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

[Janet]

This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.

[clifford]

This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.

You are quite clearly involved in this case Janet. As I am not, I will observe from a distance.
With due respect.

[Janet]

This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.

You are quite clearly involved in this case Janet. As I am not, I will observe from a distance.
With due respect.

I am not personally involved with this case Cliff. I do not know anyone involved in the case or the campaign. I do not even live near the area the murder occured. It is a case that has been pretty high profile in Scotland. My interest stems from watching what is said in the media and then looking at the main website and other sites. I actually used to think Luke Mitchell was innocent. Then I began looking at what was being written by supporters of Luke Mitchell, which in turn made me look at the appeals and other information.
I am totally appalled at how they speak about the victims family and the misinformation being put online.
In saying that if he is indeed innocent then these people are doing him a great diservice.

[nugnug]

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Luke_Mitchell_-_Related_Media

[nugnug]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jul/01/ukcrime

[smiffy]

you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.

There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.

OH YES JANET/john  ...how odd that in a later post you completely contradict yourself..
by then wanting to limit discussion as per this that you posted;

This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.

 
so you pointless then JANET...by your own previous words...so maybe you should go away and not come back..

[OnceSaid]

Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

   

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

I have been having a good read about this case and all early newspaper reports have the girl leaving home at 5.30pm, then the time changes as the days pass. How odd 
I have also read that first statements by the mothers boyfriend state Jodi's brother wasnt at home.  The sister Janine said she had visited her mother's home and also said her older brother wasnt at home. (I have since read that this was a hypthetical scenario that was referred to.  However, statements were made that Janine was at her mothers home but the brother was not there, but it is not stated who made these statements) These statements then change, very strange    Did Jodi not use her mothers phone to text Luke, did she actually make a call to Luke?  From what Ive read so far they exchanged texts, that someone deleted.
The above reconstruction has Jodi, walking down the path.  Why would they do this? The witness at no point said that the girl she saw walked towards or down the path.  This witness who saw a girl, she claimed could have been Jodi,  but I find this strange as she claimed not to have known Jodi when she gave this statement, so how could she have said it could have been Jodi, if she didnt know what she looked like.  The first pictures in the media were of a young 5/6 year old child, not a 14 year old girl, therefore I wonder how she came to this conclusion.  This same witness did not describe black hoody and black jeans, she said the person that she thought was Jodi had a navy hoody and blue jeans, Jodis mother said she left in a navy blue hoody and blue jeans, so why has the reconstruction got the girl dressed all in black.  I believe this was the clothes that were found scattered around the crime scene, but why did the police ask for witnessess and descriptions if they werent going to listen what was said.  I find this very confusing, as they have done a reconstruction to jog peoples memories, but dressed the victim in clothes that were nothing like the mother and witness described.

Edited - in brackets.

[Janet]

you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.

There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.

OH YES JANET/john  ...how odd that in a later post you completely contradict yourself..
by then wanting to limit discussion as per this that you posted;

This case is clearly a highly emotional one.

It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.

 
so you pointless then JANET...by your own previous words...so maybe you should go away and not come back..

Why are you being so abusive?  I am pointless? because you think I am someone else?

I am not going away.

I am here to debate the Luke Mitchell case not to be accused of being someone else.

You are wrongly accusing people yet again. You are wrongly accusing me of being John and John of being me. and all because someone posts something that is not pro Luke.

 I AM NOT JOHN.

You will never realise how wrong you are but carry on discrediting the luke mitchell case and making sure anyone with real questions does not ask them, why would they when they get told they are lying?

this is what happens when anyone disagrees with these people. They accuse people of being other people. anything other than true facts of the case are not accepted it seems.
I have read about john lamberton and I am not impressed one bit how he treated people who were related to the Jones family either. Though he seems to have changed his opinon on that.  And if he got to US in the current situation then it would be surprising

I have also read his attacks on other posters on forums and he does not come over as being a nice person.

I AM NOT JOHN and am willing to speak to someone on the phone to prove it. Smiffy are you willing to talk to me? cos if you are let me know

This is just another diversion due to an article being posted that was not favourable to Mitchell.

