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

[gordo30]

As for enlisting John's help? I asked for his opinion on certain aspects of the case. I posting long before I asked him about the case.

I wonder how you feel now though mat after having seen John not just edit but totally over write that whole 1st post about misrepresentation on this forum. This is the man your asking questions of! this is the man you seem to place a lot of trust in and it was this forum that had to provide him with the information he needed to make an accurate post on his.
This is the reason why so many people have challenged you and those on the other forum these past few days because its so hard seeing total rubbish written elsewhere that has to be corrected. Directly or indirectly it will be us who will provide you with the information you will need to form an objective and balanced view point on this case as has been shown by the debacle on the other forum today.

[Neil]

I don't have a motivation - other than express opinion, listen to opinions, seek more information. Which I think is the aim for forums - no one can join and know everything about any case. I'm sure you yourself have learned alot more about the Jeremy Bamber case since joining this forum.

As for enlisting John's help? I asked for his opinion on certain aspects of the case. I posting long before I asked him about the case.

I didn't mean to be confrontational although it could well have read that way.  I think that having opposing views on the same forum is very healthy and something that I would encourage.  However,  I am genuinely interested in what motivates anyone to 'fight' for a cause that has already been won.  If someone has a personal interest in the case, then that's understandable but otherwise, I just don't understand. 

I do reiterate, I'm glad that you do though.

What do you think about John Lambertons case?  Please do not feel obliged to answer this question.

[guest154]

This is from Lambertons forum Mat.  If you are interested in the case why would you not read his official site and quote from there or question what has been said there?

I did read the official site - I didn't know about it until nugnug pointed it out.

I didn't mean to be confrontational although it could well have read that way.  I think that having opposing views on the same forum is very healthy and something that I would encourage.  However,  I am genuinely interested in what motivates anyone to 'fight' for a cause that has already been won.  If someone has a personal interest in the case, then that's understandable but otherwise, I just don't understand. 

No personal interest in the case for me.

What do you think about John Lambertons case?  Please do not feel obliged to answer this question.

What case?

[Neil]

I did read the official site - I didn't know about it until nugnug pointed it out.


No personal interest in the case for me.


What case?

http://www.justice4johnlamberton.com/

I am trying to find more information on this case but so far I've not got too far.  I did read in one article that his wife and brother appeared in court as prosecution witnesses.

[guest154]

Oh. It is a case I've heard one side of (from a member here) but nothing I have ever looked at before. Why do you care what I think? Just curious.

[gordo30]

Im getting curious also, I mean you probably know about the same amount of info on Lambertons case as you did about the Mitchell case but you managed to comment on one of them.

[nugnug]

im curios why someone who admits they know very little about the case would go around calling other posters liars and say they were being deceptive.

[Neil]

Oh. It is a case I've heard one side of (from a member here) but nothing I have ever looked at before. Why do you care what I think? Just curious.

It's just that ive formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly no doubt you'll correct me, that you tend to first approach a MoJ case from a guilty stand point.  I therefor thought it odd that you didn't, when it came to Johns. 

[guest154]

It's just that ive formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly no doubt you'll correct me, that you tend to first approach a MoJ case from a guilty stand point.  I therefor thought it odd that you didn't, when it came to Johns.

 I don't know if John is guilty or innocent. Or even when he is fully accused of or charged with or if he has appealled, plans to appeal. 

im curios why someone who admits they know very little about the case would go around calling other posters liars and say they were being deceptive.

I do find parts of this case deceptive.

[gordo30]

I can't remember ever commenting on JL's case before unless it was for point scoring but that is not the opinion I have on his case. Neil I do understand what your trying to say and on most case's I believe you to be correct. I do however feel that JL's case is unique as I feel he is both innocent and guilty at the same time. The goverment used him as a test case to close loop holes or set precedents on a number of issues and case's they have most probably followed through with in the past decade and it is through that that I have sympathy with Johns plight. What he did was certainly within the law but when that changes to suit then the official stand point will of course be what he went through and any defence would be futile.

There is of course another point to JL's case that may throw a spanner in the works and thats if JL had a motive whereby he was doing what he did to make sure that someone would not get their inheritance because of past indiscretions, that is if he had went out pre planned to defraud someone else and not his aunt to begin with.

[OnceSaid]

Whilst you're talking about credibility......
Just an idea. But if you need more time - maybe drop some cases? Working on too many cases can lead to mistakes or lead to you promoting the wrong cases. Such as that as Adrian Prout which I believe to be a huge stain on your own credibility.

