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

[sandra L]

It must be very frustrating when your paying attention to the minute details in order to make a valid assessment, and others attempt to discredit, based on what is, under closer examination mere fiction based on mere speculation which promotes their particular stance. I often wonder to myself, why such people do this, knowing the consequences are so damaging.

It was frustrating for a while (I have a 20 year background in psychology!) but I had to come to a point where it doesn't matter what others do to discredit or undermine - telling fact based, evidence based truth is the only way to educate, inform and assist those who need or want the information I have to share.

The way I see it, people can take what they can use from what I have to say - if it helps, excellent, if it doesn't, c'est la vie, I can only say what I know, and hope it's useful to someone, somewhere.

For the others, I have long since stopped wasting time and energy wondering why they do what they do - they just do!!

[sandra L]

When confronted with this during his police interview Luke responded with something smug along the lines of "well if it's a partial match, it's not me, is it?" (if it was me when I was 14 I would have said "well she's my girlfriend!!!" but I wasn't as calculated as Luke

Oh dear, and you tell others to do their own research! During the "outrageous and to be deplored" interrogation of August 14th (the appeal court judges' words, not mine) the police told a number of proven lies, durring a long phase where the intrrogating officers had "completely lost control" (again, not my words.)

One of the lies they told was that they had "parts of DNA on Jodi's clothing that match part of your DNA." They demanded "How do you explain that, then, eh?"

Luke responded, having been goaded, hectored and bullied (again, not my words) for hours, with a science lesson on how DNA profiles are identified, the uniqueness of the full sample being the point of identification. Up to that point, everything he'dtried to say had been closed off, negated, dismissed as lies or ignored.

If it had been you, you'd have faced the same police tactics, so you simply cannot know what you would have said in those circumstances. The "partial match" on the piece of clothing they claimed to have did not exist in any of the DNA results available to them by August 14th, nor did it magically appear in any later results.  The one result they did try to claim originated from Luke came after this interrogation, and was, as already explained, totally discredited as a blatant misrepresentation.

Remind me, what did the police do when they found a full DNA profile from Steven Kelly on Jodi's  shirt? Oh, no, it's ok I remember - they trotted off and handed him an "innocent" explanation forr it being there.

[sandra L]

What about if Sandras wrong? She has no way of actually knowing if Luke is actually innocent, but still would happily have had him released based on her own opinion and theories.

These are not just "my own opinions and theories" - several experts and legal professionals are on public record as stating this case is far, far too flawed to be considered "safe."

I've said before, why do you think a mother of two teenage girls (as they were at the time) would take the route I've taken, knowing that,if the conviction was overturned, Luke would be released directly into the community where my girls were growing up?

My support of Simon Hall was also not based on my own opinions and theories - again, a number of experts agreed that the evidence used to convict him was deeply flawed. The fibre evidence was torn apart by Tiernan Coyle in meticulous scientific testing (a far cry from the original police lab testing.)

My argument, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is that we have to insist that these things are done properly, from the start, and alll the way through, otherwise the doubts left mean questions are still being asked (and left unanswered) years later. The more we allow these cases to remain unexamined, the more able police ivestigators are to fit up anyone they choose, in any way they choose. And that could be any one of us.

[marty]

There was!

And there was partials for him on the body!

Don't do that, it's utter drivel and you know it.

[marty]

"No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene that cannot be innocently explained" has somehow transformed into "No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene" over time. At the trial is was certainly still a case of "that cannot be innocently explained". Ask Donald Findlay if you don't believe me, he's the one who attempted to "innocently explain" it when Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure testified that a stain on a Jodi's bra showed DNA traces which matched Luke Mitchell.

The prosecution and defence were both in agreement that it existed.

So marty, you were saying?

Please don't call me a liar based on your own misinformation (it's not your fault though)

This is my problem with people using Sandra as their only source of information.





- Prediction: Sandra will magic this away again with a long winded reply that doesn't prove it isn't Luke's, accuse Findlay and the Tayside Police expert of incompetence, subtly implicate a few others by flipping it around on them, and all will be right again in your mind won't it.

Your twisting it and you know it. The only DNA between the two was Jodie on a pair of trousers that belonged to luke that were found in a bag in Luke's house which had hee haw to do with the murder. And you know that, this is what Findlay is talking about, again you know it.
Your trying to lead people up the garden path.

