Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: guest29835 on January 06, 2022, 03:30:PM
-
This is the first time I have posted to this part of the Forum. I have read summaries of the prosecution and defence arguments, and I must say, based on what I have read so far, I am rather underwhelmed by the case against Luke Mitchell and quite surprised he was convicted.
Unfortunately, this may be another one of those cases where there is nothing that can conclusively prove his guilt, and conversely, at one and the same time (and partly for that reason) he cannot produce anything that will exculpate him. I fear the only way this can be resolved is if either he confesses or strong and convincing evidence is found that points to an alternative suspect.
Is there anybody on here who actually thinks he was rightly convicted? If so, what is the single most important piece of evidence that convinces you?
-
This is the first time I have posted to this part of the Forum. I have read summaries of the prosecution and defence arguments, and I must say, based on what I have read so far, I am rather underwhelmed by the case against Luke Mitchell and quite surprised he was convicted.
Unfortunately, this may be another one of those cases where there is nothing that can conclusively prove his guilt, and conversely, at one and the same time (and partly for that reason) he cannot produce anything that will exculpate him. I fear the only way this can be resolved is if either he confesses or strong and convincing evidence is found that points to an alternative suspect.
Is there anybody on here who actually thinks he was rightly convicted? If so, what is the single most important piece of evidence that convinces you?
I think one has to be in the courtroom to get a feel of the case. It's easy to be wise after the event. I suppose his lack of an alibi, the burning of the pies story and his dog discovering the body does tend to go against him, along with his rather uncouth lifestyle.
Anyway it gives me a chance to post Sandra's podcast again in the hope she will contribute to the Forum soon. https://youtu.be/YpvNhBNpvl4
-
I think one has to be in the courtroom to get a feel of the case. It's easy to be wise after the event. I suppose his lack of an alibi, the burning of the pies story and his dog discovering the body does tend to go against him, along with his rather uncouth lifestyle.
Anyway it gives me a chance to post Sandra's podcast again in the hope she will contribute to the Forum soon. https://youtu.be/YpvNhBNpvl4
Thanks.
Yes, I agree there is no substitute for actually being in the courtroom and it's easy to be wise after the event and make 'armchair criticisms'. But here we are and we have no other way of going about it.
I may well come down on the same side as you in this case. Or I may not. We will see. I need to do some more reading.
I've also been brushing up on Scots law, an interesting hybrid of Roman civil law from the Continent and the common law tradition.
The criminal burden of proof in Scotland is 'beyond reasonable doubt', whereas in English law it is 'you must be sure'. I don't think there can be much practical difference between the two, and most English lawyers and academic lawyers seem to just use the words 'beyond reasonable doubt' as a matter of course (though I would assume that they can't say that in front of a jury).
I also understand that in Scots procedure, a jury can convict on a majority verdict as a matter of course, without any special direction needed from the bench; and, this majority verdict can be a simple majority! Scots juries are 15 (minimum of 12 to be maintained), which means a conviction can stand even if, say, seven jurors voted for acquittal. I find that incredible - it seems to me that it's a huge flaw in the Scottish system. I'm not yet sure whether the verdict in the Mitchell case was by majority.
Significantly, there are also two acquittal verdicts available in Scotland: Not Guilty and Not Proven. The history of these is quite complicated. As I understand it, the Not Proven verdict started out as the verdict for moral and factual exoneration, whereas Not Guilty meant that the jury thought the accused had committed the act, but acquitted him anyway on the basis that he had not acted with a 'guilty mind' - hence the phrase, 'Not Guilty'. The meaning of Not Guilty then gradually changed so that today it signifies exoneration, while Not Proven merely suggests that the jury are not satisfied that the prosecution case met the burden of proof.
-
I always thought "Not Proven" meant "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again.". As far as Luke Mitchell's guilt or innocence is concerned I haven't yet made up my mind on the facts available. I was only speculating in my earlier post.
-
I always thought "Not Proven" meant "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again.". As far as Luke Mitchell's guilt or innocence is concerned I haven't yet made up my mind on the facts available. I was only speculating in my earlier post.
Yes, I imagine in many cases that's exactly what it means!
-
This is the first time I have posted to this part of the Forum. I have read summaries of the prosecution and defence arguments, and I must say, based on what I have read so far, I am rather underwhelmed by the case against Luke Mitchell and quite surprised he was convicted.
Unfortunately, this may be another one of those cases where there is nothing that can conclusively prove his guilt, and conversely, at one and the same time (and partly for that reason) he cannot produce anything that will exculpate him. I fear the only way this can be resolved is if either he confesses or strong and convincing evidence is found that points to an alternative suspect.
Is there anybody on here who actually thinks he was rightly convicted? If so, what is the single most important piece of evidence that convinces you?
Yes, I believe he is guilty. I wont be going over this case again but feel free to read all my posts on it.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg452939.html#msg452939 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg452939.html#msg452939)
-
I always thought "Not Proven" meant "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again.". As far as Luke Mitchell's guilt or innocence is concerned I haven't yet made up my mind on the facts available. I was only speculating in my earlier post.
I spent some time looking at the case on another forum but like you I'm undecided.
I think the fact Jodie dressed as a Goth went unnoticed by the authorities - reference the murder of Sophie Lancaster.
Also I am not sure what if anything can be read into the following
Date Victim Relationship Verdict Location
to Jodie
9th Jul 1998 Jimmy Jones Father Suicide by hanging Dalkeith
30th Jun 2003 Jodie Jones Murder by knife attack Dalkeith
2nd Jul 2004 Eddie Jones Uncle Suicide by hanging Dalkeith
Coincidence? Or connected in some way?
-
Yes, I believe he is guilty. I wont be going over this case again but feel free to read all my posts on it.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg452939.html#msg452939 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg452939.html#msg452939)
Thanks for the link.
Unless you say to the contrary, I will assume by this reply that you think both that he did it and he was rightly convicted on the evidence. My interest specifically is not in whether he did it, as I have no means to establish that one way or the other. No doubt Mr Mitchell will swear blind he didn't do it, while his detractors will say otherwise. I confine my interest to the legal safely of the conviction against the known facts and evidence. On that basis, the case against him seems rather weak, though I have not come to a firm conclusion yet and I am interested to hear from people who think he was rightly convicted what it is that brings them to this conclusion. What are the headline points or the one incriminating fact or piece of evidence that tells you he is?
Another peculiarity of Scots law that existed at the time and is relevant to the case is that there was no statutory or common law right to legal representation during police questioning. The position has now changed following intervention from, respectively, the European Court of Human Rights and the UK Supreme Court, but at the time I am given to understand that not only was Luke Mitchell questioned without a lawyer, he had no right to one! That sounds like the goings on of a banana republic.
Another thing is that Luke Mitchell was very young at the time all this occurred. When they said he was a child, I just assumed they were being a bit disingenuous and he was actually something like 17 and thus only legally a 'child'. But no, he was 14, as was the poor victim. 14 is very young. It is the rough age when puberty becomes manifest and it is the cusp of the first stage of adult maturity. To lock someone up for a minimum of 20 years in those circumstances is a big deal, but then, if he is guilty, the crime was horrific and suggests deep disturbances and depraved criminality.
-
"I'm not diagnosing anyone..only speculating what could be happening in a situation like this.." https://youtu.be/8EXa6VW_Nds
-
Thanks for the link.
Unless you say to the contrary, I will assume by this reply that you think both that he did it and he was rightly convicted on the evidence. My interest specifically is not in whether he did it, as I have no means to establish that one way or the other. No doubt Mr Mitchell will swear blind he didn't do it, while his detractors will say otherwise. I confine my interest to the legal safely of the conviction against the known facts and evidence. On that basis, the case against him seems rather weak, though I have not come to a firm conclusion yet and I am interested to hear from people who think he was rightly convicted what it is that brings them to this conclusion. What are the headline points or the one incriminating fact or piece of evidence that tells you he is?
Another peculiarity of Scots law that existed at the time and is relevant to the case is that there was no statutory or common law right to legal representation during police questioning. The position has now changed following intervention from, respectively, the European Court of Human Rights and the UK Supreme Court, but at the time I am given to understand that not only was Luke Mitchell questioned without a lawyer, he had no right to one! That sounds like the goings on of a banana republic.
