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

[sandra L]

Were photographs taken before the body and items were moved?

I suspect I know the answer.

It's difficult to tell for sure, Baz. There are some photographs of the scene without the plastic sheet, so presumably these were taken earlier, but we also know that overhanging branches were cut down to allow the videographer better access, and several officers had been over the wall prior to the photographer first arriving on the scene.

By the time Scrimger got there at 8am, items had been "gathered up." Before then, there's simply no way of telling whether all of the items at the crime scene were photographed exactly as they were left by the killer, or whether those early police forays over the wall meant that items were moved bfore the first photographs were taken.

[Baz]

John, is that what he calls himself now. Personally I wouldn't give him the steam off ma piss never mind the time of day. His name is about the closest to the truth about anything you will get.

Fair enough.

Although sounds like you need a plumber to look at your heating or a doctor to look at your plumbing.

[nugnug]

And if the sightings weren't of Luke/Luke & Jodi, who were they of? Where are these mystery people who vanished off the face of the Earth?

this witness claimed she had never met jodi at the time no photogrphs had been published show how the hell she thought she had seen jodi is beyond me.

[John]

Hi John, nice to meet you.

I've been reading about this case on lots of old forums and you were at one point very passionate in your defence of Luke, to the point of a lot of your posts being moderated even. So I was wondering what the evidence was that came out that changed your mind so dramatically?

Its very simple Baz.  At one time Luke Mitchell's mother Corinne used to post regularly on the WAP forum and would usually answer questions put to her, in fact she stated originally that she would answer any questions about the case to the best of her knowledge.  I initially gave her the benefit of the doubt and having met Luke I found it difficult to comprehend him having committed such a cold blooded murder.  However, as time went on Corinne's replies began to worry me, there were things which did not add up, there were gaps in her knowledge and the case began to unravel.  Excuses were being made which again were not consistent with the facts and Mitchell supporters were becoming abusive and dishonest.

The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was one day when Corinne refused point blank to answer questions, the excuses had run out, the deception and the charade was laid bare. That was the turning point for me, Luke had no alibi despite Corinne's protestations, his brother refuted his claims that he was at home the afternoon Jodi was murdered.  The Mitchell family home was not that big, there was no way Luke could have returned home without his brother being aware of it.  The claims about Luke making dinner were not borne out by his brothers evidence.

The facts are as follows. Corinne Mitchell was at work at her caravan business some distance away from the family home but the internet records showed that someone was in the house surfing the internet.  Luke's brother Shane claimed it was he, that he was surfing porn sites from his bedroom with the door ajar so that he could hear anyone come into the house.  His evidence was that nobody did until his mother arrived home at around 5.30pm.

In his evidence Luke makes no reference to Shane being in the house before 5.30pm.  He claims to have phoned Jodi from the house, to have prepared dinner in the house yet Shane's evidence disputed these events in their entirety.  Bottom line was that one of the brothers was telling lies in order to establish an alibi.

Question is...why?

[John]

Hi John, nice to meet you.

I understand that both Prout and Hall eventually ended up confessing to their crimes despite having allowed people to campaign for their innocence for years. This must have been so hard for their families and their supporters. But isn't not having the fight knocked out of you or to not be so jaded by experience that you give up something, to be admired? I think it is.

I spent a lot of time on the Prout and Hall cases, I even considered Hall innocent initially but the case unravelled as time went on.  Prout was never an innocent in my book, his prior conduct towards his wife taken together with his body language during the initial police interviews gave the game away.  No woman goes off suddenly leaving her most personal possessions lying on the bed.  There was no doubt she was dead and little doubt that Prout was behind it.

