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

[guest154]

Why would that concern you?

Was just a question.

well if you had really seen them you would know.

I am tried of repeating myself, I have not seen them. Certainly am smart enough to ensure I don't say anything that hasn't been said elsewhere on the internet (even in this topic if you check back.) 

[gordo30]

OK Mat thats why I'm suddenly less concerned as like i said it would be all about another person interpretation and thats open to manipulation.

It would be unwise for me to say that Shanes name does not come up in the application as he plays a very big part in the initial trial and so would certainly play a part in its review, so I am willing to leave it at that.

[guest154]

OK Mat thats why I'm suddenly less concerned as like i said it would be all about another person interpretation and thats open to manipulation.

It would be unwise for me to say that Shanes name does not come up in the application as he plays a very big part in the initial trial and so would certainly play a part in its review, so I am willing to leave it at that.

I think for best it's both sides to leave it there, agreed. Certainly don't see this as an argument with you, a debate though is always good. 

[gordo30]

Oh yeah for sure mate thats whats been missing in this case for the last 2 years or so, mainly because of the application as its hard to know just what to say that won't  compromise the review.

I must say you praised johns post a summary  review in his post but there were so many inaccuracies that do not play to our side that its impossible to use that as an argument to any debate.

[nugnug]

well for start we know shane was on the internet so has actully got a cast iron albi.

[gordo30]

LOL nugnug Its been worked out that the brother was named, so not so much as a problem bro

[John]

Oh yeah for sure mate thats whats been missing in this case for the last 2 years or so, mainly because of the application as its hard to know just what to say that won't  compromise the review.

I must say you praised johns post a summary  review in his post but there were so many inaccuracies that do not play to our side that its impossible to use that as an argument to any debate.

You would like to think there were inaccuracies but the truth is that even today Mitchell's advocates haven't been able to prove otherwise. Mitchell had no alibi and two independent witnesses placed him near the murder scene when he claimed to be in a house with his brother...end off

As far as Mitchell's DNA is concerned it should have been found on Jodi because he was with her earlier that day but forensics failed to find it.  Maybe they will do better next time?

Not that will prove anything we don't already know ie he had Means, Motive and Opportunity.

[nugnug]

those witness i asume you mean Fleming and  walsh to described a young man in his late teens or early 20s with dark hair now anyone whos seen a picture of luke mithell knows he hasn't got dark hair.

[gordo30]

As far as Mitchell's DNA is concerned it should have been found on Jodi because he was with her earlier that day but forensics failed to find it.  Maybe they will do better next time?

If I shake your hand John then there is  possibly a chance that my DNA will and could be found on your hand (skin cells, sweat), If you shake another persons hand afterwards then the chance of my DNA is very slim indeed as the other person's DNA contaminates mine. Jodi and Luke were together only a short time throughout that day and had no class together, They were in contact with 100's of pupils that day!! chance of Lukes DNA to be found from earlier meetings is zero or end of..

We know all about these independent witnesses john, these were the ones the judge told off for collusion if i am not mistaken, these are the ones who didn't want to come forward to the police with the information they had but had to have been forced by a person in their office. These were the ones who couldn't get anything right i.e the time they left, how they knew about Luke having seen him in a paper even before any photo's appeared.

We know no DNA of Lukes will be found as it would have been found the 1st time, it's the DNA that is there that wasn't properly tested that will hold the real clues.

[nugnug]

and they both got lukes appearence completly wrong.

[Neil]

If Luke was responsible, I would have thought it inconceivable that he wouldn't leave some trace of his DNA.

Therefor, if the tests show no DNA belonging to Luke, does that strongly suggest that he was not responsible?

Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, as I'm sure we all agree.

How rigorously were other suspects investigated?

[nugnug]

well its allready been established that there are other dna profiles on the body how they got there is a matter of dispute.

[John]

and they both got lukes appearence completly wrong.

They most certainly did not get his description and the clothes he was wearing wrong and considering neither of them knew him their description of the youth they saw standing by the side of the road was remarkably accurate.  Neither witnesses ever wanted to get involved in this murder case and as we all now know it was a colleague of one of them who reported their sighting to the police.  Consequently neither had any hidden agenda and told it as they saw it. It wasn't their fault that Scotland's best known and most controversial advocate tried to demolish them in the witness box.

As an aside, there is no reason whatsoever for a youth to have been standing where Luke Mitchell was spotted.  I know the exact spot by a field gate extremely well, the location is very rural with few passers-by, nobody lurks there unless they are up to no good.

 

Coincidentally, the location where Mitchell was seen was on Mitchell's route home across the corner of a field and a wood.  A hop over the gate would have taken him home without ever having been seen on any public road until he reached his estate.

[nugnug]

they got his aperance totaly ill go and find the link.

[John]

What Luke Mitchell looked like when he was seen by two witnesses.

Now anyone reading this will ask themselves this question.  What are the chances of two teenagers who look almost identical and wearing the exact same clothes being seen at this remote spot?

Million to one?