Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: nugnug on November 19, 2019, 03:11:PM
-
new thrad to debate what tey were doing there.
-
ill try andind thelink to say were admits to being.
-
here is were ferris dmits to being.
https://t.co/uQyRrOeyQN?amp=1
-
Was it not just two youths with the moped, GD and JF?
-
Was it not just two youths with the moped, GD and JF?
yes sorry just a typo ill correct it.
it was 2
-
I agree nugnug that the boys were definitely on the path. I just wanted more clarity on the sighting of the moped at the V. From Google Street View, it looks like a long way from the road to spot a moped or the V break, but I am not familiar with the area, so I cannot say if it's possible or not.
In contrast, if the boys were being a nuisance with their loud moped, then the Tool Hire employee could have been looking out for them on his way home and if the moped was brightly coloured and he knew what to look for, then it may be perfectly plausible that he did spot it on his drive home.
-
No-one suggested the bike was spotted at the point where the Newbattle Road turns onto the Beeches.
You're basically calling this witness a liar, with no idea what sort of vehicle they were in and what other possibilities might exist for being able to see the bike from a vehicle?
-
Must be another one of your made up witnesses :))
-
It definitely looks like a long distance away from these Google street view images, but these are taken with a wide angle lens to allow the camera to capture the entire panorama. This gives a distorted image compared to real life. That’s why on street view, it’s very hard to read house numbers and house names that are easily read from your car.
Looking at the distance, the shortest line of site is 250 metres which isn’t crazy. I compared it to some fields near my home and I could definitely make out a moped if it was in a clear line of site. Working at a tool hire shop, there is the possibility that he was driving a commercial vehicle of some sort.
Those who have actually driven those roads would know better though, which I have not.
-
worth noting if you local to area or visit to size up visibility that its very diffrent in winter comparedto hieght of summer when the crime was comitted. woodland strip behind wall is/was quite overgrown and growth extends up over wall for large sections of the length of it, also lots of bushy growth both sides of path itself
-
Still playing guess the drivel, oops driver game?
Now morphed into - oh what kind of vehicle were they driving, where was this vehicle, what means did
this witness have to claim this was at this V point.
Load the statement where it says "close to the V"
Simple really.
Just for clarities sake Harper?
No one is disputing this duo were on the path.
No one is disputing this bike was at a standstill.
They both admitted this, they were having trouble stopping and starting it - of course it was at
a standstill, several times along this path - all technically close to this V break.
It matters not this weightless claim of a witness seeing (cough) this bike. It is not disputed the bike
was there.
Why do you feel Harper, that Ms Lean needs to push this sighting (without clarity) of this bike, unmanned over and over.
The boys have admitted their bike was at a standstill.
There is, more to the point - absolutely nothing, that puts these boys on this path for any more than
20mins - easy to determine that all of this time was needed, to push and try to start this bike.
They simply had absolutely no time for anything else.
They were back in GD for 5.30pm - witnessed.
There were other people out and about that evening after 5.30pm
No bike no boys seen anywhere near this path, after this time.
What is clear is the noise from this bike and the boys - Luke could not have failed to hear this.
Is this the real reason why Luke did not finish, those very actions he had started?
He needed to Hide this girl and get away from there.
-
Images are spot on Dave - they clearly show from everywhere, that unless you are actually on this path,
you can not see the V in this wall.
We don't need Google for that though - Ms Lean has clarified this clearly, before herself.
-
worth noting if you local to area or visit to size up visibility that its very diffrent in winter comparedto hieght of summer when the crime was comitted. woodland strip behind wall is/was quite overgrown and growth extends up over wall for large sections of the length of it, also lots of bushy growth both sides of path itself
As how it was in the woodland itself:
This woodland area - that Luke had never entered before.
Instantly seeing this V in the dark, instantly going over and finding Jodi - in seconds.
Behind this large Oak tree, that he also recognized in the dark.
Taking in all around him - not distracted at all, by his dead girlfriend!