Another thing is that Luke Mitchell was very young at the time all this occurred. When they said he was a child, I just assumed they were being a bit disingenuous and he was actually something like 17 and thus only legally a 'child'. But no, he was 14, as was the poor victim. 14 is very young. It is the rough age when puberty becomes manifest and it is the cusp of the first stage of adult maturity. To lock someone up for a minimum of 20 years in those circumstances is a big deal, but then, if he is guilty, the crime was horrific and suggests deep disturbances and depraved criminality.
The circumstantial evidence (from what I can see of it) I find rather compelling.
-
The circumstantial evidence (from what I can see of it) I find rather compelling.
Well there's no Julie Mugford and Silencer but yes there's lots of circumstantial, if you can call it that, so you're not really making much sense imo. Bamber you have declared innocent and Mitchell guilty :-\
Think David has me on ignore :'(
-
Well there's no Julie Mugford and Silencer but yes there's lots of circumstantial, if you can call it that, so you're not really making much sense imo. Bamber you have declared innocent and Mitchell guilty :-\
Think David has me on ignore :'(
He has several people on ignore. He's the soliloquist of the site.
-
I have copied and pasted some of my old posts if this helps anyone.
"the deceased had told her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and had left home at about 1650"
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
4.53pm - 5.16pm - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
The timing that Lukes brother accesses internet porn is around the time just after Luke would have left the house to meet up with Jodi. And we know for a fact that he did plan to meet her due to the phone records and what Jodi told her mother.
The importance of Shane watching porn between 4.53pm - 5.16pm is that he would only do that if the house was empty and it contradicts Luke's claim of being at home cooking dinner. It shows Luke was out at the time.
Luke claims he did not leave the house until around 5:30pm. Yet he was seen by a witness near the crime scene at around 4:55pm.
Shane Mitchell admitted that his mum got him to say Luke was in the house around the time of the murder and that if it was not for his mother he would not have said Luke was in (because he clearly was not) If Luke really was in, Shane would not need to go along with a story his mum made up.
To say Bryson just so happened to witness someone that looked just like Luke with someone who just so happened to look like Jodi, complete with the missing jacket and it just so happened to be close to the time and place they planned to meet up and it just was not them, is not reasonable.
You need to ask yourself - Why are the Mitchells lying?
Why is Luke, his brother and his mother dishonestly trying to make out he was home when the murder took place?
Why did his neighbours notice a fire in his backgarden on the night of the murder and around the same time he arrived home?
Not only does Luke admit this fire took place after previously denying it. This fire took place around the exact time he returned home that night. Furthermore he lied in the Sky interview that the fire had nothing to do with him.
Lying about the fire. And lying about being home when the murder took place makes sense if he committed the murder before returning home to burn his clothing. That is not something you want people to know.
Why was the Jacket he was seen wearing that day and known to wear often vanish by the time the police searched his house 4 days later?
Why does he have a knife pouch with the initials and date of death of his stabbed to death girlfriend with the knife missing from the pouch and no murder weapon is recovered?
To me the answer is obvious - He killed Jodi.
"the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7)
To this day Luke and Corrine have never given an explanation for the fire.
According to the Judge there was a similarity between the wounds on Jodi’s face and the Manson paintings.
"I do not feel able to ignore the fact that there was a degree of resemblance between the injuries inflicted on Jodi and those shown in the Marilyn Manson paintings of Elizabeth Short that we saw. I think that you carried an image of the paintings in your memory when you killed Jodi."
According to this, Luke had lied about the circumstances of his dog leading him to the body.
"[94] The appellant's actions had also amounted to an attempt to construct a false defence; his explanations to police officers, and to the deceased's mother, as to why the deceased might not have arrived to meet him contradicted his knowledge of her movements on the evening of her death; he told David High that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear; and he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased. This was conduct from which incriminating inferences could be drawn."
-
David,
I thank you for this. My original question is definitely now answered in full. The points you put across seem strong. I'm sure you won't be offended if I say I need to do my own digging, but you have been a big help.
If Luke did this, what do you think was his motive, assuming there was a rationally understandable motive at all?
-
David,
I thank you for this. My original question is definitely now answered in full. The points you put across seem strong. I'm sure you won't be offended if I say I need to do my own digging, but you have been a big help.
If Luke did this, what do you think was his motive, assuming there was a rationally understandable motive at all?
I believe Luke in his teen years was just a POS.
-
I believe Luke in his teen years was just a POS.
And yet the person he is accused of murdering described him as "sweet":
Extracts from Jodi's diary are read out in court in which she explains her feelings for Luke.
It reads: 'I think I am actually in love with Luke, well nearly.
'Not in the stupid way I love Butch, I mean real love.
'God I think I'd die if he finished with me.' She added: 'He's just so sweet.
'No matter what he says, I believe him and that is really dangerous.
'I'll have to be careful - I've had my trust broken too many times.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+I+think+I%27m+actually+in+love+with+Luke..+well...-a0125381355
-
I have copied and pasted some of my old posts if this helps anyone.
"the deceased had told her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and had left home at about 1650"
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
4.53pm - 5.16pm - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
The timing that Lukes brother accesses internet porn is around the time just after Luke would have left the house to meet up with Jodi. And we know for a fact that he did plan to meet her due to the phone records and what Jodi told her mother.
The importance of Shane watching porn between 4.53pm - 5.16pm is that he would only do that if the house was empty and it contradicts Luke's claim of being at home cooking dinner. It shows Luke was out at the time.
Luke claims he did not leave the house until around 5:30pm. Yet he was seen by a witness near the crime scene at around 4:55pm.
Shane Mitchell admitted that his mum got him to say Luke was in the house around the time of the murder and that if it was not for his mother he would not have said Luke was in (because he clearly was not) If Luke really was in, Shane would not need to go along with a story his mum made up.
To say Bryson just so happened to witness someone that looked just like Luke with someone who just so happened to look like Jodi, complete with the missing jacket and it just so happened to be close to the time and place they planned to meet up and it just was not them, is not reasonable.
You need to ask yourself - Why are the Mitchells lying?
Why is Luke, his brother and his mother dishonestly trying to make out he was home when the murder took place?
Why did his neighbours notice a fire in his backgarden on the night of the murder and around the same time he arrived home?
Not only does Luke admit this fire took place after previously denying it. This fire took place around the exact time he returned home that night. Furthermore he lied in the Sky interview that the fire had nothing to do with him.
Lying about the fire. And lying about being home when the murder took place makes sense if he committed the murder before returning home to burn his clothing. That is not something you want people to know.
Why was the Jacket he was seen wearing that day and known to wear often vanish by the time the police searched his house 4 days later?
Why does he have a knife pouch with the initials and date of death of his stabbed to death girlfriend with the knife missing from the pouch and no murder weapon is recovered?
To me the answer is obvious - He killed Jodi.
"the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7)
To this day Luke and Corrine have never given an explanation for the fire.
According to the Judge there was a similarity between the wounds on Jodi’s face and the Manson paintings.
"I do not feel able to ignore the fact that there was a degree of resemblance between the injuries inflicted on Jodi and those shown in the Marilyn Manson paintings of Elizabeth Short that we saw. I think that you carried an image of the paintings in your memory when you killed Jodi."
According to this, Luke had lied about the circumstances of his dog leading him to the body.
"[94] The appellant's actions had also amounted to an attempt to construct a false defence; his explanations to police officers, and to the deceased's mother, as to why the deceased might not have arrived to meet him contradicted his knowledge of her movements on the evening of her death; he told David High that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear; and he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased. This was conduct from which incriminating inferences could be drawn."
The above can be countered by experts, lawyers and police officers in the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0
Why do you think experts, lawyers, police officers and prog makers are unable or unwilling to produce such a docu re Bamber's case?
-
I believe Luke in his teen years was just a POS.
So no motive? The issue I have with this is that, looking at what was done, the killer must have been deranged. Based on what we know, Luke has remained a placid prisoner with no signs of significant mental or personality problems. Of course, it could be that he is just psychopathic.
One thing is for sure: if Luke did this, then I can see why he was given a 20 year minimum sentence, despite his age.
-
So no motive? The issue I have with this is that, looking at what was done, the killer must have been deranged. Based on what we know, Luke has remained a placid prisoner with no signs of significant mental or personality problems. Of course, it could be that he is just psychopathic.
One thing is for sure: if Luke did this, then I can see why he was given a 20 year minimum sentence, despite his age.
[12] The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
[12] The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
From just one psychiatrist? I think if I was acting for the defence, I would want him examined by at least two different psychiatrists and I would also invite the prosecution to appoint a psychiatrist to examine him. Whoever did this was frankly either off their rocker or a cold psychopath. If the evidence of, say, three different psychiatrists, one for the prosecution, confirms that it seems there is nothing wrong with him, I think that alone would throw the prosecution case into doubt.
