Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: nugnug on November 16, 2019, 02:30:PM
-
im creating this thread to stop the clutring of other threads.
-
Alibi? - perhaps one would be better determining CM's level of truthful information, that is still being pushed out some 16yrs later.
Then one can determine if she should be believed at all?
False: Luke did not like wearing jackets, YOU COULD NOT get him to wear one. - He clearly did wear them, freely. Media pictures in summertime
of wearing a heavy Parka.
Clear evidence of him wearing a padded bomber jacket on the 30th of June, let us leave the missing Parka out this one.
False:The search trio HAD TO WALK DIRECTLY passed YW's - they clearly would have had to take a different route to walk passed this house.
False: SANDRA AND I HAVE A THEORY - disputed by Sandra herself.
False: NONE of the boys from the Abbey gave evidence at court - they most certainly did, DH gave evidence.
False: The search trio HAD TO WALK from the top of Mayfield - they left from near CM's workplace, in the bottom of this village.
False: SK ONLY had his girlfriend for an alibi - SK also had an alibi from his father, CM clearly knows this, having had it pointed out by the SCCRC.
False: The discovery was made about 11pm - it was around 11.30pm but Luke was certainly on this path at that time, well before the search trio.
Along with this we have some rather odd comments:
Of the school deputy - a nasty little piece of work.
Of the school head - Hitler in a skirt.
Of the FLO - a compulsive liar.
Of the neighbourhood youths - Feral little bleeps.
Of Jodi's family - respect works both ways. They are all J's hard to get your teeth around.
Of Findlay - My way or no way laddie, purely out for the money, only reason he took the case on.
She clearly states that no legal team will touch them, as soon as they hear what case it is - it's a no. SL states this is wrong.
Of the ID at the tattoo parlour - that the staff were lying, clearly they were not, they knew the name of this male family friend and that the ID therefore was tampered,
to show the age of a youth, rather than a man in his 50's.
That is not all of it - why therefore should we believe CM is telling the truth when stating Luke was at home, of the fine details this 15mins held.
-
Luke has no alibi. He was seen out with the victim shortly before her death and at a time when his brother thought he was home alone. Shane admitted that his mum got him lie in his statements.
This false alibi was constructed into a time frame when Jodi actually died. Not being given any information from a third party, Luke and Corrine knew when Jodi died and what time they had to construct an Alibi for.
-
Luke has no alibi. He was seen out with the victim shortly before her death and at a time when his brother thought he was home alone. Shane admitted that his mum got him lie in his statements.
This false alibi was constructed into a time frame when Jodi actually died. Not being given any information from a third party, Luke and Corrine knew when Jodi died and what time they had to construct an Alibi for.
nobody knows when jodi deied no time of death was given.
-
I know there are 2 sides to Shane’s evidence given in court. Some say he did not support Luke others say he was not given the chance to give his side properly. He has never clarified his side publicly since then to my knowledge and had no intention to any time soon from what has been said. Bottom line is without Shane Luke has no credible alibi.
I’m sure I’ve asked before but I can’t seem to find it. Sandra can I ask you, have you spoken to Shane directly, and heard it from the horses mouth that he was home and Luke was making tea or is this information from CM or elsewhere?
-
I know there are 2 sides to Shane’s evidence given in court. Some say he did not support Luke others say he was not given the chance to give his side properly. He has never clarified his side publicly since then to my knowledge and had no intention to any time soon from what has been said. Bottom line is without Shane Luke has no credible alibi.
I’m sure I’ve asked before but I can’t seem to find it. Sandra can I ask you, have you spoken to Shane directly, and heard it from the horses mouth that he was home and Luke was making tea or is this information from CM or elsewhere?
wellif luke wasnt there whomade dinner or did they all just go hungry.
the oint is that at the time shane was online was before jodi left home rather irlvant to lukes albi as jodi hadent left home yet.
-
wellif luke wasnt there whomade dinner or did they all just go hungry.
the oint is that at the time shane was online was before jodi left home rather irlvant to lukes albi as jodi hadent left home yet.
I agree there are things that point to Luke being at home til 5.30 but that’s not enough for an alibi imo. He might have put on the dinner before he left and his mum took it out when she got home, could be why the pie was burnt, he was not there to take it out. He really needs Shanes confirmation to have an alibi.
It doesn’t matter if Shane was online when Jodi left of not, what matters is if Luke was home when he was online then offline and having dinner and Luke left the house after 5.30, if he can confirm that then that’s a credible alibi.
-
I know there are 2 sides to Shane’s evidence given in court. Some say he did not support Luke others say he was not given the chance to give his side properly. He has never clarified his side publicly since then to my knowledge and had no intention to any time soon from what has been said. Bottom line is without Shane Luke has no credible alibi.
I’m sure I’ve asked before but I can’t seem to find it. Sandra can I ask you, have you spoken to Shane directly, and heard it from the horses mouth that he was home and Luke was making tea or is this information from CM or elsewhere?
I spoke with Shane directly - he, like everyone else in Luke's family, believed that sooner or later, the police would realise they were going after the wrong person and shift the direction of the investigation. They never did. Shane's experience with the police on April 14th 2004, when he and Corinne were also arrested was horrific - they (the police) lied throughout, telling Shane they had evidence that they didn't have, witnesses that didn't exist, "quoted" things they claimed Luke, Shane and Corinne had said in previous statements (they didn't) and so on. He'd been dragged from his car and laid out on the road, then held for over 6 hours with no contact with anyone, ostensibly on a charge of "perverting the course of justice."