-
A bit rich coming from you when it comes to calling wittiness's liar. Where do i start? Flemming/Walsh. Bryson. Ferris. All the Jones family. The Mitchell's neighbours. The police. The tattoo artist. Do i need to continue? But oh no, when someone with superman vision, and can drive perfectly along a road while looking in the complete opposite direction, and then with perfect detail describe, a V, 2 lads and a moped in the distance, what utter nonsense.
Tsk Tsk Davie;
Ms Lean introduces PTSD as a possibility for SM having total amnesia.
Of this surreal experience for the Mitchels.
Of Luke's trauma and heavy medication.
Of Luke's PTSD in p**sing in bottles.
For the Jones family we have -
A family who she puts a ? around as to why they did not get their stories straight, they were in each others
company within hours of this girls death.
The clue of course is there - within hours of this girls death, their daughter, sister, granddaughter, niece and so
forth had been brutally murdered - Ms Lean wonders why they were not setting their stories straight, when they got together - putting this girls death aside to do so?
They simply had no story to get straight.
LM and CM's however was very straight - and one wonders why the police were suspicious.
-
in court john ferriss admite he was cloe to wear jodis body was found.
-
Sorry for questions that have probably been answered previously. You all seem to be very well versed on this case.
An answer that I can't find - when GD and JF came back up the path from the Tool Hire at Newbattle to GD's home at Easthouses, they were having issues with the moped. Did they drive the moped up the path or walked the moped Back to GD's? Or was it a bit of both?
-
Your like a parrot, NOBODY has been disputing this.
Ferris also admitted to witnessing Luke jabbing Jodi in the leg with a knife and also verbally abusing her, but since that does not suit the narrative, that he is a liar. Can't have the best of both worlds.
well if nobody disputes that what is there to dispute.
they right next to a murder scene at the time a murder is supposed to have taken place
-
Oh so the murder did take place at 5:15?
why the patholgist dident actully give a time of a time the proscution
the proscuting did not give 515 as the exact time just around that time nobody that precise about a time of death.
-
Only when its suits the narrative right? Messy. So Ferris is a liar right?
well yes that was established in courtt he lied about the time he was one the path as did dickie.
-
What? So he was on the path at 5:15 as you claim he claimed, but now he was not there at this time, because he is a liar, which one is it? Make up your mind.
he admited he had previsoly lied and said he was there at 4 15 when he was there at 615 dikie also admited this that was established at the trail.
and is in the links i have previously posted.
-
Sorry for questions that have probably been answered previously. You all seem to be very well versed on this case.
An answer that I can't find - when GD and JF came back up the path from the Tool Hire at Newbattle to GD's home at Easthouses, they were having issues with the moped. Did they drive the moped up the path or walked the moped Back to GD's? Or was it a bit of both?
According to their own statements and those of witnesses, it was a bit of both.
They drove the moped through Basically Tools and part way up Newbattle Road, where it cut out and they were seen by two independent sets of witnesses (1) pushing it up the rest of the Newbattle Road to the entrance to Roan's Dyke Park and (2) pushing it into the entrance to Roan's Dyke path.
They then struggled to get it started and keep it going for quite some time while they were "messing about on the path" (i.e, they would get it going, ride it for a bit up or down the path, then it would cut out again) - from at least Ferris's statements, they finally got it going long enough to ride the last part of the path (Easthouses end) and along Lady Path to Dickie's garden.
-
Name the witnesses.
do you think the police would ask somone to come forward if there wasnt a witness if there wasnt a witnese it wouldent of even be mentioned would it.
-
Name the witnesses.
No. They've never been publicly named, so I'm not about to put them in the firing line for people like you. Before you start bandying about words like "selective," this has been my approach from the start and applies equally to witnesses in Jodi's family and friends who were not publicly named. It's a blanket policy - if people's names are in the public domain, it's ok to discuss them by name. If not, I don't.
-
are likely to make an appealfor somone to come forward if theres no witness to them being there.
