The POLICE were too STUPID to fathom this out

[William Wallace]

Yes, in my opinion the Police were too stupid to fathom this out. Once they had allowed the crime scene to be contaminated for 7 hours, they then failed to search the houses of anyone except Mitchell because Dobbie had already decided he must have done it. They were suffering from "confirmation bias" from the first minute of the investigation. Murders such as those carried out by Tobin and Sinclair had no real motive apart from killing their victims. Now a character like either of them did not just happen to be hiding in the trees carrying weapons, over the wall at the path at about 5pm in broad daylight with dog walkers and cyclists around.  Killers like the above 2 were smart, they abducted their victims and took them where there was no chance of other people being around.


The "moped boys" took 5 days to tell the Police it was them on the moped the day of the murder. The Police were too thick to question the motives and statements of 2 people you wouldn't trust to keep 50p for you. These 2 were never identified by anyone whilst on the moped. The fact is, nobody knows WHO was on that moped.

To return back to motive. Mitchell had no motive to kill his girlfriend. Did the Police investigate anyone who might have had a motive? No they didn't. These Police were stupid. They had no experience of similar murders because they're rare in Scotland. When the DNA tests failed to match Mitchell they should have called in the FBI as this case was out of their league. They missed several clues and failed to identify other suspects. They also missed the most obvious clue of all.......the victim's hair was pulled out at the roots. That is a highly unusual facet of murders carried out by men. In fact I do not even know of one previous murder case where the victim sustained such an injury. Tobin and Sinclair did even worse things to their victims but pulling their hair out at the roots was not one of them. IMO the killer of Jodi Jones was not a man, it was a female. Men do not pull women's hair out, they have other sick depraved evil things in their heads. Women very rarely commit murders and almost never when there is no motive. In my opinion, a female with a motive killed Jodi. That is why there were no signs of sexual assault and why there were several female DNA profiles found.

Do you think the killer walked back towards Newbattle, went along the main road past traffic and people, covered in blood? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer ran across that main road risking being seen and going along the side of the small river behind the houses where Mitchell lived? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer walked back towards Easthouses onto the main road? Obviously NOT. Hiding in the woods across at the golf course and College wouldn't be a good option either with the possibility of Police swarming in once Jodi had been reported missing then found. So how did the killer get away undetected and witnessed by nobody, not even a dog walker? There was people around......the cyclist who heard noises over the wall. A witness who saw the moped at the V. Others would have been around walking dogs etc, but not one person saw anybody in a hurry looking agitated or with blood on them. WHY ??

The killer had plenty time to clean up any evidence of committing a murder, because only Mitchell and his house was searched. The Police were done up like kippers. They just didn't have the brains or experience to figure out the puzzle because they were obsessed with Mitchell. Mitchell did not do it. No DNA or blood at the scene or in his house makes it impossible. Some people say maybe he cleaned up in the river behind his house. So he did the murder at 515pm, got to the river across the main road at 530pm after running through the trees  and across the main road without anyone seeing him covered in blood, spent 10 minutes cleaning up, in time to be witnessed by other youths near the Abbey in Newbattle at 545-550pm? What did he do with the bloodstained clothes? He had spare clothes in a backpack and changed by the river? See how stupid this theory is? It's just not realistic at all.

[Holly Goodhead]

The documentary claimed several male dna profiles were found at soc.  I don't recall any female dna profiles mentioned?

[Holly Goodhead]

Maybe the hair being pulled was an unintended consequence of what took place.  I'm not sure any evidence exists showing females are more likely to pull hair than males?

Is the pathology report in the public domain?

Was more than 1 person involved?  The reason I ask this is that the hands were tied?  At what stage were the hands tied and why? 

[William Wallace]

Some of the many DNA profiles which were unidentified came back as "female" definitely. The number was 6 I think. At the time this caused great surprise to the Police. However, they were suffering from serious "confirmation bias"  regarding Mitchell so not much importance seems to have been attributed to these female profiles. It seems they were then "written off" as a result. Clearly the idea that a female could have done it was not taken seriously by the Police. Granted, not many people would have thought it was a female, but there was major clues that it could have been.......no sexual assault, hair pulled out at the roots and the mystery female DNA profiles. Those are not just small clues, each of the 3 on their own are very significant, but taken together they should have been a very major red flag.

