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

[nugnug]

I have nothing to hide Nugnug. If there is something you wish to know just ask me.

SH was guilty. End of.

I am not asking these questions out of 'cheek' I am asking these questions as I do not believe Sandra L.

There are many unanswered questions and questions Sandra L is clearly not prepared to answer, which leaves me to believe she is hiding something that could show the Mitchell's in a bad light. Same applies to the WAP charity and Billy Middleton. My opinion of course.

ok ill start a new thread on it tommrow then see if your any more recetive to ansering qustions thean you were before.

[John]

Failures?

Left the body uncovered in the rain for 8 hours
Trampled all over the murder scene
Moved and gathered up items before forensics got there
Concentrated on one "suspect" from the off, allowing all other possibilities to slip through the net
Didn't take body temperature to estimate time of death
Ignored accurate and reliable statements and used inaccurate, vastly altered statements instead
Bleached the scene before sniffer dogs arrived
Accepted some information at face value, then quietly let it drop when it was found to be dishonest
Withheld evidence from the defence
Attempted entrapment via two different sources (including the victim's family)
Messed up the labelling of mobile phones for which already misleading and inaccurate claims had been made
Messed up the labelling and reporting of DNA results
Misrepresented DNA results
Engaged in behaviour which was "outrageous and to be deplored"
Told locals, from the day after the murder, that a 14 year old kid was the murderer
Accepted "alibis" on the say so of single individuals for anyone but their chosen suspect
Leaked lurid (and dishonest) details to the media to dehumanise their chosen suspect and his family
Tried to claim that a sniffer dog, trained to scent dead bodies and blood, which failed to alert its handler to a living, breathing, unbloodied person was proof that Mia ould not have reacted at the V
Took 12 days to find a purse, complete with uncancelled cards, at the foot of the V point on the path side (or worse, allowed someone to drop one there within the first 12 days of the so-called investigation)


And that's only a fraction of it. Failures on every level. It's beyond me how anyone can look at a list like that and not think, wait a minute, how can anyone be sure of anything the police claimed in this case?

Nobody is disagreeing with you on the fact that Lothian & Borders Police made a complete dogs dinner of the investigation, by the way you forgot to add the fat forensics woman who couldn't be bothered to visit the crime scene because she couldn't climb over a six foot wall.

This doesn't change anything however and that is why I asked you previously whether you believe Mitchell to be innocent or merely the victim of a unsafe conviction.

You still havent provided any evidence which supports Mitchell's claim to innocence.  Is that because you haven't managed to get any remembering too that despite your best efforts the SCCRC stated there were no grounds to review the verdict?

[sandra L]

Nobody is disagreeing with you on the fact that Lothian & Borders Police made a complete dogs dinner of the investigation, by the way you forgot to add the fat forensics woman who couldn't be bothered to visit the crime scene because she couldn't climb over a six foot wall.

This doesn't change anything

Really? This is really your argument? Tell me, was there any wrongdoing, unexpected behaviours or failings in your own case? Here's a clue, from your own online story:

This is a true story exposing abuse of power and malfeasance within the Scottish Justice System.  It is a story of lies, of collusion and ultimately of a conspiracy by Crown officials in Edinburgh to pervert the course of justice.  A story of how an ordinary respectable law-abiding individual could be deprived of his liberty and arrested abroad on what can only be considered as fabricated, malicious and trumped-up allegations against him.

But it's ok, John, it doesn't change anything, does it? The courts still found you guilty, so you must have been, even if the conviction was "unsafe." Remind me, did the SCCRC find grounds to refer your case back to the court of appeal? Ah well, there you are then.

[sandra L]

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm

"[13] The deceased's body was found naked apart from some socks on the front part of her feet. Other items of clothing were strewn around the area. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse. There was no sign of a struggle except in the area around the body. She had a number of injuries, including cuts to the throat, the right cheek, the left breast, numerous cuts to the stomach and cuts round both eyes. Some of these injuries appeared to have been inflicted post-mortem. Defensive injuries suggested that the deceased had struggled with her assailant. The cut to the neck had severed the deceased's windpipe and jugular vein, as well as the carotid artery on the left side. This would have caused death within a couple of minutes. According to the pathologist, Professor Anthony Busuttil, the implement which caused the injuries to the throat was a stout, sharp-pointed, bladed weapon. Professor Busuttil gave evidence that a reddish hair bobble, or "scrunch", was situated at the back of the deceased's head, but was not easily visible among her hair which was largely uncontained by it."

