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

[John]

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....

Yes, there has always been a big question mark over Shanes intiial statements to the police.  He initially told police that he was home alone but his mother sent him back to the police station to claim Luke was at home backed up by the burned pie story.  In the witness box however he was warned of the consequences of committing perjury so reverted to the home alone version. Speaks volumes!

I'm glad to hear it Stephanie. Sandra likes to promote the stuff which suports her own beliefs whilst conveniently ignoring the damning evidence.

[Baz]

Is it because he believes Luke to be guilty?

That's conjecture.

[Stephanie]

Yes, there has always been a big question mark over Shanes intiial statements to the police.  He initially told police that he was home alone but his mother sent him back to the police station to claim Luke was at home backed up by the burned pie story.  In the witness box however he was warned of the consequences of committing perjury so reverted to the home alone version. Speaks volumes!

Sandra likes to promote the stuff which suports her own beliefs whilst conveniently ignoring the damning evidence.

I'm unsure why Sandra L appears to be choosing to ignore some of the things she told me last year? Many of which were damning...?

[John]

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.

We are talking about the period in the run up to the murder.  Luke was a drug dealer, he bought the cannabis in bulk and sold it to his friends in measured lots.  His friends gave evidence that he always carried a load of cash with him, far more than a child of his age should have had acces to but you just go on attempting to make him look for all the innocent child he wasn't.

I notice you also attempted to play down the other knife attacks Luke made on yet other young unsuspecting girls.  One of which was an assault just days before Jodi's murder for which he was kicked out of the Army Cadets.  Do you think his fantasy went one step too far with Jodi?


But one of Mitchell's former girlfriends, who says he attacked her with a knife just weeks before Jodi's murder, yesterday dismissed his latest claims of innocence.

Kara Van Nuil is adamant that her ex-boyfriend did kill Jodi, and also revealed she is terrified that Mitchell will attempt to track her down on his release.

The 24-year-old, who believes that her decision to end the relationship probably saved her life, has now moved away from Midlothian in an attempt to avoid being found.

Ms Van Nuil, who was 16 when she dated Mitchell, maintains that he pressed a blade to her neck during an Army Cadet Force platoon meeting.

With the other cadets enjoying a snack break outside the hut, Mitchell is said to have grabbed Ms Van Nuil from behind, turned her round and forced a penknife to her throat.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/319784/Jodi-s-family-hit-back-over-killers-claims-of-innocence


"When he was 12 he threatened his then girlfriend with a knife because she refused to have sex with him. The incidents went on. When he moved to St David’s High, a music teacher found him trying to throttle another pupil and he was sent to an educational psychologist. He refused the expert’s help. Instead Mitchell became a rebellious, mysterious teenager who was heavily into cannabis and supplied his Goth friends with the drug."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861

[Baz]

Who for? Luke or Jodie?

For Shane, in this instance.

[Stephanie]

That's conjecture.

How is it conjecture? I've merely asked a question?

Although based on my own experiences it is highly questionable and extremely telling imo.

[Baz]

Could it be that Shane was Luke's alibi?

You're right, I should have worded it better.

I'm not saying it's not important I just never see any explanation for why everyone else's testimony seems to differ from their statements.

[Stephanie]

For Shane, in this instance.

Are you making this up as you go?

You said;

Thanks. Yes that was the thing I was referring to. Overbearing and hostile... Deplored.... Poor kid, must have been horrible.

In response to;

"The appellant was on 14 August 2003 interviewed under caution by police officers. In the course of the trial the Crown sought to lead before the jury evidence of some but only a few of the questions and answers put and given in the course of that interview. Objection was taken on behalf of the appellant to that course of action but the objection was repelled by the trial judge. The challenge was renewed on appeal, it being maintained that the interview was conducted in circumstances which were wholly and manifestly unfair to the appellant. Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored. However, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the answers to the particular questions, which alone the Crown sought to introduce in evidence, were elicited in such circumstances that the trial judge was bound to hold that they were inadmissible. Having considered the response of the appellant throughout and in detail each of the passages in dispute, we are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to take the course which he did. Moreover, having regard to the context of the questions and responses, many of which related to matters already otherwise properly in evidence, we are not persuaded that on this ground a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted."

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/luke-mitchell-official-summary-of-appeal-court-decision-1-1259417

I asked;

Who for? Luke or Jodie?

Please explain yourself.....

[Stephanie]

You're right, I should have worded it better.

I'm not saying it's not important I just never see any explanation for why everyone else's testimony seems to differ from their statements.

Everyone else wasn't on trial for murder....

[John]

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

You play down your involvement with the discredited WAP Organisation as if it never happened Sandra. You were a co director so every bit responsible for the way in which it was run.  You do realise that you are still jointly responsible for the funds which the organisation accrued and which by the way have never been declared in any filings with the Scottish Charity Regulator?

Are you now distancing yourself from the allegation that Corinne Mitchell (Luke's mother) was banned from posting on WAP for two years and that someone with access to her account had been posting fake comments in her name. I notice from other threads that you have always declined to comment on this accusation?

[Baz]

Are you making this up as you go?

You said;

In response to;

I asked;

Please explain yourself.....

Happy to explain.

We were discussing the treatment of Shane by the police during questioning. I was expressing empathy for a 15 year old boy being handled in an overbearing and hostile manner by the police. I was also questioning the affect this might have on whatever information is gathered during such deplorable questioning.

[Baz]

Everyone else wasn't on trial for murder....

No they were witnesses in a murder trial, just like Shane..... I don't see your point here.

[Stephanie]

Happy to explain.

We were discussing the treatment of Shane by the police during questioning. I was expressing empathy for a 15 year old boy being handled in an overbearing and hostile manner by the police. I was also questioning the affect this might have on whatever information is gathered during such deplorable questioning.

Thanks for the explanation.

I take it your stance now is that LM is innocent?

So you disagree with the appeal judges then?

[John]

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's untrue Sandra. Corinne refused to answer some of the more awkward questions when she was challenged about Lukes whereabouts on the afternoon of the murder. Maybe you were off doing your other things that night and never saw the posts which Middleton conveniently deleted?

[Stephanie]

You're right, I should have worded it better.

I'm not saying it's not important I just never see any explanation for why everyone else's testimony seems to differ from their statements.

Everyone else wasn't on trial for murder....

No they were witnesses in a murder trial, just like Shane..... I don't see your point here.

Where was LM if he wasn't in the house with Shane? Who is telling the truth, Shane or Luke?

Why hasn't Shane spoken out about this since the conviction of Luke?