How do you get a DNA trace, it's a person's profile or its not. She was trying to imply it was luke mitchell. So what did the prosecution do with this. They would have had a field day. His DNA is on the bra... the DNA of jodi found on Luke's trousers was of bodily fluid if I remember correctly hence the boyfriend-girlfriend being intimate reference.

[marty]

And what are you basing this on? Are you saying teenage killers don't exist?

I assume you wouldn't believe Jamie Bulgar was killed by 2 kids if the case was unsolved?

Please, I feel embarrassed for you.

[marty]

It's totally inconceivable that Luke stood and waited for Jodi at the gate for so long without getting impatient and just walking along for her. It gets even more ridiculous when he suddenly just forgets about the person he was so willing to wait for and goes and meets his mates to muck about in the woods to get good and dirty. Then it just becomes utterly laughable when he goes home that night, sticks a video on, and still doesn't wonder why his girlfriend never turned up. This was a girl he told the papers recently that he loved, who we're told was spotted acting suspciously at a gate because he was waiting on her.

Oh wait it wasnt a story for the papers he was just randomly telling Sandra these detailed things she already knew in a letter which she then asked his permission to send to the paper.  (despite corinne later describing the letter as an opportunity for Luke to have his own say. In a letter that was only meant for Sandra's eyes? get your stories straight girls)

Sounds like he was fourteen and pissed off

[sandra L]

"No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene that cannot be innocently explained" has somehow transformed into "No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene" over time. At the trial is was certainly still a case of "that cannot be innocently explained". Ask Donald Findlay if you don't believe me, he's the one who attempted to "innocently explain" it when Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure testified that a stain on a Jodi's bra showed DNA traces which matched Luke Mitchell

Misrepresentation. Susan Ure was trashed on the stand when she tried to make the claim that parts of the partial on the bra "matched" parts of Luke's profile, and was forced to admit that that was a wholly misleading statement. Funny how that's the same stain police tried to make the same dishonest claim about months earlier, isn't it? Please see my explanation of DNA "matching" in my previous post.

The "innocent explanation" evidence referred to the tiny sample on the trousers that were found to be not, in any way, connected to the murder. Best if you don't conflate entirely discrete pieces of information - it just leads to confusion and misinformation.

A friendly heads-up here - I'd be a bit careful about making claims (especially when they appear to contain deliberate misinformation) about the stains (plural) on the bra and the padding beneath - you never know what independent testing might prove, especially if there's enough information already available to support a viable proposition. Just saying.

[guest154]

Yes I'm targeting poor Sandra because I'm a bully I thought she was alone.  When I joined here she had far more support. Big Gordo already ducked my offer of a square go. I don't care how many suspicious new accounts crawl out the woodwork you're still in the minority.

Yes, I remember that.  he was very, very mad that night. 

[maggie]

Awwwwww!! And we were just starting to get along!! 

Sorry to spoil your fun  Pity he's so obnoxious.

[Caroline]

Sorry to spoil your fun  Pity he's so obnoxious.

Ha, ha!! What a gormless moron, if I have banned everyone that didn't agree with me, there would be no members left!! 

[Neil]

For the record, Kevin Craigie was convicted, along with Mark Fuller, for the murder of Kenneth Rothwell.

Craigie has 'appeared' on a few forums over the years, using various alias's.  He's always very easy to spot.  However hard he tries to disguise his true identity, he seems unable to surpress his truly vile personality.

He has shown no remorse for his crimes, choosing instead to bleat, whine and generally feel sorry for himself.

He is a utterly pathetic individual.  R.I.H.

[guest154]

For the record, Kevin Craigie was convicted, along with Mark Fuller, for the murder of Kenneth Rothwell.

Craigie has 'appeared' on a few forums over the years, using various alias's.  He's always very easy to spot.  However hard he tries to disguise his true identity, he seems unable to surpress his truly vile personality.

He has shown no remorse for his crimes, choosing instead to bleat, whine and generally feel sorry for himself.

He is a utterly pathetic individual.  R.I.H.

Neil, good post actually. His downfall is that he leaves enough clues - on purpose to see who will pick up on them. The way he praised Sandra stood out to me and then I thought about the username and thought "my oh my I remember his curly wurly comment!"

[susan]

Sorry to have to say goodbye to curly surly but have banned him forever.

Maggie very well done he needed to be banned he will be back with another silly username l

[guest154]

Maggie very well done he needed to be banned he will be back with another silly username l

Yes he will! Judas!