[William Wallace]

Maybe the hair being pulled was an unintended consequence of what took place.  I'm not sure any evidence exists showing females are more likely to pull hair than males?

Is the pathology report in the public domain?

Was more than 1 person involved?  The reason I ask this is that the hands were tied?  At what stage were the hands tied and why?

I don't think there's much doubt that in a violent confrontation men generally don't pull each other's hair but females are much more likely to. This could be simply because they have longer hair and it's easier to do, but hair pulling is not a trait of males who fight or of males who commit murders against females (to the extent of pulling it out by the roots).                                   

I'm not sure about whether the pathology report is in the public domain or not.

[Holly Goodhead]

Some of the many DNA profiles which were unidentified came back as "female" definitely. The number was 6 I think. At the time this caused great surprise to the Police. However, they were suffering from serious "confirmation bias"  regarding Mitchell so not much importance seems to have been attributed to these female profiles. It seems they were then "written off" as a result. Clearly the idea that a female could have done it was not taken seriously by the Police. Granted, not many people would have thought it was a female, but there was major clues that it could have been.......no sexual assault, hair pulled out at the roots and the mystery female DNA profiles. Those are not just small clues, each of the 3 on their own are very significant, but taken together they should have been a very major red flag.

If J J's clothing contained female dna profiles what makes you think this is significant?  The female dna profile might well have been her own or others that came into innocent contact with her clothes and person.  The scientists were only able to identify that the DNA profile originated from a female. 

The Yorshire Ripper didn't sexually assault all victims.

Did the perp intend to pull out hair or was it just a consequence of what took place? 

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think there's much doubt that in a violent confrontation men generally don't pull each other's hair but females are much more likely to. This could be simply because they have longer hair and it's easier to do, but hair pulling is not a trait of males who fight or of males who commit murders against females (to the extent of pulling it out by the roots).                                   

I'm not sure about whether the pathology report is in the public domain or not.

I think you might be putting too much emphasis on the hair pulling.  J J had long hair so I think it might have been an unintended consequence of what took place as opposed to someone deliberately wanting to pull out hair. 

The following details some of the injuries:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4151915.stm

[faithlilly]

I think you might be putting too much emphasis on the hair pulling.  J J had long hair so I think it might have been an unintended consequence of what took place as opposed to someone deliberately wanting to pull out hair. 

The following details some of the injuries:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4151915.stm

Or taken as a trophy?

[mrswah]

Yes, imo the Police were too stupid to fathom this our. Once they had allowed the crime scene to be contaminated for 7 hours, they then failed to search the houses of anyone except Mitchell because Dobbie had already decided he must have done it. They were suffering from "confirmation bias" from the first minute of the investigation. Murders such as those carried out by Tobin and Sinclair had no real motive apart from killing their victims. Now a character like either of them did not just happen to be hiding in the trees carrying weapons, over the wall at the path at about 5pm in broad daylight with dog walkers and cyclists around.  Killers like the above 2 were smart, they abducted their victims and took them where there was no chance of other people being around.

The person who committed this murder was known to Jodi, but only Mitchell was deemed a suspect. Moped seen parked at V - explanation...."we don't remember what we were doing there, in fact we remember almost nothing about that whole day", but one of them remembered to shave all his hair off.? Next.....the moped strangely "disappears" and is never seen again or examined by the Police.

A witness statement given by A.O was "discovered" later (months, years?). A.O was not cited to give evidence despite being in the house apparently before Jodi went out. A.O told the Police something they didn't want to hear, something that pointed away from Mitchell being the only suspect. Something was going on in that house between 415pm and 445pm. About 8-10 texts were exchanged between A.O and Ju.J between 415pm and 430pm, despite the fact A.O was on his way home and would be back by about 430pm.

The "moped boys" took 5 days to tell the Police it was them on the moped the day of the murder. The Police were too thick to question the motives and statements of 2 people you wouldn't trust to keep 50p for you. These 2 were never identified by anyone whilst on the moped. The fact is, nobody knows WHO was on that moped.

