his belief that he’s cleverer than everyone else – trait of conmen everywhere) but ‘she’ has certainly come to reflect his style and seems more concerned with having a public love-in with him (who appears to have created new online identities for this specific purpose many times) rather than have any desire whatsoever to find out the truth about who murdered Jodi
Your posts continually describe horrific injuries to Jodi. We all know what they were. Why do you regurgitate the details at every opportunity? What’s worse for Judy Jones – having to constantly read your lurid descriptions or people simply asking questions or presenting facts which cast, at the very least, serious doubt on the safety of Luke's conviction, if not pointing very clearly towards the actual killers of her daughter? If it’s the latter (and I’ve never seen her make any objection to you and your ilk writing in this way) then people who want to know the truth must ask why this is the case.
Lamberton quote:
Typical of a scum bag coward to ridicule a woman for drinking when her beautiful 14 year-old daughter was murdered by the psycho Luke Mitchell but then again murder is no stranger to the smiffy family is it? Judy Jones didn’t start drinking because her daughter was murdered, it’s something she’s done for years. Indeed, it’s what she was doing the night Jodi was killed, in between lifting a non-existent grounding, making lasagne, visiting graves, failing to notice her daughter was in effect reported missing by Luke to her partner AO at 6.40pm – she apparently didn’t realise this until she called Luke at 10.40pm, although Jodi’s usual curfew was around 9.30 or 10.
When Judy does decide to get in touch with Jodi she doesn’t even phone, yet she did call someone else that night, around 10.15pm – why won’t she say what that was about? What was so important that that person merited a phone call but her own daughter didn’t? Most parents would have been sending out the search parties at 6.40 when they’re first informed their child is not where they’re supposed to be, but even knowing this Judy still isn’t concerned enough to even phone her when she hasn’t got home by 10.40. Most parents fear the worst if their kids are even a little late – it’s why the relief when they turn up safe and well turn them into lunatics.
Many people questioned this behaviour privately but tempered it with the utmost sympathy for her grief – after all, every parent makes mistakes. But in the light of all the curious phone calls, the behaviour of the search parties, the aunties who must have been on the scene even before they’ve been told what’s happened, the vast gulf between original statements and what is finally said by the Jones family and SK in court (statements which were developed over a considerable period of time and in some cases with considerable prompting from police officers), the DNA results that were obtained (not to mention DNA results that weren’t – for example, from under Jodi’s fingernails), people have to ask questions.
Lamberton quote:
Well done to the Daily Record and The Scottish Sun for following up on the recent comments and exposing the Wrongly Accused retards for what they really are.Bizarre that someone who purports to care about justice and decency would congratulate two of the worst offenders for peddling lies and filth – then again, their articles are written so they can be understood by people with an average reading age of 7! They know their audience.
Lamberton quote:
Luke was seen loitering by the end of Roan's Dyke footpath at 5.42pm (27 mins after the murder some 150m away) by no less than two independent witnesses who described him and his clothing perfectly.This says it all about what you know – nothing! You don't know when she died – no one does. Time of death was never established. You're doing what the cops did – using a fictitious timeline so Luke can be neatly slotted in and blamed for the murder. This is one reason why the time of Jodi leaving home was changed so drastically – from 5.30 to 4.50.
Re Luke being near RD and at what time – you’re accepting evidence from witnesses who changed their statements from what they originally said (especially in relation to WHERE they saw him, which was near the Abbey) and who even Findlay couldn't fail to discredit in court. But again, you’re only doing what the cops, courts and jury did. And yes, those 2 witnesses did describe Luke’s bomber jacket, the one he’d been wearing all day, the one the cops had, the one that had no forensic evidence on it (like all his other clothes) to link him with Jodi’s murder, the one he never denied wearing. What they didn't describe was the parka that the police were so insistent that he had been wearing!
And leaving aside the fact that you don’t know that Jodi was dead by 5.15, are you seriously saying that a mere 27 minutes later Luke would be casually loitering on Newbattle Road (regardless of whether it was closer to the path or not) having disposed of the weapon so well it’s never been found, erased all trace of his having been at the scene, but being careful to leave behind blood, semen and saliva from other people, (and unidentified hairs), got rid of all his clothing from the skin out (including the forensic suit he must have been wearing or, failing possession of that, a parka, which is apparently just as effective at ensuring a crime scene doesn’t get contaminated). Are you sure you’re not Craig Dobbie?
And why did he not phone his mates to meet him at that point? Why just hang about quite openly on the main road? If he’d just killed her he’d sure as hell know Jodi wasn’t coming to meet him and he’d want to be with other people as quickly after the event as possible. And if he was cool and calculated enough to ensure there was ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO LINK HIM TO THE MURDER he’d be cool and calculated enough to do that.
Lamberton quote:
The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.
You’re just making that ‘close contact’ bit up. They smoked weed at lunchtime in the company of other friends, none of whom described them as having had close PHYSICAL contact, and they weren’t in each others classes. Also, why are you saying it’s suspicious that Luke’s DNA wasn’t on her clothing because they’d had contact at school that day – don’t you believe that Jodi wasn’t wearing the same clothes she’d worn to school that day? That she was wearing her sister’s t-shirt (even though nothing was produced to prove that and it was the police who first made that suggestion to SK as he struggled to explain why his semen was all over Jodi)? Another resemblance to Dobbie – neither of you let the truth get in the way of a good story so you contradict yourselves time and again without even realising it.
Hope you've gone for good. You won't be missed.
