Who Confessed to the Murder?

[TheArmchairDetective]

Who confessed to the murder?

After doing a bit of digging, I’ve come to the conclusion that I know for certain who the mystery person is that Corrine is referring to in her podcast with James English who confessed to the murder.

On page 111 of ‘Innocents Betrayed’, Sandra discusses a witness who, 10 weeks after the murder, was able to say for certain that ‘Stocky Man’ was a member of Jodi’s family.   

Remember Stocky Man? The person who was supposedly seen following closely behind Jodi on the evening she was murdered, who was around 5ft 7/5ft 10 with a grey hoodie and possibly a backpack?  Corrine, in her podcast, revealed that the confession was from this individual. 

Who is he then?

The identification by the witness 10 weeks after the murder where she pointed to a member of Jodi’s family was made from a group of strangers to her.

It is also the case that the family statements in this book appear to suggest that this family member didn’t leave the house that afternoon or evening.

However, after reading the book and looking over all the statements and times, and also accounting for the odd comment here and there by Corrine and Sandra in the podcasts relating to the Stocky Man sighting, there is someone who has been briefly mentioned but very much ignored.

“The person identified from a group of strangers by the witness was a member of Jodi’s family, yet they alleged they did not leave the house at all that afternoon or evening” (Innocents Betrayed, 2019, p.111).

There is only person who was A) a member of Jodi’s family, and B) who also alleged didn’t leave the house that afternoon.   When all of this information is coupled with this individual’s behaviour in the weeks before the murder, such as attacking and injuring people with knives, experiencing psychotic episodes and smoking large quantities of cannabis, it is evident that the person who was seen following Jodi and has confessed is indeed [Name removed].

Nobody has said for certain this is who it is, but the statements in the book and comments from Sandra and Corrine make it pretty easy to join the dots.

[Nicholas]

Re the James English interview and alleged confession

she’s asked who she thinks carried out the murder and suggests it’s “the person who confessed and the person who was positively ID’d but she gives mixed messages because she also says that her and Sandra Lean think the motive for the murder was a punishment killing?

“He’s had helpers 
“we think it’s been a punishment killing 
“he’s found out something that she’s done and he’s punished her for it

According to Corrine Mitchell the policeman who took the confession told Sandra Lean

It was also stated during the interview with JE words to the effect of;

they think the search party were out looking for someone else

[Nicholas]

Coolbreeze89 posts here https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432507

“Just thought I would add to this 11 years later - there has been new developments.Someone has confessed to the murder, and it was the same person who was seen following closely behind her before she disappeared onto Roan’s Dyke Path.The source of this can be found in a podcast on YouTube with James English involving Luke’s mother Corrine. I always knew he was innocent. There wasn’t even as much as a dog hair on her body from Mitchell. Someone has been roaming our streets for the best part of 16 years, whilst Luke has been banged up.I reckon she was followed by so-called confession man, intercepted by two others along the path who were also ‘in on it’, and either coaxed or coerced through the V-break in the wall. In my opinion, at least two or three, if not more, people were involved. I also don’t buy condom mans story either, therefore would also consider him as a key suspect. Nonetheless, the case has moved on a lot since its early days. The majority of the anomalies can actually be found in Dr Sandra Leans book Innocents Betrayed. A lot of people don’t buy her, but I do. Why would anyone spend the best part of 15 years investigating and analysing a case like this, to then pursue a PhD in criminology if she didn’t have any belief that he was innocent. A lot of people who knew Luke when he was in Polmont Young Offenders Institution said from the very beginning that he was innocent.

and here https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5987206

”Short Summary

In the summer of 2003, 14-year-old Jodi Jones was found deceased behind a wall in Dalkeith, Edinburgh, by her boyfriend Luke Mitchell’s dog. The body was approximately 13m from a V-break opening in the wall where the stones had deteriorated. The discovery of the body by the dog was agreed at the time by everyone including Jodi’s family, until it came to trial when they changed their statements to incriminate Luke to suggest that he knew where the body was already. This ‘guilty knowledge’ was one of the prosecutions main pieces of “evidence” to convict, suggesting Luke knew it was here as he killed her.

From the discovery of the body, the only suspect who was ever officially investigated and charged with murder was her boyfriend Luke, despite numerous contradictory witness statements and no forensic evidence of him on Jodi, or visa versa. Over 15 years later, Luke is still incarcerated in HMP Shotts, Scotland. He is due to turn 31 this year and has created more memories in prison than he has outside.