Were his medical records adduced to the court? If not, why not?
I assume he was on drugs? Need I ask? Cannabis?
-
From just one psychiatrist? I think if I was acting for the defence, I would want him examined by at least two different psychiatrists and I would also invite the prosecution to appoint a psychiatrist to examine him. Whoever did this was frankly either off their rocker or a cold psychopath. If the evidence of, say, three different psychiatrists, one for the prosecution, confirms that it seems there is nothing wrong with him, I think that alone would throw the prosecution case into doubt.
Were his medical records adduced to the court? If not, why not?
I assume he was on drugs? Need I ask? Cannabis?
I don't know much about the case only enough to have doubt. Dr Sandra Lean is the go to person.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Innocents-Betrayed-story-justice-abandoned/dp/199961710X/ref=asc_df_199961710X/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310856639426&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17761860942653280291&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046205&hvtargid=pla-575590595174&psc=1&th=1&psc=1
-
They've got the wrong man, haven't they ?
-
They've got the wrong man, haven't they ?
No idea.
-
So no motive? The issue I have with this is that, looking at what was done, the killer must have been deranged. Based on what we know, Luke has remained a placid prisoner with no signs of significant mental or personality problems. Of course, it could be that he is just psychopathic.
One thing is for sure: if Luke did this, then I can see why he was given a 20 year minimum sentence, despite his age.
He was 14 years old when this happened. It was a youthful lapse of judgement.
His mother took him to a tattoo shop and lied about his age to the owner so he could get a tattoo. Then she helped her son cover up a murder and got her other son to lie in court. This is the woman who raised him, so why is it surprising?
-
He was 14 years old when this happened. It was a youthful lapse of judgement.
His mother took him to a tattoo shop and lied about his age to the owner so he could get a tattoo. Then she helped her son cover up a murder and got her other son to lie in court. This is the woman who raised him, so why is it surprising?
I think 'youthful lapse of judgement' should go down as English understatement. It's more than a lapse of judgement. It is not even an ordinary murder. You could rationalise a situation where he is jealous and in a fit of rage, kills her, but this is so much more. He has basically butchered her and tied her up, perhaps with the intention (the idea occurring to him on the spur of the moment) that he needed to make the murder look non-spontaneous in order to deflect suspicion from himself.
His mother is bound to defend him. I would die for my children, though I'm not sure if I would actually lie in court in these circumstances. I would go a long way for them though, I can tell you that. Maybe Luke is the killer but he lied to his mother and brother and told them he had been waiting around for Jodi, so had no alibi as such, and they needed to cover for him otherwise he would be framed? It's common for close relatives and loved ones to lie in court for that reason, hence the perjury warning that the trial judge gave both the mother and the brother, Shane Mitchell. In the old days, the judge would not have even bothered doing that, he would have just told the jury to treat their evidence with due caution.
-
I think 'youthful lapse of judgement' should go down as English understatement. It's more than a lapse of judgement. It is not even an ordinary murder. You could rationalise a situation where he is jealous and in a fit of rage, kills her, but this is so much more. He has basically butchered her and tied her up, perhaps with the intention (the idea occurring to him on the spur of the moment) that he needed to make the murder look non-spontaneous in order to deflect suspicion from himself.
His mother is bound to defend him. I would die for my children, though I'm not sure if I would actually lie in court in these circumstances. I would go a long way for them though, I can tell you that. Maybe Luke is the killer but he lied to his mother and brother and told them he had been waiting around for Jodi, so had no alibi as such, and they needed to cover for him otherwise he would be framed? It's common for close relatives and loved ones to lie in court for that reason, hence the perjury warning that the trial judge gave both the mother and the brother, Shane Mitchell. In the old days, the judge would not have even bothered doing that, he would have just told the jury to treat their evidence with due caution.
Like I have already said, I am not interested in going over this case again. I put forward the reasons why its obvious Luke is guilty. Why he done it and what was going through his mind at the time is not really important to me.
-
He was 14 years old when this happened. It was a youthful lapse of judgement.
His mother took him to a tattoo shop and lied about his age to the owner so he could get a tattoo. Then she helped her son cover up a murder and got her other son to lie in court. This is the woman who raised him, so why is it surprising?
She will not be the first or last mother to indulge a child. Far better he went to a professional tattooist with parental consent rather than go to some dodgy place without parental consent.
You are forgetting that Luke was interviewed only as a witness in the immediate aftemath. It was another 10 months before he was arrested and charged. Why are the Mitchells going to remember what they were doing and when over routine mundane matters 10 months after the event? And yes David teenage boys watching porn is a routine mundane matter!
-
the tatoo was completlyirlvant to the case anyway how the hell igot admited as evdence i dont know
-
The above can be countered by experts, lawyers and police officers in the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0
Why do you think experts, lawyers, police officers and prog makers are unable or unwilling to produce such a docu re Bamber's case?
I suppose because the issue of the silencer would be raised again, potentially libelling the relatives, as well as possibly Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson, who to my knowledge is still alive.
As far as the YouTube video is concerned, do we know who Scott Forbes' friend is?
-
I suppose because the issue of the silencer would be raised again, potentially libelling the relatives, as well as possibly Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson, who to my knowledge is still alive.
As far as the YouTube video is concerned, do we know who Scott Forbes' friend is?
I believe Scott Forbes has been discredited along with the individual he incriminated
https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12458908.man-named-appeal-tried-sell-story-newspapers/
-
i have yet to see any credible motive the story that luke killed jodi becouse she found out about a holiday with another girl wont really wash they werent married,
a14 year old has no fear of being exposedas a love cheat.
-
i have yet to see any credible motive the story that luke killed jodi becouse she found out about a holiday with another girl wont really wash they werent married,
a14 year old has no fear of being exposedas a love cheat.
So there was a speculated motive? I did ask earlier on and nobody seemed to be able to come up with anything.
To be fair, you could turn that point around and argue that a 14 year old who is mentally-unbalanced could kill for that motive.
But was Like Mitchell mentally-unbalanced? Any evidence that he was? Has he been assessed psychologically while in custody?
-
So there was a speculated motive? I did ask earlier on and nobody seemed to be able to come up with anything.
To be fair, you could turn that point around and argue that a 14 year old who is mentally-unbalanced could kill for that motive.
But was Like Mitchell mentally-unbalanced? Any evidence that he was? Has he been assessed psychologically while in custody?
His devilish doodlings on stationery, taking recreational drugs, possessing a knife, the Black Dahlia drawings: not inculpatory in themselves singly, but given he was at the murder scene it's inevitable that every inch of his life to date was going to be scrutinized.
-
His devilish doodlings on stationery, taking recreational drugs, possessing a knife, the Black Dahlia drawings: not inculpatory in themselves singly, but given he was at the murder scene it's inevitable that every inch of his life to date was going to be scrutinized.
I note all this and it is valid to raise it. None of this equals mental disturbance exactly or an inclination to violence. As we all know, some young people are involved in these sub-cultures and do no wrong. But where did it lead him?
-
So there was a speculated motive? I did ask earlier on and nobody seemed to be able to come up with anything.
To be fair, you could turn that point around and argue that a 14 year old who is mentally-unbalanced could kill for that motive.
But was Like Mitchell mentally-unbalanced? Any evidence that he was? Has he been assessed psychologically while in custody?
he had to see doctors to seeif he was fit to stand trial they all said he was sane and not sufering from any mentel health issues.
-
I note all this and it is valid to raise it. None of this equals mental disturbance exactly or an inclination to violence. As we all know, some young people are involved in these sub-cultures and do no wrong. But where did it lead him?
I note he seemed to stare down a lot: maybe an overthinker? Sandra says he was in the top groups at school. I think his parents' divorce a year previously hit him hard. Maybe it was his way of proving his masculinity? Doctor Todd mentions a new relationship in his life: is it possible he was thinking along these lines and Jodi was now surplus to requirements? Had he led her over the wall on the pretext of sexual intercourse, with Marilyn Manson and Elizabeth Short in mind? He couldn't take her into his bedroom if it was full of his own urine stored in jars.
-
he had to see doctors to seeif he was fit to stand trial they all said he was sane and not sufering from any mentel health issues.
If he was compos mentis this would explain the need in his own mind to clean up and cover his tracks. I'm reminded of the controversial case of Ronald True in 1922.
-
he had to see doctors to seeif he was fit to stand trial they all said he was sane and not sufering from any mentel health issues.