[nugnug]

Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

   

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.
Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

I have been having a good read about this case and all early newspaper reports have the girl leaving home at 5.30pm, then the time changes as the days pass. How odd 
I have also read that first statements by the mothers boyfriend state Jodi's brother wasnt at home.  The sister Janine said she had visited her mother's home and also said her older brother wasnt at home. These statements then change, very strange    Did Jodi not use her mothers phone to text Luke, did she actually make a call to Luke?  From what Ive read so far they exchanged texts, that someone deleted.
The above reconstruction has Jodi, walking down the path.  Why would they do this? The witness at no point said that the girl she saw walked towards or down the path.  This witness who saw a girl, she claimed could have been Jodi,  but I find this strange as she claimed not to have known Jodi when she gave this statement, so how could she have said it could have been Jodi, if she didnt know what she looked like.  The first pictures in the media were of a young 5/6 year old child, not a 14 year old girl, therefore I wonder how she came to this conclusion.  This same witness did not describe black hoody and black jeans, she said the person that she thought was Jodi had a navy hoody and blue jeans, Jodis mother said she left in a navy blue hoody and blue jeans, so why has the reconstruction got the girl dressed all in black.  I believe this was the clothes that were found scattered around the crime scene, but why did the police ask for witnessess and descriptions if they werent going to listen what was said.  I find this very confusing, as they have done a reconstruction to jog peoples memories, but dressed the victim in clothes that were nothing like the mother and witness described.

yes that is very odd

[smiffy]

janet posted;

I am here to debate the Luke Mitchell case not to be accused of being someone else.

oh...so discuss mitchell only...  only him...not anything else.
ok  fine..prove luke did what he was wrongly convicted of....using common sense and no lies..or false science etc

Now I would like to discuss the murder of Jodi Jones.  She was killed by a person that has been named but is not Luke Mitchell.
By the way  If a policeman says .."WE GOT YOU...WE HAVE YOUR SPERM ON HER BRA!(THE MURDER VICTIMS)...WHO SHOULD THEY SAY THAT TO?

the person whose sperm it is..or another person whose sperm it is not?
the sperm belonged to SK...
oh transfer from the t shirt ...borrowed ...without asking...from the sister....but the sister cannot say when or if she ever was involved in sex with SK that involved the t-shirt...
oh  the items were not in contact with each other when it rained...so not chance of rainwater casusing transfer.

why not sperm transferred from bra to t -shirt or both items soiled with sperm in the same sexual encounter?

odd as well that in her first statement she claimed to be in a different place and with different people at the relevant time to her later statements.
as a key witness and a giver of an alibi of someone who has to be a prime suspect...cant we trust this liar  and her liar of a boyfriend ...NO


oh JOEY...the "paranoid schizophrenic" as has been claimed by several people...the mentally ill brother known for attacks with bladed weapons...the one who stabbed his mother a few weeks before Jodi was killed...the cannabis using schizo....
His mummy the liar almighty...overprotective of her golden child...what a recipe for disaster.....the mummy that many would call an alcoholic ...the stepfather a younger cannabis user himself...

no back up to the claimed visit to the cemetery...why?  were they doing something else?? something they chose to hide....pulls on emotions to dare challenge anyone ever ever ever who claims to visit a cemetery...throw in a bug heart wrenching claim to gain sympathy to sell the lie...less likely to be challenged as lie than a claimed uncheckable visit to a park or somewhere else UNCHECKABLE.

There's more...enough for me to KNOW who killed Jodi...plenty more...to beyond reasonable doubt...I know who did it..... there are legal reasons why I cant tell you...but be patient...in time it will come out.

and then the likes of Janet and stupid Melanie Reid and others will have shown what perverted sicko fools they are for what they wrongly and unjustly said about Luke and his family.

for you have committed yourself JANET.....so in advance ..I have told you what you are...so no judging others when your the one that is wrong and at fault.

[Janet]

It is totally pointless trying to discuss this case since all you do is attack the family of Jodi Jones.