He said in court, he would willingly have gone with them to the station had they come to the door and asked. There was nothing in his previous dealings with them to suggest otherwise. At that point, Shane left the area (with Corinne's blessing). The family decided there was no point in having Shane dragged through the media circus as well - they still thought, at that point, the truth would come out at trial.
They told him, in that interrogation, that they knew he was lying about Luke being home because they had witnesses. Shane insisted his earlier accounts were true, that he'd been sure, at the time, that Luke was at home and that they were "putting words in his mouth" now. Donald Findlay argued that "evidence" from that interrogation should never have been allowed at trial because of the behaviour of the police and their refusal to accept Shane's account of a day 9 months earlier. The judges agreed that, if Shane had been a suspect, the evidence could not have been used, but, because he was "only a witness," the same rules didn't apply. But Shane wasn't "only a witness" - he'd been arrested, so he as a suspect. There was virtually nothing in the interrogation about "perverting the course of justice" - it was all about trying to get Shane to "agree" that he'd "lied" about Luke being home making dinner.
-
Thanks Sandra, so you spoke to him directly at the time. He was not forced into giving a false statement by his mother, she simply reminded him about that evening? He then remembered the events rather than just going with what him mum said?
And just to be clear he stands by that to this day but does not want to be dragged back into the public eye by making statements and doing interviews etc? Which I can fully understand.
I take it there is nothing that can be done legally now even if he did come out to clarify his side as he had already gave his evidence in court?
If there was a retrial would his evidence be taken into account again, would he get the chance to put his side as he remembers it?
-
Thanks Sandra, so you spoke to him directly at the time. He was not forced into giving a false statement by his mother, she simply reminded him about that evening? He then remembered the events rather than just going with what him mum said?
No, he wasn't forced to say anything by his mother. He didn't initally remember what he'd eaten for dinner and only mentioned it to his mother because it seemed like such a strange thing for the police to be focusing on - this was within the first few days of a murder investigation and all of the Mitchells believed they were simply helping the police with their enquiries - they had no idea, at that point, that Luke was a suspect. It's easy to see how they thought what they ate for dinner was of no importance. Corinne reminded Shane he'd complained on Monday because Luke had burnt the pies at which point, Shane remembered. Although he contacted the liaison officer to let her know, it was another two days before an amended statement was taken, making it look (on paper) like Shane and Corinne had spent two days talking about it - they hadn't - they spent all of five minutes talking about it!
And just to be clear he stands by that to this day but does not want to be dragged back into the public eye by making statements and doing interviews etc? Which I can fully understand.
I haven't spoken with Shane in a long time. For good reasons, he decided he did not want to be part of the public campaign highlighting Luke's case (those reasons were nothing to do with him believing Luke to be guilty, though), so the best way I can answer your question is, the last time I spoke with Shane, he stood by his original statements but had decided, by then, that he would not comment publicly on the case or the campaign.
I take it there is nothing that can be done legally now even if he did come out to clarify his side as he had already gave his evidence in court?
If there was a retrial would his evidence be taken into account again, would he get the chance to put his side as he remembers it?
The only thing that could have been done legally was the attempt, by Donald Findlay, to argue that Shane's evidence should never have been allowed because (a) the interrogation was a "sham" designed to "break Shane" and (b) the nature of the interrogation - the lies, the manipulation and the massive confusion techniques used by the police - rendered the "evidence" elicited by it unlawful.
It's impossible to say how a retrial might go - it would depend on the grounds that a retrial was based on. However, it seems pretty certain that the "evidence" from the police interrogation would not be allowed.
Shane initially didn't remember anything about the early part of the Monday evening - it was, he said, just the same as every other weekday evening - he'd come home from work, gone upstairs to his room, had his tea and gone out. Other evidence reminded him of the particular evening - receipts and phone records showed he's stopped at a friend's house on the way home from work the same evening that Luke burnt the pies.
Also, Luke said he thought he'd called Shane to check if he was going to be in for tea - if Shane had already been home, there would have been no need for such a call. There was a call in the phone records showing Shane had called the house (not the other way around) to say he'd be home for tea, but might be a little bit later. As it turned out, we know Shane was home for tea because of the internet records but we also know, because of the call to the landline, that Luke was at home to take that call from Shane.
So, without Shane's evidence, we can say with a high degree of certainty that Luke was in his house until at least 4.30pm because of answered calls on the home phone - quite simply, there was no-one other than Luke who could have answered them. The exchange of texts between Luke and Judith's phone arranging for him and Jodi to meet up was between 4.34 and 4.38 -if the grounding story is correct, Luke could not have known until that point that Jodi would be out that evening. If it is not correct, this series of texts is the only point at which it has ever been suggested Jodi and Luke arranged to meet that evening. Either way, Luke would have had no reason to be heading towards Easthouses prior to that exchange of texts. If he left immediately after the last text, he could not have been the person seen by Andrina Bryson between 4.49 and 4.54 because there would not have been enough time for him to get from his house to the place where the sighting was claimed to have taken place.
So, even without Shane's evidence, the information available strongly suggests that Luke could not have been at the Easthouses end of the path at the time of the Andrina Bryson sighting (which is, in itself, deeply flawed). Which makes Shane's evidence - that Luke was at home cooking and eating dinner - the most plausible explanation
-
Perhaps Sandra can upload Shane and Corrine’s trial testimony.
-
Thanks for clearing that up. I think the problem for me is I do not believe that was Luke AB seen, if it was Luke that killed Jodi I think he waiting at the v for her. Going by the timings I think he would have enough time to get there and wait for Jodi. I agree there is lots of evidence to show Luke was indeed home but there is nothing other than his mother’s evidence to confirm this. Shane is the only other person who can and unfortunately he was not able to do that in court.