Overall, the police investigation from the outset was flawed; other people were witnessed at the murder scene, such as John [Name removed] (Jodis cousin), Gordon [Name removed] (Jodis second cousin), a local cyclist passing named Leonard Kelly who heard strangling sounds from across the wall, Steven Kelly (Jodis sisters fiancé), and a mystery man following Jodi onto the path.

Additionally, numerous items of DNA were recovered from the body, none of which was EVER identified as being from Luke. A moped used by [Name removed] and [Name removed] was also discovered to have been seen leaning against the V-break in the wall at the estimated time of the murder, and they were unable to explain why they were there. They were let free without any further enquiry as Mitchell was already firmly in the frame, and had even lied to police as to when they were there.

The case, in my opinion, was ‘trial-by-media’ and absolutely stinks of a miscarriage of justice. Luke wasn’t there at all. The witness statements could not accurately account for him being there, whilst also accounting for him having time to come home, dispose of incriminating evidence, and go back out again. On the other hand, a mystery man was seen by a witness following closely behind Jodi as she entered one end of the path closest to her house.

Recently, a shocking revelation has since emerged about this man - he admitted it was him behind Jodi, and has confessed to the murder. A senior Police official took the confession from this person and has since informed both Luke Mitchell’s mother, Corrine, and Luke’s Power of Attorney, Dr Sandra Lean (criminologist). This person was witnessed at the time, but has only in the past few years admitted to the murder.

The theory I have is this: mystery man followed Jodi down the path as he knew that’s where she was going (indicating he knew her very well) and was subsequently intercepted by others, which occurred through a pre-planned arrangement. Jodi was then either manipulated to climb through the V-break in the wall, or she was forced through. She was then murdered by mystery man, whilst others acted as not only key witnesses, but accomplices.

Corrine and Sandra also hold the theory that the moped and other incriminating evidence was disposed of in a scrapyard following this. It wouldn’t have been difficult for others to get to the locus either, as most lived nearby.

Overall, Luke was nowhere near the scene at the time of the murder. We now have a solid confession, albeit over 15 years later. We have witness statements who heard strangling sounds from behind the wall. We have witness statements who seen the moped owned by either [Name removed] or [Name removed] learning against the wall, with no sign of anyone. We also, in addition to this, have DNA from multiple other males on the body - none of this was Luke’s.

Does anyone have any other theories?

Names mentioned above, revelations and details of this post can be found in Corrine Mitchell’s interview with James English on YouTube, and also in Sandra’s new book Innocents Betrayed.

Until mystery man confessed, I had my theory as to who followed her. Sperm was positively identified on the body too, which is absolutely bizarre to say the least given Jodi and her sister stayed in different homes. Nonetheless, I’ve replaced my initial suspect with mystery man now due to his confession.

Again to recap - mystery man follows Jodi, who is then intercepted by other locals. Jodi is murdered. Body is left to rot, while evidence is destroyed. Culprits cover their tracks. Luke is blamed for murder.

Jodi was basically ambushed by at least three assailants who were all known to her.

What do you think? Who is this mystery man who has confessed? Does anyone have any inside insight into this case?

Look forward to your input...

[Baz]

Recently, a shocking revelation has since emerged about this man - he admitted it was him behind Jodi, and has confessed to the murder. A senior Police official took the confession from this person and has since informed both Luke Mitchell’s mother, Corrine, and Luke’s Power of Attorney, Dr Sandra Lean (criminologist). This person was witnessed at the time, but has only in the past few years admitted to the murder.

WHAT??? The confession was actually made to the police?

I wonder when this happened and if the person they are talking about is [Name removed] (as surmised by TheArmchairDetective)?

What do you make of this?

[Nicholas]

WHAT??? The confession was actually made to the police?

I wonder when this happened and if the person they are talking about is [Name removed] (as surmised by TheArmchairDetective)?

What do you make of this?

According to coolbreeze89 ”a senior police official took the confession.”

No idea who the source is for this but I find the choice of words interesting; as though they believe the words they have used gives any alleged confession credence?!

WHAT??? The confession was actually made to the police?

