The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003

[Buddy]

nugnug, has there been any explanation as to what happened to the knife that luke carried, but has never been found?

[nugnug]

oh you mean the empty knife pouch that knife was found.

it was  in lukes house it just wasn't in the pouch his mum had put it away.

in truth there was no missing knife.

[nugnug]

this should explain.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/

if you read this link it should explian

[Buddy]

oh you mean the empty knife pouch that knife was found.

it was  in lukes house it just wasn't in the pouch his mum had put it away.

in truth there was no missing knife.

Thanks nugs.
I am not sure of this case, but what I find compelling is the semen stains on Jodi's top and pants that belonged to Jaines boy friend. I do not believe that Jodi would have put on soiled clothing.

[nugnug]

well it would depend weather she could see them or not.

but i dont think any girl that age would knowingly put on a shirt with a sperm stain on it.

i mean most tramps wouldn't do it.

[nugnug]

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/edinburgh/campaigners-poised-for-new-bid-to-clear-jodi-jones-killer-1-2414295

[OnceSaid]

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/edinburgh/campaigners-poised-for-new-bid-to-clear-jodi-jones-killer-1-2414295

An excellent article, well done to David O'Leary and the Scotsman.

[nugnug]

i am somewhat confused as to how a review can be done on the basis of something that is not admissible evedence.

[nugnug]

still deafining silence from the record i notice.

[OnceSaid]

i am somewhat confused as to how a review can be done on the basis of something that is not admissible evedence.

The lie detector results will be a tiny part of what is contained in the submissions to the SCCRC and will not form the basis of a review.  I think the journalist has got the wrong end of the stick. 

[OnceSaid]

still deafining silence from the record i notice.

nugnug I think it is possible that the DR now realizes that Luke might just be innocent right enough, and have taken a backseat from reporting on him.  Perhaps this is a good thing that they have not reported on him recently, due to the damage they have done to him and his family since 2003.

[OnceSaid]

this should explain.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/

if you read this link it should explian

I think if anyone is interested in discussing this case on here they should read the caseblog in full, and if they have the time, read the thread which discusses the case, because if it is factual information they are looking for, that is where they will find it.

It is such a complex case, but well worth reading about.

[nugnug]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/luke-mitchell-in-new-bid-to-gain-freedom.18196698

[Suzie]

nugnug I think it is possible that the DR now realizes that Luke might just be innocent right enough, and have taken a backseat from reporting on him.  Perhaps this is a good thing that they have not reported on him recently, due to the damage they have done to him and his family since 2003.

And yet it seems they now have something to say. They used his proper name too.

Daily Record

[nugnug]

i was rather shocked by that.