Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.

[faithlilly]

Stephen Bennett Retweeted
Claire C
@xMrsCCx
I did always find this an interesting case, for such an awful murder, doesn't make sense for there to be no DNA of his at the scene; but there was her sister bfs on her T-shirt! He passed a lie detector test for another programme #jodijones #lukemitchell
https://mobile.twitter.com/xMrsCCx/status/1362693458289430528

http://www.stephenabennett.com/about/index/

Stephen Bennett
@hello_bennett
Police Scotland satisfied they caught the right man in the Jodi Jones murder.  'Murder in a Small Town', Wed 24th / Thurs 25th, Channel 5 at 9pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/hello_bennett/status/1362778284589780998


https://www.thenational.scot/news/19103764.jodi-jones-murder-police-scotland-satisfied-luke-mitchell-killer/

Jodi Jones murder: Police Scotland 'satisfied' Luke Mitchell is killer
‘POLICE Scotland say they are "satisfied" they caught the right man in connection with the 2003 muder of Jodi Jones.

The force’s defence comes ahead of a new documentary on the killing of the Dalkeith teen, which suggests Luke Mitchell might be the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

He’s protested his innocence ever since his arrest as a 14 year old.

Two former police detectives hired by a new Channel 5 documentary, Murder in a small town, say they believe the now 32-year old man is innocent.

Of course the police say they are ‘satisfied’. I’m sure the police in the Birmingham Six case said exactly the same thing, many times.

[Nicholas]

Is there a thread on the changing of the 3 witness statements?

Luke Mitchell ‘repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased’

Mitchell duped the 3 family members over his dogs reaction

Suspect they hadn’t actually seen Mia react and their initial statements were based on what Luke had told them as opposed to what they’d actually seen

And this wasn’t realised until a later date

[15] The first key concerned the discovery of the deceased's body. Of the search party it was the appellant who first went through the "V" point. The Crown asked the jury to accept the evidence of the other members of the search party to the effect that he had gone straight to the "V" as the party moved down the path, that he did not progress beyond this point before returning to it and that he knew to look left and to explore further in that direction as soon as he climbed through the gap. The inference was that he already knew where the body was located. This explanation was to be contrasted with the appellant's account at police interview when he had stated that, having gone some distance past the "V", he had been alerted by the dog to something behind the wall at that point, had retraced his steps and then climbed through the gap.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[John]

Is there a thread on the changing of the 3 witness statements?

Luke Mitchell ‘repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased’

Mitchell duped the 3 family members over his dogs reaction

Suspect they hadn’t actually seen Mia react and their initial statements were based on what Luke had told them as opposed to what they’d actually seen

And this wasn’t realised until a later date

[15] The first key concerned the discovery of the deceased's body. Of the search party it was the appellant who first went through the "V" point. The Crown asked the jury to accept the evidence of the other members of the search party to the effect that he had gone straight to the "V" as the party moved down the path, that he did not progress beyond this point before returning to it and that he knew to look left and to explore further in that direction as soon as he climbed through the gap. The inference was that he already knew where the body was located. This explanation was to be contrasted with the appellant's account at police interview when he had stated that, having gone some distance past the "V", he had been alerted by the dog to something behind the wall at that point, had retraced his steps and then climbed through the gap.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The question was often asked as to why Mia (Mitchell family trained tracker Alsatian) didn't find Jodi's scent on the first pass as Luke and she walked along the dirt path to meet up with the Jones family?

Surely anyone looking for a missing girlfriend would follow any and all indications given by their tracker dog? And especially so as the V notch in the wall allowed easy access for a young person to climb over.

No, it didn't happen, he walked right past Jodi's body, just feet away and only minutes later supposedly discovered the murder scene with the Jones family in tow. In itself this might not be much but taken with everything else it is damning evidence.