At the moment in the eyes of the law he has no credible alibi the only person that can confirm it, either publicly or via a retrial, is Shane.
Going back to the timings, I do think Luke could have got to the v to wait for Jodi but there are also a number of issues with that, as the 2 boys were there at 1715ish and did not see anything. The boy on the bike did not see anything. Jodi having cannabis in her system, I don’t think would be enough time to be smoking with Luke. And also not sure he would have enough time to carry out the murder and events behind the wall in that short a time. So alibi or not, I’m still not convinced either way if it was him or not.
-
Shane Mitchel had complete amnesia - from events that occurred just 48hrs beforehand.
There were numerous stand out points - that he was inclusive of, according to CM and Luke.
SM, upon discussing with his mother - contacted the FLO. Clearly showing this level of manipulation with
other evidence. That;
The Mitchel's had no time to dispose of evidence from the burner in the garden as the FLO and press were there
24/7.
They clearly were not.
The V in the wall is easy to miss unless you are searching for it, yet easily found in the dark and viewed from the
Beeches.
The list, really is endless.
-
I see where you're coming from Bullseye, but the scenario of Luke waiting at the V for Jodi runs into timing difficulties. If Jodi was still on the Easthouses Road at 5.05pm, no matter what time Luke got to the V to "wait for Jodi," he couldn't have killed her at 5.15pm, because she would only just be reaching the V point then. There's not enough time for the other injuries inflicted on Jodi during the fierce struggle prior to the injuries that killed her.
It's the pivotal significance of the claimed 5.15pm time of death that causes difficulties for other scenarios. So, for example, in the above scenario, allowing a minute or two for Jodi to get over the wall and maybe 5 minutes for the physical attack prior to the murder, we'd now have to accept that within the next 10 minutes, Luke cut Jodi's throat multiple times, stripped her out of her clothing, tied her arms behind he back with her own trousers, mutilated her body and then called her mother's landline at 5.32pm.
Not impossible, I suppose, but how likely is that scenario in reality? Also, anything that pushes the time of death later allows even less time for Luke to get cleaned up, dispose of incriminating evidence and be sitting on the wall, in full view, at the end of his street before 6 o'clock, if he were the murderer. And how many 14 year olds, with no prior evidence of such violence, would be able to sit there perfectly calmly and go about the rest of the evening with others, behaving perfectly normally? Alan Ovens spoke to Luke on the phone at 5.40pm and noticed nothing at all unusual - Luke wasn't out of breath or agitated in any way, yet this would have been very shortly after Jodi was killed, and everything else had been done, even if the 5.15pm time of death was correct.
-
Bullseye;
Luke got from his house and onto this path in 7mins at night. 10.52-10.59pm.
It would take little more than this to arrive at Easthouses.
If you check the distance properly. Give him a further 9mins = 16mins.
If it were to have been from that last text at 16.38 until 16.54 = 16mins.
If you listen to CM's podcast we are told, how fit and fast he was.
Take away the darkness, and the brief searching of this path.
In daylight, easily done in this time.
He could of course, very easily have left his house, from 4.25pm.
The reality being he had anything up to 29mins to do so.
What about lunchtime - this young couple appeared to spend most of their free time together.
What does Luke say about meeting that evening from this time?
He would have been asked?
-
Not sure what you mean parky, I don’t think it was Luke AB saw so even if he could get there in time is irrelevant to me as I don’t think he went all they way to the top of the path. He did however have time to wait at the V.
I agree with Sandra tho, the timeframe for Luke to have carried this out is extremely tight and that has always been an major issue for me.
-
Bullseye;
Luke got from his house and onto this path in 7mins at night. 10.52-10.59pm.
It would take little more than this to arrive at Easthouses.
If you check the distance properly. Give him a further 9mins = 16mins.
If it were to have been from that last text at 16.38 until 16.54 = 16mins.
If you listen to CM's podcast we are told, how fit and fast he was.
Take away the darkness, and the brief searching of this path.
In daylight, easily done in this time.
He could of course, very easily have left his house, from 4.25pm.
The reality being he had anything up to 29mins to do so.
What about lunchtime - this young couple appeared to spend most of their free time together.
What does Luke say about meeting that evening from this time?
He would have been asked?
So are we just ignoring the police timings then, Parky?
First of all, Luke wasn't on the path at 10.59 - he had just arrived at the Newbattle entrance to the path and stopped to speak to Judith on the phone before continuing onto the path.
Police timings from the junction of the paths behind Newbattle High School to the V break in the wall suggested a time of 6 minutes and 40 seconds in daylight - that's a distance of 550m. At the same speed, the distance from the Newbattle entrance to the V point (around 240m) would have taken fractionally under 3 minutes (2 mins 56 secs for precision) - 9 minutes 36 seconds precisely (the police timing said 11 minutes to walk from the Newbattle entrance to the junction of the paths). So up to that point, your estimates are correct.
But there's still the 150m from the junction of the paths to the Easthouses Entrance on the Easthouses Road - you'd need to add another 1 minute, 49 seconds to complete the journey. So, in reality, 7 minutes from Luke's house to the Newbattle Entrance to the path, then 9 minutes 36 seconds minimum for the entire length of the path and 1 minute 49 seconds to the Easthouses entrance takes the entire journey to 18 minutes and 25 seconds, missig the Andrina Bryson "window."
What reason would Luke have had to leave at 4.25pm? If you accept the grounding story, he had none. If you accept that the exchange of texts was to arrange to meet that evening, he had none. Are you now suggesting that the arrangement to meet was made at lunchtime? Because, if you are, that means Jodi's mum had to be mistaken or lying about Jodi being grounded - why would Jodi arrange, at lunchtime, to meet Luke that evening if she was grounded? Or, alternatively, that Jodi's mum was mistaken or lying about Jodi texting Luke between 4.34 and 4.38 to arrange to meet him. It can't be all three.
