Re: The murder of Jodi Jones

[nugnug]

i think it was the fact that luke and corrine past one that impressed him.

[WakeyWakey]

i think it was the fact that luke and corrine past one that impressed him.

There is no objective pass / fail criteria, that's the thing. The tester decides, and it's always just his opinion.

[guest7363]

I’ve wondered the same, if after years you keep telling the same story over and over then would it not be easier to pass a test, in a way you believe the lie? Just thought it was interesting the tester was sure Luke didn’t do it.

Who organised the test Bullseye, was it organised by the police or was it a voluntary one?  Do you know what sort of Questions were asked, when Bamber took his all he had to answer was Yes or No, to me this makes a difference because questions being poorly formulated may result in an inaccurate test result.

[guest7363]

As far as I'm concerned, these testers when they go in front of cameras are salesmen. He is not going to admit that his pseudoscience does not work. That would be bad for business.

Im off this opinion as well, the questions also make a difference, if your asked simple straight forward questions by a self paid for examiner, I’m sure they make it more easy, take Bamber DID you shoot your family on August 7, 1985? DID you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? WERE you in the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? Bamber gave a categoric "No" to each one. 

Good piece in Sun about case
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14138744/murder-in-a-small-town-jodi-jones-luke-mitchell/


One reader commented this, how true is this?

remember this case. There were diary entries found where he had written dark things about wanting to kill his gf from what I can recall as well. Sad if he was innocent but still not 100% evidence that he wasn’t. Also still coincidental that he was the first one to find her

[Bullseye]

Who organised the test Bullseye, was it organised by the police or was it a voluntary one?  Do you know what sort of Questions were asked, when Bamber took his all he had to answer was Yes or No, to me this makes a difference because questions being poorly formulated may result in an inaccurate test result.

Not sure, think it was his legal team.

Mullins quizzes Mitchell three times, changing the order of questions each time.
Mitchell says “No” when asked: “Were you present when Jodi was stabbed?”
In reply to: “Did you stab Jodi on June 30, 2003?” Mitchell responds “No” in a strong voice.
He speaks more quietly as he repeats “No” to the third: “Did you know for certain where Jodi’s body would be found?” The last question was asked in the light of court evidence that Mitchell led searchers to Jodi’s body as he knew where it was.

[guest7363]

Not sure, think it was his legal team.

Mullins quizzes Mitchell three times, changing the order of questions each time.
Mitchell says “No” when asked: “Were you present when Jodi was stabbed?”
In reply to: “Did you stab Jodi on June 30, 2003?” Mitchell responds “No” in a strong voice.
He speaks more quietly as he repeats “No” to the third: “Did you know for certain where Jodi’s body would be found?” The last question was asked in the light of court evidence that Mitchell led searchers to Jodi’s body as he knew where it was.

Cheers Bullseye, I’ve edited my post before you replied

[JackieD]

Just got in to watch this on 5 plus one. I know how long Sandra has worked on this case

[WakeyWakey]

Smirking Sandra is featured heavily

Really wish she'd wipe that smirk off her face and glee in her eyes when discussing the case and remember there's a 14 year old victim.

something for another topic perhaps but i've noticed this a lot. the sheer delight on her face when scoring a perceived "own" - the dopamine hits of someone living out a point-scoring fantasy, rather than delivering dry factual information. plenty of examples in the james english interview and i've no doubt we'll see more when i catch up with teh recent show.

[WakeyWakey]

Just realise the show featured Prof Allan Jamieson of The Forensic Institute

he was talked about in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10217.0.html


Suspended without pay from Lothian and Borders Police Forensic Science Laboratory in 2002 while investigation of conflict of interest took place (he was simultaneously director of forensic allience). and he left the force imediately after.

So thas 2 disgraced former detectives with vested interest, one disgraced forensics expert with a vested interest ... any more?

[Steve_uk]

Part 1 of the documentary: https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-1-3166c182-1c2c-44da-a61b-b436056018a3

[Bullseye]

Thought they got a lot into the documentary for the time they had. Some say it’s going over the same old stuff but that’s because we know all about the case and been discussing it for years. Now people who knew nothing or little about it can see what Sandra has been saying for years. Well done Sandra for not giving up. I see there is a petition for an independent review, it’s doing really well, fingers crossed for that!

One thing I was disappointed in was the fact Shane did not make an appearance or at the very least a statement from him to read out.

It would be good to see a more in-depth documentary looking more from both sides and debunking some of the  ‘fact’s’ out there. Also after almost 20 years dna techniques have came on massively, surely there is more to be found by retesting. Maybe Netflix might pick it up lol

[Harper]

I agree Bullseye, it looks like the documentary is getting a lot of interest. It was a brief overview of what we already knew but great for people who only knew the story told in the tabloids at the time.

As you said, pretty disappointing that Shane didn't even get a mention as this seemed to be such a crucial part of the trial.

I wonder if more people involved will be willing to tell their story now that Luke is receiving public support after the documentary? I think many folk wouldn't come forward before for fear that they would be accused as supporting a murderer by the media.

[marty]

I'd like to know who the main suspect they kept coming back to was that they couldn't name for legal reasons. I could hazard a guess. Clearly they have been restricted in things they have uncovered that they were allowed to say. I think they did quite a thorough job but have been restricted legally.

[Roch]

I watched this. Or at least I saw one episode. I understand the case is very divisive on here seemingly among members with Scottish backgrounds. I sometimes look in at the posts from Lithium and others. The program certainly didn’t do LM's case him any harm and it was nice to Sandra Lean presenting the arguments. I was particularly interested in the part where the two ex police officers discused other persons of interest.

I noticed that it was Terry Mullins who carried out the polygraphs. That's three cases I know of where TM has been involved: JB, LM and Paddy Conroy. His seeming prominence in this area is interesting.

[WakeyWakey]

I noticed that it was Terry Mullins who carried out the polygraphs. That's three cases I know of where TM has been involved: JB, LM and Paddy Conroy. His seeming prominence in this area is interesting.

He runs a private company that advocates for the use of polygraphs lol