To return back to motive. Mitchell had no motive to kill his girlfriend. Did the Police investigate anyone who might have had a motive? No they didn't. These Police were stupid. They had no experience of similar murders because they're rare in Scotland. When the DNA tests failed to match Mitchell they should have called in the FBI as this case was out of their league. They missed several clues and failed to identify other suspects. They also missed the most obvious clue of all.......the victim's hair was pulled out at the roots. That is a highly unusual facet of murders carried out by men. In fact I do not even know of one previous murder case where the victim sustained such an injury. Tobin and Sinclair did even worse things to their victims but pulling their hair out at the roots was not one of them. IMO the killer of Jodi Jones was not a man, it was a female. Men do not pull women's hair out, they have other sick depraved evil things in their heads. Women very rarely commit murders and almost never when there is no motive. In my opinion, a female with a motive killed Jodi. That is why there were no signs of sexual assault and why there were several female DNA profiles found.

Get your Inspector Clouseau hats on guys. Do you think the killer walked back towards Newbattle, went along the main road past traffic and people, covered in blood? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer ran across that main road risking being seen and going along the side of the small river behind the houses where Mitchell lived? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer walked back towards Easthouses onto the main road? Obviously NOT. Hiding in the woods across at the golf course and College wouldn't be a good option either with the possibility of Police swarming in once Jodi had been reported missing then found. So how did the killer get away undetected and witnessed by nobody, not even a dog walker? There was people around......the cyclist who heard noises over the wall. A man walking home from the tool hire shop who saw the moped at the V. Others would have been around walking dogs etc, but not one person saw anybody in a hurry looking agitated or with blood on them. WHY ??

The killer had plenty time to clean up any evidence of committing a murder, because only Mitchell and his house was searched. The Police were done up like kippers. They just didn't have the brains or experience to figure out the puzzle because they were obsessed with Mitchell. Mitchell did not do it. No DNA or blood at the scene or in his house makes it impossible. Some people say maybe he cleaned up in the river behind his house. So he did the murder at 515pm, got to the river across the main road at 530pm after running through the trees  and across the main road without anyone seeing him covered in blood, spent 10 minutes cleaning up, in time to be witnessed by other youths near the Abbey in Newbattle at 545-550pm? What did he do with the bloodstained clothes? He had spare clothes in a backpack and changed by the river? See how stupid this theory is? It's just not realistic at all.

Those who continually say Mitchell did it are blinded to both the impossibility of the ridiculous timelines and lack of forensic evidence ANYWHERE. Mitchell didn't do it in my view. The killer was not male also in my opinion. IMO the killer was a female with a motive. You will have to work out for yourselves who it was and how they managed to escape the murder scene undetected.

The walls are closing in on the sick evil person who did this imo. The clock is ticking.

Interesting stuff!

How do you know about AO and his witness statement, and about the text messages exchanged between him and JuJ ??  I haven't heard about any of this before, which is why I'm asking.

[Holly Goodhead]

Or taken as a trophy?

Is there evidence it was missing?

[Holly Goodhead]

Was the ground to dry to pick up footprints/tyre tracks?  Did the police look for any?

[William Wallace]

I think you might be putting too much emphasis on the hair pulling.  J J had long hair so I think it might have been an unintended consequence of what took place as opposed to someone deliberately wanting to pull out hair. 

The following details some of the injuries:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4151915.stm

I think with the hair pulling you have to look at it as a piece of a picture that when joined with no sexual motive, then female DNA being found creates a high degree of suspicion. I accept none of those things prove for sure  it was a female, but they are indicators that the possibility was nowhere near as improbable as the Police may have thought. You might not realise it but you've actually said something very interesting there. You say the hair pulling may have been an unintended consequence rather than someone deliberately trying to do it. Now that is really a confirmation of what I am saying. If indeed you are correct, and I've always thought the hair was pulled out during a struggle, it is highly unlikely that a MAN armed with a knife or some other weapon is going to pull the victim's hair. He's going to slash or stab them or even punch them. This is a major reason why I believe it was a female. She attacked Jodi initially by pulling her hair and tearing it out. Other violence followed this initial attack.