Even if they'd made a loose arrangement at lunchtime to meet later, the only point at which Luke would have had any idea of a time would be in the exchange of texts - why would he leave 10 - 15 minutes before that exchange, not even knowing if it would happen?
-
Simply going by his own fitness and speed. More than capable.
The police timings of course... Proved this also.
Simply also saying. That there is nothing that puts Luke home from 4.25PM.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify this.
-
This question I asked.
What did Luke say about conversations had at Lunch time?
Did he state there was no arrangement at all to see each other, that evening?
This grounding, is irrelevant to this, are you suggesting Luke was not allowed to see Jodi at home?
-
Why would there be? I know in my version of grounding it defeats the point if you let friends or boyfriends visit during the punishment.
Your really struggling to get anything to stick here parky when your being confronted by facts. Your not crying everything is a lie like others so fair play to you. Its easy to push false truths and distortions when others around your are doing the same. But they seem to have disappeared for the moment. You are listening to alot of facts of the case now and are struggling with it. Not having a go, just an observation.
-
Thanks Marty.
We have a somewhat different idea of distortion of facts
False truths? Perhaps you watched CM'S Podcast, perhaps not.
Maybe your own account of coffins and high fives?
We all make mistakes.
-
The coffin i held my hands up mate and thats because i was given false info. I would forward the message to you but fear you would give away the identity of who sent it which isnt fair as i broadcast it on a forum.
I was right about the high fives , i think😁
-
This question I asked.
What did Luke say about conversations had at Lunch time?
Did he state there was no arrangement at all to see each other, that evening?
This grounding, is irrelevant to this, are you suggesting Luke was not allowed to see Jodi at home?
It's not irrelevant if your claim is that Luke could have left to lie in wait for Jodi from 4.25pm. Why on earth would he do so if he knew she wasn't allowed out? If the grounding story were true, the earliest Luke could have known that Jodi was being allowed out was the exchange of texts between 4.34 and 4.38.
I've never seen anything that suggested an arrangement was made at lunchtime for them to meet later, either from Luke or from anyone else who was in the China Gardens with them at the time. Everything I've seen (including statements from both families) suggests there was a loose understanding that they would meet up after tea, if they could, with other friends, usually about 6 o'clock. That week was different in that the friend they mostly hung out with as away on a school trip. But that still doesn't explain why Jodi left so early - Luke still wouldn't be out until after tea - according to even Jodi's mum, they usually met up at about 6 o'clock.
So, Jodi's got no phone until 4.34 - 4.38, no evidence of a fixed arrangement to meet later made at lunchtime, why would Luke leave at 4.25pm?
-
Simply anything really - but certainly no "lying in wait" was inferred, at all - in some dark sense of premeditated thought.
the earliest Luke could have known that Jodi was being allowed out was the exchange of texts between 4.34 and 4.38.
"The earliest Luke could have known Jodi was being allowed out" earlier "was the exchange of texts between 4.34 and 4.38"
It has been clearly established that Jodi got out, only after completing chores, which fits in with any "loose arrangement" of after tea, and chores of course.
He receives these texts - letting him know that her punishments have been lifted, she does not have to stay in for chores or tea.
That in itself is a clue - on this day Jodi, was most definitely out earlier than planned, she did not have to do chores, or have tea.
So this loose arrangement - of a meet later, after tea (and chores) was changed thus the texts.
Again - plain and simple. There would have been no need to text until the completion of tea and chores, to give this time of being free-early.
So yes, it appears this grounding story - is completely true.
This girl had been fully grounded, it had been relaxed;
“She had been kind of grounded but that had changed to her doing chores in exchange for being allowed out” – Judith Jones, statement
Thus restricted in time - you have pointed out before about the leniency on this - of extensions of time when going to "Woodburn"
So Luke would not have expected Jodi to be kept in that evening - he clearly knew of these punishments, and clearly headed to meet with her, once he knew this punishment had been lifted in full- and out earlier than expected.
Hardly surprising this pie was burnt.
-
That week was different in that the friend they mostly hung out with as away on a school trip. But that still doesn't explain why Jodi left so early - Luke still wouldn't be out until after tea - according to even Jodi's mum, they usually met up at about 6 o'clock.
That week and that day were different.
Jodi's punishments had been lifted in full - explains perfectly "why Jodi left so early"
Luke only put the tea on - it burnt, one brother out the other engrossed surfing the net. A burnt pie is evidence of both.
On that day this usual meeting about 6 changed, Jodi got out earlier than expected.
Even by Luke's own account, he took not time in wolfing his burnt dinner down;
5.15pm CM arrived home.
There are beans to be warmed up, there are prawns to cook, 'totties' to mash - much conversation to be had.
Luke is ready and out on Newbattle Road, barely passed 5.30.
He does not for instance - phone Jodi whilst finishing tea, or once finished from home, to let her know tea is over well
before 6pm.
He instead rushes to be ready and out - making time of course for the conversation around the infamous t-shirt.
This friend that they mostly hung out with was away;
Did Luke give any indication of these other friends whom he planned to call with Judith?
It's the little things like these - that would cause alarm bells with the police.
-
That week and that day were different.
Jodi's punishments had been lifted in full - explains perfectly "why Jodi left so early"
Luke only put the tea on - it burnt, one brother out the other engrossed surfing the net. A burnt pie is evidence of both.
On that day this usual meeting about 6 changed, Jodi got out earlier than expected.
