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

[sandra L]

In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom

Note the dates. April 14th was 10 months after the murder, Shane was arrested and interrogated under the same "outrageous and to be deplored" conditions as Luke had been in the August.  If there were concerns that Shane's account of dinner was wrong, why on earth was nothing said or done about it prior to April 14th? Did they honestly believe, 10 months later, in the circumstances he and his family found themselves, he was still going to be thinking about what he had for his tea? Or was it a case of, once we've done the dawn raids, arrested them all, separated them all from any form of support, they'll be really easy to manipulate with our well rehearsed interrogation tactics to get them to say (or to appear to be saying) whatever it is we need them to say?

I've seen the transcripts of the police interrogation - I'd go with the latter.

[Stephanie]

But, it seems, this is a common misunderstanding:

Point up, or Point Down?
A “point down” pentacle is nothing new- nor is it necessarily Satanic when it appears as such. Historical depictions of the pentagram were as likely to be points down as point up. A distinction between one or the other was rarely made by the ancients. Even today, one must not assume a point down pentagram is Satanic, as it is just likely to be Masonic, Wiccan, or simply upside-down. Some inexperienced Wiccans will occasionally claim that a point down pentacle is Satanic, but such a symbol has at times represented the Wiccan horned God, and is still today an emblem of the Second Degree initiation in Gardnerian Wicca.

The Satanic Pentagram
In the minds of many, the pentagram is inextricably linked with black magick and Satan worship. The Satanic pentagram is a difficult symbol- it is the newest and least used, but at the same time the best known and most controversial. The Satanic pentacle is almost always presented upside down, or inverted, with a single point facing downward, and it is this pentacle that is presented incorrectly as ‘evil.
http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1893

Also, I know from experience that Luke often drew symbols over the seal on envelopes, so it would be easy for the recipient to see if the seal had been tampered with. His most often used symbol was the hand-written style anarch symbol, which could be literally any way up - upright, upside down, sideways, at a diagonal  in comparitson to the top of the envelope.

But all of that means diddly squat - there was no evidence of satanic or ritualistic elements in Jodi's murder - only the claims of the police and prosecution that it was so. It would be a bit too far to claim that an argument over another girlfriend (another police fantasy) somehow turned into a satanic ritualistic murder.

Sandra your posts and excuses are getting more pathetic by the day.

Nevermind the satanic or ritualistic elements, let's talk about personality disorders and Luke's behaviour, his upbringing etc. the things he did prior to Jodi's murder.

And don't tell me that means 'diddly squat'.....

And for your information, Luke never wrote anything on the seal of the envelope. Maybe that's the excuse he gives you/others?

[Stephanie]

Note the dates. April 14th was 10 months after the murder, Shane was arrested and interrogated under the same "outrageous and to be deplored" conditions as Luke had been in the August.  If there were concerns that Shane's account of dinner was wrong, why on earth was nothing said or done about it prior to April 14th? Did they honestly believe, 10 months later, in the circumstances he and his family found themselves, he was still going to be thinking about what he had for his tea? Or was it a case of, once we've done the dawn raids, arrested them all, separated them all from any form of support, they'll be really easy to manipulate with our well rehearsed interrogation tactics to get them to say (or to appear to be saying) whatever it is we need them to say?

I've seen the transcripts of the police interrogation - I'd go with the latter.

It was 7 months before the police arrested SH. The same excuse was given ie; remembering that far back.

It would have been a significant day for all the Mitchell's. They were to find out later that night that Jodi had been murdered. 

Yes the interrogation tactics of the police were to be deplored, but they got their killer.

Yes, it was on circumstantial evidence and numerous police mistakes were made but they got their killer.

[sandra L]

Out of interest, could it be that Corrine Mitchell didn't hear you because she may have had one or two alcoholic drinks?

No, it couldn't, because she had just come in from work and gone into the kitchen to start cooking her dinner. Therefore, she had had no alcoholic drinks.

Also - you mention Mia didn't bark because she knew you? Do you then think it's plausible for Mia to not have been led to the V in the wall because she also knew Jodi and it was in fact Luke who knew where he was going after all?

I'll try to give this a serious answer. Mia knew Jodi. Correct. Mia knew Jodi alive, not lying dead in a blood soaked murder scene. In my opinion, it's utterly implausible that "knowing Jodi" would have been a credible explanation for Mia not reacting to the smell of blood. Also, all of the search trio agreed Mia was being instructed to "Seek Jodi, find Jodi," they all initially agreed that Mia suddenly darted over to the wall and started air sniffing, scrabbling at the wall with her front paws.

