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

[nugnug]

oh so its just a personal gripe and nothing to do with luke mitchell really.

[guest154]

My comments to SL have been about AP. I didn't realise SL was the same SL I knew of until I'd already began posting in this topic.

My thoughts on SL and on Luke Mitchell are different matters.

[Neil]

But for the record, I didn't intend to appear agressive towards her just..amused.

Agressive was a little harsh, agreed.  However, I am still struggling to fathom exactly where you are coming from.  Do you regard her as charlatan, who has no place in the judicial system?  I'm not sure what your profession is but I have formed the impression that it is within the legal field (having considered your tip off about the CCRC decision).  Is it a case of jealousy?  Again, no offence is intended.

[sandra L]

Mat said

No, I'm not aware how many cases you and your erm... team.. have under your wings at the moment. Maybe you could tell us roughly how many cases you work? You host 9 websites? Is that nine cases? So at any given time you and your team are working on 9 appeals/CCRC submissions/ investigating 9 cases.

Please, Mat, I understand from your posts today that you have some sort of complaint about me - I think you said it was "personal" between us? I don't know you, but, by all means, PM me, or even post on the forum what it is you believe I have done which has caused your reaction to me - that way I can at least respond. (Apologies to regular posters - if Mat wants to set up a separate thread for that, rather than it hijacking posts about MoJ cases, I think that would be best.)

My ...erm... team? I work with different teams on different cases, obviously, since there are different solicitors, experts, families, etc, involved in each individual case. I said WAP hosted websites for 9 cases - you're clearly not stupid, Mat, you know what "hosted" means, and it doesn't even begin to imply working on appeals, CCRC applications, etc. Hosting websites is a way of supporting families who want the wider public to know their stories - it can't, and won't, influence how those cases progress, except perhaps in a roundabout way by bringing witnesses forward - every case we host on WAP is aware of this.

The cases we host are investigated before we agree to host sites - there would be no other sensible way to do it.

I would just like to say, though, that I don't have the time, energy or inclination to keep responding to posts which have nothing to do with MoJs. If you have a gripe with me, that's fine - there are a number of ways you can contact me directly and air your grievances without disrupting forums which are trying to discuss injustice. If you want to claim I have been involved in any wrongdoing of any description, then let's have it - preferably not on a thread discussing a MoJ, as that is not fair. Otherwise, sorry, but you're wasting everyone's time and energy.

Deliberately misquoting someone has been used by many others in the past to derail sensible discussion - it's not a new approach, and it's totally transparent. So that's my bottom line - I'm happy to discuss the cases I've commented on, I'm happy to discuss my work, provided it does not impinge on threads about other matters, and I'm happy to address any complaint you have about me - privately or publicly. Now, can we please get back to the subject of this thread, which is the murder of Jodi Jones, and the lack of justice for all concerned in the case?

[sandra L]

Oncesaid sai

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.

The so called Marilyn Manson connection is interesting. When Jodi's sister took the stand, she told the court that she probably had every one of Manson's cds and DVDs. She said Jodi was not as big a fan as she (the sister) but had been introduced to some of his music by her sister and liked a few of the tracks she'd heard/seen. If an "obsession" with Manson was a part of this murder in any way (which I don't believe it was, for all of the reasons Oncesaid listed), then why was the sister's interest not investigated further, especially when it emerged, within just over two weeks, that the sister's boyfriend's DNA, from body fluids, had turned up on the victim's clothing?

If we strip it back to circumstances before all the incredible "explanations" which were either accepted at face value, or (worse) suggested by investigators, we have a 14 year old girl, murdered in the most horrific and brutal manner, a potential belief that the Black Dahlia murder, as depicted by Marilyn Manson, may have been an influence, a close family member who not only has a keen interest in Manson's work, but has also seen the DVD which was the "freebie" purchased with a magazine by Luke, and another "about to be" relative whose DNA turns up on the victim's clothing - an none of that is considered of interest to a murder investigation?

