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

[maggie]

Maggie - go away. Your agenda is obvious. It's not my fault if people don't believe who I say I am. You can object all you want.

If people want to say that I'm not who I say I am, then let them - they are free to do as they wish. But each and every one of them is WRONG.

I only said that I thought you should take your share of the blame.  I m willing to apologise for anything I may do.  I am not perfect, the problem is you seem to think you are.

[guest154]

I've said this before but I will say it again!  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people with an opposing view, post on here, it makes things a lot more interesting.  What I don't understand however is, what motivates someone to post and proclaim someone's guilt, when that someone has already been convicted?  It's fighting for a cause that has already been won.

A conviction is never the end of the story though, Neil. When someone is convicted and they complain they are a MOJ the defence and the campaign teams them give THEIR version of the evidence and why the courts/police are wrong. This is where the debate comes in.

I don't have an agenda except to stand up for my friends when they are being bullied. 

Oh, Maggie. I am not bullying Grahame. This topic was a good topic, there was good debate happening  - it's one of the best topics that has been on here for a while and was free of spam and fighting and then Grahame came in and ruined it by trying to start something.
If you want to speak about bullying then go and speak with the members who Grahame bullied when he was in power and still bullies to this day, there are many of them. But I am not a bully.

I have an idea, Mat. Why don't you post what you do believe, and why, and then we can compare that against the various other bits and pieces, and see where it leads us?

I can't post transcripts, reports, statements, etc - that's an offence in Scotland, although I can quote bits from some of the documents. Unfortunately, I know that means you have to accept my word that that is actually what the documents say, but there's no real way around that.

However, Luke's site on WAP has been live for three years, as has the forum thread, and I haven't been taken to task by any authority regarding the information I have posted - given the hostility towards any challenges to the judicial system in Scotland, it would be surprising, if I'd said anything which was not accuate, if they didn't come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Also, I'd be risking everything I've worked for for more than 9 years, if I was found to be being dishonest about what's in the papers - why would I take such a stupid risk? I realise that you may not wish to discuss the case on that basis, and I fully understand if that's the case - unlike our friends south of the border, we supporters in Scotland are hog tied when it comes to providing data for online campaigns.

I already have. You'll have to go back through all the spam to find it. I was asked most recently about the DNA evidence. I believe that it doesn't point anywhere - and certianly won't give you the grounds to appeall. However, I believe that the supporters of LM believe it will and this is because of the interpretation on the official website or because they don't fully understand the evidence.

I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work.

[Neil]

Yes, it would matter. We all know what John Lambertons about

Hello Chelsea,  I'm afraid that it's a situation you can't do anything about.  You are rarely certain of anyone's true identity.  It's been suggested before that I am John Lamberton!
As long as the posts are within the rules of this forum, then I don't really see that it matters who is making them.  I fail to see what John Lamberton has done to jepordise any MoJ case.  His forum is dead with almost no serious debate.  Considering his alleged shabby treatment from the authorities, I really struggle to understand his motivation.  I can't see any evidence that he has influenced anyone's opinion, well....apart from one notable member!!!

[nugnug]

I have an idea, Mat. Why don't you post what you do believe, and why, and then we can compare that against the various other bits and pieces, and see where it leads us?

I can't post transcripts, reports, statements, etc - that's an offence in Scotland, although I can quote bits from some of the documents. Unfortunately, I know that means you have to accept my word that that is actually what the documents say, but there's no real way around that.

However, Luke's site on WAP has been live for three years, as has the forum thread, and I haven't been taken to task by any authority regarding the information I have posted - given the hostility towards any challenges to the judicial system in Scotland, it would be surprising, if I'd said anything which was not accuate, if they didn't come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Also, I'd be risking everything I've worked for for more than 9 years, if I was found to be being dishonest about what's in the papers - why would I take such a stupid risk? I realise that you may not wish to discuss the case on that basis, and I fully understand if that's the case - unlike our friends south of the border, we supporters in Scotland are hog tied when it comes to providing data for online campaigns.

i would of also thought the things said on that if site werethey not true it would of resulted in a hefty lawsuit from somebody.

[Chelsea]

I fail to see what John Lamberton has done to jepordise any MoJ case.

He routinely attempts to destroy several cases based on blatant lies and manipulation. He also goes for those who are representing these cases.

[grahameb]

Work it out. Would any girl lend a tee shirt to a friend if it were not washed first? Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first? Therefore the dna found on the tee shirt would more than likely lead you to the murderer. Or is my logic not logical?

This was my first post on the subject. Was it aimed at mat? I leave you all to judge.

[guest154]

This was my first post on the subject. Was it aimed at mat? I leave you all to judge.

Yet another lie, Grahame.

You were int he topic much earlier than that when you were telling Sandra Lean to ignore trolls blah blah after I'd just been speaking to her.

[Chelsea]

Hello Chelsea,  I'm afraid that it's a situation you can't do anything about.  You are rarely certain of anyone's true identity.  It's been suggested before that I am John Lamberton!
As long as the posts are within the rules of this forum, then I don't really see that it matters who is making them.  I fail to see what John Lamberton has done to jepordise any MoJ case.  His forum is dead with almost no serious debate.  Considering his alleged shabby treatment from the authorities, I really struggle to understand his motivation.  I can't see any evidence that he has influenced anyone's opinion, well....apart from one notable member!!!