Why would there have been any "reason" for her to do that at precisely the place she did, if Luke already "knew where he was going?" Or is the suggestion that Luke somehow gave Mia some sort of secret "command" to react at precisely that point? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Mia "knew" Jodi, so wouldn't have reacted at all, so all this reacting that's going on is just... well... let's just ignore it, shall we? In fact, let's get the search trio to tell a completely different story in court - one that says the dog didn't react at all. That way we can claim Luke knew where the body lay, and have people 12 years later trying to fit together the pieces to try to make that claim make sense!

[Stephanie]

No, it couldn't, because she had just come in from work and gone into the kitchen to start cooking her dinner. Therefore, she had had no alcoholic drinks.

I'll try to give this a serious answer. Mia knew Jodi. Correct. Mia knew Jodi alive, not lying dead in a blood soaked murder scene. In my opinion, it's utterly implausible that "knowing Jodi" would have been a credible explanation for Mia not reacting to the smell of blood. Also, all of the search trio agreed Mia was being instructed to "Seek Jodi, find Jodi," they all initially agreed that Mia suddenly darted over to the wall and started air sniffing, scrabbling at the wall with her front paws.

Why would there have been any "reason" for her to do that at precisely the place she did, if Luke already "knew where he was going?" Or is the suggestion that Luke somehow gave Mia some sort of secret "command" to react at precisely that point? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Mia "knew" Jodi, so wouldn't have reacted at all, so all this reacting that's going on is just... well... let's just ignore it, shall we? In fact, let's get the search trio to tell a completely different story in court - one that says the dog didn't react at all. That way we can claim Luke knew where the body lay, and have people 12 years later trying to fit together the pieces to try to make that claim make sense!

How can you know that for sure, that she hadn't had a drink? Did you ask her? I thought she was lying on the couch when you went in? It's not always possible to tell if someone has had a drink. She may have had one with her meal? Or one whilst she was preparing it?

Here's the truth: you weren't there so you don't know what Luke or Mia did. You only have the word of others.

[sandra L]

His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.

"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.

From a computer game

Several other jotters were shown which contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way", "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f*** off and stay out my mind" and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from late Nirvana singer Cobain.

All quotes from other sources (i.e. t shirts, posters, song lyrics). The Cobain quote was one of Jodi's favourites - she had it written in large letters on her bedroom wall.

The handwritten essay, questioning the existence of God, had been submitted in January 2003 in place of a short story, which had been requested.

I hadn't noticed this before. The kids were given a number of topics from which to choose - the existence of god was one of them, so this sentence is misleading.

The essay contained passages such as: "If you ask me, god is just a futile excuse at most for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with him. "Are these people insane?"

It also read "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance"

- in an essay questioning the existence of god, in response to an essay topic "The existence of god"!

and "Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life"

computer game.

Shame the teachers who stated that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" compared to others they'd seen over the years, and was "typical" of teenage jotter scribblings, were not invited to give evidence, though.

[sandra L]

How can you know that for sure, that she hadn't had a drink? Did you ask her? I thought she was lying on the couch when you went in? It's not always possible to tell if someone has had a drink. She may have had one with her meal? Or one whilst she was preparing it?

Here's the truth: you weren't there so you don't know what Luke or Mia did. You only have the word of others.

Oh, good grief. Mia, the dog, was lying on the couch. Corinne was in the kitchen where she had just started cooking her dinner - she hadn't eaten it yet because it wasn't cooked yet. She would have had approximately two minutes or so to have a drink because I had followed her down the road in my car (unbeknown to her.)

And yes, I only have the word of others - Jodi's own family members! Are you suggesting they lied in the first month of the investigation? That they mistook Mia doing things they could describe in detail for things she never did?

[Stephanie]

From a computer game
 All quotes from other sources (i.e. t shirts, posters, song lyrics). The Cobain quote was one of Jodi's favourites - she had it written in large letters on her bedroom wall.
 I hadn't noticed this before. The kids were given a number of topics from which to choose - the existence of god was one of them, so this sentence is misleading.
 - in an essay questioning the existence of god, in response to an essay topic "The existence of god"!
 computer game.

Shame the teachers who stated that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" compared to others they'd seen over the years, and was "typical" of teenage jotter scribblings, were not invited to give evidence, though.

And computer games can be the source of problems with pathology.

Have you seen the movie Gamechangers? Worth a watch imo. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Daniel-Radcliffe-Making-Movie-About-Grand-Theft-Auto-Creator-70809.html

[Stephanie]

Oh, good grief. Mia, the dog, was lying on the couch. Corinne was in the kitchen where she had just started cooking her dinner - she hadn't eaten it yet because it wasn't cooked yet. She would have had approximately two minutes or so to have a drink because I had followed her down the road in my car (unbeknown to her.)