Grossly mutilated - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BN0Kb9rgPksC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=grossly+mutilated+definition&source=bl&ots=xana9oDA-0&sig=kD-ULfs9PBokAjKNjah2yCrF1ME&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCGoVChMIzdCy8MuLyQIVAewUCh3-PwSZ#v=onepage&q=grossly%20mutilated%20definition&f=false

So, where does it say the body was "laid out"? It doesn't, does it? BUt you use that in part to claim a "satanic" link. From your link above:

It is now generally recognised that there were five Ripper victims; all had their throats cut from ear to ear, suffered multiple cuts and wounds, most were disembowelled, some had organs removed, and the last victim was grossly mutilated in her room – her throat was cut to the spinal column, her nose, ears and breasts were cut off and her organs taken out and placed on a nearby table.

Thank you, a differentiation between mutilation and "gross mutilation." The most "gross" of these mutilations did not occur in this case, though, did they? Yet you also use that, in part, to claim a "satanic link."

[sandra L]

some interesting misrepresentations from Lithium:

...you wouldn't be so willing to implicate others such as SK and MK publicly. Also if it were truly the case, why were you happy to provide circumstantial cases against other so-called suspects in your SCRCC application using the same methods you've so strongly condemned? (interest in Marilyn Manson, Parka jackets, local hearsay, owning knives, etc)

The argument about all of the others who would, ordinarily, have been persons if interest in such a case, is that there was one set of rules for LM, and another for everybody else. Demonstrating how suspicious it can make others look when subjected to the same treatment as LM is a way of highlighting why the case against LM was so wrong on so many levels. I'm tired of emphasising that I'm not accusing anyone of anything - it's plain for anyone with an iota of intelligence to see that the so called "significant factors" in the case against Luke could just as easily have constructed cases against others.

And why don't you realise that the crime scene being poorly preserved supports Luke's guilt more than it does his innocence? (We're never done hearing how nothing links him to the scene, but then you contradict yourself by arguing that the scene wasn't preserved. What was that about John wanting to have his cake and eat it too?)

This gets sillier by the minute! So, no evidence is supportive of guilt? A p*ss poor police investigation which allowed evidence to be destroyed is supportive of guilt? The best you can argue is that some of that evidence might have been supportive of Luke being guilty, just as it equally might have implicated someone else entirely. What about the DNA which was recovered, but wasn't Luke's? Does that support any other possibility? What about the failure to accurately estimate time of death - does that support any other possibility? What about all of the hard evidence which was altered beyond recognition to manipulate the time of death to 5.15 - might that support other possibilities?

You see, if Jodi wasn't murdered at 5.15pm, then Luke couldn't have been her killer, so the destruction of the crime scene when taken in conjuncton with all of the changed timings, suggests the police let a vicious murderer slip through their fingers.

[marty]

Am I just being cynical here, but having read the old wap forum about this case. Did john and Stephanie change their minds about luke only after they had fallen out with everyone on that forum, especially sandra it would seem. John seemed to come back onto that forum still believing innocence but under false names, is that correct? Then when he inevitably fell out with everyone again, he turned against luke. Or more turned against sandra and billy middleton rather than luke mitchell. Is that about right?

[nugnug]

yes that's about right.

[Baz]

I think the truth is that some people are more interested in having a fight than discussing the case. I have no idea what they get out of it but if you don't feed the trolls they do eventually starve to death.

[Stephanie]

Am I just being cynical here, but having read the old wap forum about this case. Did john and Stephanie change their minds about luke only after they had fallen out with everyone on that forum, especially sandra it would seem. John seemed to come back onto that forum still believing innocence but under false names, is that correct? Then when he inevitably fell out with everyone again, he turned against luke. Or more turned against sandra and billy middleton rather than luke mitchell. Is that about right?

yes that's about right.

I think the truth is that some people are more interested in having a fight than discussing the case. I have no idea what they get out of it but if you don't feed the trolls they do eventually starve to death.

I cannot speak for John but this has nothing to do with me 'falling out' with anyone, nor is it personal.

But for clarity, regarding Billy Middleton and the WAP forum. I did not trust him. I learned things about him I didn't like and I believe he is guilty of starting the fire. It is Middleton who has issues with me, as can be seen with his libellous blog about SH's confession. He even admits in the blog he doesn't like SH.

