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

[grahameb]

Grahame  I bet dear campion knows more about the Bamber Case than the rest of us put together.  I suspect he is a very wise man that says very little but observes everything.

Well he has a great insight into human nature and is thoroughly convinced that he is Innocent. Even more so that me.

[susan]

Bridget  would have been more appropriate if you had googled "nutter"

[Chelsea]

Your obviously very eager to dismantle Sandra ! Yes, you do sound identical to John Lamberton

[grahameb]

Hi Sandra, thanks for the reply, no response to the letter Luke penned saying "i will stab with a big **** stick. watch your blood spill on the soil, i will watch as you wither and die." though, wouldn't expect someone to fantasize about such things considering what he's been through.

"Yet any tiny discrepancies in the Mitchell family statements were jumped on as "suspicious" and "deliberate falsehoods."

Claiming you cooked your brother a burnt pie and him having no recollection of seeing you in the house that evening is a pretty big discrepency don't you think?


"Really, Lithium? Gosh, what a strange thing, then, that he cut off his own hair, knowing  he was "due a haircut" at the barbers the following day?"

Again, do you have any proof J Ferris didn't always cut his own hair? I doubt he already had the appointment at the barbers when he cut it, he probably made a mess of it and the appointment came as a result of that. And if he was cutting his hair to avoid being identified then why would he bother if he had the barbers the next day anyway? Ferris cutting his hair for no reason is more believable than Luke calling the speaking clock for no reason when he was supposed to be in his house.

"Why would anyone who was "due" a haircut (makes it sound like a regular arrangement, doesn't it?) suddenly chop off his own hair, and not be able to offer any explanation as to why?"

You're really asking for an explanation for him cutting his hair? Why does anyone get a haircut? I believe he said in court it was getting curly and messy and he didn't like it that way.

Grahame-

"Are you referring to Dr Sandra Lean? Don't you think it would be a good thing to refer to her by the title that she has earned rather than just her Christian name? After all this would indicate that we have some respect for her achievements. Unless you are of course an expert in criminalogy?"

I'm not taking anything away from her achievements, I'm at uni myself and I take my hat off to her, but why would I address her as Dr? Now you're just being petty,That's like me asking people to address me as Mr. *** *** in every day conversation. I'm sure you just wanted an excuse to remind everyone she's an 'expert' though, so job done.


I'm not John Lamberton or anyone else, and my username is just a song title. If you don't want me posting here just say and I'll leave.  [/co;or]

Lithium, as far as I am concerned you can call yourself what you like. It certainy is not up to me whether you post here or not. Neither have I said anything about your posting here. All I mentioned was that perhaps people may accept you if you had entered the forum by the right door?
Other than that I have no opposition to you being here. By the way when speaking to doctors I personally always call them "doctor". If you are a doctor then I will refer to you as "doctor". It just helps to keep that little distance between us out of respect.

[Chelsea]

How come you have such an interest in the Luke Mitchell case ? How come you have expert knowledge ?

[grahameb]

just let me discuss the case instead of admins and moderators trying to 'out' me when all I'm doing is trying to discuss the topic at hand and contribute to the site, and instead of people jumping on the defensive attack because I hold a different opinion from sandra.
sorry, Dr Sandra Lean.
you see how that's less natural?  I'm not addressing her personally, but as a screen name, don't read into it I'm sure she wasn't offended.

What can I do I'm not a moderator and if you noted I even suggested Roch rather send you a pm.

[grahameb]

just let me discuss the case instead of admins and moderators trying to 'out' me when all I'm doing is trying to discuss the topic at hand and contribute to the site, and instead of people jumping on the defensive attack because I hold a different opinion from sandra.
sorry, Dr Sandra Lean.
you see how that's less natural?  I'm not addressing her personally, but as a screen name, don't read into it I'm sure she wasn't offended.

Well how would you refer to Dr Who then?

[grahameb]

lol. if he joined here as "Who". I'd refer to him as such. Back on topic, I've been accused of trying to "explain away" so-called evidence. Can anyone explain away the following suspicious actions by Luke? Phone records show he phoned the speaking clock roughly the time of the murder, at a time where he claims he was at home making dinner. He didn't phone to see why Jodi hadn't turned up or where she had been all night. Just went home and went to bed without worrying about it even though she didn't show and hadn't contacted him all night.

I can't. I'm neutral and know nothing as I said.

[ngb1066]

I'm not John Lamberton or anyone else, and my username is just a song title. If you don't want me posting here just say and I'll leave. 

Do you admit that you have previously posted here as D-FENS?

[nugnug]

There were several areas on the T shirt which tested positive for the presence of semen. Many of these  contained sperm heads. The one found on the back underside of the left sleeve was noted as a "large stain" which suggests that it was visible. I will be out all day, but will look out the DNA reports this evening and confirm the actual number of areas.

There were several white stains on the hoodie which were visible to the naked eye - what they consist of has never been ascertained. There was an "extensive" area of blood-staining around the underarm of the left sleeve of the hoodie - there is no wound on Jodi's body which corresponds to that staining.

Jodi's T shirt was not taken off "over her head" - it was cut and ripped up the sides, across one side of the back, and through the neckline. The sleeves remained attached to the front piece.

The semen on the bra was found on the outside of the right and left cups, and in the padding of the left cup. The "transfer" theory does not explain how semen and sperm heads soaked through the surface of the bra into the padding below. The rainwater transfer (which was the prosecution's contention- the rain had diluted the semen on the t shirt, soaking it through to the bra, and also to other areas of the t-shirt) does not hold when one realises that after the clothes were stripped off, they were not thrown/dropped in the same place -the bra, cut bra strap, and two t-shirt parts were all found in different places. It did not rain that evening until after Jodi was claimed to have been murdered, stripped and mutilated, so any rain water transfer could only have happened after the clothes were removed from the body.