Even by Luke's own account, he took not time in wolfing his burnt dinner down;
5.15pm CM arrived home.
There are beans to be warmed up, there are prawns to cook, 'totties' to mash - much conversation to be had.
Luke is ready and out on Newbattle Road, barely passed 5.30.
He does not for instance - phone Jodi whilst finishing tea, or once finished from home, to let her know tea is over well
before 6pm.
He instead rushes to be ready and out - making time of course for the conversation around the infamous t-shirt.
This friend that they mostly hung out with was away;
Did Luke give any indication of these other friends whom he planned to call with Judith?
It's the little things like these - that would cause alarm bells with the police.
That makes no sense at all.
-
That makes no sense at all.
I know Marty - not intended of course, to make sense for you.
Perhaps the word "totties" ? You mentioned myself struggling before, I did with this word you used.
The only thing I could liken it to was potato, I thought perhaps it was a typo -I'm still unsure, to be honest?
-
SL:
I often say to people, "but what if this was your son, or brother? Wouldn't you want everyone to be shouting from the rooftops?" And still, even with all of this information, they just don't and can't believe that it could happen to them.
SL's comments are of course (surprisingly) correct here.
In this actual case itself we have neither the father or brother shouting from the rooftops.
There has been mention before of CM having a stroke, not in the best of health then?
Yet still, this woman is left to "shouting from the rooftops" with the help of SL - no father, no brother.
A mother who's health is not good, left to go it alone - so to speak.
We have witnessed, still to this day how truthful CM is - perhaps the real reason why Luke's brother
and father don't join forces with her. They do not and have never wanted to become embroiled in this web of deceit.
SM from the off - within 24hrs of this girls murder was having no involvement in his brother and mothers
story.
Shane did not initially state he was "home alone" that afternoon - he said he had no idea whether or not he came straight home from work, and gave the time/route he would normally take/arrive home, with the proviso that he might not have come straight home.
"with the proviso" --- Handy? Just in case his brother and mother were not believed?
He gave no account at all of seeing his brother, of what was for dinner, of anything that was correct, other than rhyming off any
old usual routine - within 24hrs.
He has a discussion with his mother after this "for all of five minutes" . She refreshes his memory of the burnt pie. He contacts the FLO
who is most definitely not with the Mitchel's 24/7. He lets her know about the pie.
He is now starting to become embroiled in this deceit.
He still has no memory though - simply none to be had of this.
This Proviso of maybe coming home right away/maybe not - is given as he does not have to include Luke at this point.
Luke would still be at school.
Hardly surprising the police are suspicious of this.
It is in total contrast to his mother and brothers account. All within 24hrs.
Hardly surprising CM fees this burnt pie account is important - it appears all that was discussed, "for all of five minutes"
Was this pie - of what took place at this crucial time.
And of time;
CM did not arrive home until at least 5.15pm.
The pie may have been burnt but dinner was not ready.
Beans and prawns to be cooked, dishing up of dinner - and all conversation around this.
SM in his amended statements - claims to have collected his dinner at 5.15pm.
Taken it upstairs and ate it, got ready and out the door by 5.30pm.
Gordo30:
Luke always said he left the house just after dinner and slightly after Shane did He put that at around 5:30.
Very fast household, no messing about here, with the finishing off of dinner, the eating and out. Both sons for 5.30pm
Luke, remember, claims to have been at the entrance of the estate when he made that call at 5.32pm.
It appears, SM simply became entangled in this further with the help of his mother, or to help his mother.
His statement appears to have changed at least 3 times in 4 days.
SL:
Police checks showed he had stopped off to help a friend with a car problem (which Shane instantly agreed was corrrect, he had simply forgotten about it on what must have been, by the Tuesday afternoon/evening, the most shocking and surreal experience.) That meant Luke would have been home before Shane, and not the other way around. He said he usually came in from work and went straight upstairs to his room, and believed he did so that afternoon. If Luke was in the kitchen, Shane would not have seen him, and, unless they called out to each other, may not even have known Luke was there.
The reality being of course, is that SM barely knew Jodi Jones. According to Gordo, Luke and Shane were not close.
That SM neither saw or heard his brother that day - Luke would not just be in the kitchen quietly - he had his tunes on.
The reality being - that this claimed total amnesia within 24hrs, rang alarm bells with the investigating officers.
-
That makes no sense at all.
i dont think parkis post are intended to make sense.
-
Why is this thread here? Luke DOES not have an alibi.
not the greatist albi in the world no but still can be called an alibi of sorts i mean sombody must of made dinner.
-
Luke had an alibi that was not believed because, it was claimed, a change in Shane's statement was "proof" that he was lying.
How many other people's statements changed (some of them significantly)? Are we to accept that as proof that they, too, were lying? If not, why not?
The argument that "they weren't accused of anything" doesn't stand. In this country, a person has the right to be presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not proof of anything to decide that someone changing their statement is lying - if it is accepted as such, then everyone who changed their statements must be lying.
The"they weren't accused of anything" leaves wide open the opportunity to set up the accused, simply by interpreting changed statements attributed to him as "lies" and changed statements attributed to all others as "innocent mistakes." A self-fulfilling prophecy - it's not rocket science!
-
Luke had an alibi that was not believed because, it was claimed, a change in Shane's statement was "proof" that he was lying.
How many other people's statements changed (some of them significantly)? Are we to accept that as proof that they, too, were lying? If not, why not?
The argument that "they weren't accused of anything" doesn't stand. In this country, a person has the right to be presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not proof of anything to decide that someone changing their statement is lying - if it is accepted as such, then everyone who changed their statements must be lying.