-
Goodness, Davie, nothing personal going on here, then?
Freeloading? You're having a laugh. Do you work, or have you worked, for nothing, for years at a time, Davie? Have you given your every spare hour and large sums of your own money to help other people?
Would you be prepared to take a cut in your income to help others? No? Then you can't stand in judgement of me.
And by "people like you," I mean people who have no qualms about launching personal attacks on other people from the cowardly safety of a fake name on an internet forum. So, yes, people like you.
-
Thanks for the info Sandra and Davie, I hope I didn't cause all this arguing though!
From what I can see, everyone is generally in agreement regarding the following:
- The two boys were on the path between roughly 5pm and 5.30pm
- They were seen and admitted to being on this path at this time
- They were riding around on a troublesome moped, but were having issues with starting it.
- The moped was not roadworthy as it had no silencer on the exhaust, which is why they were running it on the paths and woodland
I agree that it's frustrating that we do not all have access to case files, but don't feel that we can blame Sandra Lean just because she does have access to the files and is not legally allowed to share them with us?
-
Thanks Harper - no, you're not the cause of some of the more heated posts.
I have said repeatedly, if I could make all of the documents public, I'd do it in the blink of an eye - why would I put myself through all the stress if I could just put it all out there and let people read it for themselves?
I've been between a rock and a hard place for a very long time, doing what I can to get as much of the story out there as I can, but always constrained by things I'm not allowed to do for various reasons.
Some posters, no matter how often I explain that, choose to interpret as me "hiding" information - there's nothing I, or anyone else, can do about that interpretation, but the facts remain the facts - I do what I can, when I can, with what I'm allowed to do.
-
Of course Davie, with Sandra being the only one here with access to the case files, she can pick and choose what to share with us. But if she is telling lies and creating a fake alternate story, then she is completely wasting her time, her prospective career and a large portion of her life.
Her goals with this are obviously to get Luke a successful appeal, retrial and released. Before any of this can happen, the real case files and evidence would have to be presented and scrutinised. If at that point it was found that she had been lying then it would all fall apart, Sandra Lean would be disgraced and Luke would be left in prison.
If she is telling lies, all she has achieved over these years is to convince a few random folk on forums that Luke Mitchell may be innocent.
-
Thank you Harper.
And why would I take such a risk for people I didn't even know at the time? Why risk my own and my daughters' safety?
I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear in relation to what is in the case papers. Never, in over 16 years, has anyone tried to sue me for anything I have claimed about what is in the papers. Why might that be? Because they would have to prove I was lying and they can't, because I'm not.
Actually, my goals are not only to get Luke a successful appeal, retrial and released. My main goal is a simple one - to get the truth for Luke and his family, Jodi and hers and all of the rest of us out here who still don't know, to this day, who really killed Jodi. Because, if it wasn't Luke, then the person capable of such a horrific crime has been undetected for over sixteen years. For those who don't believe that's possible:
it took more 20 years to link Angus Sinclair with the murders of four women - he was free for five years, raping and indecently assaulting other women and girls
Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, evaded police for six years
it took sixteen years to finally get to the truth about who killed Rachel Nickell in 1992.
In all of these cases, even though these men were committing other crimes, investigators failed to link them. In fact, had investigators managed to link information they had on file, over a four year period, for Robert Napper with the murder of Rachel Nickell (after their spectacular failure in focusing on Colin Stagg), Samantha and Jasmine Bissett would be alive today.
Peter Sutcliffe was "in the system" from 1969 and he was interviewed 9 times during the height of the Ripper investigation ( 1975 - 1980) - how many women would be still alive had those links been made?
It's been said so many times Luke has to be Jodi's killer because there have been "no other similar crimes" since January 2005.
That, of course, is blatantly untrue and also fails to account for similar crimes before 2003. It doesn't take much to scratch the surface and see how many similar attacks on girls and young women there have been, before and since.
