Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 1055839 times)

0 Members and 17 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Mat  I honestly can't remember what you and Grahame were arguing about I responded to Maggie's post and it was not  having a pop at you personally maybe I need to be more sensitive with my posts if they are going to cause offence as I can assure you none was meant.  Forgiven :)

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
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.
Mat, I read the Recent posts so can see all the posts on the forum.  If I want to agree with some one I have every right to do so as you have. 

guest154

  • Guest
Mat  I honestly can't remember what you and Grahame were arguing about I responded to Maggie's post and it was not  having a pop at you personally maybe I need to be more sensitive with my posts if they are going to cause offence as I can assure you none was meant.  Forgiven :)

It's cool Susan. No probs.  :)

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Mat Thanks for that :)

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
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.
Give it a rest Mat. However you may long it to be, it's not ALL about you is it. ::) Go an have a coffee or something and chill out.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 04:50:PM by grahame »

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
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.  :-\
Well you took it off topic by insulting me Mat. Before that I was arguing on topic with Lithium. Can't you just accept the fact that I really don't consider you all that important? Please do not engage with me at all. Because it is obvious that you cannot even mention my name without being insulting.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17576
I have introduced this thread as a trial experiment, in the hope that case related threads can remain relatively clear of disputes:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3061.0.html

This may not work but I thought that it would worth a try.

guest154

  • Guest
Okay, so where were we? Can anyone point us in the direction of any information pertaining to the samples of 'blood' and semen that isn't on the official website? If that information is available.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
you wont find it online.
the police and courts do not stick such things online.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 05:47:PM by nugnug »

Buddy

  • Guest
Hmm, to many user names here. I can't get it out of my head that lithium, and Mat are the same person, and are both john.
The fact that no dna links Luke to the crime makes it unreliable, coupled with the fact that the boyfriends dna was discovered at the scene makes me wonder more.. All this transfer of sperm/semen is going over my head.
I wonder if Luke was known to the police, and wanted him out of the way for a time.
I admit it is a bit fishy him finding the body of Jodi with his dog sounds a little convenient.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
 he dient find the body on his own there wre 4 people there.

a tracker dog finding a body is hardly unusual

luke wasnt known to police thats the funy thing hes about the only connected to the case that wasn't..

surely if you had kiled someone the last thing you woudl want is for the body to be found.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 05:50:PM by nugnug »

Buddy

  • Guest
he dient find the body on his own there wre 4 people there.

a tracker dog finding a body is hardly unusual

luke wasnt known to police thats the funy thing hes about the only connected to the case that wasn't..

surely if you had kiled someone the last thing you woul want is for the body to be found.
Hardly a tracker dod Nugs, It was Lukes own dog.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
witch was  t trained tracker dog.

there is suspicious about a dog finding  body anyway that is what police dogs are  used for.

how many on the news do we hear a man with is dog found the body.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 06:00:PM by nugnug »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Rain stopped play today, so I'm home a little earlier than expected.

Lithium said
Quote
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?

No, I don’t. It was an ordinary weekday evening until Jodi’s body was found. Initially, Shane simply could not remember anything in particular detail about tea time on the Monday evening – right this minute, I have no idea what I had for dinner on Friday, whether I cooked, my daughter cooked, we had takeaway or ate with friends. Those are the four possibilities for a Friday evening in my home, but without checking, I really couldn’t tell you. As for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday last week, I haven’t a clue. Any poster on here can try it for themselves – what did you have for dinner on Thursday or Friday evening? What were you wearing? What time did you eat? Who did you eat with?

Quote
Again, do you have any proof J Ferris didn't always cut his own hair?

Well, not proof, exactly. But why would he lie in his statements and say he didn’t usually cut his own hair, this was the first time he’d done it, and he didn’t know why he’d done so on this occasion?

Quote
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.

You were the one who said he was “due a haircut that week” – I took that to mean you thought he had a regular appointment.

 
Quote
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?

I don’t know – you introduced the idea of a regular hair cutting date – I was responding to that.

Quote
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.

He had never cut his own hair before, according to what he told the police. Luke, on the other hand, regularly phoned the speaking clock, and the phone records demonstrate this. The times he phoned the speaking clock most often were in the mornings, before school started, and in the afternoons between 4 and 5pm.  He did not wear a watch, and the kitchen clock was known to be unreliable. There is nothing to suggest that Luke was out of his house when he phoned the speaking clock – the investigators failed to get phone mast readings to show if there was movement of the phone from west to east and back again.

Quote
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.

No, I was asking for an explanation as to why he cut his own hair, just after his cousin had been found murdered, but before he was forced to come forward to say he was on the path where Jodi was believed to have been, at the exact time she was claimed to have been murdered. Your belief about what he said in court is not correct – he was asked why he had cut his own hair, at first he responded with a “don’t know,” asked again, he responded, it was curly, and I don’t like curly hair. He’d had it all his life, and suddenly, after the brutal murder of his cousin, an idea dawns on him. I know what I can do about this curly hair that I hate, I’ll just cut it off myself. Of course it’s possible, but shouldn’t he have been thinking about contacting the police, who were appealing for anyone who had been in the vicinity, rather than having a bad hair day?

Quote
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.

Suspicious, perhaps, if presented like that, but, alas, not accurate. He called the speaking clock at 4.53, just three minutes after Jodi was claimed to have left home. He called Jodi’s home twice – once at 5.30, but was unable to connect, the second time at 5.38, when he spoke to Jodi’s stepfather who told him Jodi was out. (There’s no point in getting into an argument about what was said, as only Luke and the step father know, and they give different versions – the stepfather says he told Luke “She’s left to meet you,” Luke can’t remember exactly what was said, but thinks it was either “she’s left,” or “she’s out.” He couldn’t call Jodi’s mobile because it was broken, so he left a message with his mum to say if Jodi turned up at the house, to tell her to come to the Abbey, where a group of them were going to be hanging around.

Jodi was often grounded/punished at the drop of a hat (that’s from the case papers, not from the Mitchell statements), Luke knew he would see her at school in the morning, and would be able to ask her then what had happened on the Monday evening. He did not go home and go to bed – he was in his room watching a video when his mum asked him to take the dog out. That was when he received the text from Jodi’s mum – he called her immediately.

Quote
He also told his mom before he went out with his friends "if Jodi arrives tell her where to find us" yet told his friends "Jodi won't be coming out tonight.

Again, nearly, but not quite. He was already out when he called his mum with the above message – he had gone out earlier, expecting to meet Jodi at the end of his street, and phoned his mum when Jodi had failed to show. None of the three friends he was with that night initially said he had said “Jodi’s not coming out” (notice the different wording). One then changed his statements to say Luke had said this. The other two maintained throughout that Luke did not say it. So, out of four boys that evening, three maintained steadfastly that this comment was never made, one says it was, and it’s the minority of one who is believed? Whatever happened to the need for corroboration in Scots law?

Quote
What do you make of that speaking clock thing? at a time of Pay-And-Go top up phones, what teenager would waste credit on a premium rate number when they are in a house full of clocks?

See above.

Buddy

  • Guest
witch was  t trained tracker dog.

there is suspicious about a dog finding  body anyway that is what police dogs are  used for.

how many on the news do we hear a man with is dog found the body.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/
No Nugs it was not a trained tracker dog. It was a mutt that Luke owned.