I'm not suggesting that the sister or her boyfriend had anything to do with the murder - I'm questioning why these things were not properly investigated and conclusively ruled out.

[andrea]

Hi Sandra, do you always believe the internet is a good thing? I realise its importance of spreading the word to a wider audience, and that it helps in that way. But have you found any downfalls to it?

[Neil]

Mat said
Please, Mat, I understand from your posts today that you have some sort of complaint about me - I think you said it was "personal" between us? I don't know you, but, by all means, PM me, or even post on the forum what it is you believe I have done which has caused your reaction to me - that way I can at least respond. (Apologies to regular posters - if Mat wants to set up a separate thread for that, rather than it hijacking posts about MoJ cases, I think that would be best.)

My ...erm... team? I work with different teams on different cases, obviously, since there are different solicitors, experts, families, etc, involved in each individual case. I said WAP hosted websites for 9 cases - you're clearly not stupid, Mat, you know what "hosted" means, and it doesn't even begin to imply working on appeals, CCRC applications, etc. Hosting websites is a way of supporting families who want the wider public to know their stories - it can't, and won't, influence how those cases progress, except perhaps in a roundabout way by bringing witnesses forward - every case we host on WAP is aware of this.

The cases we host are investigated before we agree to host sites - there would be no other sensible way to do it.

I would just like to say, though, that I don't have the time, energy or inclination to keep responding to posts which have nothing to do with MoJs. If you have a gripe with me, that's fine - there are a number of ways you can contact me directly and air your grievances without disrupting forums which are trying to discuss injustice. If you want to claim I have been involved in any wrongdoing of any description, then let's have it - preferably not on a thread discussing a MoJ, as that is not fair. Otherwise, sorry, but you're wasting everyone's time and energy.

Deliberately misquoting someone has been used by many others in the past to derail sensible discussion - it's not a new approach, and it's totally transparent. So that's my bottom line - I'm happy to discuss the cases I've commented on, I'm happy to discuss my work, provided it does not impinge on threads about other matters, and I'm happy to address any complaint you have about me - privately or publicly. Now, can we please get back to the subject of this thread, which is the murder of Jodi Jones, and the lack of justice for all concerned in the case?

As you are no doubt, acutely aware, there are a lot of troublemakers out there, attempting to undermine your sterling work.  I plead with you, not to engage with these people.  They are not worth the time and trouble.  It only encourages them to continue with their bullshit.  I'm not sure that I am with you on all your cases but I would back you 100% as a person.

[nugnug]

i think the fact they have to use these tactics proves how week the case against luke mitchell is.

[guest154]

As you are no doubt, acutely aware, there are a lot of troublemakers out there, attempting to undermine your sterling work.  I plead with you, not to engage with these people.  They are not worth the time and trouble.  It only encourages them to continue with their bullshit.  I'm not sure that I am with you on all your cases but I would back you 100% as a person.

Hopefully you don't mean me, Neil?

i think the fact they have to use these tactics proves how week the case against luke mitchell is.

With respect - the case can't be that weak if it led to a conviction and to appeals being unsuccessful.

[nugnug]

so how come none of the guilty posters can discuss it without changing the subject to disccusing a completely different case.

how come none of them can discuss the case without resorting to stupid personal attacks on his supporters when you have a strong argument you don't need to do that.

[nugnug]

well theres theres the dna evidence for a start.


other mens sperm and blood.

there was no trace of lukes dna how could he clean and leave other peoples on there.

[nugnug]

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

[nugnug]

yes there is if you bother to read it.

[gordo30]

Im sure you have the ability to look through the site that the link took you to. Theres a sections in a drop down menu entitled DNA and by some crazy twist of fate thats where you will see refference's to other males sperm and blood at the crime scene.

[nugnug]

sory i did not the right link.

if you go to the bit where it says othere suspects and click on it there will be a page witch says suspecs and dna.

that is where it is.