All I ask is that people consider the question - what if other connections were never made because the initial investigation focused so quickly (and single-mindedly) on Luke and what if no other possibilities have ever been considered since? Are we happy to call that justice?
-
Nicholas
-
Sorry, stirring😁
-
She has tried & failed on many an occasion to appeal this, using public money. She had the papers, she scrutinised the papers & presented her findings to the SCCRC. And to put it in simple terms, they laughed it out the building. Why? Many years on, she has no access to public money to do this all over again, so they resorted to using the charity in Glasgow that deals with MOJ's. They chucked the papers in the bin, which suggests to me, they wanted nothing to do with it, Why? Now it is down the path of using fund me platforms to raise money, that has also failed miserably.
Not true, Davie. I was not responsible for any of the appeals - that was the legal team. I prepared the SCCRC application for free, with the help of an extremely experienced QC who also worked for free.
The SCCRC didn't "Laugh it out of the building," did they? They found Luke's rights were breached, they found disclosure failings and so on. Everyone knows the CCCRC/SCCRC are not performing the very thing they were set up to do - independently scrutinising potential Miscarriages of Justice.
MOJO didn't throw the papers in the bin - they admitted they didn't have the knowledge or expertise to work on the case properly which is why they approached me for help. I had nothing to do with the request for MOJO to take the case.
Do you think because the funding platforms haven't been successful as yet, the work isn't getting done? You're wrong, it's just getting done more slowly than we needed. We might lose the opportunity that gave rise to the need for fundraising, but there will be others. And, for the record, I am still working for free, at my own expense.
When you're in that arena, Davie, your "feedback" might be worth something. Since you're not, I'll leave you to your opinions.
-
What was that about getting it handed to you davie ;D
-
You could not stir a cup of tea, without dropping your fag ash in it. You as well as everybody else knows Steph don't post here any more. Personally i wish she did, simply because she hands Sandra a new one.
Yeah, cant be her, She cant string a sentence together without mentioning simon hall.
-
Sandra Lean would be disgraced and Luke would be left in prison.
Some would consider that the existing state of affairs.
-
Not true, Davie. I was not responsible for any of the appeals - that was the legal team. I prepared the SCCRC application for free, with the help of an extremely experienced QC who also worked for free.
Eh? You were not responsible, but you prepared it? Meaning you played (very publicly, attention seeking) your part duh.
Experienced QC? Extremely experienced lol.. What a carry on, so I'm lead to believe an extremely experienced QC, trusted a no-body with no experience & they waved the fee? Aye ok ;D ;D ;D
Let's take it nice and slow. An application to the SCCRC is not "an appeal funded by public money," as you claimed. The appeals were organised and applied for by the legal team - I had no influence on them whatsoever.
I did prepare, in part, the application to the SCCRC.
The experienced QC who prepared the rest, without charging, is on record, named in the application and referred to in the SCCRC statement regarding the outcome of their review.
There - that wasn't difficult, was it?
As I said already, I don't care what you think. Your opinions are none of my business.
-
Please refrain from personal insults. Attack the argument rather than the poster. This board is once again degenerating and it does not foster healthy debate.
-
Please refrain from personal insults. Attack the argument rather than the poster. This board is once again degenerating and it does not foster healthy debate.
There's another one on the Bamber board.
-
I know you don't. I'm not your type. I'm not a nutjob who murders others for a buzz.
Pahahahaha
Why is this being allowed again. Been warned on numerous occasions.
-
Pahahahaha
Why is this being allowed again. Been warned on numerous occasions.
"Pahahahaha"
This level of intellectual comments - produces Marty to receive insider knowledge, from people of carrying coffins.
Of course it did.
Rather "seemples" to see what is actually happening here, of course.
-
Says patryk who went for a jog in the river then pulled every cord on a parker to make it fit something else.
-
Says patryk who went for a jog in the river then pulled every cord on a parker to make it fit something else.
Simply meant Marty;
That I have read very little in the way of constructive conversation, from yourself -
that would merit, someone, with important information - letting you in on top secret information.
