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

[nugnug]

Are you the last one left who thinks Mitchell is innocent lol.

well theres mojo and paddy hill ever heard of him.

[nugnug]

oh i can asure you they are higly qualfied.

[lookout]

Luke has recently hit back at Double Standards in the use of polygraph testing as it has emerged that 60 sex offenders have been sent back to prison after FAILING the tests.
He said " that if lie detectors are reliable to jail the guilty then they are reliable to free the innocent . These are double standards ".

[lookout]

Luke has recently hit back at Double Standards in the use of polygraph testing as it has emerged that 60 sex offenders have been sent back to prison after FAILING the tests.
He said " that if lie detectors are reliable to jail the guilty then they are reliable to free the innocent . These are double standards ".

His mother,Corinne who'd provided an alibi for him,also passed the test. What more do they want ??

[marty]

Of all the cases I have read about. Luke Mitchell's is the one I am most convinced is a moj, and a bad one at that. It's incredible .

[sandra L]

There were 492 sex offenders tested, of which 63 were sent back to jail. That means 87% of those tested remained at liberty solely on the basis of the result of their polygraph. The reason given for poygraphs not being allowed as evidence or support for those maintaining innocence is that they are not reliable enough.

Whatever your thoughts on the test itself, the double standard here is quite clear, and has some disturbing implications - it's "reliable enough" to justify keeping convicted sex offenders at liberty, but our parole system is supposed to ensure that those who are released from prison have demonstrated a clear reduction in their risk of re-offending and, far more importantly, to be considered not a risk to the community to which they are returning.  The use of these tests on sex offenders makes a clear statement that the authorities are not confident enough in their own decision making processes to accurately judge who is ... and isn't... a continuing risk to the community.

But those taking the deccision to leave the remaining 429 offenders at liberty have to be trusting that the polygraph results are accurate. On the basis of some claims (used to discredit polygraph results for those maintaining innocence) that the test is less than 60% accurate, 197 of those offenders could be at liberty not because they are safe to be free, but because their test results are wrong.

So which is it? The test is reliable enough that we can be confident that nearly 200 offenders are not dangerous (and therefore should be reliable enough to support claims of innocence), or it is not nearly reliable enough for any sort of confident conclusion (the excuse used for those maintaining innocence), in which case, we are actively putting people at risk of sexual attacks?

I'm not suggesting, and I don't believe anyone else is suggesting that a polygraph result alone should be evidence of guilt or innocence but, as with everything else, especially in so-called "circumstantial cases," they could be used to lend weight to other evidence.

[Neil]

Nice to see you back, Sandra.

Are you able to give us any updates on Luke's case?

[sandra L]

Thank you Neil.

I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.

What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.

[marty]

Excellent news sandra, on all fronts.

[Neil]

Thank you Neil.

I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.

What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.

Many thanks Sandra.  I look forward to hearing any news.

[John]

Thank you Neil.

I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.

What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.

Let's face it Sandra you got the boot by the Mitchells and have no more insight into developments than any of the rest of us.  Tell me, what changed your mind about Luke, did the penny drop at last??

What of the Wrongly Accused Person charity you are associated with, why have you never filed accounts in 5 years?

[David1819]

Of all the cases I have read about. Luke Mitchell's is the one I am most convinced is a moj, and a bad one at that. It's incredible .

If you believe Juke is innocent who do you think committed the murder?

[marty]

If you believe Juke is innocent who do you think committed the murder?

I have no names, stocky man perhaps?
Personally I think a older more powerfull person than luke. I also don't think it was their first time at a crime of this nature. Only my opinion.

[nugnug]

Thank you Neil.

I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.

What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.

good to see you back sandra.

[sandra L]

Let's face it Sandra you got the boot by the Mitchells and have no more insight into developments than any of the rest of us.  Tell me, what changed your mind about Luke, did the penny drop at last??

What of the Wrongly Accused Person charity you are associated, why have you never filed accounts in 5 years?

Hello John,

I'll take your comments in turn, so that I don't miss anything.

Let's face it Sandra you got the boot by the Mitchells

As you wish. There are reasons why I have not commented on my departure from the case, reasons I am not prepared to disclose at the moment, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want about this.

and have no more insight into developments than any of the rest of us

Ah, unfortunately, you are misinformed - my connections to the case were always wider than simply through the Mitchell family.

Tell me, what changed your mind about Luke, did the penny drop at last??

Nothing changed my mind about Luke. My mind has not changed about Luke. The penny dropped many years ago - this case was a farce from the outset. Nothing has changed my mind about that either.

What of the Wrongly Accused Person charity you are associated

I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.

why have you never filed accounts in 5 years?

WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.

I hope this answers your questions. I'm not here in my previous capacity as a spokesperson for Luke's case - I think I made that clear in my earlier posts - I'm just another Joe Ordinary, sharing my thoughts and opinions in forum discusssions.