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

[David1819]

i dont think its very good idea to go around throwing names about i have person i think did it but im not going to name them becouse isnt knowing.

Ok this person you believe done it, lets for sake of this discussion call this person "Suspect B"

What verifiable evidence makes you believe "Suspect B" killed Jodi?

And when I say evidence I mean concrete evidence not rumors that have spread on forums.

[marty]

What concrete verifiable evidence convicted luke mitchell

[David1819]

What concrete verifiable evidence convicted luke mitchell

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2006/HCJAC_84.html

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC_28.html

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2010/2010HCJAC54.html

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2011/2011HCJAC10.html

[marty]

Is this not after conviction at appeal. I only looked at the first one to be honest.
I meant evidence that convicted in the first place.
DNA
Positive I'd
Forensics
Recovery of clothes
Murder weapon
Right to a fair trial.
Believable motive
A time line not manipulated by 40 minutes suit by police
Failure to follow up other possibilities

[David1819]

Is this not after conviction at appeal. I only looked at the first one to be honest.
I meant evidence that convicted in the first place.
DNA
Positive I'd
Forensics
Recovery of clothes
Murder weapon
Right to a fair trial.
Believable motive
A time line not manipulated by 40 minutes suit by police
Failure to follow up other possibilities

There had to be something that convinced the Jury. This was one of the longest trails in Scotish legal history. It cant have been based on nothing

[marty]

Tell me what then

[marty]

Did you manage to see the frontline documentary david

[David1819]

Did you manage to see the frontline documentary david

No there have been a few documentaries made around 2007/08ish but I cannot find them anywhere online

[marty]

I tried it on the BBC site, just saying, page not found. Could be my tablet though try it there. The links there. Luke mitchell, the devils own.

[Jan]

Hello John,

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

great reply  look forward to further posts

[John]

You also supported Simon Hall's innocence for a long time. Which means you also made 'a bad decision' as you refer to it.

And it is my belief that Middleton is the person you should be asking about accounts relating to WAP. It is Middleton who appears allusive and not willing to admit to his wrong doings and deceitfulness.

I think you are just a tad confused.   I supported you in pursuit of what you claimed to be justice in your hubby (Simon Hall's) case.  It soon became clear however that his story did not add up so at that point I made it clear that I no longer supported your and his cause.  The rest as they say is history and for the record I was proved right yet again.

Billy Middleton's name still appears as representing the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation on the Scottish Charity Regulator's website but Sandra Lean was a co Director and so is still jointly responsible in accounting for funds obtained by that charity during her tenure.

http://www.oscr.org.uk/search-oscr/charity-details?number=SC041953#results

[John]

I can't join the discussion properly at the moment as I'm having to post via my phone which is  rubbish - just wanted to say, for me, the appallingly bad so-called investigation is what raises so many of  the doubts in this case. What credible police force bleaches the scene before the sniffer dogs get there, offers an innocent explanation to a person whose DNA puts them in a very compromising position, falls to follow up on distinct lack of alibi for two people whose lack of alibi would have made them definite persons of interest in any normal murder investigation. And that's a tiny fraction of the anomalies in the case. Hope to have normal internet by tomorrow

Lothian and Borders Police did undertake a sloppy investigation but the facts all came together in the end.  You can make all the excuses you like about what did and didn't happen but the fact is this wasn't the first time Luke had used a knife to threaten a young girl. Not a normal activity for any 14-year-old youth I would have thought.

Luke lied about being at the gate just down the road from where the path emerges onto the main road. Two witnesses in a passing car saw him there just minutes after Jodi was murdered a few hundred metres away. 

Then there was the story about being at home alone when his own brother testified that that wasn't the case and that it was he who was in the house alone.  A period of time for which Luke had no alibi and which coincidentally again occurred shortly after Jodi's murder.  We all know about the burned pie claim which again brother Shane disputed.  So which one was lying Sandra?

Then there was the disappearing act after school.  Dozens of kids milling around who walked that route home every day yet not one child came forward to support Luke's claim that he went directly home. Another lost alibi opportunity?

This was but some of the evidence which saw him convicted of murder.  To this day there still isn't a shred of evidence which supports his claim innocence and by the way...polygraphs don't count!

[nugnug]

Lothian and Borders Police did undertake a sloppy investigation but the facts all came together in the end.  You can make all the excuses you like about what did and didn't happen but the fact is this wasn't the first time Luke had used a knife to threaten a young girl. Not a normal activity for any 14-year-old youth I would have thought.

Luke lied about being at the gate just down the road from where the path emerges onto the main road. Two witnesses in a passing car saw him there just minutes after Jodi was murdered a few hundred metres away. 

Then there was the story about being at home alone when his own brother testified that that wasn't the case and that it was he who was in the house alone.  A period of time for which Luke had no alibi and which coincidentally again occurred shortly after Jodi's murder.  We all know about the burned pie claim which again brother Shane disputed.  So which one was lying Sandra?

Then there was the disappearing act after school.  Dozens of kids milling around who walked that route home every day yet not one child came forward to support Luke's claim that he went directly home. Another lost alibi opportunity?

This was but some of the evidence which saw him convicted of murder.  To this day there still isn't a shred of evidence which supports his claim innocence and by the way...polygraphs don't count!

well thers dna that belons to other people not him.

[sandra L]

Girl who claimed, after the murder that Luke had threatened her with a knife - never reported to the police, never called as a witness, zero evidence that it happened.

Two witnesses did not "identify" him - they initially described  a youth with dark hair wearing ordinary (not baggy) jeans and trainers. Luke was wearing very baggy trousers and distinctive snow boarding boots ...and he was very definitely blond. These witnesses changed their stories (by their own admission) after Luke's pictures appeared in the paper 6 weeks later. There is one statement in which it says one of the witnesses is identifying him from a newspaper shown to her by police officer - no leading the witness there, I don't suppose?

Disappearing act after school never happened - there are witness statements from people who knew  Luke testifying that he took his normal route home. One kid was leaned on afterwards - he changed his story to he thought he'd seen Luke walking home, then he wasn't sure, then he didn't think it was that day. First statement from this kid was absolutely certain - what do we think happened there?

[sandra L]

Shane did not dispute the burned pie story, he confirmed it on the stand. His evidence at trial about who was where came right on the back of having pictures of the body thrust unexpectedly under his nose, then the humiliating suggestion in open court with the press  ready to pounce, that he had been masturbating at the time - he told thecourt that the police had refused to accept most of the information he gave, opting instead for bombarding him with other suggestions until he was so confused, he didn't know what were original recollections, and what had been affected by police manipulation.

The sort of misinformation presented by John as fact that we see here is playing right into the hands of the very people John claims maliciously pursued and convicted him, using exactly the same tactics they used in the Luke Mitchell case. John knows police routinely use these tactics - why does he pretend, when discussing this case, that he fully accepts the oifficial case at face value, as if none of it has been tainted by police manipulation?