You may have revealed more than you think there. Why would he need to see a doctor at all as part of legal proceedings? That's not typical. Was it purely because of his age? And you mention doctors in the multiple. Were these psychiatrists? Or general practice doctors? Prison doctors? What?
Furthermore, an assessment of fitness to plead (which I assume is what you mean) is limited in scope. It is a minimum bar assessment in which the doctor is evaluating whether the charged individual is mentally competent to plead on arraignment. It doesn't necessarily detect mental health issues, especially latent problems of the kind that a more serious, in-depth examination by a psychiatrist might pick up over multiple sessions.
As usual, more information is needed.
Also, I did additionally ask whether Luke has mental health problems or a personality disorder now? Does he?
I don't want to be leading, but if we are saying he is 'normal', then that has to cast doubt on the prosecution case.
I do say 'if', though.
-
I note he seemed to stare down a lot: maybe an overthinker? Sandra says he was in the top groups at school. I think his parents' divorce a year previously hit him hard. Maybe it was his way of proving his masculinity? Doctor Todd mentions a new relationship in his life: is it possible he was thinking along these lines and Jodi was now surplus to requirements? Had he led her over the wall on the pretext of sexual intercourse, with Marilyn Manson and Elizabeth Short in mind? He couldn't take her into his bedroom if it was full of his own urine stored in jars.
Yes, I've heard that. Not sure if that is another case myth or true, but I can confirm people do store their own urine like this. It is a real phenomenon and a specific behaviour common among schizophrenics. Regrettably, I cannot supply the source - it's something I read about 15 or so years ago when researching schizophrenia.
However, at 14, possibly he was slightly on the young side for schizophrenia, even for a male. I believe it is normally 15 to 18 when it kicks in for male sufferers.
Maybe he was just weird?
The sexual motive is good speculation. I think if he is guilty, there needs to be an explanation for why he was able to walk around a built-up area and be seen without anyone noticing blood. If he planned this, he may have undressed, but down to underclothes, then killed her before there was any sexual contact. I may invite ridicule with that speculation - I'm still thinking about the case.
-
Yes, I've heard that. Not sure if that is another case myth or true, but I can confirm people do store their own urine like this. It is a real phenomenon and a specific behaviour common among schizophrenics. Regrettably, I cannot supply the source - it's something I read about 15 or so years ago when researching schizophrenia.
However, at 14, possibly he was slightly on the young side for schizophrenia, even for a male. I believe it is normally 15 to 18 when it kicks in for male sufferers.
Maybe he was just weird?
The sexual motive is good speculation. I think if he is guilty, there needs to be an explanation for why he was able to walk around a built-up area and be seen without anyone noticing blood. If he planned this, he may have undressed, but down to underclothes, then killed her before there was any sexual contact. I may invite ridicule with that speculation - I'm still thinking about the case.
Just something I wish to add to this:
Sandra Lean is saying that the claim that Luke's brother burnt clothes in the outdoor log stove on the following night is untrue.
Two pieces of evidence that lend support to what Dr. Lean says:
1. Luke was detained by the police immediately on discovery of the body, at which point he had been wearing the same clothes all day.
2. The log stove was forensically examined in July 2003 (the month after the murder) and no trace of clothing was found.
I suppose it is still possible that the following occurred:
(i). Luke committed the murder and returned home wearing bloodied clothes underneath his clean clothes (as I speculate in the immediately preceding post).
(ii). At some point, Luke takes off the bloodied clothes and disposes of them, putting the clean outer clothing back on.
(iii). Either Luke's brother assists him by burning the clothes and the forensic examination does not detect this, or Luke disposed of the clothes in some other way and Luke's brother was acting innocently and guilelessly when he utilised the log stove outside that evening.
One reason this seems unlikely is that there would surely be blood traces on the inside of the 'outer clothes', but were these ever forensically examined by the police, either at the time or later?
-
Apparently the green Parka was never found. His mother allegedly bought him an identical one days after the murder.
-
Apparently the green Parka was never found. His mother allegedly bought him an identical one days after the murder.
Yes, true, and this is where my developing case knowledge falls short as I remembered that but have had to double-check the detail of who says what about what somebody was wearing and when.
Am I right in saying that the only witness who saw someone with a green jacket prior to the presumed murder time was Bryson?
Fleming and Walsh saw someone with a green jacket, but after.
Buying that jacket was a strange thing to do at that time of year (I understand he had bought it recently), but I assume it was a fashion thing. I had teenage children and around about that time and up to, say, 2008/09, teenagers would wear 'retro-cool' clothes like that, a lot of it emulating 1970s fashions. His mother tries to put a motherly spin on it, but looking at the jacket design, it's not anything unusual. Lots of teenagers and people in their 20s could wear similar clothes, even in warmish seasons.
I'm inclined to think that if he did this, there would be blood all over him and he would not be able to hide it. I am being conservative and pro-prosecution in assuming he did not get any blood on his face and in his hair and on hands and fingernails, etc. Just clothes. I then assume the parka went in the log burner or somewhere else. This still leaves us with a problem.
Maybe he zipped up the parka after, but then how do we explain the Fleming and Walsh evidence, on which the prosecution relied? They aver he stood there with his jacket open, casual as anything.
More again, we also have to consider the inherent fragility of witness evidence, especially in a high-profile case that attracted media coverage. Fleming freely admits she identified Luke Mitchell from a newspaper, which makes her evidence inherently unreliable - in my opinion. One thing that also worries me slightly about the specifics of Fleming's evidence is that she refers to the person standing there with his jacket collar up, but if you look at Luke Mitchell's jacket (I assume it's the German Army parka), he wouldn't have his collar up. The design of Luke's jacket doesn't seem to match her observations.
-
If they both undressed for sex there would be minimal blood on his clothes. He could kill her high on drugs and then get dressed. I don't know. Post-murder I do blame the media in the interim, whoever the culprit was.
-
If they both undressed for sex there would be minimal blood on his clothes. He could kill her high on drugs and then get dressed. I don't know. Post-murder I do blame the media in the interim, whoever the culprit was.
This is also where my thinking is going. One problem with it is that it means she would have to be found re-clothed, which ought to compromise him forensically, yet no blood prints were found. Maybe he 'cleaned' the scene? I admit it's starting to become overly-contrived now, like I'm trying to make the facts fit the suspect.
So far, for him to be guilty, I have him wearing two layers of clothes, with a green German Army parka-style jacket on top.
They meet at wherever it was along the path, behind the wall, and begin undressing, and just as he has got her vulnerable, he attacks her.
He kills her.
Then he re-clothes her as necessary, being careful not to leave any blood prints. He doesn't care about latent fingerprints and DNA because he's her boyfriend and, all being equal, such evidence cannot incriminate him.
He also doesn't care about transfer blood stains from his own bloodied clothing, as it's her blood anyway. There is a forensic risk here, due to possible fibre transference, but he doesn't care about that either as he has already taken his outer clothing layer off and will dispose of the compromised clothing later. (Nevertheless, there is still a risk of secondary transfer fibres from other clothing of his, including the outer layer he has already taken off, but he probably doesn't think of it, or if he does, takes his chances).
He ties her up because he needs to stage this as a non-spontaneous killing. His reasoning is that this should deflect suspicion from him (it doesn't, but that's another matter).
He then conceals his own bloodied layer of clothing with the outer layer and parka (or, in the alternative, he takes the bloodied clothing off now and conceals it somewhere there and then, to be collected later - though that seems doubtful, for several reasons).
He then returns home, but stops along the way at the gate to the path at the Newbattle end, affecting to be waiting for somebody. This may be due to a vaguely-formed (and badly-thought out) idea that he needed to be seen standing around casually, so as to minimise suspicion on himself.
If, as seems likely, he is still wearing the bloodied clothes, he takes them off at home. He then lies to his brother about what has happened, perhaps saying he acted in self-defence, and his brother then burns the clothing. Or his brother is oblivious and Luke has disposed of the clothing some other way. At this point, he makes the decision to dispose of the green jacket as well, even though he was loitering around deliberatively in it at the Newbattle gate. He also has to dispose of the knife.
There is the beginnings of a pro-guilt scenario. Probably there are holes in it, as I am still researching the case. It's probably also, as I say, overly-contrived and maybe too complicated for a 14 year old.