All anyone need do is think for a while about it. John Lamberton spends around 20 hours a day on the internet trying to destroy peoples reputations. He ropes in the odd one or two gullible ones as his "support network"  The rest of the "posters" are John Lamberton, trying and failing to give the impression he has widespread approval. His weapons are lies, lies and more lies. These people whom he is trying to discredit (Dr Sandra Lean, Billy Middleton, Roch, Kevin Craigie, Tesko, Karen Torlley) are all the very people who have and are having an impact on M.O.J cases. John Lamberton attempts to divide and conquer, picking them off one by one until there is no one left. He has succeeded in his mission. Who remains to promote M.O.J in the U.K in 2012 ? The answer is nobody ( If Lamberton had not been spotted....by my Uncle Billy)

[grahameb]

I've never really been able to understand why it matters if someone is lying about their identity.  You just have to judge each post on it's own merits.  I'm convinced that Mat is Mat and John is John.  Would it matter if they were the same person?

On the other hand john could be marie25 or ian or any number of other members. mat may criticise me for my practical jokes on the forum but notice he never ever criticises lamberton for his miriad names. What does that tell you?

[Neil]

[quote author=mat link=topic=551.msg .

I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work.
[/quote]

I don't think there's any doubt that Dr Lean is utterly convinced that Luke is innocent.  I find her hugely impressive and she makes a strong argument against Lukes conviction.  The Mitchells are very lucky to have her onboard.

[grahameb]

Yet another lie, Grahame.

You were int he topic much earlier than that when you were telling Sandra Lean to ignore trolls blah blah after I'd just been speaking to her.

Please don't call me a liar mat. Just show me the post where I said that in this thread. I have searched this thread and that as far as I can see is the first post of mine I can see. But please stop using emotive words such as lie or liar. I am not liar so please do not judge other people by your own standards of conduct.

[guest154]

On the other hand john could be marie25 or ian or any number of other members. mat may criticise me for my practical jokes on the forum but notice he never ever criticises lamberton for his miriad names. What does that tell you?

I think anyone that uses multiple usernames needs to stop it. I've never caught John doing it the way I caught you. John has never denied it to me. You did, you denied it to the board when you created accounts to cause trouble - I can give names of these accounts BLOGGSANDSON and GAV.

Can you give names of accounts that John has had? Because I have never knowingly come across them.

[quote author=mat link=topic=551.msg .

I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work.


I don't think there's any doubt that Dr Lean is utterly convinced that Luke is innocent.  I find her hugely impressive and she makes a strong argument against Lukes conviction.  The Mitchells are very lucky to have her onboard.

Not sure if I whole-heartedly agree. There has always got to be a slight piece of doubt regarding a MOJ when you're representing them - especially when the evidence isn't competely overwhelming.

Please dopn't call me a liar mat. Just show me the post where I said that in this thread. I have searched this thread and that as far as I can see is the first post of mine I can see. But please stop using emotive words such as lie or liar. I am not liar so please do not judge other people by your own standards of conduct.

You are a liar - that wasn't your first post here. I don't need to go and search because I know a day or two ago you told Sandra to beware of trolls....and I called you out on it. Knowing you you have deleted the post.
But yes, you do tell lies. Remember bloggsandson I said "You're Grahame hiding behind another name to cause trouble" you said "I am not Grahame!"........that was a lie.

[Chelsea]

I don't think there's any doubt that Dr Lean is utterly convinced that Luke is innocent.  I find her hugely impressive and she makes a strong argument against Lukes conviction.  The Mitchells are very lucky to have her onboard.

Why would Sandra even contemplate compromising her career and credibility by being so passionate about the Luke Mitchell case if she were not entirely convinced he was as he says he is...Innocent.

[guest154]

Why would Sandra even contemplate compromising her career and credibility by being so passionate about the Luke Mitchell case if she were not entirely convinced he was as he says he is...Innocent.

But would it really damage her career and credibility if she was wrong? Because if you believe that then isn't her career damaged from this happening in cases previously?

[Neil]

All anyone need do is think for a while about it. John Lamberton spends around 20 hours a day on the internet trying to destroy peoples reputations. He ropes in the odd one or two gullible ones as his "support network"  The rest of the "posters" are John Lamberton, trying and failing to give the impression he has widespread approval. His weapons are lies, lies and more lies. These people whom he is trying to discredit (Dr Sandra Lean, Billy Middleton, Roch, Kevin Craigie, Tesko, Karen Torlley) are all the very people who have and are having an impact on M.O.J cases. John Lamberton attempts to divide and conquer, picking them off one by one until there is no one left. He has succeeded in his mission. Who remains to promote M.O.J in the U.K in 2012 ? The answer is nobody ( If Lamberton had not been spotted....by my Uncle Billy)

So you think that Lamberton has adversely affected MoJ's?

I don't know much about his Internet campaign history but I would be surprised if anyone took any serious notice of what he says.