The Hall case was a different kettle of fish.  I spent many hours conversing with Halls wife, helping her with correspondence and trawling through the evidence looking for that glimmer of light which could open up the case.  We thought we had it at one stage but it was a coincidence and nothing more. The moment of truth however came when it was discovered that Hall had in fact burgled premises in Ipswich the night of Joan Albert's murder.  It was then revealed that his family and other close associates knew about this burglary yet failed to inform police.  Alibis then began to look shady, people who had once been reliable began to crumble under the threat of further police intervention.  A fresh look at the timings revealed that Hall had indeed been in Ipswich but had time to have burgled Mrs Albert's home and stabbed her before returning to his parents house.

The rest as they say is history, Simon Hall later admitted his guilt and committed suicide.

[John]

And?  Anyay, Luke's father wasn't "absent" - Luke spent every weekend with him. You may have forgotten that Jodi, too, was part of a one parent family - best be careful what inferences you imply about one parent families, I think.

He had been absent from the family home for many years if I recall and Corinne had brought the two boys up mostly on her own.  Many single parent family's cope perfectly well as you know from your own experiences.

Not according to Jodi and Judith. The evidence shows that Judith had threatened to tell Luke's mother about something he and Jodi had done that they houldn't have, and Jodi begged her not to because of how strict Luke's mum was. Judith told the police that Jodi and Luke didn't normally meet until around 6pm because Luke "had to" cook the dinner because his mother and brother worked.[/b]

So you are denying the claim that Luke was out of parental control and effectively did whatever he wanted?

Now you're just being silly.

Again you are denying that Luke Mitchell had bulk cannabis stashed in his bedroom along with plastic bags and a set of scales for weighing it before being packaged ready for sale?  Do you condone such behaviour Sandra?
 

Careful again - Jodi was allowed to smoke cannabis, and have underage sex - her mother knew about both. Are you suggesting Jodi was also "out of control?" What's being described here are a couple of ordinary teenagers, doing things that ordinary teenagers do - you might not approve, I might not approve, but it won't change the fact that that's what teenagers do, and it certainly doesn't suggest they're all "out of control." Remember, Luke was doing well in school, getting good marks in all of his classes - not really "out of control" at all, was he?

As already pointed out, what Jodi did in her spare time is sort of irrelevant to her killers disposition.
 

For the record, I was never "involved" in the Adrian Prout case - I discussed it, on the basis of available information, online with others, that was the extent of my "involvement." I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case.

For the record you are/were co director of the Wrongly Accused Person organsation/forum which supported strangler Adrian Prout so let's stop pussy footing around Sandra.  You also made several posts supporting Prout on the WAP forum.  No doubt you would like this event to be assigned to history but it won't happen.

As for the Hall case, you say you do not regret your involvement so effectively you are saying you don't regret supporting a cold blooded killer who murdered a defenceless old lady in her own home before molesting her?  Really Sandra, do you really want to be associated with Hall?

Neither do Joseph Jones, or Steven Kelly, or Ferris and Dickie, on the same basis you make this claim. Someone made a phone call from Luke's home landline to Scotts caravans during this period - we know where his mother, brother, grandmother and father were, so who do you suppose made that call? His brother did not "dispute" Luke's whereabouts initially, as I've explained elsewhere. Mother and brother both ate dinner when mother came in from work - who do you suppose cooked the dinner they ate, or did it somehow make itself?

So you don't believe Shane then?  One of them was lying for some very good reason!  Interesting??

That'll be the dark haired, tall/ medium height youth wearing jeans and trainers with a jacket they couldn't say whether or not it was zipped up but could later read the writing on the t shirt underneath. Oh, yes, that'll be the description given after Luke's pictures appeared in the papers, and the whole area was awash with rumour that Luke was the killer. Those will be the "independent" witnesses who originally claimed to have seen the youth nearer to 6pm close to the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College, and not "near the entrance to the path," the independent witnesses whose statements begin "I have been shown a newspaper article (by police)... and asked..."
 No idea, but it's irrelevant, because their descriptions (one from a fleeting glance in a rearview mirror) were originally nothing like Luke on the evening in question, the timings were changed, the location of the sighting was changed - what are the chances this "evidence" was shoehorned (badly, as it turned out) to fit a particular agenda? And, for the record, in the summer, it's not an area with "few pedestrians" - granted, it's not a busy town street, but neither is it a deserted pathway.