Can’t help but think of people like Mark Williams Thomas and his involvement in the numerous false allegations etc (Have posted about this on other threads)

I also find it interesting how Sandra Lean is suggesting the following here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452099.html#msg452099

“I was thinking about the claimed 20 pieces of solid evidence against Luke (that's been deleted now) - what's always interested me are the number of pieces of "evidence" that applied equally, and in some cases, moreso, to others than they did to Luke - so, drug use, connection with knives, "dark" interests, etc, etc. There are at least 5 others to whom all of these apply. Of those five, we can add serious mental health conditions (which didn't apply to Luke), previous attacks on women (which didn't apply to Luke), attacks with bladed intruments (which didn't apply to Luke), long histories of violence and/or involvement with the police (which didn't apply to Luke)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452099.html#msg452099

“Dark interests” would suggest to me she has finally conceded Luke Mitchell’s interests in satanism aren’t/weren’t normal per se.

Having serious mental health conditions does not automatically suggest that person culpable of murder or indeed a danger to others.

I find the comment “previous attacks on women” misleading and requiring explanation of alleged attacks; on whom, what was done, how many times? etc. Where’s the proof or is she attempting to replicate the stories told about Luke Mitchell.

I am aware [Name removed] allegedly went to Sandra Leans house (several years ago) presumably because he was angry with her stance/campaigning etc. I think Billy Middleton was staying with her at the time of this event and IMO he was far more of a threat to her and her daughters than [Name removed] ever was.

I don’t condone the alleged event with [Name removed] btw but dangerous individuals with low empathy are often hidden in plain sight by a mask of normalcy.

Are you familiar with the Chris Watts case? Have a listen to his interviews.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=duu2NePfEo0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=du8lVaCe7V0

[Nicholas]

Who confessed to the murder?

After doing a bit of digging, I’ve come to the conclusion that I know for certain who the mystery person is that Corrine is referring to in her podcast with James English who confessed to the murder.

On page 111 of ‘Innocents Betrayed’, Sandra discusses a witness who, 10 weeks after the murder, was able to say for certain that ‘Stocky Man’ was a member of Jodi’s family.   

Remember Stocky Man? The person who was supposedly seen following closely behind Jodi on the evening she was murdered, who was around 5ft 7/5ft 10 with a grey hoodie and possibly a backpack?  Corrine, in her podcast, revealed that the confession was from this individual. 

Who is he then?

The identification by the witness 10 weeks after the murder where she pointed to a member of Jodi’s family was made from a group of strangers to her.

It is also the case that the family statements in this book appear to suggest that this family member didn’t leave the house that afternoon or evening.

However, after reading the book and looking over all the statements and times, and also accounting for the odd comment here and there by Corrine and Sandra in the podcasts relating to the Stocky Man sighting, there is someone who has been briefly mentioned but very much ignored.

“The person identified from a group of strangers by the witness was a member of Jodi’s family, yet they alleged they did not leave the house at all that afternoon or evening” (Innocents Betrayed, 2019, p.111).

There is only person who was A) a member of Jodi’s family, and B) who also alleged didn’t leave the house that afternoon.   When all of this information is coupled with this individual’s behaviour in the weeks before the murder, such as attacking and injuring people with knives, experiencing psychotic episodes and smoking large quantities of cannabis, it is evident that the person who was seen following Jodi and has confessed is indeed [Name removed].

Nobody has said for certain this is who it is, but the statements in the book and comments from Sandra and Corrine make it pretty easy to join the dots.

9:48AM BST 16 Jul 2003
“Detectives hunting the killer of Jodi Jones have received reports of the first possible sightings of the teenager on the night she died.
Jodi's body was discovered by a wooded path near her home on the outskirts of Dalkeith, Midlothian, 16 days ago. Two independent witnesses have now contacted police about seeing a girl who fits Jodi's description on Monday June 30.
They also told police they saw a man walking closely behind the girl along Easthouses Road towards the entrance to a path where Jodi's body was later found.

One witness told police they had seen the same person a week later on the night of a police reconstruction. Detectives are eager to trace the man, who they say could be a key witness in their investigation.
De Insp Tom Martin, one of the lead officers in the case, said: "This is a significant development for the inquiry team. We now have two independent witnesses who have given us good statements about seeing a young woman who is similar in description to Jodi.

Both witnesses saw the girl walking in Easthouses Road towards the entrance to the Roman Dyke pathway at around 5pm and both also noticed a man walking closely behind the girl.
"Interestingly, one of the witnesses believes he then saw the same man again on Monday July 7, one week later, the night of the police reconstruction. If this is the case, we need to trace this person as a matter of urgency as he may have seen something important on the night that Jodi died."

