Re: The murder of Jodi Jones

[notsure]

+ Shane also admitted that Corinne coached him to say he seen his brother in the kitchen mashing potatoes.

Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.

"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: ‘You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.’"

Yes she was reminding him of what happened. He was a young lad and probably could t have remembered half of what happened that day until his mum reminded him

You are distorting the reality

[sandra L]

This is the problem with people misquoting or selectively quoting from various documents (especially media reports). What Shane said on the stand had already been massively influenced by police officers determined to destroy Luke's alibi. Shane had no recollection of "watching porn" - it was only once the police took the computer and searched the history that they went back to him and told him that's what he was doing.

"How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies."

When he was first asked, on the Wednesday, he couldn't remember anything about the earlier part of the Monday evening - he said he probably came straight home from work, had his tea and went out again. Corinne reminded him Monday was the day Luke burnt the dinner - it was the only thing that made the day in question stand out. It was also later shown that Shane actually stopped off at a friend's on the way home from work to have a look at his car (phone records and receipts for parts for the car) - that wasn't considered "suspicious" and the police accepted that he'd simply forgotten about it.

It's the prosecution's job to make even the most innocuous things appear suspicious.

Shane was more than harassed from the off - the police were constantly bulldozing him to say what they wanted to hear. The day he was arrested "on suspicion of perverting the course of justice," they let him leave the family home in order to drive into a police road-block just yards from the house. He was dragged out of the car, laid flat out on the ground then bundled into a police car without being told why. They then held him for a 6 hour interrogation, during which they absolutely refused to accept any of his answers, just as they'd done for the previous 9 and a half months. They also told him he'd be looking at a long prison sentence unless he told them "the truth" (the one that they wanted to hear). When Shane re-iterated that he was telling the truth, the response was, "you're not. You're lying. We know you're lying and we've got witnesses to prove it." They didn't have witnesses.

Corinne didn't "virtually disown him."

I'm sorry I can't properly address aspects of Luke's brother's and his dad's stances because of the need to respect their privacy - their lives have moved on in the last 16 years and they have other priorities that have to be taken into consideration.

[nugnug]

https://youtu.be/ItQvr1lei_k

[Bullseye]

back then and even now you don’t need to be on a porn site or searching for porn for a pop up to show, you only needed to have used the computer at some point to view porn, then pop ups can come at any time.
I see what the lawyers did there, if he was watching porn it would be when nobody was home and he would leave the door open to listen for anyone coming home, then made out he was watching porn but appears these were was only pop ups.

Luke was on medication which could explain his lack of tears etc

When it comes to remembering stuff you do sometimes need a reminder. I asked my bro what he was doing at tea time 2 days prior, he could not remember until I said it was the day we were trying to decide if we should get a take away, he would not have remembered otherwise, there is a huge difference between coaching someone a load of lies to tell and reminding someone of an event to refresh their memory, just seems like the police and lawyers accept some changes as stuff he remembered after help and stuff he was being coached to lie.

Lithium where are you getting your info from, is there anything you know as a fact like Sandra does, or are you just saying stuff you have read or heard elsewhere, which is how it seems. Have you any connection to the case or people in it, or like me just someone with a keen interest? Just we all need to be clear and careful what is said and be able to back it up, Sandra has done this on numerous occasions but so far I’ve not seen anything to back up what you have stated, please correct me if I’m wrong.

[sandra L]

Here's another example of remembering and reminding.

For the first 11 days of the investigation, Stephen Kelly's statements said he left Alice Walker's house either at lunchtime or early afternoon, had his tea in his own house and returned to Alice's around 7pm. Janine appears to have remained in her Gran's house throughout (meaning Kelly didn't have an alibi for the crucial hour between 5pm and 6pm).

Then, on July 12th, their statements changed (again). Now both Kelly and Janine "remembered" they had dinner at Kelly's dad's house (with his dad) and Janine wanted waffles and ham for dinner. The dad's statement was not in the defence files - the SCCRC said there was one, but we have no idea when it was taken. Also, we don't know if the dad's statements changed or if there were none to support Kelly's original story and the one in the files only appeared after the change of story.

So, 12 days ago from now was Wednesday 29th May. I invite anyone reading this to remember what they ate and with whom, on Wednesday 29th May and what reason you have for remembering.

But it's yet another example of one rule for the Mitchell family and another for everybody else. I've heard many times that Kelly and Janine were each other's alibi - not before July 12th, they weren't - neither had an alibi. They became each others' alibi on July 12th (because there was no statement from Kelly's dad to support or otherwise the suggestion they were together in his house).

If lack of alibi was a driving factor in this case, someone without an alibi, whose DNA turned up on the victim's clothing wasn't considered suspicious and was allowed 12 days to come up with an alibi!

I'm not saying Kelly had anything to do with it - what I'm saying is, in any other circumstances, these events would definitely have warranted closer scrutiny and it's only because of the police conviction that Luke was the killer that they didn't conduct that scrutiny.

