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

[gordo30]

I can understand how lithium might know or suspect how and what may or may not be in the application as he was most probably part of the further investigation. I am saying that i have spoken just in the last few mins one of two people who were involved with the application and they have denied that shane was involved. They were quite shocked even at the possiblity that Shane was even considered.

I myself would not come out with such things unless i could back them up so I guess i am willing to see just how things pan out, i certainly won't be saying i told you so.

[gordo30]

Thats vey interesting, thanks Gordo.  I guess it's encouraging for Luke that the SCCRC have invested in the re-examination of the DNA evidence.  Who funds the DNA testing? (Sorry about all the questions!)

The funding is part of the sccrc's remit and they will chose to do so if the initial findings are right and if by doing such tests then they could complete the review to their own standards and remit then they will undertake to do so. Its a government funded institution

[gordo30]

I am wondering how this fits with your believe that Luke mitchell is guilty though mat? It can't be both Luke and shane can it?

[guest154]

I am wondering how this fits with your believe that Luke mitchell is guilty though mat? It can't be both Luke and shane can it?

No, I don't think Shane is guilty. I think Luke is guilty. I don't think Shane is an actual viable suspect - but he did have a strange alibi and if you can cause some doubt around Luke's conviction... then you're doing well. Which is what the attempt is.

[gordo30]

OK the best thing for me at this stage is to put an official complaint into the sccrc that somehow they have someone willing to leak sensitive information out to the public domain. I feel that if this issue is correct about Shane then they will have to act on any complaint issued.

[guest154]

OK the best thing for me at this stage is to put an official complaint into the sccrc that somehow they have someone willing to leak sensitive information out to the public domain. I feel that if this issue is correct about Shane then they will have to act on any complaint issued.

I don't think it would be fair to say it was the SCCRC that leaked the information. If people talk about it on Facebook/Emails/PM's on other forums they can't be too sure who they are involving.

But good luck.

I guess that you being willing to complain it has 'leaked' is confirmation that what people are saying is actually true?

[Neil]

OK the best thing for me at this stage is to put an official complaint into the sccrc that somehow they have someone willing to leak sensitive information out to the public domain. I feel that if this issue is correct about Shane then they will have to act on any complaint issued.

I would guess that it's almost impossible to keep a lid on everything, when so many people are involved in the procedure.  In this day and age, with the internet and all, word can literally spread in seconds.

[gordo30]

Im trying now mate. Its just if the information is right it either came from one of two people or internally. If it is right then even internally they will have to deal with it if the information is correct.

[gordo30]

Its simply a way to determine if you are correct or not. the person i have spoke to can only go so far in telling me its incorrect so in some respect this will be done for guys like yourself. How do you prove something is not in something unless you have a copy yourself that your willing to let me see, this of course is not possible.

[guest154]

Gordo, just asking. Are you listed as a contributer to any part of the submissions?

[gordo30]

Why would that concern you?

[nugnug]

i wonder i should contact shane mitchell and ask if he wants to take legal action.

[gordo30]

I think there are more subtle way nugnug.

[nugnug]

Gordo, just asking. Are you listed as a contributer to any part of the submissions?

well if you had really seen them you would know.

[gordo30]

Nunug he has already said that he hasn't seen them but through the power of the internet he has either spoken to someone who has which any any case makes for a case of leaking sensitive information or he has managed to somehow workout what is in the application from what has been said online,something that is open to his or another person interpretation which can be quite damaging and frequently wrong.