Also, Jodi left home wearing a hoodie, but there is no corresponding "transfer" of semen from the T-shirt to the inside of the hoodie, which would have been at least as likely as transfer to the bra. In an attempt to explain this away, the police began to question people about whether Jodi wore her hoodie tied around her waist. Not one person could be found who had ever known Jodi to wear her hoodie like that, so that line of enquiry was dropped.

Several of the mixed male and female profiles returned either "no reportable result" or "Jodi Jones and unidentified male" - the manner in which the DNA results were labelled and logged was confusing, at best, and downright misleading at worst. For example, (and this is just one of many), one label logged a sample found on one of the trainers as "no semen detected." The results, however,  show an unknown profile, in semen, from the same sample on the same trainer.

I cannot post copies of the DNA results online, as that would be an offence in Scotland. I have explained this many times - I have posted information from the results, as it appears in the reports, but that is as far as I can go. The labels I have posted are the exact wordings which appear on the results - I am not responsible for how those labels were worded, although some people seem quite keen to shoot the messenger!

As someone else has pointed out, the stories about the whereabouts of the sister's boyfriend changed to provide him with what appeared to be a watertight alibi - however, other statements raise doubts about where he was and who he was with. He finally claimed to be with the sister at his father's house - to date, I have never seen a statement from the father to confirm this. Initially, he said he visited the sister in the morning, stayed for a short time, and then left. By the final statement, he visited the sister in the morning, stayed all day, went with her to his father's and returned with her to the grandmother's.

Whilst I accept that people in shock may not remember important details, that should apply across the board - this discrepancy did not warrant further investigation (nor did a "mistaken" statement by the mother's boyfriend that the sister had actually been in the mother's house at the time she was claimed to be elsewhere with her boyfriend). Yet any tiny discrepancies in the Mitchell family statements were jumped on as "suspicious" and "deliberate falsehoods."

Interestingly, other people in the grandmother's house that morning do not mention him being there. None of this, of course, tells us that the boyfriend was in any way implicated. What it does tell us (and what I have been banging on about for over 9 years) is that the investigation was an absolute disgrace. If it had been done properly, we would not be having these discussions all these years later, because the questions would have been answered satisfactorily, and we could all be certain that the convicted person, whoever he had turned out to be as a result of a properly conducted, thorough and professional investigation, was the real killer.

As it stands, there are so many unanswered questions, so many inexplicable omissions, apparent errors, failures to follow through, etc, that no-one can rest easy that the conviction of Luke Mitchell is "safe" - far from it.

Lithium's attempts to provide innocent explanations for the sister's boyfriend's DNA on the T shirt Jodi was wearing demonstrate my point. Had that presence been fully investigated and properly eliminated, Lithium would have no need to argue the point (just as others would have no need to argue that the presence of his DNA raises many questions). It was not properly eliminated - the police appear to have handed them the "borrowed t shirt" explanation, the other samples on the t shirt remain unidentified, the rainwater transfer theory does not hold, and there is no proof, aside from the word of Jodi's sister, that two identical t shirts ever belonged to the sister. Six black t-shirts were recovered from Jodi's clothing - it is entirely possible that Jodi owned a black t-shirt identical to one owned by her sister.

Just to answer Lithium's question about confirmation, the sample is confirmed as a full match to SK. I have always been careful to point out that partial samples cannot be safely attributed to anyone, and would never claim that a partial "could be" any one person - the furthest I would go is to say it could be any one of several potential contributors. As a general rule, I avoid such discussion, as it is pointless, and dangerous.

As I have explained, I cannot provide the sort of proof Lithium would like, as to do so, I would have to reproduce the result from the DNA report, which I am prohibited from doing in Scotland.

are yes so a visible stained so no iso the innocent transfer thoery does not really stained up nobody would walk around in a sperm stained t shirt.

[Chelsea]

Do you admit that you have previously posted here as D-FENS?

He will be at the airport headed to Spain

[nugnug]

Again I'll ask was he injured or masturbating... doubtful he'd be going through both at once, and did he arrive at the search wounded? Jodis sis was with him all day and never noticed he was hurt either? 

and again why such an insignificant amount of blood? it's only common sense that these tiny amounts of DNA never got there at the scene of the murder.

the trouble is your theory of inocent transfer fails down on one thing if his sperm and blood had transfred inocently to jodi while he was jodis i would epect other males who lived with jodi to inocently have transfered thers as well.

but they dident the dna of jodis brother and mum and stepfather are not there.

and if your theory was correct there dna would be there.

[guest154]

Always amazed that wherever Grahame goes to cause trouble, and he was only here to cause trouble, his posts here were directed at SL to ignore me and then to take a cheap shot at my relationship status, Maggie and Susan are quickly in the topic to defend him  nice of them to stumble into the topic at the right time  .

His posts here were just to target me, he can barely debate the Bamber case so don't think for one minute he was going to be able to add anything to the Mitchell case that wasn't an attack.

So he posts his abuse.
Gets his friends in.
Bring up his daughter.
Feels good about himself.......on the internet.

Pathetic.

[susan]

Mat  you have picked it up wrong.  I have no desire to get involved with any spats between you and Grahame I as a person object to the word "old" being used in a difference of a opinion just something that gets to me.  Infact I was replying to Maggie's post about the old being used as an adjective re: Grahame.  In no way was I knocking you and if it came across like I was I apologise.  I think we both know Grahame does not need me to defend he is quite capable of doing that himself.

[guest154]

I just found it strange how first Grahame comes in here to start his games, I respond to him - then you and Maggie are suddenly in here too.

When this is about LM case and the topic has now gone way off topic even though last night there was some good debate going on in here.