[smiffy]

Whats your problem "janet".  are the jone's family sacred and saintly and not to be questioned on anything they claim?
If a jones family member claims anything it must be true...is that it...?
so if they claim incest by others it is true because they said it and having a family member murdered entitles them to say and do anything they want?

quite frankly...janet...you cannot have witnesses go unquestioned ...whoever they are...and when they give contradictory stories or tell blatant lies...that invites questioning and also allows other things to be inferred or implied.

rather than moan that you think I am unfair to the Jone's family for daring to question their words and actions ...try defending them...or is that a task you find difficult?

Jone's family members were instrumental in framing and lying in putting Luke wrongly in prison so that suggests they have a motive for acting like that. Could that motive be that it was a Jone's family member or friend of theirs that really killed Jodi? Remember ..the claimed evidence against Luke is entirely circumstantial...and of the dodgiest and flimsiest nature and contained many elements contributed by the Jones's family or their associates.

[smiffy]

you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.

There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.

I shall remind you of your own post again Janet.
Clearly in that post includes discussion and questioning of the Jones family.

you have cornered yourself ...so rather than try to discuss and reason through ..you go into ATTACK THE POSTER mode.

[smiffy]

Janet claims everybody supporting luke is speculating and that this unfair.
Quite a ridiculous claim really....
Is it not the case that circumstantial evidence itself is specualtion pure and simple? Of course it is.
Is it not the case that having a belief in something such as Luke's guilt or innocence itself is speculation?..Of course it is.

What about that Melanie Reid article that "Janet" posted.....that itself is full of MR's own speculation.

so either speculation is either fair or it is not and can be used to support any argument.
Janet in her own posts speculates as to various things...that is undeniable ..to support her/his claims.

lets be fair...speculation is part and parcel of life and decisions in courts etc and arguments in real life and in courts....

So Janet has again shot him/herself in the foot on this issue and looks silly and illogical.


LETS LOOK AT A BIT OF Melanie's article;

The modern theories of analysis say that a child's emotional life is inextricably bound up from the earliest age in a triangular relationship between themselves, their mother and their father. When things go wrong between the adults, or between parent and child, the child suffers anxieties and guilt. They feel at risk, excluded, responsible.

Nobody knows what Luke Mitchell went through as a little boy when his family fell apart. But it seems that something went drastically wrong after his father, an electrician, moved away.

hmm child /mother /father...when things go wrong....hmmm divorce...but Luke and Shane still see and visit their father...

MR is speculating as to something going wrong..but has no real evidence to support this.it is mere speculation....

now lets apply to the Jone's family...
children/mother/father...when things go wrong....hmmm father found dead hanging from a tree...
how well do the 3 children do then.....Joey mental health issues ....Janine self harming etc ...Jodi self harming etc.... mother has drink issues...new stepfather a drug user...and thats just for starters
Joey stabs his mother supposedly by accident when intending to attack another with the knife!!! etc etc etc

oh  lets just add...these are facts  not some MR speculations.

which family has a bigger recipe for disaster... ...?


janet ..you ATTACKED other posters for speculating..yet do it yourself...and as I have shown ..you had no foundation to attack other posters in such a manner .


will this prompt another bleating session of showing compassion etc for the family of the victim blah blah...all about playing on emotions...and an attack on anyone who dares question the victim's family?
There would be no questions  if they told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..but they did not!
I want the truth ..not lies

[OnceSaid]

Another interesting point in this case is that there was never any reward offered for information which could see the perpetrator(s) properly convicted.  It has been suggested to Mitchell's family on several occasions that they offer such a reward but they are not interested. This in itself sends out the wrong message since if they truly believed in Luke's innocence they would stop at nothing to bring the real culprits to justice.   

They would rather try and sell their story to the local rag as Luke's grandmother, Ruby Guetta, attempted to do some time ago.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/

It is the very same with the confidential hotline that you helped to set up John, they did nothing but ridicule it instead of supporting it.  They want to keep any information in the case within their own grasp and don't want to share anything of value.  They keep talking about progress but from what I have seen of their efforts they will be lucky to ever get a referral from the SCCRC.

At the end of the day there is no evidence which can clear Mitchell but plenty that can condemn him.

Hi Sandy, I have been reading up on this case lately.  Apart from a list of circumstial evidence used to convict Luke Mitchell, (which was scraping the barrel in my opinion), I have yet to come across any evidence that cant be explained, can you please give me a link to the condemning evidence against him.