The"they weren't accused of anything" leaves wide open the opportunity to set up the accused, simply by interpreting changed statements attributed to him as "lies" and changed statements attributed to all others as "innocent mistakes." A self-fulfilling prophecy - it's not rocket science!
well by that logi the familys changing statements for what time jodi left home must also be a lie.
-
I guess you have never, discovered, found out. That one of your family members has just been brutally murdered. Just imagine the confusion, the stress, the disbelieve, the shock. No wonder they were a bit mixed up. Have some respect Sandra.
Respect, Davie? I'm surprised you even know how to spell the word.
You've taken a logical, rational approach to a misleading post you made and used Jodi's family's suffering to emote all over that response, because you can't respond to it logically or rationally.
Why wouldn't the same considerations apply to the Mitchells? As innocent individuals, wouldn't they also be in confusion, stress, disbelief and shock, especially when Luke became the target of the police investigation? If it's enough to explain errors in Jodi's family's statements, why not in Luke and his family's? The argument "because he was convicted" doesn't stand. He wasn't convicted on the very first day of the investigation - they were still lying to him and his family weeks later, reassuring them that Luke wasn't a suspect. He wasn't convicted when they raided his house twice and took away all his belongings, or interrogated him for hours without access to a lawyer or any other support. Confusion, stress, disbelief, shock? Go figure.
And please, don't presume that you know what has gone on in my family - you don't.
-
Insults, how mature Sandra.
You're right, Davie, that was uncalled for and I apologise.
You should probably try bully your poodle nugs on the issue of spelling, instead of myself
It wasn't intended as an attempt to bully - I abhor bullying of any description. Nugnug has his own mind and doesn't take instructions from me. However, I think it is clear that Nugnug's spelling is of no real importance and strikes me as a form of dyslexia (although that is only a guess, having a dyslexic daughter myself). He's able to make perfectly clear what he is saying, even if it doesn't conform to other people's expectations of spelling. I do think it is a form of bullying to shame someone for their spelling when it is clear there is some sort of difficulty for the poster when it comes to spelling.
My (rather petulant, I agree) reference to spelling was actually paraphrasing Paddy Hill outside the court of appeal
Luke deserves no respect, he is a psychopathic murderer, convicted by a jury and his mother tried to cover it up. Luke had no alibi, This is FACT.
As you wish Davie. You still haven't addressed the issue of the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, or the double standards at a time when no-one had been proven guilty of anything and I suspect you have no intention of doing so, which means this is no longer a sensible debate.
And please don't assume "people like me" the name is Davie.
I know what the name is, Davie and you, Davie, have no qualms about launching personal attacks on other posters. So, Davie, my point was, quite simply, I don't give people like Davie the opportunity to attack others just because people like Davie demand that I do so.
By the way, where's your proof that "the name's Davie"? Just asking.
-
are so the mitchells changing statements means they lied but the jones family constantly changing staements dosnt mean the leid thats logic for you.
-
"Seemples" really;
In any investigation - some lie some are truthful.
Some clarify matters whilst others dig deeper holes.
Seems these holes - are still getting dug, by the main people fighting for innocence.
They are clearly lying and misleading, why would that be?
The answer there of course - is itself, simple.
-
"Seemples" really;
In any investigation - some lie some are truthful.
Some clarify matters whilst others dig deeper holes.
Seems these holes - are still getting dug, by the main people fighting for innocence.
They are clearly lying and misleading, why would that be?
The answer there of course - is itself, simple.
so how do ou explian the jones changing the times for jodi leaving home was that a mistake or a delbrate lie.
-
You're on, your wrong thread Nugnug.
This is your alibi one.
-
"Seemples" really;
In any investigation - some lie some are truthful.
Some clarify matters whilst others dig deeper holes.
Seems these holes - are still getting dug, by the main people fighting for innocence.
They are clearly lying and misleading, why would that be?
The answer there of course - is itself, simple.
Go on, then, Parky. Give everyone the "simple" answer to why I would lie and mislead. I'm not interested in what you think of anyone else at this point, just me, as one of the "main people fighting for his innocence."
Why would I fight? Why would I lie? Why would I mislead? Remember, Parky, I look for answers backed up by evidence - you made these claims and asked these questions, claiming to have a "simple" answer, so let's have it.
-
Why would I fight? Why would I lie? Why would I mislead? Remember, Parky, I look for answers backed up by evidence - you made these claims and asked these questions, claiming to have a "simple" answer, so let's have it.
"Why would I fight"
Perhaps you could explain with clarity this:
The latter end of June 2003 this girl is murdered.
September 2003 CM chaps your door?
Is this correct or was it September 2004? 2005? 2006?
How did CM hear, there was this woman from Mayfield who believed her son was innocent?
We have seen already that Luke and your daughter were part of a gang - that hung out at times, company together?
Simply put - was your daughter the reasoning behind CM's visit? The start of your fight together?
You took your daughter, with you, to see Luke in prison - is this correct?
Simply asking questions here - to get an idea of accuracy, as to why you started this fight.
There is a world of difference between Joe public believing innocence to becoming actively involved.
Helpful for study purpose, for book material, not a one way street of giving - you have gained substantially through this.
The answer of course could lie in its own subterfuge of reasoning.
Akin to the ? around why Luke, not only murdered this girl but mutilated her.
What drives a person to want to be part of that - Are they simply just some vigilante for innocence or is there darkness within.
Only in them lies the truth - the answer.
Lithium posted a clip previously - of a woman's eyes, aglow, radiant in some odd pleasure.
Of that warm feeling one gets - when being confronted and attacked verbally. (Twitter)
This "Why would I fight? Why would I lie? Why would I mislead?"
Why do you do these things Ms Lean? Only you know the truth, of what drives you to do so.
