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

[Baz]

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 Middleton and the allegation that he posted on the WAP forum in Corinne Mitchell's name after she had left?

Is there no moderation on this site?

[John]

Is there no moderation on this site?

Why? Is it getting too close to the truth?

[Baz]

Thanks for the explanation.

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

So you disagree with the appeal judges then?

No. My stance, which is not set in stone and I'm still hoping one day it will change, is that the investigation was awful and because of the failings in it I will never KNOW who killed Jodi. There are big unanswered questions for me in how Luke could have committed the crime in the way and time frame that the prosecution claimed.

[John]

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?

Good points Steph.  Shane has never commented publicly outside the courtroom to my knowledge.

[Baz]

Why? Is it getting too close to the truth?

No, because it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Because you're more interested in tearing people down and causing/having arguements that civilised discussion.

[Stephanie]

Is there no moderation on this site?

What is there to moderate? Please point out exactly what you believe should be moderated and why?

[John]

No, because it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Because you're more interested in tearing people down and causing/having arguements that civilised discussion.

I believe in exposing the facts.  The old questions won't just go away you know.

It is my opinion that Sandra Lean has questions to answer over her conduct in the Luke Mitchell case so isn't this the correct thread to air them?

[Stephanie]

No. My stance, which is not set in stone and I'm still hoping one day it will change, is that the investigation was awful and because of the failings in it I will never KNOW who killed Jodi. There are big unanswered questions for me in how Luke could have committed the crime in the way and time frame that the prosecution claimed.

It's simple;

He's either -

A) Guilty

Or

B) Innocent

[Stephanie]

No, because it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Because you're more interested in tearing people down and causing/having arguements that civilised discussion.

What are you basing your statement on? Please point out what you are referring to?

When you joined this forum you posted the following:

"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"

Why did you ask if there are any accessible sites that still present the evidence? Did you know The WAP site removed most of the LM case?

[Baz]

What is there to moderate? Please point out exactly what you believe should be moderated and why?

I'd moderate out the entire post rather than picking out certain bits to be honest. The financial dealings of a charity that someone here used to be involved in isn't really relevant and is more interested in finding new ways to discredit Sandra. And by new I mean not remotely new because it's exactly the same things you were bringing up not that long ago and she addressed them then.

I'd moderate this out too.

[Baz]

It's simple;

He's either -

A) Guilty

Or

B) Innocent

C) Not proven

[John]

No. My stance, which is not set in stone and I'm still hoping one day it will change, is that the investigation was awful and because of the failings in it I will never KNOW who killed Jodi. There are big unanswered questions for me in how Luke could have committed the crime in the way and time frame that the prosecution claimed.

The investigation was 'awful' as you put it but that doesn't render Luke Mitchell innocent.  I agree he was treated inproperly by police when interviewed but again that does not make him innocent.

Mitchell's supporters including Sandra Lean had hoped that Mitchell would be freed not because he was innocent but because his rights to a fair trial had been impinged.  What is your view Baz?

[John]

C) Not proven

Not proven - the Scottish get out of jail free card! 

[Stephanie]

C) Not proven

What like the Middleton case?

Knew you would say 'not proven,' predictable.

So better to have a 'not proven' verdict in a murder case like this in your opinion? You think the people of Scotland would have been okay with that?

Jodie and her family didn't deserve justice, is that what you are suggesting?

Who did it then if it wasn't LM?

[Baz]

The investiagation was 'awful' as you put it but that doesn't render Luke Mitchell innocent.  I agree he was treated inproperly by police when interviewed but again that does not make him innocent.

Mitchell's supporters including Sandra Lean had hoped that Mitchell would be freed not because he was innocent but because his rights to a fair trial had been impinged.  What is your view Baz?

That's a good question. Not one that I really have a formed opinion on, and without legal expertise I'm not sure I'm that qualified to say. But if the basis of a fair trial is innocent until proven guilty then I think the media attention would have made that a lot more difficult, if not impossible. I also think a fair trial is dependent on the strength of the evidence presented and this is dependent on the people collecting that evidence. 

However, I also think Luke had a top-notch lawyer and has had his case revisited with appeals. I know that people question the defence's performance, and there are things that seem lacklustre about it to me, but there are entire day's lost to legal wrangling as well so he can't have been that weak.

As I say, And wasn't at the trial, so it's hard to say.