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

[Baz]

Here's a recap re Shane's evidence.

Maybe this is why he doesn't speak out publicly anymore?

I was quite shocked the first time I read this when going through this forum because my immediate reaction was that he had just admitted to setting up an alibi with his Mum. But, it can surely just as easily have been him saying that he couldn't have given the evidence without his Mum reminding him. He'd already shown that his memory of the evening wasn't exactly reliable when he said he got home at 3:30 (if memory serves) but the police showed with evidence that he went to a friends house first. So if it hadn't been for the police working that out and reminding him then his evidence would probably have still been that he got in at 3:30.

It just isn't the definitive piece of evidence that I would have been willing to convict on.

Edit: I'm terrible at this quoting business. Sorry.

[Stephanie]

I was quite shocked the first time I read this when going through this forum because my immediate reaction was that he had just admitted to setting up an alibi with his Mum. But, it can surely just as easily have been him saying that he couldn't have given the evidence without his Mum reminding him. He'd already shown that his memory of the evening wasn't exactly reliable when he said he got home at 3:30 (if memory serves) but the police showed with evidence that he went to a friends house first. So if it hadn't been for the police working that out and reminding him then his evidence would probably have still been that he got in at 3:30.

It just isn't the definitive piece of evidence that I would have been willing to convict on.

Edit: I'm terrible at this quoting business. Sorry.

Or it surely just as easily have been both Shane and his Mum were lying?

[Baz]

Or it surely just as easily have been both Shane and his Mum were lying?

Exactly.

[sandra L]

But I guess, if we're open to the possibility that they were lying (rather than simply trying to remember details of what was, until the discovery of Jodi's body, a perfectly mundane weekday) then we'd have to give that same consideration to others whose stories changed as a result of information given to them by other people.

Findlay made that point in court - Janine's story about not knowing about the path and Jodi "not being allowed to use it alone" was, she admitted, given to her in the early hours of July 1st. Was that true (that Jodi wasn't allowed to use the path alone) , or was it inserted into the narrative very early on? (Clue, Janine admitted her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone).

Or what about Joseph, who told police the whole family, including Jodi, had eaten dinner at the table on the evening of June 30th? Was he lying then, or when he changed his statement to say he'd eaten dinner from a plate on his lap in the sitting room? Did the discussion with his mother remind him that the family hadn't eaten together?

What about Alice, who forgot to mention that John Ferris was staying with her at the time of the murder, and took nearly two weeks to mention it? Was she lying by ommission or did she genuinely forget?

I'm not saying any of these people did anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that the existence of suspicion in the first place allows a sinister slant to be put on behaviours by one group, but not on others for exactly the same behaviours.

[sandra L]

the police showed with evidence that he went to a friends house first. So if it hadn't been for the police working that out and reminding him then his evidence would probably have still been that he got in at 3:30.

Interestingly, it was never, ever suggested that Shane was lying about the time he got home - it was accepted, totally, that he had forgotten about stopping at a friend's on the way home. I always wondered why they made such a song and dance about the dinner reminder, but not about the stopping at a friend's reminder - they seem like pretty much the same thing to me.

[sandra L]

On a slightly different note, something I just found out recently.

Police knew what Jodi looked like, her height, weight, etc, and the clothes she was wearing the night of the murder - baggy dark trousers, baggy black hoodie with large deftones logo on the back, smaller logos on the left sleeve and right upper chest, blue DCs. Exactly a week after the murder, they staged a reconstruction with the Jodi lookalike wearing exactly the same clothes.

Before the reconstruction, they had two witness descriptions of a girl who could have been Jodi.

The first was: (approached from the back, and fleetingly from the side, passing in a car)  Teenager, could have been male or female, probably female because of the "shape" of the person. Plain blue sweatshirt, lighter blue bootcut jeans. Hair "dark" - no description of style, etc, no facial description because the face was not seen.

The second was:(approached from the front, diagonally opposite, on foot) Teenage girl, possibly late teens, "scrufffy" wearing dark, baggy clothing. Baggy top with hands in pouch style front pockets (exactly as depicted on the later reconstruction) zipped up at the front to about breast level with some sort of collar lying down about the shoulders. Dark hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tucked behind the ears or tied back, pale complexion.

Which is closer to the information police already had? Which is closer to the clothing Jodi was actually wearing? Which do you think (if any) police should have relied upon as a credible sighting of "a girl who could have been Jodi"?

Which description is closer to the police reconstruction?

[Baz]

But I guess, if we're open to the possibility that they were lying (rather than simply trying to remember details of what was, until the discovery of Jodi's body, a perfectly mundane weekday) then we'd have to give that same consideration to others whose stories changed as a result of information given to them by other people.

Findlay made that point in court - Janine's story about not knowing about the path and Jodi "not being allowed to use it alone" was, she admitted, given to her in the early hours of July 1st. Was that true (that Jodi wasn't allowed to use the path alone) , or was it inserted into the narrative very early on? (Clue, Janine admitted her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone).

