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

[sandra L]

On the stand Shane was reminded by Mr Turnbull prosecuting of the consequences of perjury.  Shane told the court that he did not see or hear Luke in the house from the moment he arrived.  He agreed with the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing about it.

Another example of the prosecution wanting to eat its cake and have it, too, and John mixing fact and fiction to suit his own ends - after it was discovered Shane did not come straight home, but had, in fact, stopped off at a friend's, it was obvious that Luke was already home when Shane came in and went straight upstairs to his room - whether Shane agreed or not that it would have been "difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing it" is utterly irrelevant - the prosecution's suggestion is based on Shane arriving at an earlier time, which it already knew was wrong.

It clearly would not have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without Shane knowing about it if Shane was not there when Luke entered the house. Who made the call from the house landline to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm? Clue - Shane wasn't home yet, Corinne was at work.

Shane also admitted to the court that it was his mother who sent him back to the police station to change his statement after initially stating in his first statement that Luke was not at home.  I hasten to add, it is not the sort of thing you forget about when your younger brother is accused of murdering his girlfriend.

And again, John making it up as he goes along. Shane admitted that he and his mother had discussed what they ate for dinner that night - he did not admit his mother had "sent him" back to the police station. (Seriously, there was a liaison officer in the house from the afternoon of July 1st!) Shane did not say in his first statement that Luke was not at home -  in his first statement he simply said he had no idea what he did on the afternoon of June 30th - and that, on a normal day he'd come home from work between 3.30 and 4pm, go to his room until his tea was ready,  and maybe go out after tea. And Luke was not formally accused of murdering Jodi until nearly 10 months later - he certainly wasn't accused by July 3rd. The nature of police interrogation tactics in this case was designed to create as much confusion as possible, and the prosecution, as I've just demonstrated, used inaccurate information to make assertions which, although apparently logical, were, in fact, irrelevant.

John peddles this rubbish repeatedly, wasting everyone's time and energy. He is corrected repeatedly, ignores the correction and carries on making false, dishonest and inaccurate claims. What I have never understood is why.

[Baz]

On the stand Shane was reminded by Mr Turnbull prosecuting of the consequences of perjury.  Shane told the court that he did not see or hear Luke in the house from the moment he arrived.  He agreed with the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing about it.

Shane also admitted to the court that it was his mother who sent him back to the police station to change his statement after initially stating in his first statement that Luke was not at home.  I hasten to add, it is not the sort of thing you forget about when your younger brother is accused of murdering his girlfriend.

Ignored my question John... Fair's fair.

[sandra L]

And speaking of evidence, as Luke Mitchell does not have an independently corroborated alibi for the period of time when Jodi was murdered

Nobody does.

[John]

Another example of the prosecution wanting to eat its cake and have it, too, and John mixing fact and fiction to suit his own ends - after it was discovered Shane did not come straight home, but had, in fact, stopped off at a friend's, it was obvious that Luke was already home when Shane came in and went straight upstairs to his room - whether Shane agreed or not that it would have been "difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing it" is utterly irrelevant - the prosecution's suggestion is based on Shane arriving at an earlier time, which it already knew was wrong.

It clearly would not have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without Shane knowing about it if Shane was not there when Luke entered the house. Who made the call from the house landline to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm? Clue - Shane wasn't home yet, Corinne was at work.

You're a fine one to talk about mixing fact from fiction.  Luke Mitchell making a short telephone call to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm  does not represent an alibi of any sort and most certainly has no relevance to Luke Mitchell being in the family home at the time of the murder.  Shane was adamant that Luke was not at home when he got home and that he could not have got into the house without him knowing.  As per usual you have conveniently forgotton about Shane and the internet porn browsing in his bedroom with the door ajar just in case anyone arrived home.

You are stuck with those facts Sandra and no amount of twisting will ever change that situation.

[John]

Ignored my question John... Fair's fair.

Sorry Baz, I missed your question.

Mitchell's guilt is based on several aspects of the case including his actions in the hours following the murder, the absence of an alibi, the conflicting statements, the eyewitness sightings, Mitchell's past conduct with a knife and the fact that he had the means, the motive and the opportunity to do it.  This case was always going to be decided on circumstantial evidence and that is how the jury determined it.