In simplicity to do with Luke's case - there is no choice but to lie to mislead, the truth is why he is locked up.
Of SK being on this path - a typo.
Of a mystery man being on this path - the media to blame.
Of those joint theories - CM is simply mistaken.
Of this trio having to walk passed YW's whilst heading directly to this path - JF to blame.
Of all of the evidence against Luke - every one is to blame, whilst the simple truth is, it is Luke himself to blame, with his wild
reasoning and stories that inevitably set suspicion upon him.
Caught in his own lies - no one else to blame for that
-
"Why would I fight"
Perhaps you could explain with clarity this:
The latter end of June 2003 this girl is murdered.
September 2003 CM chaps your door?
Is this correct or was it September 2004? 2005? 2006?
With absolute clarity, Parky:
Corinne Mitchell never, ever "chapped my door." She put a note through the door of my workplace, after hours, when the premises were closed, in September 2003.
How did CM hear, there was this woman from Mayfield who believed her son was innocent?
I wasn't from Mayfield at the time, Corinne's workplace was in Mayfield. Someone I knew told someone else about my thoughts, that person told someone else who knew Corinne - that's how Corinne found out about me.
We have seen already that Luke and your daughter were part of a gang - that hung out at times, company together?
No you have not, because they were not. Neither of my daughters ever met Luke Mitchell prior to Luke being imprisoned. Are you really suggesting a 14 year old boy would want to hang out with 12 and 10 year old girls, or that my 10 and 12 year olds were "part of a gang". I don't know where this rubbish comes from, but it's utterly ludicrous. I have dozens of people who will attest to the FACT that myself and my daughters did not know the Mitchells prior to Jodi's murder, including the people who were with me the morning I arrived at work to find the note from Corinne at my workplace.
Simply put - was your daughter the reasoning behind CM's visit? The start of your fight together?
No.
Simply asking questions here - to get an idea of accuracy, as to why you started this fight.
There is a world of difference between Joe public believing innocence to becoming actively involved.
Helpful for study purpose, for book material, not a one way street of giving - you have gained substantially through this.
You're not "simply asking questions," Parky - saying it doesn't make it true. You are also making false claims and repeating outright lies. I've made it perfectly clear, many times, very publicly, why I "started this fight." I became actively involved long before there was any "study purpose" or "book material" on the horizon (five years and four years respectively). I understand that you cannot accept that someone would fight so actively for no other reason that a burning need to challenge terrible injustice - just because you can't accept it doesn't mean it's not a fact.
"Gained substantially"? In what ways?
The answer of course could lie in its own subterfuge of reasoning.
Akin to the ? around why Luke, not only murdered this girl but mutilated her.
What drives a person to want to be part of that - Are they simply just some vigilante for innocence or is there darkness within.
Quantum leap there, don't you think? Because you don't understand why I do what I do, I'm either a vigilante or have "darkness within"? No other possibilities considered?
Lithium posted a clip previously - of a woman's eyes, aglow, radiant in some odd pleasure.
Of that warm feeling one gets - when being confronted and attacked verbally. (Twitter)
I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
This "Why would I fight? Why would I lie? Why would I mislead?"
Why do you do these things Ms Lean? Only you know the truth, of what drives you to do so.
I don't do these things (apart from fight) - it is you who claimed I do and I asked you to come up with any good reasons why I would lie or mislead. You can't - instead you post a rambling post filled with outright lies.
I'm done with this, Parky. You've shown your true colours with this post - you'll happily lie through your teeth (or repeat the lies of others) to suit your agenda - you attack my daughters' characters knowing nothing about them, simply to get at me. Pathetic and transparent.
-
I'm done with this, Parky. You've shown your true colours with this post - you'll happily lie through your teeth (or repeat the lies of others) to suit your agenda - you attack my daughters' characters knowing nothing about them, simply to get at me. Pathetic and transparent.
No Ms Lean, yet again, I was simply asking questions around other information I have read on these forums.
Thus why I asked the question rather than just assuming - I honestly did not know.
Absolutely no idea what age your daughters were or are, or in clarity which year CM approached you or where.
Thus the 2003? 2004 etc.
These questions alone appear to have upset you gravely - for that I apologize, I have stated before and do so again, this
fight you have, extremely personal to say the least - I understand how difficult it may be at times, to keep on an even keel.
You will have to excuse me, if you feel I had somehow attacked your daughters characters, by implication that they may have
known or hung out with Luke? Again having no idea of their age. You stated before, when talking about the colours AB saw, that they
were possibly the same colours as Newbattle, of your daughters attending this school - I tied the two together, 2003 and High School.
There most definitely was not - any attack on your daughters far less their characters.
I was simply trying to understand why - within the space of two months, CM not only knew of you, knew where you worked and somehow knew you could be of help to her.
Two total strangers, that's all.
Throughout this process - You have studied in depth and written three books (1st and 2nd edition - of the 1st)
You have gained qualifications along the way - thus, not a one way street.
Still leaves a ? mark as to why CM sought this complete stranger out - within two months of this crime.
The prison visit best left alone.
Perhaps better to leave it at that - until rationale takes hold again.
-
Give everyone the "simple" answer to why I would lie and mislead
Please?
