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

[Stephanie]

Oh come off it Sandra!    We all know why you and Billy Middleton had to remove the Luke Mitchell forum from the WAPO website and it had little to do with any original documents since you never posted any on the website in any event.  How many times did you respond to questions on the forum by saying you had to check the files etc.. ??

I don't buy it either and once again see Sandra's reasonings as nothing more than excuses.

As you've pointed out, original documents were never published anyway plus anything posted in the past on the WWW had already been posted; meaning I can't see it making any difference, especially legally.

There's more to this......

[Baz]

The difficulty for those who advocate on behalf of Mitchell is that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support their claims but much to condemn him including...

I would suggest that the difficulty for those advocating for his guilty verdict is that all they have is circumstantial and there is, for me, a lot of reasonable doubt about all that evidence. Including everything on that list. Plus I don't ever see any explanation for how there is no forensic evidence linking him to such a bloody murder.

[Stephanie]

I would suggest that the difficulty for those advocating for his guilty verdict is that all they have is circumstantial and there is, for me, a lot of reasonable doubt about all that evidence. Including everything on that list. Plus I don't ever see any explanation for how there is no forensic evidence linking him to such a bloody murder.

I would suggest you need to read up on your understanding of the case.

"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat".

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm

[Baz]

I would suggest you need to read up on your understanding of the case.

That isn't much of a rebuttal. Can you be more specific about what I have misunderstood?

"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm

All circumstantial. All with reasonable doubt.

[Stephanie]

That isn't much of a rebuttal. Can you be more specific about what I have misunderstood?
All circumstantial. All with reasonable doubt.

The killer would not have necessarily have been covered in blood.

Cases like these are often riddled with circumstantial evidence. It's about looking at the bigger/whole picture.

So what do you suggest - all killers should be let off because people like you think there's reasonable doubt?

If I were on a jury with someone like you on a case like this I guarantee you I would not give up.. 

[Baz]

The killer would not have necessarily have been covered in blood.

Cases like these are often riddled with circumstantial evidence. It's about looking at the bigger/whole picture.

So what do you suggest - all killers should be let off because people like you think there's reasonable doubt?

If I were on a jury with someone like you on a case like this I guarantee you I would not give up.. 

The pathologist said it was unlikely that he wouldn't have been blood soaked.

I understand the need for circumstantial evidence but in this case the circumstantial evidence is riddled with issues that prevent them from building a case that is beyond reasonable doubt, for me.

I think your statement about being on a jury with me says everything. I can't guarantee that and I think the point of a jury is to discuss the evidence and to make your mind up that way. But maybe I've just seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.

[Stephanie]

the forensisc said the killer would be cobered in blood i belive.


this was incredible bloody murder id say it would be nigh on imposable for the killer not at least some blood on them.

Here are the facts..

You haven't seen the crime scene photos.

Forensics sometimes get things wrong. It happens.

Luke had time to change/clean himself up. 

The prosecutions theory was that his clothes were burnt in the log burner. Jury members did not have to believe the prosecutions theories or agree with them.

As I've said before, if Luke didn't do it, who did?

[nugnug]

The pathologist said it was unlikely that he wouldn't have been blood soaked.

I understand the need for circumstantial evidence but in this case the circumstantial evidence is riddled with issues that prevent them from building a case that is beyond reasonable doubt, for me.

I think your statement about being on a jury with me says everything. I can't guarantee that and I think the point of a jury is to discuss the evidence and to make your mind up that way. But maybe I've just seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.

thats a lot diffrent from sating the killer would have no blood on him.

[nugnug]

Here are the facts..

You haven't seen the crime scene photos.

Forensics sometimes get things wrong. It happens.

Luke had time to change/clean himself up. 

The prosecutions theory was that his clothes were burnt in the log burner. Jury members did not have to believe the prosecutions theories or agree with them.

As I've said before, if Luke didn't do it, who did?

but when he was taken into custidy hes nails were dirty and so was proving that he hadent had a wash.

[Stephanie]

The pathologist said it was unlikely that he wouldn't have been blood soaked.

I understand the need for circumstantial evidence but in this case the circumstantial evidence is riddled with issues that prevent them from building a case that is beyond reasonable doubt, for me.

I think your statement about being on a jury with me says everything. I can't guarantee that and I think the point of a jury is to discuss the evidence and to make your mind up that way. But maybe I've just seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.

Imo Luke Mitchell wasn't a 'normal' 14 year old boy.

What reason did the police have for fitting him up?

What is 12 angry men? A fictitious movie?

[nugnug]

so somone thinking your not normal makes you guilty of murder now does it.

[Stephanie]

but when he was taken into custidy hes nails were dirty and so was proving that he hadent had a wash.

His nails being dirty didn't prove he hadn't washed!

He had time to wash and get dirty again.

He could have worn gloves on his hands or even socks. He could have had a pair of disposable gloves on him. A doggie bag on each hand? Who knows, there are numerous explanations.

[nugnug]

its hard to get your hair dirty agian in such a short time.

[Baz]

Imo Luke Mitchell wasn't a 'normal' 14 year old boy.

What reason did the police have for fitting him up?

I don't think they "fitted him up" in a conscious effort, but more that they believed him to be guilty and tried to find everything they could to prove it rather than an evidence led investigation.

What is 12 angry men? A fictitious movie?

Yes, a true classic with Henry Fonda. I highly recommend it.

[Stephanie]

so somone thinking your not normal makes you guilty of murder now does it.

Not normal meaning personality disordered.

He even claimed he was violent.