-
Why does he need to reclothe her? https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL%3A+NAKED+AND+MUTILATED%3B+Jury+see+video+of+her...-a0124597244
-
Why does he need to reclothe her? https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL%3A+NAKED+AND+MUTILATED%3B+Jury+see+video+of+her...-a0124597244
Sorry, I thought I'd read somewhere that she was found semi-naked with some clothing on. Must be my mistake.
-
If she was found naked, that does seem to me a further point against him. It implies she knew and trusted the assailant. If somebody had threatened her at knife point and told her to strip, she could have fled.
-
One further comment and I will probably leave it for the evening.
Now that I know she was found naked, and taking that fact together with other facts, I have come to the provisional conclusion that the killer is somebody she knew. It must be somebody very close to her.
The only thing that could change my mind about that and consider a predator killing (apart from somebody confessing) is if it turns out that blood was found on any of her upper clothing - shirt, jacket, maybe bra.
-
One further comment and I will probably leave it for the evening.
Now that I know she was found naked, and taking that fact together with other facts, I have come to the provisional conclusion that the killer is somebody she knew. It must be somebody very close to her.
The only thing that could change my mind about that and consider a predator killing (apart from somebody confessing) is if it turns out that blood was found on any of her upper clothing - shirt, jacket, maybe bra.
Just a thought, could the urine be stored to evade tests of some kind? Some parents test their children for drugs if they think they have a drug problem, I understand. Her clothes were cut from her body and her bra was cut in the middle. The two parts were placed together one inside the other and laid by her body.
-
Just a thought, could the urine be stored to evade tests of some kind? Some parents test their children for drugs if they think they have a drug problem, I understand. Her clothes were cut from her body and her bra was cut in the middle. The two parts were placed together one inside the other and laid by her body.
Good point.
What do you think of the deduction, so far, that the killer had to be somebody known to her? Do you agree or disagree? The issue I have with a predator killer is that, if she was found naked, whoever did this has to persuade her to undress or force her to undress. The first seems unlikely in all the surrounding circumstances (meeting boyfriend at same location, and so on), the second I may be persuaded of if there was blood on the upper clothes that were discarded at the scene. Otherwise, she could have just fled or screamed merry-hell, couldn't she?
-
Good point.
What do you think of the deduction, so far, that the killer had to be somebody known to her? Do you agree or disagree? The issue I have with a predator killer is that, if she was found naked, whoever did this has to persuade her to undress or force her to undress. The first seems unlikely in all the surrounding circumstances (meeting boyfriend at same location, and so on), the second I may be persuaded of if there was blood on the upper clothes that were discarded at the scene. Otherwise, she could have just fled or screamed merry-hell, couldn't she?
She received a blunt force trauma to the back of the head. This could have facilitated the attacker to gain the upper hand whilst she was bound. No weapon was found. Some of her hair had been pulled from her scalp. It looked as if she had put up a struggle according to reports. The crime scene was not protected and overnight rain disturbed the forensics. LM could not have planned for that.
-
She received a blunt force trauma to the back of the head. This could have facilitated the attacker to gain the upper hand whilst she was bound. No weapon was found. Some of her hair had been pulled from her scalp. It looked as if she had put up a struggle according to reports.
OK, that does make me think. He must have done that on the path. So we're saying the killer pulls her clothes off while she is unconscious.
Do you know if any blood was found on the discarded clothes?
-
OK, that does make me think. He must have done that on the path. So we're saying the killer pulls her clothes off while she is unconscious.
Do you know if any blood was found on the discarded clothes?
No I do not but she could have been lured over the wall by cries for help or from someone pretending to be lost. She may have been attacked on the path and bundled over the wall. Her clothes were cut from her.
Dr SL is the one to ask about this detail. Not all of it is in the public domain I understand. There was a sighting of the so called 'Stocky man' seen following a female who may have been JJ onto the path.
-
I don't think there's enough information in the public domain to reach any sort of conclusion.
-
And yet the person he is accused of murdering described him as "sweet":
Extracts from Jodi's diary are read out in court in which she explains her feelings for Luke.
It reads: 'I think I am actually in love with Luke, well nearly.
'Not in the stupid way I love Butch, I mean real love.
'God I think I'd die if he finished with me.' She added: 'He's just so sweet.
'No matter what he says, I believe him and that is really dangerous.
'I'll have to be careful - I've had my trust broken too many times.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+I+think+I%27m+actually+in+love+with+Luke..+well...-a0125381355
Anyone know who Butch is referred to above?
-
If she was found naked, that does seem to me a further point against him. It implies she knew and trusted the assailant. If somebody had threatened her at knife point and told her to strip, she could have fled.
How do you know her clothes were not ripped/slashed off? It was summer so unlikely she was wearing a lot of clothing.
I don't see how the fact she was found naked suggests she knew and trusted the perp?
-
No I do not but she could have been lured over the wall by cries for help or from someone pretending to be lost. She may have been attacked on the path and bundled over the wall. Her clothes were cut from her.
Dr SL is the one to ask about this detail. Not all of it is in the public domain I understand. There was a sighting of the so called 'Stocky man' seen following a female who may have been JJ onto the path.
Have you got a source for clothes being cut from her body? Did this match her wounds? Was it confirmed by the pathologist?
-
How do you know her clothes were not ripped/slashed off? It was summer so unlikely she was wearing a lot of clothing.
I don't see how the fact she was found naked suggests she knew and trusted the perp?
My understanding is that her clothes were 'cut off'. Her hands were bound behind her back using her trousers. She was all but decapitated. Her left breast was heavily incised. Watch the video with the pathologist. He is featured in the first of the two channel five programmes.
-
My understanding is that her clothes were 'cut off'. Her hands were bound behind her back using her trousers. She was all but decapitated. Her left breast was heavily incised. Watch the video with the pathologist. He is featured in the first of the two channel five programmes.
I would like to read the pm.
Why has Dr Lean and/or Mrs Mitchell/Luke decided not to put info in the public domain or are their hands tied in some way? Why not set up a forum such as this one to discuss with as much case related material as possible?
I don't think its really possible to discuss/debate the case due to the lack of info. Much of the info in the public domain appears unreliable. Eg the following states points away from Luke but also states Jodie was sexually assaulted when I thought there was no such assault?
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/fbi-officer-who-worked-jodi-22038262
And yet here:
There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
I would like to read the pm.
Why has Dr Lean and/or Mrs Mitchell/Luke decided not to put info in the public domain or are their hands tied in some way? Why not set up a forum such as this one to discuss with as much case related material as possible?
I don't think its really possible to discuss/debate the case due to the lack of info. Much of the info in the public domain appears unreliable. Eg the following states points away from Luke but also states Jodie was sexually assaulted when I thought there was no such assault?
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/fbi-officer-who-worked-jodi-22038262
And yet here:
There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
There is not a wealth of material in this case. It does not have the depth of information and documentation that exists in the Bamber case. The information that we have is about all there is. At face value you have to accept the Crown's case because there is no alternative perpetrator who has not been fully checked out. The only alternative to my mind is some deranged individual who planned and executed the crime. You should search and read 'Stocky man' threads on this forum.
-
There is not a wealth of material in this case. It does not have the depth of information and documentation that exists in the Bamber case. The information that we have is about all there is. At face value you have to accept the Crown's case because there is no alternative perpetrator who has not been fully checked out. The only alternative to my mind is some deranged individual who planned and executed the crime. You should search and read 'Stocky man' threads on this forum.
Do you mean not as much material was collected in the first instance or that we only have access to a limited amount? I am assuming Dr Lean had more info for her book? I haven't read the book btw.
Why does anyone have to accept the Crown's case because an alternative isn't currently known about?
The authorities had Colin Stagg marked for the murder of Rachel Nickell but we now know it was actually Robert Napper. Why can't a Robert Napper type be responsible here and just slipped under the radar as Napper did?
-
Do you mean not as much material was collected in the first instance or that we only have access to a limited amount? I am assuming Dr Lean had more info for her book? I haven't read the book btw.
Why does anyone have to accept the Crown's case because an alternative isn't currently known about?
The authorities had Colin Stagg marked for the murder of Rachel Nickell but we now know it was actually Robert Napper. Why can't a Robert Napper type be responsible here and just slipped under the radar as Napper did?
Whenever you post, I can hear someone somewhere sucking eggs....
-
Whenever you post, I can hear someone somewhere sucking eggs....
Thought you had me on ignore ::)
-
Thought you had me on ignore ::)
I need to practice at sucking eggs. That's why I come on the Forum and read some of your posts, so I can learn how to suck eggs.
-
I need to practice at sucking eggs. That's why I come on the Forum and read some of your posts, so I can learn how to suck eggs.