-
Fame and fortune, after all these years Sandra you are so famous and rich lol was so worth it all!! Come on guys really?? There are a lot easier, quicker ways to find fame and fortune which does not include putting yourself in danger everyday or standing up for a man you know to be guilty but pretending they are innocent just to be famous. Absolutely ridiculous. Is this really what you think?? It’s very clear all Sandra is doing is standing up for someone she believes to be innocent. I take my hat off to her. If I’m ever in trouble she would be my first call, someone who cares and will do whatever she can to help
-
Fame and fortune, after all these years Sandra you are so famous and rich lol was so worth it all!! Come on guys really?? There are a lot easier, quicker ways to find fame and fortune which does not include putting yourself in danger everyday or standing up for a man you know to be guilty but pretending they are innocent just to be famous. Absolutely ridiculous. Is this really what you think?? It’s very clear all Sandra is doing is standing up for someone she believes to be innocent. I take my hat off to her. If I’m ever in trouble she would be my first call, someone who cares and will do whatever she can to help
youre right here -sandra does this becayse she believe firmly luke is innocent and seek to justify that beleif afterwards . but there is no place for belief in such matters. reality doesnt care for beleif
by never seriosly considering possibility of lukes guilt she reveals the bias she always had
-
Oh dear, i always though you were some random, that was genuinely curious about the case. But as soon as Sandra gets attacked, On here & over on the Red, you jump to her defence. Not so random I guess. No worries. My mistake. Ex copper my scrotum. Eh Princess?
You really make me laugh, I am some random and I’m interested in the case yes but I’m not and have never said I was in the police. I worked with the police at the time, meaning I was in contact with police officers in my job. I was never employed by the police, the company I worked for was.
I happen to respect Sandra even if I do not agree with all she thinks and says and will continue to ‘jump to the defence’ of anyone as and when I see fit. Sandra is more than capable of fighting her own battles but when it was said she was doing it for fame and fortune I had to find out if that’s really what people think cause imo that’s nuts.
-
This is what has happened through the years when peoples arguments have been quite frankly demolished. Then the character assassination starts. Nothing new, cant win the arguement so start with the personal insults. Goan yersell big man.
-
To be honest, as an outsider looking in, I find the motivation of Davie in the this forum most interesting.
Sandra Lean has outlined her motivations clearly many times. Wether she is correct or not, she believes that a gross miscarriage of justice has been done. She believes that a young boy was sentenced to life in prison for something he did not do and that a very dangerous killer has walked free in her local community ever since. I can understand that as a big motivator for her to do the work she has done over the years.
However, I find Davie's motivation more interesting because you believe 100% that Luke Mitchell is guilty. You believe that justice has been done and there's no need for further evidence. The correct man is locked up and will not be getting out any time soon, because he has never admitted to his crime. So why is there the need to force this opinion further, to shut down any discussion that goes away from the official story and belittle those who do? If Luke Mitchell is to have any chance of getting out of prison he will need solid proof that he didn't do it, he will not get out based on circumstantial evidence like that what was used against him in his trial. So, as you believe he is 100% guilty, you have no reason to worry about him being released, yet you write hundreds of posts to push your views of Luke's case.
I am just genuinely interested, as from the outside, it appears that you have a personal link to the case or a personal issue with Sandra Lean? I'd be interested to know what you know. I'm maybe wrong and you just enjoy the banter?
-
Thats an interesting point harper. I remember months ago when an arguement/ discussion started with davie and sandra about damage that was done to corrines buisness( scaffold poles through the vans)and threatening behaviour towards sandra. He was adamant time and time again asking if anyone had been charged. To me theres only two possible ways to know for sure no one had been charged .
-
Thats an interesting point harper. I remember months ago when an arguement/ discussion started with davie and sandra about damage that was done to corrines buisness( scaffold poles through the vans)and threatening behaviour towards sandra. He was adamant time and time again asking if anyone had been charged. To me theres only two possible ways to know for sure no one had been charged .
what are those 2 ways marty.
-
"The correct man is locked up and will not be getting out any time soon, because he has never admitted to his crime"
Getting out has absolutely nothing to do with him not admitting his crime.
Luke has been in prison for Just over 15yrs, he is not even eligible to be considered for parole, for nearly 5 years yet.
This type of crime, even if he were to hold his hands up, to attempt rehabilitation is still unlikely to see him released, to be
accepted by any parole board - for a long time.
An example of this - someone else went to prison for a crime they pleaded guilty to.
They have been eligible for parole for over 9years now - refused at every hearing.
I don't imagine for one minute, that if Luke admits to this - he would be free anytime within the next 10yrs and he will know this.
It is not proof that he did not kill Jodi.
This was not some simple murder, some accident - it was carried out by someone cold and calculated.
There may be many reasons pushed forward - to excuse how Luke has been since that very day, there has however been
nothing to show him as being anything else, bar caring for a sick hedgehog.
There hasn't, even in the most simplest of forms - been anything from his father or brother.
-
The nail on the head.
I think everyone here knows its beyond banter
-
That's fair Davie.
I agree that having both sides of the argument is important and I have been reading all the posts I can, including those by you, Parky and Lithium.
I just thought there may be something more personal going on. If you're a sat diver, then I guess you have a lot of down time?
Parky, can you answer the same question? What motivates you, when you already know that Luke Mitchell will not be getting out?
-
I moved to Edinburgh for Uni in 2003, so I remember the coverage of the case at the time. I saw Luke Mitchell's name appear again when Aaron Campbell got his sentence reduced after they claimed Aaron's sentence was excessive because he got a 26 year minimum and Luke only got 20.
This was the first time in years I had seen Luke Mitchell mentioned and when I looked up the case again I found all this controversy that I never knew existed. Since then I have been reading and watching all I can find regarding the case.
I think it's really interesting because worst case scenario, they have not got justice for Jodi, they have put a kid away for life and they let the real killer walk free ever since. But, even in the best case scenario, this case just shows what the absolute bare minimum required is to put someone away for murder in Scotland. Did they make a huge mistake, or did they do whatever it took to get the right person, I don't know?