He also took money from people and spent it on himself it appears. He was meant to do a sponsored walk from Shetland to the UK, stopping off en route to visit people. I believe someone donated a treadmill in preparation for the so called walk and I know he was asking for trainer donations.

Where did the money go? Where does it go?

With regards Luke Mitchell, Sandra L and I last spoke on the telephone last year. During that time Sandra told me some things about the Mitchell's that changed my belief in the case (baring in mind By this time I knew SH was guilty). So you see nothing to do with WAP, Middleton, Sandra or John. I made up my own mind.

It is you all who are trolls, people without the courage and conviction to post using your own name. Hiding behind a screen name.

There is nothing personal in my posts, but I do see personal comments being made by you all.

[Stephanie]

Hello everyone discussing this case.

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.

For the record I'm not totally convinced of Luke's innocence but I am convinced he didn't get a fair investigation which would obviously ruin any chances of a fair trial. I couldn't have convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt from what I have read so far but I want to read more. Help.

I think the truth is that some people are more interested in having a fight than discussing the case. I have no idea what they get out of it but if you don't feed the trolls they do eventually starve to death.

And 'Baz' you only registered here in October this year - now you are suggesting you know us all on a personal level?  

[Stephanie]

So, where does it say the body was "laid out"? It doesn't, does it? BUt you use that in part to claim a "satanic" link. From your link above:

Thank you, a differentiation between mutilation and "gross mutilation." The most "gross" of these mutilations did not occur in this case, though, did they? Yet you also use that, in part, to claim a "satanic link."

This is my opinion and interpretation on what I believe could have been a factor with regards motive to murder.

Regarding a 'satanic' link - why did Luke request the books he did from the prison library? You have suggested the news article was misleading? How so? Either he did or did not request these books?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

What about the satanic scribblings on his school books? On the knife pouch?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1481752/Jodi-killed-by-boyfriend-attracted-to-sex-drugs-and-Satan.html

The satanic symbols on the letter he wrote me? (I wrote to LM several years ago now. He replied. I have not written to him since).

An example = "The downward-pointing pentacle is often used to represent Satanists."

You are being pedantic imo. Any type of mutilation in my opinion is gross. And from what I believe I know about the injuries inflicted, I would call them gross mutilations.

[Stephanie]

Yet you also use that, in part, to claim a "satanic link."

What are your thoughts and beliefs on the following?

And why do you think LM had requested these books?



"Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.

He made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison where he is serving life for the murder of Jodi in June 2003.

It is officially under consideration by the Scottish Prison Service, who can ban prisoners from receiving books that don’t come from an approved list of suppliers.

Three of the requested texts are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the American founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, he promotes human sacrifice and discusses the conditions in which someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice.

LaVey states: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

One of the other titles, Satan Speaks!, has a foreword by goth rocker Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of Jodi."

[Baz]

And 'Baz' you only registered here in October this year - now you are suggesting you know us all on a personal level?  

Nope. Just from my experience here.

[marty]

What are your thoughts and beliefs on the following?

And why do you think LM had requested these books?



"Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.

He made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison where he is serving life for the murder of Jodi in June 2003.

It is officially under consideration by the Scottish Prison Service, who can ban prisoners from receiving books that don’t come from an approved list of suppliers.

Three of the requested texts are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the American founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, he promotes human sacrifice and discusses the conditions in which someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice.

LaVey states: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

One of the other titles, Satan Speaks!, has a foreword by goth rocker Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of Jodi."

Everyone knows this. Know one has ever said he didn't write these things or ask for these books... And?

[Stephanie]

Lord Nimmo Smith said Jodi’s injuries were the worst he had ever seen.

A blade was drawn backwards and forwards across her throat at least 20 times.  Her eyelids were slit by a hand steady enough not to touch her eyeballs. And her clothes were cut from her body before deep gashes were made to a cheek, breast and her abdomen.  The knife was also jabbed hard into her mouth.

Jodi’s arms were then bound with her trousers and her naked body dumped behind a tree near a woodland path.  Within minutes of murdering his girlfriend in June 2003, Mitchell phoned her home to ask where she was.

Article




Victim... Jodi Jones' throat was cut 20 times

Further evidence to suggest imo gross mutilation...