This secret information, being the carrying of this girls coffin.
Why would someone, whom clearly puts out they know little on this case, after many years, share
secret information with you?
Says patryk
33%, that is the percentage of two people out of approx: 6, discussing this case as having a form of dyslexia.
Coincidence or real?
-
Maybe because of the question i ask them. I have followed this case for years now and would rather say little than the constant drivel that some expel which you put down to intelect. I may have got it wrong on one point which again i will hold my hands up to, but your shot down six times a day trying to somehow make your theory fit. You have the cheek to question others, very good parky
-
Simply meant Marty;
That I have read very little in the way of constructive conversation, from yourself -
that would merit, someone, with important information - letting you in on top secret information.
This secret information, being the carrying of this girls coffin.
Why would someone, whom clearly puts out they know little on this case, after many years, share
secret information with you?
33%, that is the percentage of two people out of approx: 6, discussing this case as having a form of dyslexia.
Coincidence or real?
Probably a hire percentage than the people that actually read your entire post from start to finish
-
Very true.
Does it however excuse someone, whom as you claim, have studied this case for many years - wilfully putting out wrong information.
Mines being but recent studies, still learning.
Not just this grossly wrong information about ID of carrying coffin... Totally wrong.
Excused by, saying someone passed it on, shifting the blame.
I don't know everything, do you?
This high five being another area - simply done to distract?
Games perhaps.
-
But you say it with your other account, don't ya?
Sorry parky
But again hahahahaha
I only have one account and one user name on every forum im on or been on. I have no need to try and fool anyone davie not interested, i can say anything i need to under marty thanks.
-
Going back to the topic of the two boys on the moped.
Can anyone tell me why JF was later ostracised from the family, why he moved to Ayrshire and why Joseph Jones was going to "batter" him?
-
Unfortunately, no, Harper because, even when they were asked on the stand, none of the family would say why.
I find it interesting that Judith said in a statement months after Jodi's murder, that she believed Ferris and Dickie "knew more than they were letting on" and that they "lied for their own selfish reasons," yet never ever, not even once, has Jodi's family called for them to be investigated further.
I also find it interesting that Dickie wasn't subjected to the same threats (if it's assumed Joseph was going to "batter" Ferris for knowing more than he was letting on and lying for his own selfish reasons).
-
Which nonsense, Davie?
Was he ostracised? Yes, according to Ferris himself, Alice and Judith.
Did Joseph threaten to batter him? According to Ferris, yes. According to Judith, Joseph was "going to have a word with him."
Did he move to Ayrshire? Yes he did.
Were members of the family asked why Ferris was ostacised and wouldn't answer the question? Yes they were.
Did Judith say she believed they knew more than they were letting on and lied for their own selfish reasons? Yes, she did.
So where's the nonsense?
-
Which nonsense, Davie?
Was he ostracised? Yes, according to Ferris himself, Alice and Judith.
Did Joseph threaten to batter him? According to Ferris, yes. According to Judith, Joseph was "going to have a word with him."
Did he move to Ayrshire? Yes he did.
Were members of the family asked why Ferris was ostacised and wouldn't answer the question? Yes they were.
Did Judith say she believed they knew more than they were letting on and lied for their own selfish reasons? Yes, she did.
So where's the nonsense?
the qustion is what was he ostracised for.
-
Lets see these statements.
it was covered in the press at the time.
-
What, i thought we are not to believe anything the press has said on this case. Do you want your cake topped with cream?
I was just pointing out that Sandra is not the only source it was widely covered in the press at the time
ill post the articales later..
-
But you want the best of both worlds, you the biggest preacher on here. Want's the reader to believe that we are not to take what the press say on this case as gospel. But yet here you are, or maybe it is a case off, the drip-feeding of information, that Sandra leaked to the press? Is that the only ones we are allowed to believe?
i really dont ive a fuck what you belive im just posting the relvant information.
-
been looking for this or a while http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4035169.stm