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

[gordo30]

Lets look at another example. The initial statements of the search party all corroborated Lukes testimony but these statement were changed at the time they went to court so it was the changes that were presented to the jury at the trial and the ones that count.

Its only us later on that are asking wh ythey changed them.

Like you said we can't have it both ways.

[guest154]

It's a common occurence that if a witness is going to be pointed out in court, the defence will 'advise' that they change their look - nothing illegal - but not moral.

Also, when she said she saw him he wasn't exactly dressed for court, hadn't straightened his hair or smartened himself up like he had in court. 

For whatever reason he has changed his appearance enough that she wasn't sure.

[gordo30]

Yeah I know, but it doesnt change the fact she believes she saw him on the day of the murder. She identified the 14 year old she saw when she was presented with a picture of him at 14 years old. Not recognising him at 16 years old is understandable don't you agree?

M8 honestly what your saying here is irrelevant. The identifictaion by photo does not even come into it when she didn't identify him in court, Sorry no matter what you or I say that is never going to change.

[gordo30]

It does however bring the testimony of a certain couple into context though mat wouldn't you agree as they did identify him.

[guest154]

It does however bring the testimony of a certain couple into context though mat wouldn't you agree as they did identify him.

Depends on the distance that they saw him, doesn't it? If 'certain couple' saw him closer than this lady, or saw him at a different angle, saw more of his face. The 'certain couple' may have felt more able to confirm and I.D

[gordo30]

I know her identification no longer stands for anything in the court of law because she couldnt recognise him. I'm aware of that. But I still believe her original sighting was Luke and I've explained why. 

If that wasn't Luke and Jodi she saw at the path, who are these people? where are they? why were they never found? why didn't they come forward?

I'm happy to accept it was Luke and Jodi.

Then you must also be happy to accept that another two independant witnesses who knew Jodi saw her at 5:05pm contrary to the sighting of AB. She was seen being follow by a stocky man that could never have been Luke who has never came forward or identified.

[gordo30]

and you're not completely right, although she couldn't identify him in the dock, her early sighting still played it's part in the evidence against him. So it did still matter.

Legally it should never have been admitted.

The other couple saw him in roughly the same circumstances as AB did. In a car travelling and through the rear view mirror, incidently both described different clothes , hair ect. wonder which one was right?

[gordo30]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4483217/Killer-Mitchells-600k-bid-to-clear-his-name.html

"KILLER Luke Mitchell’s bid to clear his name has cost almost £600,000, The Scottish Sun can reveal.
The 24-year-old was caged in 2005 for slaughtering 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi Jones.

Figures show he has been granted £571,383 in legal aid for his trial and appeals — and the bill is likely to soar even further as he continues his campaign to persuade judges he is innocent.

Last month his mum Corinne handed a 300-page dossier to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which included claims a Mitchell lookalike may have confused eyewitnesses."





See this here is another example of picking and choosing and trying to have it both ways, I've saw Corinne on the WAP forum questioning witness sighting legitimacy, but now Mitchell camp are now happy to accept that they did see someone, it just may have been Mark Kane? (Who doesn't look like Luke Mitchell, by the way)

Way out of context again, this is about the possiblity that someone like Luke exists and known to the police while he was within the perameters to have been questioned and if so iliminated. Its all about the failure of the police and not simply to say that it was MK seen at the path with Jodi.

[gordo30]

tsk tsk. That person was traced a week later!

And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it !

FFS! you really have to reasearch more about this crime and stop reading papers. The man did indeed go to the police and say that the man was seen during the reconstruction. The papers ran with it but were wrong(unbelievable I know) as after the police had interviewed him he was on holiday in America at the time of the murder, so no he was never identified.

[gordo30]

And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it !

Now you have my attention as how the hell would you know that and seriously have you went to the police about this?

[gordo30]

I've actually never read about him coming forward in a paper. Can you post a news link of that?

You seem to know more about this crime than I do so find it yourself. It was the witness who saw the man he thought was the stocky man at the reconstruction who was proven to be wrong. It was front page news at the time in some papers.

[gordo30]

the stocky guy isn't relevant. Have WAP decided weather it was Joey or Kelly yet?

Joey wasn't stocky at time of murder, he was tall and average build. Kelly would have been described as overweight.

Nope but you go ahead blaming Ferris all you want as you won't get me saying anything that could compromise myslef or anything to do with the case at this point. Its what your after aint it why? if your so certain about things. What is we know that worries you so much m8?

[gordo30]

Stocky man was never front page news.

Here's Kelly and Joey

So it is, have you permission to use their images?

[gordo30]

Why do you think your personal opinion is of any importance to me or could have any effect on proceedings lol who are you? I'm not accusing Ferris of murder.

Well that twice you have asked me for it and tried to lead  me to give it, so i recon it must be inportant to you.

[gordo30]

mark my words.

I have marked your words and you will find them throughout this thread. There mainly just correcting the lies you have spouted.