Or what about Joseph, who told police the whole family, including Jodi, had eaten dinner at the table on the evening of June 30th? Was he lying then, or when he changed his statement to say he'd eaten dinner from a plate on his lap in the sitting room? Did the discussion with his mother remind him that the family hadn't eaten together?

What about Alice, who forgot to mention that John Ferris was staying with her at the time of the murder, and took nearly two weeks to mention it? Was she lying by ommission or did she genuinely forget?

I'm not saying any of these people did anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that the existence of suspicion in the first place allows a sinister slant to be put on behaviours by one group, but not on others for exactly the same behaviours.

Agreed. I obviously have no idea if the police thoroughly investigated the lies and changes in story from the non-Mitchells.

It is suspicious, to me, that both Luke and Shane are in the house together but aren't sure if the other is also in, but not impossible. And this gets a lot of attention and is possibly the main thing that got Luke convicted. But isn't it more suspicious that at the police's presumed time of death John Ferris's moped is seen unattended at the gap in the wall. His explanation is that he doesn't remember why, I think. And they're fine with that.

[nugnug]

Interestingly, it was never, ever suggested that Shane was lying about the time he got home - it was accepted, totally, that he had forgotten about stopping at a friend's on the way home. I always wondered why they made such a song and dance about the dinner reminder, but not about the stopping at a friend's reminder - they seem like pretty much the same thing to me.

well id never heard of it before so obviosly they never made a big thing about it in court.

[Baz]

The second was:(approached from the front, diagonally opposite, on foot) Teenage girl, possibly late teens, "scrufffy" wearing dark, baggy clothing. Baggy top with hands in pouch style front pockets (exactly as depicted on the later reconstruction) zipped up at the front to about breast level with some sort of collar lying down about the shoulders. Dark hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tucked behind the ears or tied back, pale complexion.

Where and what time was this sighting?

[nugnug]

I would make it your business to find out why Shane hasn't publicly supported Luke and why he hasn't made a statement in relation to his factual evidence.....

how many people do in all cases like this very few.

[Stephanie]

And Stephanie, please xxxx.

Never!

[John]

Interestingly, it was never, ever suggested that Shane was lying about the time he got home - it was accepted, totally, that he had forgotten about stopping at a friend's on the way home. I always wondered why they made such a song and dance about the dinner reminder, but not about the stopping at a friend's reminder - they seem like pretty much the same thing to me.

In reality it matters little what anyone says in their statements as it is what they repeat under oath in the witness box which is important. Shane was warned by Turnbull, prosecuting, of the consequences of committing perjury thus when he was asked in Court if Luke was at home the afternoon Jodi was murdered he had to admit that he hadn't seen him.  Which sort of renders Corinne's and Luke's version of events extremely questionable.  Corinne was extremely lucky to have escaped a perjury charge or even a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice following Luke's conviction imo.

I have often wondered why you perservered with this case Sandra, returning to it even now after being effectively sidelined by the Mitchell family?  Has history not taught you that the Scottish Justice System is one of the most incestuous and corrupt legal systems in the world?  Even if some hard evidence of Mitchell's innocence were ever to be uncovered do you really think for a moment that such an institution could even admit to failure?

Have you ever considered the damage that you and other academics have caused to the entire miscarriage of justice scene by wrongly promoting the guilty as innocent?  Don't you think that your previous history of involvement in such cases renders your input in the Mitchell case a bit of a poisoned chalice?  Is that the real reason why Corinne Mitchell effectively sacked you?

[sandra L]

I have often wondered why you perservered with this case Sandra, returning to it even now after being effectively sidelined by the Mitchell family?  Has history not taught you that the Scottish Justice System is one of the most incestuous and corrupt legal systems in the world?  Even if some hard evidence of Mitchell's innocence were ever to be uncovered do you really think for a moment that such an institution could even admit to failure?

That is exactly why. What should I have done - shrugged, sighed and walked away, knowing that the justice system as corrupt and incestuous?

[sandra L]

Where and what time was this sighting?

On the Easthouses main street at around 5.05pm on June 30th. The police knew about it by July 5th.

[sandra L]

What are you implying by "Really?" What's your alternative explanation? A totally innocent woman and her brother with no reason to lie fake a sighting and lie to police in order to frame a teenage boy and help cover up a murder for a random family they barely know? Yes, that's much easier to believe Sandra.

OK, let me make it absolutely clear what I'm saying. I believe it is an extremely strong possibility that Andrina Bryson's "sighting" was tainted and embellished by the close communication between MBB and the Jones family. I do not believe Andrina Bryson was knowinglyo r deliberately dishonest - I believe she was influenced initially by information being fed to her by oher family members, and then put under extreme pressure by police to agree to certain propositions.

Her possible routes home from the supermarket, for example, and the change of timing of her sighting, of which she was very, very sure initially, going so far as to retrieve the time of a text on her phone to prove the point. Is it really believable that she, like all of the Jones and extended family witnesses (whom she did not know), was out by 30 - 40 minutes?