[Bullseye]

I think the answer often given was Luke was walking up a dark path at 11 at night so was not allowing the dog to search, so to speak, he was walking quickly up the path. Once he met the search party they suggested going back down the path, I think that’s when he was said to have told the dog to find Jodi. The dog was then meant to have reacted at the wall, so they walked back to the v to see what was on the other side.

So could be a number of reasons the dog did not react on way up, walking too fast, wind not blowing right way, not in tracker mode I think is one they said also

[rulesapply]

Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:

"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."

She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.

Hi. I realise I'm two years late here but I'm hoping you're still around, Baz. What about Mr. Frankland?

[rulesapply]

The question was often asked as to why Mia (Mitchell family trained tracker Alsatian) didn't find Jodi's scent on the first pass as Luke and she walked along the dirt path to meet up with the Jones family?

Surely anyone looking for a missing girlfriend would follow any and all indications given by their tracker dog? And especially so as the V notch in the wall allowed easy access for a young person to climb over.

No, it didn't happen, he walked right past Jodi's body, just feet away and only minutes later supposedly discovered the murder scene with the Jones family in tow. In itself this might not be much but taken with everything else it is damning evidence.

Someone asked on a Live once if any of the search party had called out to poor Jodi whilst searching. Dr. Lean said the original three members of the search party hadn't called out Jodi's name despite walking through Easthouses. So I asked if LM had called out Jodi's name at all and I was ignored.

[faithlilly]

Someone asked on a Live once if any of the search party had called out to poor Jodi whilst searching. Dr. Lean said the original three members of the search party hadn't called out Jodi's name despite walking through Easthouses. So I asked if LM had called out Jodi's name at all and I was ignored.

Questions are often missed on lives. Why don’t you join one of the groups and asked again?

[rulesapply]

Questions are often missed on lives. Why don’t you join one of the groups and asked again?

I don't want to join a group and I did ask again. I asked after the Live and I asked again after the update that followed that Live. I was ignored.

[faithlilly]

I don't want to join a group and I did ask again. I asked after the Live and I asked again after the update that followed that Live. I was ignored.

I wouldn’t take it personally.

Have you read Dr Lean’s book? Perhaps the answer’s in that or the reports of the testimony given in court? Of course you could also send your question in an email. I’m sure Dr Lean’s email address should be easy to find.

[rulesapply]

I don't want to go off the thread subject so hopefully this may help to clarify some misinformation.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mums-fury-jodi-jones-documentary-24327016?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

[rulesapply]

I wouldn’t take it personally.

Have you read Dr Lean’s book? Perhaps the answer’s in that or the reports of the testimony given in court? Of course you could also send your question in an email. I’m sure Dr Lean’s email address should be easy to find.

Don't stress. I don't take it personally. I've seen that happen to quite a few people.

[faithlilly]

Don't stress. I don't take it personally. I've seen that happen to quite a few people.

Good, I’m glad. Perhaps she mistakenly thought that you were a troll eh?

[rulesapply]

Good, I’m glad. Perhaps she mistakenly thought that you were a troll eh?

I asked a reasonable,  straightforward question. It was a question that had already been asked by someone else but hadn't been answered fully. Uncomfortable questions don't make a person a troll.  That's not what trolling is and given that Dr. Lean has answered some of my other questions before and since then, I don't think me being a troll can be the reason, eh?

[Paranoid Android]

I asked a reasonable,  straightforward question. It was a question that had already been asked by someone else but hadn't been answered fully. Uncomfortable questions don't make a person a troll.  That's not what trolling is and given that Dr. Lean has answered some of my other questions before and since then, I don't think me being a troll can be the reason, eh?

Not you, no.

[faithlilly]

I asked a reasonable,  straightforward question. It was a question that had already been asked by someone else but hadn't been answered fully. Uncomfortable questions don't make a person a troll.  That's not what trolling is and given that Dr. Lean has answered some of my other questions before and since then, I don't think me being a troll can be the reason, eh?

Why do you think that Dr Lean would be uncomfortable answering the question? Did you know the answer already?