Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: Bubo bubo on February 13, 2022, 03:42:PM
-
This article is the best short exposition of the claim of innocence. It details all the major issues surrounding the case with clarity. It shows that there is a very real possibility of a MOJ and anyone who was thinking this was the case will see their suspicions confirmed.
https://paulviking.websitetoolbox.com/post/Infamous-Cases-4689531
Myths are exploded and the way that innuendo has taken the place of real evidence is explored.
My own position has not changed. It seems to me that the case against LM rests on circumstantial evidence alone. Many of the key pieces of this evidence is provided by JJ’s family or relatives. The sightings of LM are all unconfirmed and some involve different clothing.
Although there is only circumstantial evidence against Ferris and Dickie they were sighted within yards of the murder scene whereas all of Luke’s presumed sightings were some distance from the murder site.
Despite this I do not, like Guilters use this to say they must be the killers. I do believe there is another party involved and I am sure the F & D do have some additional information that accounts for their behaviour after the crime.
It also seems that those that believe Luke guilty cannot make up their minds whether it was a premeditated murder or committed in a display of rage and anger. To get round these issues we see the deployment of ever more ridiculous assertions. Who would plan such a murder in broad daylight with the risk of discovery. It goes on, with ‘washing up’ in streams, wading across rivers, laying out a clothing change. They really have to stretch people’s imagination in order to make their various claims stand up.
Most of the existing circumstantial evidence which points to Luke (only points to) comes from the Jones family. Two key changes are the time change of when Jodie left the house (Takes away his alibi) and the changing of their recollection of how the body was found and the dog’s reaction. (Said to show he knew where the body was)
Only they know why they made them and whether they were pressurised. If not pressurised they could have been manipulated.
I would urge people who have little understanding of the case to read this article and make up their own mind.
-
It is not an article it is the chapter from "No Smoke" Which is massively flawed. Where the author relied heavily upon media articles and of course the word of Luke Mitchell. Not much more needs be said, does it?
Do some actual research on this "Mystery Man" read the wording in IB, and try your best to see how it is worded rather than the innuendo intended. Was it not you, yourself who gave media sensationalism a swift kick up the rear? When you are doing exactly that, taking as proof, media sensationalism as fact, as proof?
For that is what the author is doing, it is not from witness statements, it is from newspaper articles!
-
It is not an article it is the chapter from "No Smoke" Which is massively flawed. Where the author relied heavily upon media articles and of course the word of Luke Mitchell. Not much more needs be said, does it?
Do some actual research on this "Mystery Man" read the wording in IB, and try your best to see how it is worded rather than the innuendo intended. Was it not you, yourself who gave media sensationalism a swift kick up the rear? When you are doing exactly that, taking as proof, media sensationalism as fact, as proof?
For that is what the author is doing, it is not from witness statements, it is from newspaper articles!
Good to see you back Parky.
NutNut is now trying to imply that Jodis Aunt is the "real killer".. 😆
-
Although there is only circumstantial evidence against Ferris and Dickie they were sighted within yards of the murder scene whereas all of Luke’s presumed sightings were some distance from the murder site.
Parky has made you look a bit silly here, Bubo.
I will pick up on the sighting. Iv'e asked it a few times now, by who and from where?
-
I've never studied this case but it seems like it is very divisive in terms guilt vs innocence. There doesn't seem to be many waverers.
-
Parky has made you look a bit silly here, Bubo.
I will pick up on the sighting. Iv'e asked it a few times now, by who and from where?
LK also said that he could hear a motorbike in the distance (in the fields north of the rdp woodlands)
but the moped kept cutting out, so the boys had to push the bike often along that path going home and would naturally place the bike on the wall now and again for a rest (the bike was never at the V but quite near to it; the eyewitness who claimed to have seen the bike at the V were several hundred yards away when they made this claim, so it was impossible for them to see exactly where the bike was).
There is no doubt in Geramane's mind that they were on the path near the 'V' . That is a hugely closer position to the murder scene than any LM sighting. I thought Germane was on your side of the argument.
-
It is not an article it is the chapter from "No Smoke" Which is massively flawed. Where the author relied heavily upon media articles and of course the word of Luke Mitchell. Not much more needs be said, does it?
Do some actual research on this "Mystery Man" read the wording in IB, and try your best to see how it is worded rather than the innuendo intended. Was it not you, yourself who gave media sensationalism a swift kick up the rear? When you are doing exactly that, taking as proof, media sensationalism as fact, as proof?
For that is what the author is doing, it is not from witness statements, it is from newspaper articles!
I have no problem relying in part (as both side do) on journalists reporting, particularly if they are quoting from a verifiable source, the trial for example. I suppose a good English example would be to trust the Times but not the Daily Star. What I do not like is tittle tattle reporting where an unnamed source seeks their 15 minutes of fame and says something which plays to a particular audience.
He came up to me and touched me on the leg with his knife says local school friend, might be the sort of thing I mean. This then becomes a fact as others jump on the Bandwagon. This can then become, Jodie killer threated girl with knife in playground. Reports in local newspaper speaks to victim of convicted murderer LM etc. etc.
Who is the mystery man you refer to? and what is IB when its at home? Thanks.
PS Unlike the JB case there is precious little case material like witness statements, autopsy findings etc. in the public domain. We are forced to rely most heavily on the newspapers for information. I guess you have to rely on them and TV reporting for much of the evidence.
