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

[Janet]

i dont need anyone's permission.

ive chosen to do so thats it.

I would be guessing you would need some sort of permission to discuss parts of the case on forums. So why don't you attend appeals and speak to the media then?

You are doing a grand job here in putting people off the case. Keep up the good work.

[nugnug]

you dont need anyones permission to discuss things on forums if you did this forum wouldn't be here.

[John]

in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   

[nugnug]

in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   

only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.

and a jury found you guilty.

and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.

[Janet]

nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.

Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol

[nugnug]

nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.

Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol

by his own arguments he cant be innocent.

and if he cant take it he shouldn't dish it out

[Janet]

nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.

Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol

by his own arguments he cant be innocent.

and if he cant take it he shouldn't dish it out

The biggest amount of people would rise above it and stick to the facts nugnug.
If you are so adamant Mitchell is innocent then should you not be trying to post coherent and credible evidence instead of bitching about other posters all the time? People will not always agree with you and just because they do not agree does not mean you have to be nasty to them. That loses you and your campaign support.

And no I don't particularly care about you losing support. It is just an observation I have made.

[John]

in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   

only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.

and a jury found you guilty.

and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.

I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.

[John]

Nugnug or should I say Billy Middleton hasn't the first notion what stands for the truth in the Luke Mitchell case Janet. That is true for the Kate Prout case and all the others he claims to support. 

He cannot even provide a single shred of evidence in support of Luke Mitchell yet he claims to be the saviour for everyone else. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The evidence before the jury in the Mitchell case was extremely damming in relation to Mitchell and his escapades.  What we know is that Mitchell was out of control for a child of 14 years of age. There was no parental control and a complete absence of discipline of any sort.
 
How many other 14 year old children operate a drugs packaging operation from their bedroom routinely selling cannabis to school friends as if it were sweeties?

[nugnug]

in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   

only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.

and a jury found you guilty.

and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.

I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.

we only your word it was 8/7 ive seen no evidence of this.

[John]

in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.

Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it.  We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.

Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy?  Happy days!!   

only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.

and a jury found you guilty.

and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.

I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.

we only your word it was 8/7 ive seen no evidence of this.

You don't really know much then do you with all your scams and spamming experience?   

[nugnug]

Nugnug or should I say Billy Middleton hasn't the first notion what stands for the truth in the Luke Mitchell case Janet. That is true for the Kate Prout case and all the others he claims to support. 

He cannot even provide a single shred of evidence in support of Luke Mitchell yet he claims to be the saviour for everyone else. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

i thought you said i was a woman before your mind up.

i thought you said smiffy was billy Middleton.

i havent seen one shred evedence to say your inocent.

so dna and other mens  sperm and blood isnt evidence.

and 2 other people being present at the murder scene and not being able to say why isn't evidence.

[John]

I am certainly not interested in your opinion in relation to my case nugget.  Never have been and most certainly never will be.  Your opinion counts for absolutely nothing at the end of the day since it the courts that count and not a cyber court as Mrs Jones referred to WAP.

Stick to the subject matter if you have the intelligence to do so.

This is the Jodi Jones thread.



Jodi Jones in happier times before her brutal murder by sadistic killer Luke Mitchell.

[smiffy]

why do you keep making false claims about people john lamberton... ..people do see through your nastiness and fiction....and see you for the repulsive person that you are.

btw..I KNOW who really killed Jodi Jones......so your claims about Luke are vile...just as vile as you, Jodi's real killer and those who shielded Jodi's real killer.


ps folks  nugnug is not myself nor is he Billy Middleton....but John Lamberton is a justly convicted criminal.

[Janet]

I notice that both the Record and Sun have followed on with the story from the Sunday Post. Other papers may also have done likewise.

If these papers actually read what has been written on these forums they will find there has indeed been great disrespect towards Jodi and her family. The now defunct Fact and Myth had a lot of terrible comments.

Smiffy how do you know someone else killed Jodi and who "he is and who is shielding him"? What proof do you have?


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/13/mum-of-murdered-jodi-jones-brands-luke-mitchell-a-sociopath-86908-23198262/

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3633801/Jodi-Jones-mum-Killer-had-no-emotion-as-I-cuddled-him.html