[John]

Shane admitted that he and his mother had discussed what they ate for dinner that night - he did not admit his mother had "sent him" back to the police station. (Seriously, there was a liaison officer in the house from the afternoon of July 1st!) Shane did not say in his first statement that Luke was not at home -  in his first statement he simply said he had no idea what he did on the afternoon of June 30th - and that, on a normal day he'd come home from work between 3.30 and 4pm, go to his room until his tea was ready,  and maybe go out after tea. And Luke was not formally accused of murdering Jodi until nearly 10 months later - he certainly wasn't accused by July 3rd. The nature of police interrogation tactics in this case was designed to create as much confusion as possible, and the prosecution, as I've just demonstrated, used inaccurate information to make assertions which, although apparently logical, were, in fact, irrelevant.

Lets not split hairs Sandra. Are you denying that Corinne Mitchell sent Shane back to the police with the story about the burnt pie?  The only possible reason for doing so was to give Luke an alibi.

If I recall correctly, pies which are overcooked to the point of burning usually emit a strong lingering smell in a house, and in a two storey house like the Mitchells that burning odour would waft upstairs yet not once did Shane ever comment about this. Are you honestly asking people to believe that Shane sat in his upstairs bedroom with the door open while the smell of burning wafted in his door and made no attempt to investigate?

Wasn't Corinne also warned on the stand about the consequences of committing perjury?

[John]

Maybe now you will answer some questions Sandra, specifically, what evidence is there to support Mitchell's innocence?

And while we are on the subject of peddling rubbish, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously given your past participation in the Prout and Hall cases?

Or is it a case of going for the treble??

[nugnug]

Maybe now you will answer some questions Sandra, specifically, what evidence is there to support Mitchell's innocence?

And while we are on the subject of peddling rubbish, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously given your past participation in the Prout and Hall cases?

Or is it a case of going for the treble??

as somone who has not pruduced the slightist bit of evedence to support there own innocence im suprised you have the cheek to say that.

[nugnug]

we allready know the answer to that its been in all the papers.

[John]

as somone who has not pruduced the slightist bit of evedence to support there own innocence im suprised you have the cheek to say that.

Shows how little you know but then thats no surprise.

Maybe Sandra will answer for herself instead of her pet poodle.   
                                                         

[sandra L]

Here's why I won't be wasting any more time on John:

You're a fine one to talk about mixing fact from fiction.  Luke Mitchell making a short telephone call to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm  does not represent an alibi of any sort and most certainly has no relevance to Luke Mitchell being in the family home at the time of the murder.

So the telephone dialled itself, in a empty house, because that's more believable than a real human being dialling it! And that telephone dialling itself supports your theory that Luke didn't go home from school that afternoon (so the witnesses who saw him were seeing an apparition), but skulked around in the woods waiting for a grounded Jodi to show up, so that he could kill her at an unspecified time.

Shane was adamant that Luke was not at home when he got home and that he could not have got into the house without him knowing

John's favourite game - ask a question-ignore the answer if it doesn't suit- ask the same question again as if it hasn't been answered. If you don't even bother to read my posts, don't bother asking me questions, cos I won't be answering them from you, John.

Your offensive references to nugnug are the perfect example of your level of reasoning and argument - if you can't make your fiction work, you personally attack posters instead - transparent and very boring.

[nugnug]

Shows how little you know but then thats no surprise.

Maybe Sandra will answer for herself instead of her pet poodle.   
                                                         

so in other words theres proof that your anything other than bang to rights guilty i thought so.

[John]

Here's why I won't be wasting any more time on John:

So the telephone dialled itself, in a empty house, because that's more believable than a real human being dialling it! And that telephone dialling itself supports your theory that Luke didn't go home from school that afternoon (so the witnesses who saw him were seeing an apparition), but skulked around in the woods waiting for a grounded Jodi to show up, so that he could kill her at an unspecified time.
 

John's favourite game - ask a question-ignore the answer if it doesn't suit- ask the same question again as if it hasn't been answered. If you don't even bother to read my posts, don't bother asking me questions, cos I won't be answering them from you, John.

Your offensive references to nugnug are the perfect example of your level of reasoning and argument - if you can't make your fiction work, you personally attack posters instead - transparent and very boring.

You never could answer the important questions Sandra.   No evidence to support Luke Mitchell's innocence...what a reveal!

As for fiction, ask yourself the same question and relate it to the Prout and Hall cases where you were shown to be 100% wrong!

ps if anyone is transparent and boring look in the mirror lovee. 

[sandra L]

Sorry I don't know how to do the individual quote by quote thing

Like this, Baz

I'll do it here with spaces, so you can see how it looks:

[quote     ] Sorry I don't know how to do the individual quote by quote thing [/quote     ]

and now, without the spaces:

Sorry I don't know how to do the individual quote by quote thing

so square bracket with the word "quote" at the beginning of the bit you want to quote, and square bracket "/quote" at the end

[Baz]

Well that's pretty easy. Thanks