PPS There is NO forensic evidence linking LM to the crime. Given the nature of the act I feel this outweighs the circumstantial evidence.
-
There is no doubt in Geramane's mind that they were on the path near the 'V' . That is a hugely closer position to the murder scene than any LM sighting. I thought Germane was on your side of the argument.
That's not what i asked, and it is not what you said. I will repeat, where were they sighted from and by who?
-
I have no problem relying in part (as both side do) on journalists reporting, particularly if they are quoting from a verifiable source, the trial for example. I suppose a good English example would be to trust the Times but not the Daily Star. What I do not like is tittle tattle reporting where an unnamed source seeks their 15 minutes of fame and says something which plays to a particular audience.
He came up to me and touched me on the leg with his knife says local school friend, might be the sort of thing I mean. This then becomes a fact as others jump on the Bandwagon. This can then become, Jodie killer threated girl with knife in playground. Reports in local newspaper speaks to victim of convicted murderer LM etc. etc.
Who is the mystery man you refer to? and what is IB when its at home? Thanks.
PS Unlike the JB case there is precious little case material like witness statements, autopsy findings etc. in the public domain. We are forced to rely most heavily on the newspapers for information. I guess you have to rely on them and TV reporting for much of the evidence.
PPS There is NO forensic evidence linking LM to the crime. Given the nature of the act I feel this outweighs the circumstantial evidence.
Your hypocrisy is extraordinary. It really is a common theme among the pro - Mitchell clan.
-
Good to see you back Parky.
NutNut is now trying to imply that Jodis Aunt is the "real killer".. 😆
no i just aked the aunts were the car park. how you an imply thatas acusation i dont know.
-
I've never studied this case but it seems like it is very divisive in terms guilt vs innocence. There doesn't seem to be many waverers.
TBH, the case is closed. Mitchell will probably spend most of his life behind bars, if not all. There is no new groundbreaking evidence, it's the same old going round in circles. My own gripe, is that they continue to implicate others, that have been cleared of any wrong doing. Their only true source is Sandra Lean, IMO she has an agenda, she is not an impartial source. An online troll and promotes innocent fraud.
-
That's not what i asked, and it is not what you said. I will repeat, where were they sighted from and by who?
I suggest you ask Germane that is my source.
-
TBH, the case is closed. Mitchell will probably spend most of his life behind bars, if not all. There is no new groundbreaking evidence, it's the same old going round in circles. My own gripe, is that they continue to implicate others, that have been cleared of any wrong doing. Their only true source is Sandra Lean, IMO she has an agenda, she is not an impartial source. An online troll and promotes innocent fraud.
I have stated categorically that I do not accuse anyone least of all Ferris and Dickie. I question their behaviour after the crime suggesting they may have information which could have implicated them despite their innocence.
-
Your hypocrisy is extraordinary. It really is a common theme among the pro - Mitchell clan.
Please indicate my hypocrisy rather than just claiming it. Thanks.
-
I suggest you ask Germane that is my source.
What that poster said and what you have said are 2 completely different things. If you don't know, then just say you don't know and retract your claim. The fact that you are trying to pass the buck, stir up trouble(another common theme from pro- Mitchell clan), has not gone unnoticed, you have been pulled up before from other posters regarding this.
-
Please indicate my hypocrisy rather than just claiming it. Thanks.
No need for me to indicate. Some of your previous posts indicate it perfectly. As has already been pointed out, lol.
-
What that poster said and what you have said are 2 completely different things. If you don't know, then just say you don't know and retract your claim. The fact that you are trying to pass the buck, stir up trouble(another common theme from pro- Mitchell clan), has not gone unnoticed, you have been pulled up before from other posters regarding this.
I have said the same thing as Germane. They were seen on the path by the wall close to but not actually at the 'v'. To me that is closer to the murder site than sightings of LM. What's your problem? I fail to understand how I am stirring up trouble. Please explain?
-
No need for me to indicate. Some of your previous posts indicate it perfectly. As has already been pointed out, lol.
Well I just guess we will have to let readers make their own minds on that one. Why are you so rattled? Does my different view trouble you in some way? You appear to be getting aggressive towards me for no good reason?
-
Well I just guess we will have to let readers make their own mind on that one. Why are you so rattled? Does my different view trouble you in some way? You appear to be getting aggressive towards me for no good reason?
Now you have been caught out by several posters, you resort to gaslighting. I will leave you too it pal, you and nugs can conspire till your hearts content. For me, you are a complete and utter waste of space.
-
Now you have been caught out by several posters, you resort to gaslighting. I will leave you too it pal, you and nugs can conspire till your hearts content. For me, you are a complete and utter waste of space.
You appear to have lost the plot. You are making all kinds of accusations but failing to provide the evidence when asked to do so. I have not made any trouble but I have made posts which support innocence. Is that what is worrying you? Where have I been 'caught out'?
-
Gaslighting is said to be about manipulating people using psychological means so they doubt their own sanity. I could say no need to in your case, you already display such tendencies. That would be a joke. You believe what you wish. I am not hear to convert unbelievers. I am merely arguing that the LM case IMO may be a MOJ, nothing sinister or trouble making in that.
I think that LM got a raw deal because public opinion had him guilty on circumstantial evidence only before the trial began. Small town attitudes and an unwillingness to embrace other options helped seal his fate.
There is a world beyond Newbattle and Easthouses and there are lot of 'nutters' out there who may enter your area and do nasty things. It happens all over the world. What makes you think that such things cannot happen where you live.