You can twist all you like but the two women didn't imagine it all.  It happened, Mitchell admitted being in that area, they saw him, get over it!

[Stephanie]

I spent a lot of time on the Prout and Hall cases, I even considered Hall innocent initially but the case unravelled as time went on.

The Hall case was a different kettle of fish.  I spent many hours conversing with Halls wife, helping her with correspondence and trawling through the evidence looking for that glimmer of light which could open up the case.  We thought we had it at one stage but it was a coincidence and nothing more. The moment of truth however came when it was discovered that Hall had in fact burgled premises in Ipswich the night of Joan Albert's murder.  It was then revealed that his family and other close associates knew about this burglary yet failed to inform police.  Alibis then began to look shady, people who had once been reliable began to crumble under the threat of further police intervention.  A fresh look at the timings revealed that Hall had indeed been in Ipswich but had time to have burgled Mrs Albert's home and stabbed her before returning to his parents house.

Don't you mean 'people who appeared to have been reliable?' The motive appears to have not been burglary....

I must say in relation to the Mitchell case, with hindsight, the absence of support (Public) by brother Shane leaves big questions for me... There are also other factors, that I was made aware of last year by Sandra L that concern me greatly....

[nugnug]

this all irlvant to the case we are talking about.

[Stephanie]

this all irlvant to the case we are talking about.

What is?

[nugnug]

well simon hall and adrian prout both have there on threads im happy discuss ethere case in its pproper  place but this thread was sort of suposed to be about luke.

[Stephanie]

well simon hall and adrian prout both have there on threads im happy discuss ethere case in its pproper  place but this thread was sort of suposed to be about luke.

That's why I edited my previous post...

[sandra L]

I agree with nugnug, most of this is irrelevant, but to avoid claims that I'm "not answering questions" or whatever, here goes:

[/quote]He had been absent from the family home for many years if I recall and Corinne had brought the two boys up mostly on her own.  Many single parent family's cope perfectly well as you know from your own experiences.[/quote]

Three years, from memory, so Luke would have been 11 and Shane 16 - 17, so, no, Corinne did not bring the boys up "mostly on her own." And Luke spent most weekends at his father's. My girls were 3 and 5 when I became a single parent, and I am very proud of both of them, thank you.

So you are denying the claim that Luke was out of parental control and effectively did whatever he wanted?

Yes, see previous posts

Again you are denying that Luke Mitchell had bulk cannabis stashed in his bedroom along with plastic bags and a set of scales for weighing it before being packaged ready for sale?  Do you condone such behaviour Sandra?

Ten months of intense police scrutiny, his every move watched and documented, but they allowed him to not only stash "bulk" cannabis, but to sell it right under their noses? The "scales" and "bags" were trinket style objects, freely available from a well known shop in Edinburgh - real dealers advertise what they're up to by helpfully putting their wares in little bags conveniently displaying a cannabis leaf on the outside, don't they? The amount of cannabis taken from Luke's house on April 14th 2004 was reported to be much higher than the actual amount in police statemnts. Whether I condone or not is irrelevant. I do not believe that smoking cannabis predisposes teenagers to becoming brutal murderers.
 

As already pointed out, what Jodi did in her spare time is sort of irrelevant to her killers disposition

Missed the point - see previous posts.
 

For the record you are/were co director of the Wrongly Accused Person organsation/forum which supported strangler Adrian Prout so let's stop pussy footing around Sandra.  You also made several posts supporting Prout on the WAP forum.  No doubt you would like this event to be assigned to history but it won't happen.

Was co director. Discussed the case online with others. You have no idea what I would or would not like.

As for the Hall case, you say you do not regret your involvement so effectively you are saying you don't regret supporting a cold blooded killer who murdered a defenceless old lady in her own home before molesting her?  Really Sandra, do you really want to be associated with Hall?

