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

[susan]

Yes he will! Judas!

 

[maggie]

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

Thanks Susie, just trying to unravel his posts.

[Jan]

how does he get internet access?

[Neil]

how does he get internet access?

He is no longer incarcerated.

[John]

He posted his own death notice on the internet a while back, says it all really!

https://kevincraigiex.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/kevin-craigie-3/

[sandra L]

I thought this was a discussion about the Luke Mitchell case? I'd no idea who Curly Wurly was (or any of the others posting, with the exceptions of nugnug, John and Stephanie). Does someone being banned really warrant that much attention?

for clarification Sandra's "heads up" was because they have a theory I'm Steven Kelly and should be worried

What? I have no such theory, and who are they “they” to whom you refer? I’m here, posting in my own right-  there is no “they.”

I meant, if you’re basing your absolute conviction that Luke is guilty on the stain on the bra,  you’ve chosen a weak rock to cling to, that’s all.

[marty]

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.

thanks for that, everything is a little clearer now

[Neil]

I thought this was a discussion about the Luke Mitchell case? I'd no idea who Curly Wurly was (or any of the others posting, with the exceptions of nugnug, John and Stephanie). Does someone being banned really warrant that much attention?

What? I have no such theory, and who are they “they” to whom you refer? I’m here, posting in my own right-  there is no “they.”

I meant, if you’re basing your absolute conviction that Luke is guilty on the stain on the bra,  you’ve chosen a weak rock to cling to, that’s all.

Apparently yes, it does.  You obviously felt the need to make comment yourself, just as four or five other posters very briefly have. 

[sandra L]

Okay. I was commenting on the amount of attention, not the ban itself, but fair enough if that's the way you do things here. Didn't mean to cause any offence.

[nugnug]

well we were to discuss the luke mitchell how the bloody hell did we get onto kevin cragie.

[marty]

Certainly was a conversation stopper

[marty]

well we were to discuss the luke mitchell how the bloody hell did we get onto kevin cragie.

I think Kevin Craigie got us into Kevin craigie.

[John]

Sandra, can I ask you something.  Do you honestly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent or is it simply that you feel the verdict was unsafe?  TY

[nugnug]

do you think she would bother if she dident.

[nugnug]

There has been a longstanding campaign of misinformation surrounding the case, Curly Wurly, and this claim of "partials" has been repeated more times than I can count. Every single time, I correct it, and try to give a reasonaby simple explanation of why those "partials" cannot be claimed to have originated from Luke (or anyone else, for that matter) - there is simply not enough information contained within them to make such a claim.

But where partials were recovered that had markers which were not in Luke's profile, we can safely and categorically state that Luke was not a contributor to those samples. This also explains why so many samples recovered from the scene were labelled "Jodi Jones and unknown male."


dident criag dobbie himself state that there was no dna evedence agianst luke
One mixed sample in the DNA reports was labelled "Jodi Jones, Luke Mitchell and unknown male." That labelling has been utterly discredited by renowned DNA experts who have pointed out (a) there was no full DNA sample for any male recovered, (b) the markers which were recovered could have, in fact, been attributed to a number of males known to the investigation, and therefore could not, in any way, be claimed to be "Luke Mitchell" and (3) an assumption had been made that some of the markers attributed to Luke's profile, could, in fact, have belonged to the "unknown male." The reason they had to include the unknown male reference was because there were markers in this sample which were not in Luke's profile.

I know it get's very complicated, but, similar to my last post, the markers recovered in this sample which were claimed to be Luke's (3 from memory) could, in fact, have belonged to any other person with the same numbers at those marker points. One report suggested that this sample should, in reality, have been labelled "Jodi Jones and unknown male" because of the high possibility that the male markers recovered had all originated from one person and not, as the report had tried to dishonestly suggest, from two different males.

dident criag dobbie say there was no dna evedence agianst luke.