[Bullseye]

It’s clear the police did a piss poor job, from start to finish, even the courts agreed to that. They had Luke as the only suspect within the first 30 minutes. To be fair he was not a suspect, the police KNEW he did it and just had to prove it, as they stated on a number of occasions. If it was Luke then no harm done but if they are wrong they let the killer go.

All the statements are sketchy, nothing to say it was Luke at the top or bottom of the path. For me the only credible sighting is the 2 boys that knew Luke and seen him at the end of his street, which he has never disputed. I can’t honestly say one way or another if Luke was home going by what his bro says and the way he was questioned on the stand. His mum clearly says he was home but that’s not accepted by police or court.

Luke finding the body is clearly incorrect the body was found by the dog and she passed all the tests for tracking that the prosecution had her do. Luke’s mum burning the clothes in that tiny wee burner is laughable and the whole Manson line another joke.

As for any forensic evidence at all, murder weapon or motive there was NONE.

Out if interest what does it take to get a retrial in Scotland. I assume new evidence. I really can’t see any new evidence being found in this case apart from new dna techniques over the past 16 years that might find something of interest. I hope the defence team have access to carry out any retesting that may help in order to keep things moving.

I’ve read a couple of things about knifes recently but no idea how accurate they are. Firstly that Findlay was sent a knife in the post, was anything done with that knife as may be a murder weapon from a case he was connected to. Also that a knife was found very close to the murder scene a few years ago with the name Luke on it?

The person that confessed, I know we can’t talk names but what do you know about him, what was said, how credible is this, does any of it add up?

[Bullseye]

Sorry, huge post and I still don’t know how to use the quote properly lol

I’m not from the area but live close by. I don’t know anyone connected to the case on either side. I don’t know if Luke is guilty or innocent (hope to god he is guilty) I worked with the police at the time and read all the papers and from what they said it was a clear cut case. I never doubted it and believed him to be guilty from all id heard and read like so many people. Then a few years later I read somewhere how there was no forensics evidence linking Luke to the case and that tweaked my interest as he was only a young laddie at the time I thought there must have been loads of solid evidence to send him down and started reading all I could about the case. It’s worried me since, how someone, especially so young, can be found guilt with such little evidence (not the gossip and hear say, but just what was used in court) so far I’ve not heard anything that I would have found him guilty on, other than the brothers statement. But there is so much been said from both sides on that it’s such a mess, is there a court transcript available that would have what was said?

Luke was a suspect right away, only he was taken into the station for questioning at that time and the only person who’s clothes were taken that night, even tho the granny touched her. The police thought Luke and Jodi left her house together when they started searching for her I believe. Over 3000 people interviewed but these were not suspects, but even the police admit Luke was the only suspect they were not looking for anyone else and they knew he did it, or they did to me at the time, which was before Luke was arrested and before the tv re-enactment

The dog did not alert to her body on the way up as Luke would be pulling her up the lane and not allowing her time to search also she was not in tracking mode, she sounds like a well trained dog who did as she was instructed, if she was told to move and not “mess around” I think she would do as she was told, on the way back down she was told to look for Jodi and given the space and time to do so. I believe the dog alerted Luke to the spot (if he knew she was there and led the dog there knowing she would react is also a possibility)

I don’t know who the couple where, maybe they don’t even know themselves it was them and are oblivious ie the don’t remember passing at that time which is totally understandable. It may have been Luke and Jodi but from what they were said to be wearing it did not match what Jodi was found wearing (or around her body) therefore it’s not a positive sighting for me, unlike the 2 boys who knew him.

I said no motive sorry I should have been clearer, no known motive.

Ive always believed it was a partial dna for Luke, but not a match, this could be a partial for a number of people not just luke. so that’s why I said no forensics found at the scene. But if there is a full match for Luke on Jodi or Jodi on Luke then that’s not something I’ve heard and changes things a bit.

I use to love knifes when I was a kid too, I now have a collection of all kinds of swords and knifes, I’m not a murderer. So his love of knifes and messing around is something I did. You said he threatened his ex, With this information being extremely relevant I assume the ex gf took the stand to confirm this, if so that would go a long way. If not why not? I’m never sure who the actual witnesses are that were at court and what is from interviews and comments from the papers, and gossip. All a bit mixed up which I think is half the problem. It’s what was used in court that interests me most.

She didn’t meet him so he assumed she was not coming but told his mum where he was incase she did turn up. Went to meet pals no longer expecting her. Not calling to see where she was, they were 14, she didn’t turn up, he was not worried she must have got caught up with something or someone or changed her mind, maybe even got grounded, he would find out at school tomorrow. Or that’s how Id have thought at 14.

I use to call the speaking clock all the time, I enjoyed it lol plus it gave you the exact time if doing something your timing, ie cooking dinner, I never found that suspicious.

I always found info related to Shane to be really mixed up and confusing between what he told the police and what he said in court. I do remember thinking if he says he did not see him but remembers the tea being burnt, could it be burnt as Luke put it in the oven to cook then went out and left it for his mum to take out, hence it got burnt? But as I said I’m really not sure of what was said in court and in his statement. For me what he actually remembers is the clincher so want to be 100% but getting contradicting info. I’d love to ask him direct on FB but to be honest I would not feel I have the right to invade his privacy, this is an open forum if he wanted to say he could do it here and plenty other places. I know I would not want some random(s) bothering me and I’d just ignore them.