Goodness, a number of quantum leaps of assumption there. I'm not "effectively" saying anything - I'm stating, as a fact, I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case - I learned many difficult and painful lessons from it.

So you don't believe Shane then?  One of them was lying for some very good reason!  Interesting??

not even worth a response. See previous posts.

You can twist all you like but the two women didn't imagine it all.  It happened, Mitchell admitted being in that area, they saw him, get over it!

Now  now, John, no need to get personal and aggressive. The evidence strongly suggests they did not see what they claimed in court. See previous posts.

[Stephanie]

this all irlvant to the case we are talking about.

I must say in relation to the Mitchell case, with hindsight, the absence of support (Public) by brother Shane leaves big questions for me... There are also other factors, that I was made aware of last year by Sandra L that concern me greatly....

How is this irrelevant?

[sandra L]

  However, as time went on Corinne's replies began to worry me, there were things which did not add up, there were gaps in her knowledge and the case began to unravel.  Excuses were being made which again were not consistent with the facts and Mitchell supporters were becoming abusive and dishonest.

John's opinion, to which he is, of course, entitled. I would strongly refute any claim that Luke's supporters became abusive or dishonest, or that excuses were being "made up." There were gaps in Corinne's legal knowledge - she never denied that, referring posters to me if they asked legal questions which she could not answer.

The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was one day when Corinne refused point blank to answer questions, the excuses had run out, the deception and the charade was laid bare.

Never happened! Corinne would answer the same questions over and over again - because people didn't like the answers, they would come back and ask the same questions in a different way. To these people, whom Corinne had answered repeatedly, she stated that she would not continue to answer questions she had already answered several times - not quite the same thing as "refusing point blank to answer questions" is it?

That was the turning point for me, Luke had no alibi despite Corinne's protestations, his brother refuted his claims that he was at home the afternoon Jodi was murdered.  The Mitchell family home was not that big, there was no way Luke could have returned home without his brother being aware of it.  The claims about Luke making dinner were not borne out by his brothers evidence.

See previous posts.

The facts are as follows. Corinne Mitchell was at work at her caravan business some distance away from the family home but the internet records showed that someone was in the house surfing the internet.  Luke's brother Shane claimed it was he, that he was surfing porn sites from his bedroom with the door ajar so that he could hear anyone come into the house.  His evidence was that nobody did until his mother arrived home at around 5.30pm.

These are not even the facts as presented by the prosecution, but never mind, John says they're the facts, so he must be right.

In his evidence Luke makes no reference to Shane being in the house before 5.30pm.  He claims to have phoned Jodi from the house, to have prepared dinner in the house yet Shane's evidence disputed these events in their entirety.  Bottom line was that one of the brothers was telling lies in order to establish an alibi.

Question is...why?

Please! Luke did not claim to have "phoned Jodi from the house." Shane's evidence was that he ate a dinner he did not prepare, and his mother did not prepare, so who prepared it - the dog? And who made the call to Scotts Caravans from the Mitchell landline that afternoon? Oh, let's not forget the witnesses who saw Luke making his way home from school, shall we?

[sandra L]

this witness claimed she had never met jodi at the time no photogrphs had been published show how the hell she thought she had seen jodi is beyond me.

You got me thinking about something nugnug, even after all these years. We know AB's brother in law was in AW's house on the morning of July 1st, telling everyone there about his sister in law's "sighting" the day before (although it was originally claimed it was his brother who made the "sighting.")

But AB didn't know Jodi or her family. Jodi wasn't known to be missing until 10.40pm on the night of June 30th. Did AB say to her husband, "I saw a young couple at the entrance to Roan's Dyke Path - a place I've never even heard of - this afternoon." Hubby says, "That's nice dear, I must mention this to my brother later this evening - you never know, he might know who they are."

And by some amazing coincidence, by 9am the following morning, the brother does know who they are, and rushes off to tell Jodi's family. Really?