And yes, I only have the word of others - Jodi's own family members! Are you suggesting they lied in the first month of the investigation? That they mistook Mia doing things they could describe in detail for things she never did?

People do drink and drive, it has been known. She could have had a drink at work? - just saying.

Here you go again putting your spin on things.

Sandra we can argue these points over and over but there are too many other factors in this case that cannot be argued away imo. Like the behaviour of a 14 year old boy prior to the murders. I could go on.....

[sandra L]

People do drink and drive, it has been known. She could have had a drink at work? - just saying.

Indeed they do. But Corinne would have had to be either insane or suicidal to have risked drinking at work and driving home back in 2003-2008, when the police were watching her every move.

Now, if you don't mind, to return to the point being made at the beginning, it would have been entirely possible for Shane to have entered the house without knowing Luke was there and vice versa because of the layout of the house, the heavy curtains at the kitchen door etc. BUT, the question posed by the prosecution (and others on here) was how did Luke get home without Shane noticing Luke coming in, and the answer, of course, is that Luke was home before Shane.

Here you go again putting your spin on things

I see, so sticking to the actual facts is "putting [my] spin on things." OK, as you wish - other posters will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions.

[Stephanie]

Indeed they do. But Corinne would have had to be either insane or suicidal to have risked drinking at work and driving home back in 2003-2008, when the police were watching her every move.

Now, if you don't mind, to return to the point being made at the beginning, it would have been entirely possible for Shane to have entered the house without knowing Luke was there and vice versa because of the layout of the house, the heavy curtains at the kitchen door etc. BUT, the question posed by the prosecution (and others on here) was how did Luke get home without Shane noticing Luke coming in, and the answer, of course, is that Luke was home before Shane.

I see, so sticking to the actual facts is "putting [my] spin on things." OK, as you wish - other posters will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions.

She was caught last year without MOT allegedly on her car so I don't see what point you are making?

I also stuck to the facts of the case In the SH case Sandra, mainly going by the case papers, court documents, and police evidence etc but I was wrong (As were the police with some  of their theories and many many professional individuals who had seen all the case files). You could be too.

[Stephanie]

You've said it yourself Sandra, you studied psychology for 10 years - you have a doctorate for goodness sake. Like me, you believed SH to be factually innocent. Pathologies (By this I mean
any deviation from a healthy, normal, or efficient condition) can hide themselves from many of us.

[nugnug]

No, it couldn't, because she had just come in from work and gone into the kitchen to start cooking her dinner. Therefore, she had had no alcoholic drinks.

I'll try to give this a serious answer. Mia knew Jodi. Correct. Mia knew Jodi alive, not lying dead in a blood soaked murder scene. In my opinion, it's utterly implausible that "knowing Jodi" would have been a credible explanation for Mia not reacting to the smell of blood. Also, all of the search trio agreed Mia was being instructed to "Seek Jodi, find Jodi," they all initially agreed that Mia suddenly darted over to the wall and started air sniffing, scrabbling at the wall with her front paws.

Why would there have been any "reason" for her to do that at precisely the place she did, if Luke already "knew where he was going?" Or is the suggestion that Luke somehow gave Mia some sort of secret "command" to react at precisely that point? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Mia "knew" Jodi, so wouldn't have reacted at all, so all this reacting that's going on is just... well... let's just ignore it, shall we? In fact, let's get the search trio to tell a completely different story in court - one that says the dog didn't react at all. That way we can claim Luke knew where the body lay, and have people 12 years later trying to fit together the pieces to try to make that claim make sense!

yes it comes from the computer game max pain.

[Stephanie]

Indeed they do. But Corinne would have had to be either insane or suicidal to have risked drinking at work and driving home back in 2003-2008, when the police were watching her every move.

Now, if you don't mind, to return to the point being made at the beginning, it would have been entirely possible for Shane to have entered the house without knowing Luke was there and vice versa because of the layout of the house, the heavy curtains at the kitchen door etc. BUT, the question posed by the prosecution (and others on here) was how did Luke get home without Shane noticing Luke coming in, and the answer, of course, is that Luke was home before Shane.

I see, so sticking to the actual facts is "putting [my] spin on things." OK, as you wish - other posters will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions.

The other thing that needs pointing out with regards all prosecution cases is that a lot of the time it is down to the prosecution to put a hypothesis forward to the jury. They aren't always going to get all the details correct, Infact a lot of the time they could quite easily be way off track - like they were in SH's case. (It wasn't a burglary gone wrong).

So you can argue your points over and over year after year....

[nugnug]

well its very we are not going to be discusing the luke mitchel case on here for a while.