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

[nugnug]

he dident find the body his dog did just like a dog walker found sarah pains body.

theres no evedence he was obbsesed with any of those things.

everybody involved body involved in the case took drugs including the victims family.

[guest154]

No, don't get the facts mixed up - don't allow the story that he has changed after the trial to replace the actual timing of events. He claims it was his dog, this his dog alerted him to 'something strange' through that shaped hole in the fence.

Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.

I suppose he was just walking past whilst his girlfriend (one he claims to have loved yet he was two timing) was being killed.

Wake up, nug nug.

[nugnug]

your the one getting the facts mixed up all the search agread origannly that the dog found the body the change there statements in court.

at the end of the day his sperm and blood were not found on the body but the sperm and blood of others were.

there were no eye witness they couldn't point to him in court.

the description they gave looked nothing like him.

theres no evedence to put him anywhere near the scene of the crime but plenty of evedence to put othere people there.

[guest154]

I'm not sure I understand your post. But..The dog found the body? And what - went to the police? No, it was the dog with Luke.. he wasn't side by side with the search party. It's accepted that he found the body - what he says leads him there will change from time to time.

But I can't ignore.
His obessesion with knife murders.
The fact that his own brother failed to give him an alibi - he lied about being home.
The two witnesses that saw him on that lane at the time of the murders.
The note he wrote on the knife.
That it was he who quickly discovered the body in poor conditions (and the attempts to twist this information after the trial has finished).

He had a good lawyer, hell a great lawyer. But his own family were a huge factor in him being convicted, as well as the witnesses that saw him on that lane.

Every 'appeal' has failed. In fact - there was an appeal that decided not to appeal on the evidence but to appeal ont he fact he should be let out (or at least re-tried) because he didn't have access to a lawyer or the first how ever many hours he was arrested. When you get THAT desperate then you know hope is lost.


I don't even think he has a lawyer now - isn't Sandra Lean in charge of his case?

Mitchell isn't going anywhere. Bamber has more of a chance than getting out than Mitchell ever does.

[nugnug]

donald findley is not a great lawer he never wins he is was one of the worst lawers in history dont believe the hype.

his was in the army caadets he would have knives that does not mean he was obbsesd with them.

we will have to what and see what happens in the case buti can see him being free very soon.

by the logig your using you could say that the guy who found sarah pains body was the killer but we all know he wasnt.

[guest154]

He was obsessed with knives/death/and body multilation. There was a crime in particular that he was obessed with but I can't recall it off the top of my head. It was an American murder - a woman stabbed to death.


I don't think there is anything happening in the case. He losts the appeal in November in near record time. His Mum changes her stories almost as much as he does.

To say he will be free - is mind boggling.
To say he will be free 'soon' .... 

[nugnug]

well nobody can predict what the future.


and how has changed her story can you give any examples

there absolutely no evidence he was obbsesd with any of those things.

i think sooner or later they might notice of the dna evedence pointing to other people.

how would he have cleaned his own dna off but left other peoples on there.

[Neil]

The dog that accompanied Luke in the search, was a trained tracking dog, this FACT is not disputed.

The dog found the body, as I believe others in the search party confirmed.

[nugnug]

yes thats exactly right neil.

mat all the points you have allready been covered on lukes website.

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

[guest154]

I can't see anything on there about the inscription. If it is on there - can someone point me in the direction?

[gordo30]

Mat before you make anymore statements re the Mitchell case you should atleast read up on what your posting. The majority of it doesn't even resemble the case in question and it seems your very much at odds with even the most basic of details.

Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.

This is just rediculous thing to say as is the majority of what you have posted.

[nugnug]

i think this might be what your looking for mat.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/why-luke-is-not-the-murderer-e-and-f/

[guest154]

Mat before you make anymore statements re the Mitchell case you should atleast read up on what your posting. The majority of it doesn't even resemble the case in question and it seems your very much at odds with even the most basic of details.

Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.

This is just rediculous thing to say as is the majority of what you have posted.

I'm not suprised you'd say that. 

[gordo30]

Im just trying to stop you making an even bigger fool of yourself.

[guest154]

Im just trying to stop you making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Well thank you. But I can handle myself.
The two witnesses I talked about are mentioned on Luke's official website.  The website complains that it took them a while to come forward.

i think this might be what your looking for mat.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/why-luke-is-not-the-murderer-e-and-f/

Thanks, but not quite. I was looking for anything that mentions the "JJ 1989-2003"