What is it with you and sucking? Sucking **** and now sucking eggs :-\
-
What is it with you and sucking? Sucking **** and now sucking eggs :-\
Well you're the one who keeps bringing up the other subject, not me.
I'm just expressing how much I appreciate your educative posts. I just never knew that in order to understand a case, I need to look at the evidence. Thanks.
-
Well you're the one who keeps bringing up the other subject, not me.
I'm just expressing how much I appreciate your educative posts. I just never knew that in order to understand a case, I need to look at the evidence. Thanks.
Which begs the question why you keep uploading podcasts by the CT!
-
Which begs the question why you keep uploading podcasts by the CT!
I don't understand your question, sorry. Not least, it's unclear what question you think I am begging.
-
Any psychiatric hospitals in the vicinity or patients from elsewhere on some sort of visiting order?
-
There is not a wealth of material in this case. It does not have the depth of information and documentation that exists in the Bamber case. The information that we have is about all there is. At face value you have to accept the Crown's case because there is no alternative perpetrator who has not been fully checked out. The only alternative to my mind is some deranged individual who planned and executed the crime. You should search and read 'Stocky man' threads on this forum.
Sandra has admitted she can post all the evidence on here. She has given us a few snippets and even that made Lukes guilt more apparent.
You dont want to end up like Nugnug. Spending 10 years on a wild goose chase because he fell for Sandra and Corrines BS hook line and sinker.
-
Sandra has admitted she can post all the evidence on here. She has given us a few snippets and even that made Lukes guilt more apparent.
You dont want to end up like Nugnug. Spending 10 years on a wild goose chase because he fell for Sandra and Corrines BS hook line and sinker.
I do not accept your view. I am perfectly capable of researching this case. In fact I have and I have also come to the conclusion of who dunnit. It was QC. He dressed up in a kilt and instead of a surf board he used a kayak and entered the area by a local river. Please do not spout your own closed mind views here. You have no ideas worth spouting. I do not consider it a wild goose chase. It is possible that LM has something new since new legal representatives have been appointed.
-
I do not accept your view. I am perfectly capable of researching this case. In fact I have and I have also come to the conclusion of who dunnit. It was QC. He dressed up in a kilt and instead of a surf board he used a kayak and entered the area by a local river. Please do not spout your own closed mind views here. You have no ideas worth spouting. I do not consider it a wild goose chase. It is possible that LM has something new since new legal representatives have been appointed.
I'm saying nothing. I'm remaining silent. I want a solicitor! And a lie detector test! Oh, and some magic mushrooms.
Wait....how do you know about the kayak?
-
Do you mean not as much material was collected in the first instance or that we only have access to a limited amount? I am assuming Dr Lean had more info for her book? I haven't read the book btw.
Why does anyone have to accept the Crown's case because an alternative isn't currently known about?
The authorities had Colin Stagg marked for the murder of Rachel Nickell but we now know it was actually Robert Napper. Why can't a Robert Napper type be responsible here and just slipped under the radar as Napper did?
I agree that it could be an alternative culprit. However, this would need the case to be reopened by the police and that would likely require grounds. Stagg was freed by the judge before the trial started, because of the over zealous pursuit of Stagg and the 'Honey trap'. The true killer confessed 16 years later and had spent time in Broadmoor for a similar offence.
Though all local alternatives have been eliminated there just remains three remote suspects. Stocky man. Loiterer near the school at car with bonnet up. A person of interest who came to the attention of the police during the reconstruction.
I do not believe the volume of data comes anywhere near that of JB because of all the subsequent investigations and appeals.
The number of victims and the complexity of the crime scene also makes for big differences in evidence. Then there was the sheer number of officers involved etc. etc. Need I go on?
-
I'm saying nothing. I'm remaining silent. I want a solicitor! And a lie detector test! Oh, and some magic mushrooms.
Wait....how do you know about the kayak?
I happened to have a friend who was snorkelling in the river looking for crayfish and he spotted you. The game is up.
-
Do you mean not as much material was collected in the first instance or that we only have access to a limited amount? I am assuming Dr Lean had more info for her book? I haven't read the book btw.
Why does anyone have to accept the Crown's case because an alternative isn't currently known about?
The authorities had Colin Stagg marked for the murder of Rachel Nickell but we now know it was actually Robert Napper. Why can't a Robert Napper type be responsible here and just slipped under the radar as Napper did?
That's a very good point CC, though statistically I'm sure it's remote. Don't respond to the abuse: we know the perpetrator who initiates then dismisses with disdain the notion that he is in any way responsible.
-
That's a very good point CC, though statistically I'm sure it's remote. Don't respond to the abuse: we know the perpetrator who initiates then dismisses with disdain the notion that he is in any way responsible.
You, she and Adam start the abuse. I won't allow you to get away with affecting to hold a moral high ground that your low morals don't warrant.
-
That's a very good point CC, though statistically I'm sure it's remote. Don't respond to the abuse: we know the perpetrator who initiates then dismisses with disdain the notion that he is in any way responsible.
I had already responded to QT which asked me to clarify my statements. You have also responded to the good point she makes but you have 'Tagged' it with another snipe at QC. Can you all stop this pointless points scoring and address the issues like adults.
-
i think she was probely kiled later than was liameda timeof death couldent be given by the patholgist i just cant see a body being there that long in daylight in a publi place and nobody seeing i think the timeofdeath alleged by the polie must b wrong.
-
Sandra has admitted she can post all the evidence on here. She has given us a few snippets and even that made Lukes guilt more apparent.
You dont want to end up like Nugnug. Spending 10 years on a wild goose chase because he fell for Sandra and Corrines BS hook line and sinker.
Why doesn't she then?
Do they read this forum?
-
i think she was probely kiled later than was liameda timeof death couldent be given by the patholgist i just cant see a body being there that long in daylight in a publi place and nobody seeing i think the timeofdeath alleged by the polie must b wrong.
The body was somewhat hidden in all the foilage?
-
i think she was probely kiled later than was liameda timeof death couldent be given by the patholgist i just cant see a body being there that long in daylight in a publi place and nobody seeing i think the timeofdeath alleged by the polie must b wrong.
It was quite thick undergrowth nugnug, off the main path.
-
I had already responded to QT which asked me to clarify my statements. You have also responded to the good point she makes but you have 'Tagged' it with another snipe at QC. Can you all stop this pointless points scoring and address the issues like adults.
They are here for a reason. It's not just childish bickering. It's being done on purpose to discourage posting that is critical of the case against Jeremy Bamber.
I must also reflect on the irony that I started this thread and other threads in this sub-forum on the Luke Mitchell case, with the result that the sub-forum is active again. I do contribute to the Forum. I have also tried to persuade Mike and NGB1066 to moderate the Forum more stringently, but they won't.
-
It was quite thick undergrowth nugnug, off the main path.
but there was blood all over the wall and on the path now im ure some would of spoted that in daylight anyway.
-
but there was blood all over the wall and on the path now im ure some would of spoted that in daylight anyway.
Not necessarily since the path was shaded by the trees and she was behind/ on the other side of the wall. She was not found on the main path as far as I am aware.
Is it possible she was attacked on the path and tried to escape by clambering over the wall while injured if her blood was on the path and wall?
-
people walk there dogs down that path it rather suprises me that a dog wouldent of smelt the blood.
-
If she was found naked, that does seem to me a further point against him. It implies she knew and trusted the assailant. If somebody had threatened her at knife point and told her to strip, she could have fled.
The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Much has been made about the fact that Luke made a call to the speaking clock at 1654. And yet we are told text messages made on Mrs Jones' phone between Jodie and Luke that preceded this call were not preserved. On what basis were they lost? I believe mobile phone forensics can in most cases recover lost data?
[10] The deceased's freedom to go out of an evening was restricted by her mother in the weeks prior to her death, but she was released from that restriction on the afternoon of the murder. She arrived home at around 1605 hours. At 1635 she used her mother's mobile phone to send a text message to the appellant. The appellant responded at 1636. A further text was sent by the deceased to him at 1638. The terms of these text messages were not preserved. The deceased left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and would be "mucking about up here". At 1654 a call was made from the appellant's mobile telephone to the speaking clock.
-
View David’s profileDavid Scofield
David Scofield 8:22 PM
Much has been made about the fact that Luke made a call to the speaking clock at 1654. And yet we are told text messages made on Mrs Jones' phone between Jodie and Luke that preceded this call were not preserved. On what basis were they lost? I believe mobile phone forensics can in most cases recover lost data?