Your other point about the female DNA is valid of course, but taken with the other 2 pointers to it being a female... it points to the killer possibly being female. Each of the 3 points on their own raise some suspicion, but my point is really that when you look at all 3 together, it creates high suspicion.

Your other point about footprints is relevant, because those have been used to solve other crimes. Unfortunately after Jodi's body was found, the Police did not cordon the murder site off. People were trampling about over it for 7 hours overnight before forensics arrived, so crucial evidence was destroyed and lost forever. I've been trying to work out for years how any murder investigation team could be so incredibly stupid as to not secure the murder scene and protect forensic evidence. I still haven't worked out this level of stupidity. The investigating team did not have much if any experience of a murder like this, but there is a thing called common sense!!

[Holly Goodhead]

I think with the hair pulling you have to look at it as a piece of a picture that when joined with no sexual motive and female DNA being present, raises fairly high suspicion. I accept none of those things prove for sure  it was a female, but they are indicators that the possibility was nowhere near as improbable as the Police may have thought. You might not realise it but you've actually said something very interesting there. You say the hair pulling may have been an unintended consequence rather than someone deliberately trying to do it. Now that is really a confirmation of what I am saying. If indeed you are correct, and I've always thought the hair was pulled out during a struggle, it is highly unlikely that a MAN armed with a knife or some other weapon is going to pull the victim's hair. He's going to slash or stab them or even punch them. This is a major reason why I believe it was a female. She attacked Jodi initially by pulling her hair and tearing it out. Other violence followed this initial attack.

Your other point about the female DNA is valid of course, but taken with the other 2 pointers to it being a female... it points to the killer possibly being female. Each of the 3 points on their own raise some suspicion, but my point is really that when you look at all 3 together, it creates high suspicion.

Your other point about footprints is also a good one, because those have been used to solve other crimes. Unfortunately after Jodi's body was found, the Police did not cordon the murder site off. People were trampling about over it for 7 hours overnight before forensics arrived, so crucial evidence was destroyed and lost forever. I've been trying to work out for years how any murder investigation team could be so incredibly stupid as to not secure the murder scene and protect forensic evidence. I still haven't worked out this level of stupidity. The investigating team did not have much if any experience of a murder like this, but there is a thing called common sense!!

The female dna more than likely means squat.  All the scientists were able to say is female dna was present on J J's clothing/person.  It might well have been her own dna or that of her mother's or sister's given they all shared the same house. 

I'm not sure most women would be capable of holding down another woman and tying up her hands whilst at the same time wielding a knife.  I understand J J put up a fight. 

[William Wallace]

Interesting stuff!

How do you know about AO and his witness statement, and about the text messages exchanged between him and JuJ ??  I haven't heard about any of this before, which is why I'm asking.

The information about the texts is detailed in Sandra Lean's book. The texts were verified, but the content of them was never established.

In the C5 documentary the suspect list was shown briefly. The words beside the name Jo Jones were blurry, but the first line can be read by taking a screen shot and enlarging it. It said........"Could it be that the discovery of a witness statement by Alan Ovens". The word "discovery" implies it was hidden at the time and discovered months or years later.

[William Wallace]

The female dna more than likely means squat.  All the scientists were able to say is female dna was present on J J's clothing/person.  It might well have been her own dna or that of her mother's or sister's given they all shared the same house. 

I'm not sure most women would be capable of holding down another woman and tying up her hands whilst at the same time wielding a knife.  I understand J J put up a fight.

"Might" is a big word. That's the sort of thinking that led to the Police missing vital clues and charging the wrong person with murder. Everything in their case was "might". It might have been Mitchell at the path at 455pm, it might have been him that burnt his clothes, it might have been him that killed Jodi, he might have gone over the V straight away ...even if the 3 witnesses initially said he didn't.

The tying up would surely not have been done when she was still alive so "being capable" doesn't really have much relevance. The possibility it was a female that did it isn't reduced by anything to do with the tying up.