Mat, you are talking here as if Adrian Prout only had one supporter, that supporter being SL, but that is so far from the truth.  He had plenty of support from various groups and individuals.  From what I had managed to read regarding the case I also believed that he could have been unfairly convicted as did many others.  I am shocked to hear you say that you have no faith in SL, perhaps that view may change if you ever find yourself in need of her help, like the many people who have been falsely arrested and convicted who would rubbish your claim that she has a stain on her own credibility.  There are many people within the moj world who have supported cases only to drop them/change their minds or come across evidence later on which throws doubt on their original findings.  Many of these people and the situations have not been made public. Adrian Prout could have refused to take the test, or he could have taken it and passed (as according to many on this forum it is a junk science anyway) and no one would have been any the wiser as the evidence just wasnt there to say he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion. 

SL may put herself out there, but she has a team of legal and non legal people supporting her in the work that she does and is admired and respected by each and every one of them that is why I am shocked by your comment especially when you dont know the person.   

[Neil]

I can't remember ever commenting on JL's case before unless it was for point scoring but that is not the opinion I have on his case. Neil I do understand what your trying to say and on most case's I believe you to be correct. I do however feel that JL's case is unique as I feel he is both innocent and guilty at the same time. The goverment used him as a test case to close loop holes or set precedents on a number of issues and case's they have most probably followed through with in the past decade and it is through that that I have sympathy with Johns plight. What he did was certainly within the law but when that changes to suit then the official stand point will of course be what he went through and any defence would be futile.

There is of course another point to JL's case that may throw a spanner in the works and thats if JL had a motive whereby he was doing what he did to make sure that someone would not get their inheritance because of past indiscretions, that is if he had went out pre planned to defraud someone else and not his aunt to begin with.

Hi Gordo,

I am having difficulty with this case also.  I've obviously read Johns version of events but have only seen a few lines in newspaper articles, putting forward the opposing side.  7 years was a considerable sentence to hand down for a crime of this nature.  This makes me wonder if there was more to it than John is letting on.
I would very much like to read the judges summing up.

[Neil]

Mat, you are talking here as if Adrian Prout only had one supporter, that supporter being SL, but that is so far from the truth.  He had plenty of support from various groups and individuals.  From what I had managed to read regarding the case I also believed that he could have been unfairly convicted as did many others.  I am shocked to hear you say that you have no faith in SL, perhaps that view may change if you ever find yourself in need of her help, like the many people who have been falsely arrested and convicted who would rubbish your claim that she has a stain on her own credibility.  There are many people within the moj world who have supported cases only to drop them/change their minds or come across evidence later on which throws doubt on their original findings.  Many of these people and the situations have not been made public. Adrian Prout could have refused to take the test, or he could have taken it and passed (as according to many on this forum it is a junk science anyway) and no one would have been any the wiser as the evidence just wasnt there to say he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion. 

SL may put herself out there, but she has a team of legal and non legal people supporting her in the work that she does and is admired and respected by each and every one of them that is why I am shocked by your comment especially when you dont know the person.

Well said, OnceSaid

[OnceSaid]

I did read the official site - I didn't know about it until nugnug pointed it out.

//
I also meant the Luke Mitchell thread and related topics.  To be honest I find the threads more informative than the caseblog.  It is very time consuming, but if you are at all interested in the case and getting your teeth into something, you may give it a read as some point.

[OnceSaid]

Part of the circumstantial case against LM was that he led a goth lifestyle, was into drugs and obsessed with the goth rocker Marilyn Manson, and also had an obession with the satanic. Ask any goth, and they will happily tell you LM was no goth, never in looks nor lifestyle, but even if he were a goth, that would  not make him a murderer. 

His home had been raided, computers taken away, anything belonging to him was taken by the police as well as anything else they thought may be relevant.  His relatives homes were searched as well as his mothers business. 

All computers were painstakingly searched and there was no evidence that Luke Mitchell had accessed any gothic sites, Marilyn Manson, anything to do with satan, etc.  All that was found was one CD which had been a freebie in a magazine which was purchased after the murder and a ripped up calender that he had been given. 

Where is the obssession that the prosecution spoke of? Due to the connection of Marlyn Manson and the Black Dahlia murder the police were desperate to make a connection due to the nature of the murder, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Luke Mitchell was aware of this Black Dahlia murder at all, not being into MM as the prosection claimed him to be. 

It is known that the police were given information on someone who was apparently obsessed with MM and the BD murder.  In the Frontline Scotland documentary the pathologist admits that the “similarities” between the Dahlia murder and Jodi Jones murder were “superficial” and that there were far more differences than there were similarities.

Even if this other person who the police had been made aware of and his obsession with MM and the BD murder, if there was more differences than there was similarities I cant see him being the murderer of JJ either, the problem is that they could have easily have built a circumstantial case against him too.