[10] The deceased's freedom to go out of an evening was restricted by her mother in the weeks prior to her death, but she was released from that restriction on the afternoon of the murder. She arrived home at around 1605 hours. At 1635 she used her mother's mobile phone to send a text message to the appellant. The appellant responded at 1636. A further text was sent by the deceased to him at 1638. The terms of these text messages were not preserved. The deceased left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and would be "mucking about up here". At 1654 a call was made from the appellant's mobile telephone to the speaking clock.
I see this aspect as a cul-de-sac. Mobile phones were still pretty basic in 2003. The first iphone came out in 2007. The most popular at the time was the infamous Nokia 3310. With these early phones it was easier to delete messages by mistake. You could delete the latest text but on some phones if you pressed a button twice it would switch to delete all.
There are too many variables to this aspect to reach any conclusion.
They always deleted their messages so their parents could not know what they were up to with regard to sex and drug issues. Why was JJ under a curfew? They deleted them because storage was limited. JJ deleted them because she was texting other individuals. LM was just playing with his phone while he waited. Most phones had up to four basic games. He was checking the time because his watch was playing up and she was late. He was just doodling with the phone. A less than tec savvy police man deleted them in error. The messages hinted at an alternative suspect and they deleted them to cover up their mistakes.
One can go on forever with this but ultimately it is unresolvable and may not relate in any way to the killing.
They do provide aspects of the full timeline.
-
I see this aspect as a cul-de-sac. Mobile phones were still pretty basic in 2003. The first iphone came out in 2007. The most popular at the time was the infamous Nokia 3310. With these early phones it was easier to delete messages by mistake. You could delete the latest text but on some phones if you pressed a button twice it would switch to delete all.
There are too many variables to this aspect to reach any conclusion.
They always deleted their messages so their parents could not know what they were up to with regard to sex and drug issues. Why was JJ under a curfew? They deleted them because storage was limited. JJ deleted them because she was texting other individuals. LM was just playing with his phone while he waited. Most phones had up to four basic games. He was checking the time because his watch was playing up and she was late. He was just doodling with the phone. A less than tec savvy police man deleted them in error. The messages hinted at an alternative suspect and they deleted them to cover up their mistakes.
One can go on forever with this but ultimately it is unresolvable and may not relate in any way to the killing.
They do provide aspects of the full timeline.
At what point did investigators realise the importance of these text messages? Did Mrs Jones make available her phone? Did any expert attempt to recover the data? These texts are surely pivotal because would have said where, when, time meeting? Were jurors aware of these lost text messages?
-
i think she was probely kiled later than was liameda timeof death couldent be given by the patholgist i just cant see a body being there that long in daylight in a publi place and nobody seeing i think the timeofdeath alleged by the polie must b wrong.
Cyclist Leonard Kelly cycled by the area Jodie was found circa 5pm and heard a "strangling" sound.
Is Leonard Kelly any relation to Steven Kelly - Jodi's sister's boyfriend?
-
Why did Jodie's mother not go out to look for her?
-
Why did Jodie's mother not go out to look for her?
well tobe fair there were 3 other people looking for her.
im more suprised they went to the woods to look for her whydid they think she would be in the woods
what would a14 year ol be doing hanging around in wood in the dark on her own
-
Why did Jodie's mother not go out to look for her?
Can I suggest someone needed to be at home to man the phone or be there if she showed up or to receive/field calls relating to her disappearance from emergency services. May be she was checking local hospitals etc..
-
Cyclist Leonard Kelly cycled by the area Jodie was found circa 5pm and heard a "strangling" sound.
Is Leonard Kelly any relation to Steven Kelly - Jodi's sister's boyfriend?
I do believe they were related. This is a piece of confection. What can we say or agree constitutes a 'Strangling' sound. It could have been an animal small deer, hedgehog, badger or a bird. The Covid family have a range of calls. Listen to hedgehog on line. The sound could be distorted by the surroundings, trees, bushes , the wall. Additionally he was moving and not standing looking for the source. I have often been tricked by strange sounds. Once I heard a noise I felt strange and could not identify. In the end it turned out to be two tree branches rubbing together in the breeze.
All this does is bolster/reinforce a TOD of around 5pm.
-
Can I suggest someone needed to be at home to man the phone or be there if she showed up or to receive/field calls relating to her disappearance from emergency services. May be she was checking local hospitals etc..
Yes good points. I thought perhaps she may have been working. Did the grandmother live locally?
-
well tobe fair there were 3 other people looking for her.
im more suprised they went to the woods to look for her whydid they think she would be in the woods
what would a14 year ol be doing hanging around in wood in the dark on her own
Well my understanding is that they took the route they thought Jodie took.
-
I do believe they were related. This is a piece of confection. What can we say or agree constitutes a 'Strangling' sound. It could have been an animal small deer, hedgehog, badger or a bird. The Covid family have a range of calls. Listen to hedgehog on line. The sound could be distorted by the surroundings, trees, bushes , the wall. Additionally he was moving and not standing looking for the source. I have often been tricked by strange sounds. Once I heard a noise I felt strange and could not identify. In the end it turned out to be two tree branches rubbing together in the breeze.
All this does is bolster/reinforce a TOD of around 5pm.
Were?
Yes he could have been mistaken about the sound.
Did Steven Kelly and Janine Jones go on to marry?
Is their an ordnance survey map of the area showing the relevant sites eg the homes of Jodie and Luke, footpath with V etc?
Did the police take footprints/cycle tyre treads?
What's happening with the case at the moment?
Thanks.
-
Well my understanding is that they took the route they thought Jodie took.
but she had taken that route 5 hours earlyer what were the chances of her being anywhere near it 5 hours later
-
but she had taken that route 5 hours earlyer what were the chances of her being anywhere near it 5 hours later
Well she was there 5 hours later but sadly murdered.
If you were looking for someone in such circumstances where would you start? I would start from her home and then follow the intended route and that's what they did. Where else would you expect them to start looking? No doubt her mother was ringing round all her known associates.
-
Well she was there 5 hours later but sadly murdered.
If you were looking for someone in such circumstances where would you start? I would start from her home and then follow the intended route and that's what they did. Where else would you expect them to start looking? No doubt her mother was ringing round all her known associates.
i would start by phoning her friends and asking if they had seen her somthing jodis mum never seemed to think to do
-
1 Were?
2 Yes he could have been mistaken about the sound.
3 Did Steven Kelly and Janine Jones go on to marry?
4 Is their an ordnance survey map of the area showing the relevant sites eg the homes of Jodie and Luke, footpath with V etc?
5 Did the police take footprints/cycle tyre treads?
6 What's happening with the case at the moment?
Thanks.
1 If they are both still alive they are related
2 Glad you agree
3 I do not know
4 You can google the area using google maps. Some of the video's show a map which you could view on pause.
5 I do not know.
6 I haven't the foggiest. Why would I? All I know is that a new legal team has been engaged according to reports so guess there may be something taking shape. What this might be after all this time is difficult to imagine.
-
This may be of interest as it shows how things have gained momentum since the 'Murder in a small town' programme aired.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6919979/crime-expert-sandra-lean-fund-effort-free-luke-mitchell/
-
ie notied how the press ha hanged there tune on this ase.
-
Anyone know why Jodie was grounded prior to 30th June?
It was acknowledged at trial by all concerned Luke and Jodie were having a sexual relationship. Anyone know if she was taking the contraceptive pill? If not what sort of precautions were being used?
Whose phone did Luke use to send the text messages to Jodie on 30th June? Did the police examine his phone? Where is this phone now? I assume the phone was too old for cell site analysis to be relevant?
-
Anyone know why Jodie was grounded prior to 30th June?
It was acknowledged at trial by all concerned Luke and Jodie were having a sexual relationship. Anyone know if she was taking the contraceptive pill? If not what sort of precautions were being used?
Whose phone did Luke use to send the text messages to Jodie on 30th June? Did the police examine his phone? Where is this phone now? I assume the phone was too old for cell site analysis to be relevant?
they were using contreption but i think its luke using a condom
she was grounded for smoking weed.
luke ident tet her she texted him on her mumss phone.
-
Anyone know why Jodie was grounded prior to 30th June?
It was acknowledged at trial by all concerned Luke and Jodie were having a sexual relationship. Anyone know if she was taking the contraceptive pill? If not what sort of precautions were being used?
Whose phone did Luke use to send the text messages to Jodie on 30th June? Did the police examine his phone? Where is this phone now? I assume the phone was too old for cell site analysis to be relevant?