To everyone posting about alibis – how does anyone know whether someone had an alibi for the time the murder happened as there was no positive time of death established. The police built a circumstantial case for the time the murder occurred but this was never backed up by any scientific evidence. ( And why there wasn’t any is another question that those of us who care about truth and justice would like answered.) Luke can state where he was and with whom for the entire period of Jodi leaving home until she was found dead. For some of that time he was home with his mother but for the majority of the period his whereabouts are corroborated by witnesses who had nothing to gain from their testimony. SOME of the jury (remember it was not a unanimous decision) chose to disregard these witnesses and trust a witness who had caught a glimpse of a couple of people as she drove round a sharp bend with her 2 children in the car, who did not describe the clothing Jodi was known to have been wearing, who did not describe the jacket the police claimed Luke had been wearing, who refused to identify Luke in court as the ‘man’ she had seen, and who had changed her story (including the time she drove round that bend) several times. SOME also chose to believe 2 witnesses who placed Luke near the entrance to the other end of the path although they had originally told the police, and other people, that he was much further down the road near the Abbey, where he himself said he was, and which is corroborated by independent witnesses. Neither did they describe him as wearing the jacket that the police claimed Luke was wearing. They also changed the time they originally said they’d seen him. And some people on this forum wonder why so many people think there has been a miscarriage of justice!
FreeWillieGage – why do you accept that SKs sperm was on Jodi’s clothing, including her underwear, because she was wearing her sister’s t-shirt? If you knew anything about semen stains you would find it ridiculous that a young girl about to go and meet her boyfriend would wear a t-shirt stained with another man’s semen. It’s not as if she wouldn’t have noticed it! It would have been highly visible (the t-shirt was black!) and would have felt nasty.
And, to reiterate, the information that is now in the public domain (details on WAP) that no DNA samples taken from Jodi’s body matched Luke’s DNA, that some samples have been identified and match SK, that there are a number of samples which are still unidentified, all come from the reports of the forensic testing carried out for the police. It is fact, and no amount of refusing to believe it, or trying to argue it away will alter the facts. Luke’s DNA was not on Jodi, but DNA BELONGING TO OTHER MEN was. Why do you not want to get to the truth of why the person whose DNA wasn’t found is sitting in jail while all the other DNA evidence is ignored?
You also question why Luke’s DNA wasn’t found on Jodi as they’d been together at school that day. (Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don’t!) Like Lamberton, you’re clutching at straws here because the answer is very simple. Jodi and Luke met at lunchtime that day but were not alone, several other friends were with them, so they weren’t being intimate with each other. They may well have sat close together, and hugged on parting, so Luke’s DNA probably was on her at that point – maybe some hair, some skin cells. So why wasn’t it found however many HOURS LATER that the testing was done? Well, when Jodi came home from school SHE CHANGED HER CLOTHES BEFORE GOING OUT. She probably also washed and cleaned her teeth. And Luke never met up with her that night, ergo his DNA was not found on her body.
And why is it odd to you that a teenage boy who phoned his girlfriend and was told she wasn’t in didn’t call back again but went to meet his mates, especially as arrangements to meet were often casual and flexible. Yet to you it’s not odd that her parents weren’t concerned that she wasn’t with Luke 40 minutes after she’d allegedly left to meet him (although the ever-changing statements from Judy Jones about the time Jodi actually left home suggest she didn’t have a clue what time it was.) Neither do you seem to find it bizarre that she then waited until 10.40pm (40 minutes past her curfew, and 4 HOURS AFTER LUKE TOLD ALAN OVENS THAT JODI WASN’T WITH HIM) to try and contact Jodi, and even then it she did not phone but sent a text! You have a very skewed idea about who should have been taking responsibility for Jodi’s well being.
I also question why you are so hellbent on attacking people concerned about this case and appointing yourself arbiter of whether or not they believe that Luke is innocent. The fact is, while many people are certain that Luke is innocent other people may not be so certain. They do not have to be because what they are certain about is that Luke was not treated fairly by the police and the press, that public opinion was so turned against him that he could not get a fair trial (remember juries are picked from the general population, and remember some of the shenanigans that went on with the jury!), that the police botched the investigation from the very beginning (failing to cover the scene, evidence being moved, bins not being searched for the murder weapon, the police surgeon not attending the scene until the next day because the police could neither assist the first one to attend to get over a wall nor suggest that she WALK ROUND IT!, people linked to the crime scene by DNA and/or witnesses were ignored as possible suspects, etc., etc.). What they are concerned about are all the conflicting and contradictory phone calls and the ever-changing statements of who was where, why and at what time, things the police should have been concerned about but weren’t. What they do know is that the truth about Jodi’s murder is not yet known.
People caught up in the investigation KNOW the underhanded and bullying tactics used by the police to try and get the statements they wanted, to turn the many people who did not believe that Luke was guilty against him. Tactics used not just with adults but with vulnerable children, of whom, let’s not forget, Luke Mitchell was one. Those people also KNOW the PART PLAYED BY THE TABLOIDS – lies, smears, innuendo and even bigger lies – AND ALL OF IT SANCTIONED BY THE POLICE AND THE COURTS. And how the ‘tabloid-reading public’ loved it. Just another blood sport - watching a child, who had the right, legally and morally, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, being ripped apart. Funny how everyone knows that you ‘can’t believe everything you read in the papers’ – until it turns them on. One young life cut short so tragically wasn’t enough for the tabloids or for them.