[nugnug]

It was her Satanist boyfriend (yes he was writing about satanism in school essays which worried teachers, none of these could be attributed to video games or fiction like Sandra claims. He was also requesting books on Satanism a few years ago in jail) the same bf who was known to always carry knives and who threatened/assaulted a previous girlfriend with one in a tent, who she was arranging to meet that night, who she was spotted arguing with at her end of the path, who was then spotted 50 mins later by 2 different people alone at his end of the path "acting suspicious". Who didn't follow up to find out why she didn't turn up. Who told mates she wouldn't be coming out when he didn't know that. Who was ready to go to bed without wondering why his gf didn't turn up. Whose "dog" led him to the body only on the 2nd time he passed it. Whose alibi fell apart. Who other than her bf would she climb over a wall to a secluded area with? cmon. The list goes on. Regardless of the endless circumstantial evidence... it's really not rocket science.

Not a single  one of Luke's friends believe he's innocent. Not one. They knew him and seen how he was with knives and knew about the Satanic crap. His violent behaviour got him referred to the school psychiatrist ffs.

i have yet to see you pruduce any evdence to back up this statement.

you have previously cliamed that sandra lean had changed her mind abut lukes guilt wich  is clearly untrue.

[sandra L]

The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.

The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included. There was, however, a report that suggested the other DNA deposits on the T-shirt and bra "could have originated from the same person" as the full profile recovered (which was not Luke's). Indeed, the police "rainwater transfer theory" seemed to suggest exactly that - DNA from one deposit was carried by rainwater to other parts of the t-shirt and soaked through to the bra. But the full DNA profile from the t-shirt wasn't Luke's, it was Steven Kelly's.

There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.

The information about the possibility of all the DNA deposits on the t-shirt and bra being from the same person was not used at trial (and rightly so, because none of the other samples were full profiles), yet Susan Ure was allowed to make the outrageous suggestion that one of those partials "could have been" Luke's DNA.

[sandra L]

In spite of all the hype, there was no "missing knife." The knife which belonged to the pouch was handed to Luke's solicitor by Corinne (who couldn't remember where she'd put it when the police raided the house). The solicitor's statement, confirming the handing over of the knife to the police, is in the case files.That knife was bought six months after the murder, so could not be in any way connected to the crime.

The knife that was found in 2010 was found near the new St David's High School, not the one that existed at the time of the murder. The distance from the old school to the new campus is 1.7 miles. it was completely ruled out as having any connection to the murder.

I don't have the time (or inclination) to go through every aspect of misinformation in Lithium's posts which, I believe, is exactly his/her intention - swamp people with the same misinformation over and over again and people will get tired of correcting it endlessly.

I'll just point out the blindingly obvious again - why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age, work so hard to point out the fact that this lad was convicted without a shred of reliable evidence, knowing if it had been properly acknowledged, he could be released into the very community where my girls lived their lives? Why would I want to "make him look innocent" if there was even the slightest doubt in my mind that he did what was done to Jodi?

[sandra L]

Age restrictions on knives weren't introduced in Scotland until 2006. It's not illegal to own or carry a knife with a folding blade less than 3" long. Luke worked at his mother's caravan business and the family owned horses. There are several perfectly legitimate reasons for Luke having a knife, none of them remotely related to the fact that Jodi was murdered with a large bladed instrument (the pathologist's description).

No such "large bladed instrument" was ever found in his possession or in the family home or business, or described by any witness as having been possessed by him.

I didn't know the people at the time, but I know which knives the police were looking for and they (the police) had them all, so from the police perspective, there were no missing knives except the murder weapon, the description of which could not be matched to any knives attributed to Luke.

[Bullseye]

I didn’t think it was ever illegal for a child to own a small knife, only for it to be sold to them. If a parent buys it as a gift there is no law being broken is there? Scouts own knifes. Carrying a knife for scouts was also legal if going to camp or if they had a good reason. But I’m no expert just going by my understanding of what I’ve read so could well be wrong lol

[Bullseye]

Also I started my collection when I was 12. I got many a pen knife or Swiss Army knife for Xmas and birthdays from lots of different people, friends and family before I was 16. Hope they were not all breaking the law.

[notsure]

Not true. The age was increased from 16 to 18 in 2006. It was illegal to own a knife at 15 and illegal for Corrine to buy him one. Much like it was illegal for her to get him a tattoo and lie about his age, and let him smoke cigarettes and god knows what else. Let's not pretend this was a normal relationship with normal boundaries.

Smoking cigs at Jodi's grave. Walking their dog through the graveyard.

Well that’s it then!!! guilty as charged because he smoked a fag and took his beautiful dog to the graveyard.  Heist why didn’t I think of that before . Good god man I am lost for bloody words .

[nugnug]

Also I started my collection when I was 12. I got many a pen knife or Swiss Army knife for Xmas and birthdays from lots of different people, friends and family before I was 16. Hope they were not all breaking the law.

maybe you did it then.