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

[sandra L]

One last point for now - how can the story "add up" when so much of it was never made public? If you pick and choose points, you can stitch them together to make what looks like a compelling narrative, so long a no-one comes along and ruins the story by pointing out all of the"missed out" bits that make a nonsense of it.

For example, two witnesses mentioned smelling smoke - one said wood smoke, one said funny smelling smoke. Conclusion, Corrine was burning something untoward (supported by just one statement.) That's the official story.

Here are the misSing bits - 37 statements in all regarding smoke. 7 witnesses mention funny smelling smoke.exactly a week after the murder a neighbour's citronella candle had gone up in flames (rather than burning normally) on the night of the murder, all of the other 35 statements say they did not notice any unusual smoke from the direction of the Mitchell garden. One woman said she burned leaves  and other garden waste around that time B
But she could not remember which evening. She pointed out it would be difficult to tell which garden smoke came from because they all backed onto each other.

Is it not possible that the witness to the funny smelling smoke was mistaken about the time? Would that explain why none of the other smoke witnesses were called - because their testimony would seriously undermine the prosecution case on such a critical point?

[Stephanie]

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

Utter rubbish... The only time things did not add up was after learning about the Zenith burglary. 

You'll be lucky to get an answer from Sandra in relation to the WAP Org. But good luck with that.

And Middleton won't answer anything, as to do so I believe will incriminate himself.

[sandra L]

I already gave my answer regarding WAP - I have not been associated with the organisation since April 2013, I was not responsible for submission of accounts, and first accounts were not due for submission until April 2013. Anyone with any Concerns regarding my involvement/responsibilities is free to contact the charities commission - I have nothing to hide.

I don't therefore understand Stephanie's comment about me not answering the question about WAP which was specifically about the return of accounts.

[Stephanie]

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 already gave my answer regarding WAP - I have not been associated with the organisation since April 2013, I was not responsible for submission of accounts, and first accounts were not due for submission until April 2013. Anyone with any Concerns regarding my involvement/responsibilities is free to contact the charities commission - I have nothing to hide.

I don't therefore understand Stephanie's comment about me not answering the question about WAP which was specifically about the return of accounts.

So as not to cause confusion - How were the funds spent up to April 2013 and why have the accounts not been submitted in relation to this time period?

[sandra L]

I don't  know and I don't  know - I had no access to accounts whatsoever, and was no longer associated with WAP by the time accounts were due to be returned - how much clearer can I make this?

This is supposed to be a discussion about the LukeMitchell/ Jodi Jones case - if you want info re WAP accounts, please feel free to do as I suggested and contact the charities commission - there is notHing more I can tell you - I had no signatory rights, and no access to accounts.

[sandra L]

The dog wasn't tracking on the way up, she was very excitable and pulling hard - Luke was not looking for an"alert" - he took the dog originally for safety.

He did call looking for Jodi - he didn't call back again because he was afraid he might get Jodi into trouble if she was somewhere she wasn't supposed to be. He started to think later still that maybe Jodi had"dumped"him for some reason (14 year old, remember). Why didn't Judy call back to check on her daughter? Why, knoWing Jodi hadn't been where she was supposed to be nearly an hour after shewas supposed to arrive did Judy wait another 40 minutes after Jodi was supposed to arrive home before contacting Luke?

The evidence doesn't support Luke being told Jodi had left to meet him - only that she'd left, or was out. Judy herself said she assumed, because Luke had called, he and Jodi must have been planning to meet up at some point. The police would not accept any of Luke's thoughts on why Jodi hadn't turned up - with the info in 'this post you can see it's entirely possible Jodi could have returned home from wherever she was Whitten like called, and got into a fight with her mum.

[sandra L]

Sorry, can't edit last post - that's why I hate using my phone for this - last line should read " when Luke called

[sandra L]

Two of the friends he was with that night were adamant Luke did not say Jodi wasn't coming out. The other changed his story to include this claim in his third or fourth statement - as you can see, it's totally uncorroborated

Luke regularly called the speaking clock. The kitchen clock was often wrong, the clock on the microwave was never set, and Shane was on the landline (pre - broadband).

Your account of Shane is totally based on prosecution contention - I'll answer those questions when I have Proper internet connection (hopefully Monday)

[Baz]

Hello everyone discussing this case.

I took an interest some years ago in this case and it has  occasionally popped back into my head since. I was then recently discussing MOJs in general and having forgotten so many of the details of Luke's case I decided to remind myself. However, I can't find a site that actually presents the evidence. I have been through all 190 pages of this forum (I'm ready for my medal now, or maybe therapy!) and to be honest there isn't a great deal of content regarding the facts. There has been some really helpful and informative posts but I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are any accessible sites that still present the evidence? Also if anyone knows where I can watch the BBC doc "Devils own" I'd be grateful.

For the record I'm not totally convinced of Luke's innocence but I am convinced he didn't get a fair investigation which would obviously ruin any chances of a fair trial. I couldn't have convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt from what I have read so far but I want to read more. Help.

[Stephanie]

I don't  know and I don't  know - I had no access to accounts whatsoever, and was no longer associated with WAP by the time accounts were due to be returned - how much clearer can I make this?

Thank you for the clarification

[Baz]

This is in reply to Lithium 2.0 (I haven't worked out how you do the quote thing you all seem to do.)

The dog/Luke finding the body seems to be a big part of the prosecutions case so I have been paying attention to that a fair bit when reading this.

From what I understand Luke's supporters contend that on his walk along the path alone with dog he was just going to meet the search party and was not encouraging the dog to actively seek anything, which is part of their training. So at that point it was just a 14 year old boy walking hurrying along a dark path at night so even if the dog had caught the scent of the body it would have been dutifully following its master's will. No way of corroborating this either way though of course.
The second trip along the path with the search party was the idea of someone else (a grandmother?) and at this point they are actively searching for Jodi. Luke is telling the dog to search so it is now following that order and so when he gets the scent he leads Luke there. I'm not sure if any of the search party members testified to Luke doing this though.
As for the dogs abilities, which strangely seem like a really important piece of evidence, I remember reading somewhere that the police did follow up on this somewhat and found that Luke and his Mum had had some official training with this dog. If memory serves they weren't qualified or anything official like that but did have training. Enough to use a dog to search for someone? I have no idea. Was the dog tested in any way? Is that even possible?! 

[Baz]

So within the space of minutes Luke decided he was suddenly looking for a dead body?

Might have worked the quote thing out.

That's not what I meant to imply. By scent I personally meant the scent of Jodi. I'm not sure it's quite as specific as that though, in terms of telling the dog to search for someone alive or dead. I just presumed the dog was trained to be searching for any "out of the ordinary scents" or something a long those lines. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well. I have no experience with sniffer dogs or their training. But surely if this was part of the case this sort of information should have been covered at the trial? Was it? No idea, again.

[nugnug]

So within the space of minutes Luke decided he was suddenly looking for a dead body?

a dog found sarah paines body nobody in there right mind would acuse the dog walker of being involved in her murder.

[David1819]

a dog found sarah paines body nobody in there right mind would acuse the dog walker of being involved in her murder.

Yes they should and they do. The one who finds the body is always a person of interest until cleared. It happens often where the killer informs the police that they "discovered" the body. Its a deceptive tactic and only the dumbest of police/detectives would think "it cant be him he found the body" that's why the have protocols 

[nugnug]

dogs find body's because they can smell blood.