I agree it looks like it was for smoking weed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4045025.stm
Not sure about their sexual activity.
It looks as if all calls and texts were from his own phone. The Nokia was limited to about 460 characters which helped spawn texting short hand.
https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/
Evidence re new defence team.
https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2021/06/14/scots-convicted-murderer-luke-mitchell-now-has-new-legal-representation-scottish-crime-news/
-
This is the first time I have posted to this part of the Forum. I have read summaries of the prosecution and defence arguments, and I must say, based on what I have read so far, I am rather underwhelmed by the case against Luke Mitchell and quite surprised he was convicted.
Unfortunately, this may be another one of those cases where there is nothing that can conclusively prove his guilt, and conversely, at one and the same time (and partly for that reason) he cannot produce anything that will exculpate him. I fear the only way this can be resolved is if either he confesses or strong and convincing evidence is found that points to an alternative suspect.
Is there anybody on here who actually thinks he was rightly convicted? If so, what is the single most important piece of evidence that convinces you?
Iam amazed at how Luke was convicted. I find lack of DNA, strange in an horrendous crime like this. How come forensics wasnt taken from other suspects crucial to the case. In which several are mentioned elsewhere. Ifind it odd to comprehend what this man is still going through, though i have my self, but am out and have platforms to use to speak up. This man is limited to forums and i just hope justice prevails in the near future for him. In what is an absolute travesty of justice
-
Iam amazed at how Luke was convicted. I find lack of DNA, strange in an horrendous crime like this. How come forensics wasnt taken from other suspects crucial to the case. In which several are mentioned elsewhere. Ifind it odd to comprehend what this man is still going through, though i have my self, but am out and have platforms to use to speak up. This man is limited to forums and i just hope justice prevails in the near future for him. In what is an absolute travesty of justice
Luke is guilty. Nobody would give this case a second though if it wasn't for the BS Corrine and Sandra put out there.
-
Luke is guilty. Nobody would give this case a second though if it wasn't for the BS Corrine and Sandra put out there.
Why did he do it? Doctor Todd claimed he was in another relationship at the time. Don't get me wrong: he is a strong suspect. I blame the culture he grew up in: drugs, broken home, sex on tap.
-
Why did he do it? Doctor Todd claimed he was in another relationship at the time. Don't get me wrong: he is a strong suspect. I blame the culture he grew up in: drugs, broken home, sex on tap.
thats harly a motie to kill somone they werent married he could of dumped jodi anytime he wanted to if he wante to off with another girl.
-
thats harly a motie to kill somone they werent married he could of dumped jodi anytime he wanted to if he wante to off with another girl.
True nugnug. I wanted David to reply but for whatever reason he doesn't to my posts. It's a shame because interaction does make for a more interesting and enhanced forum.
-
Luke is guilty. Nobody would give this case a second though if it wasn't for the BS Corrine and Sandra put out there.
are the varias eperts who agrea with sandras conclusions also lying is the orginal patholgist lying
-
are the varias eperts who agrea with sandras conclusions are also lying is the orginal patholgist lying
Consider all the experts that contributed to the docu at the end of last year all of whom believe Luke's conviction is dodgy. Bamber doesn't have that sort of support and yet David believes him innocent. David isn't making sense nutnut!
-
Consider all the experts that contributed to the docu at the end of last year all of whom believe Luke's conviction is dodgy. Bamber doesn't have that sort of support and yet David believes him innocent. David isn't making sense nutnut!
you coul say tere opionion might be wrong but to say there lying is a bit of a stretch.
-
Consider all the experts that contributed to the docu at the end of last year all of whom believe Luke's conviction is dodgy. Bamber doesn't have that sort of support and yet David believes him innocent. David isn't making sense nutnut!
There's a chilling article here: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hard-facts-prove-luke-mitchell-23588583
-
Why did he do it? Doctor Todd claimed he was in another relationship at the time. Don't get me wrong: he is a strong suspect. I blame the culture he grew up in: drugs, broken home, sex on tap.
Why would he do it? Has anyone come up with a believable reason for Luke to do something so horrific.
Like you say the culture was unusual for some.
I don't believe he did it or had any reason to
-
Luke is guilty. Nobody would give this case a second though if it wasn't for the BS Corrine and Sandra put out there.
I think Luke is innocent.To many inaccuracies to justify a guilty. Lack of DNA, other suspects not eliminated through examination. Malpractice by police in handling the crime scene, tried by media.
-
I think Luke is innocent.To many inaccuracies to justify a guilty. Lack of DNA, other suspects not eliminated through examination. Malpractice by police in handling the crime scene, tried by media.
Here here. This was a piece of lazy incompetent policing. Listen to the mob.
-
Iam amazed at how Luke was convicted. I find lack of DNA, strange in an horrendous crime like this. How come forensics wasnt taken from other suspects crucial to the case. In which several are mentioned elsewhere. Ifind it odd to comprehend what this man is still going through, though i have my self, but am out and have platforms to use to speak up. This man is limited to forums and i just hope justice prevails in the near future for him. In what is an absolute travesty of justice
Sorry Ray I have spent a few hours looking at the case and from what I have seen my verdict would be quilty.
-
Sorry Ray I have spent a few hours looking at the case and from what I have seen my verdict would be quilty.
i appreciate the reply and stating you think Luke is guilty. What are the main factors that make you believe that?
-
i appreciate the reply and stating you think Luke is guilty. What are the main factors that make you believe that?
Apparently there was DNA found at the scene. Did you read the link at #114?
-
There's a chilling article here: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hard-facts-prove-luke-mitchell-23588583
Yes its pretty much the prosecution case against Luke but all weak points imo. If existing threads do not cover the individual strands in the attached I will start up new ones.
-
Apparently there was DNA found at the scene. Did you read the link at #114?
DNA on items of Jodi's clothing which the defence and prosecution agreed was meaningless since the pair were having an intimate relationship. DNA from Jodi's sister's boyfriend was also found on jodi's tshirt but this was also disregarded since the tshirt apparently belonged to her sister.
-
Yes its pretty much the prosecution case against Luke but all weak points imo. If existing threads do not cover the individual strands in the attached I will start up new ones.
Wasn't there a devil component in the Wembley Park stabbings? I'm also trying to recollect a young man who killed a female on the South Coast, but I can't recall at the moment.
-
Sorry Ray I have spent a few hours looking at the case and from what I have seen my verdict would be quilty.
Interesting that you and David believe Luke Mitchell guilty but Bamber innocent. The case against Bamber is far stronger imo.
Luke's case is entirely circumstantial. In Bamber's case there is circumstantial and direct evidence.
-
Wasn't there a devil component in the Wembley Park stabbings? I'm also trying to recollect a young man who killed a female on the South Coast, but I can't recall at the moment.
I don't know but if the perp was unknown to the victims that would be quite damning evidence.
In Luke's case the fact he was not only known to the victim but also in an intimate relationship with her makes it impossible to say whether DNA was deposited as a result of innocent transfer ie when they were involved in a consensual relationship and what might have been deposited as a result of any foul play.
We know Jodi had been grounded during the lead up to the murder but I am assuming the pair had the opportunity to be together to and from school and at lunchtime.
-
Interesting that you and David believe Luke Mitchell guilty but Bamber innocent. The case against Bamber is far stronger imo.
Luke's case is entirely circumstantial. In Bamber's case there is circumstantial and direct evidence.
Where's the direct evidence in JB's case ? You can answer on the back of a postage stamp if you like !
-
Apparently there was DNA found at the scene. Did you read the link at #114?
ive read loads about the case. I was just interested to know how people decide and based on what. Ive done the same with my own case
-
I remember the case of 6 year old Rikki Neave in 1994 who was found murdered in woodland close to his home. His body posed in a star position. The police were convinced his mother was involved. She allowed Rikki to go and pick up recreational drugs for her use. They constructed a case against her which went to trial but the jury could only find her guilty on neglect charges. Lo and behold nearly 3 decades later the police have charged a man in connection with the murder and the trial is currently underway.
This week I've been watching on iplayer 'Four Lives'/Stephen Port. If anyone wants evidence of police ineptitude this series will not disappoint!
-
Where's the direct evidence in JB's case ? You can answer on the back of a postage stamp if you like !
This section of the forum is dedicated to Luke Mitchell.
-
This section of the forum is dedicated to Luke Mitchell.
You started it by mentioning JB's name ! I've met your sort before, a crafty individual who'd walk out of an argument that you'd started !