The man who police are keen to trace is white, stocky, 5ft 7in to 5ft 10in tall and appeared to be in his late teens or early 20s. He had short, tidy brown or ginger hair, perhaps curly or wavy on top.
The witnesses said he appeared to be in his late teens or early 20s and was wearing a dark-coloured sweatshirt top, with maybe a hood, and dark trousers, possibly jogging bottoms. He may also have been carrying a backpack on his shoulder.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1436226/Witness-breakthrough-in-Jodi-murder-case.html

[Nicholas]

WHAT??? The confession was actually made to the police?

I wonder when this happened and if the person they are talking about is [Name removed] (as surmised by TheArmchairDetective)?

What do you make of this?

I’d be interested to learn if the alleged confession was made by one of the 5 individuals Sandra Lean refers to as having “serious mental health conditions?”

And if so - was their mental state assessed?

Did they know what they were saying, or why they were saying it?

Did the details of the alleged confession fit with the known facts of the case?

Was the alleged individual on drugs when they confessed, if so were any questions asked about how drugs might have impacted on their mental health?

Was their mental health properly assessed in the lead up to the confession?

Was their mental health assessed at the time of the confession itself?

All questions asked by Sandra Lean following Simon Halls confession.

[Nicholas]

What do you make of this?

What do you make of it?

[Nicholas]

Who confessed to the murder?

After doing a bit of digging, I’ve come to the conclusion that I know for certain who the mystery person is that Corrine is referring to in her podcast with James English who confessed to the murder.

On page 111 of ‘Innocents Betrayed’, Sandra discusses a witness who, 10 weeks after the murder, was able to say for certain that ‘Stocky Man’ was a member of Jodi’s family.   

Remember Stocky Man? The person who was supposedly seen following closely behind Jodi on the evening she was murdered, who was around 5ft 7/5ft 10 with a grey hoodie and possibly a backpack?  Corrine, in her podcast, revealed that the confession was from this individual. 

Who is he then?

The identification by the witness 10 weeks after the murder where she pointed to a member of Jodi’s family was made from a group of strangers to her.

It is also the case that the family statements in this book appear to suggest that this family member didn’t leave the house that afternoon or evening.

However, after reading the book and looking over all the statements and times, and also accounting for the odd comment here and there by Corrine and Sandra in the podcasts relating to the Stocky Man sighting, there is someone who has been briefly mentioned but very much ignored.

“The person identified from a group of strangers by the witness was a member of Jodi’s family, yet they alleged they did not leave the house at all that afternoon or evening” (Innocents Betrayed, 2019, p.111).

There is only person who was A) a member of Jodi’s family, and B) who also alleged didn’t leave the house that afternoon.   When all of this information is coupled with this individual’s behaviour in the weeks before the murder, such as attacking and injuring people with knives, experiencing psychotic episodes and smoking large quantities of cannabis, it is evident that the person who was seen following Jodi and has confessed is indeed [Name removed].

Nobody has said for certain this is who it is, but the statements in the book and comments from Sandra and Corrine make it pretty easy to join the dots.

Can you clarify something TAD?

Are you saying the person(s) who claim to have seen a member of [Name removed]’s family told Sandra Lean, 10 weeks after the murder, as opposed to the police? Or have I misunderstood what you’ve written?

[TheArmchairDetective]

 Nicholas,

What appears to be the case is a suggestion in the book that this witness informed Police.  Sandra only managed to find out about this after gaining access to the case papers.   Again, it would appear that nothing was ever done about this identification, which according to Sandra is similar to the treatment of other potential witnesses.

The revealing part was when the witness described the person, who they claimed was Stocky Man, as being a member of Jodi’s family.  This family member supposedly never left the house that day, which when one looks at what Sandra has included in her book suggests this person is her brother [Name removed].   This person never had much in the form of an alibi, which off the top of my head was Jodi’s mother who said he very rarely left the house.   He always received transport, assuming due to his illness, and was supposedly at home on the day she was murdered.   

However, there was a period of time that went unaccounted for around five or six o’clock where this person may have been out the house.  Other statements appear to contradict the alibi of his mother. 

Corrine said the person following closely behind Jodi was Stocky Man.

She said this person also confessed.

Sandra never revealed the name, but said in a previous YouTube comment on one of the podcasts that the person who confessed was very well known to Jodi.

A witness said this person was a member of Jodi’s family.

When you join the dots and then look a little bit closer at this individual, their background, their character, their age, their mental status, their overall behaviour and the fact a sexual crime was not confirmed when her body was found, it is highly possible that this particular individual may well be the killer.

Thats if we are to believe that a confession has been made at all, and that we join the “Mitchell is Innocent” camp.

It’s not very difficult to come to this conclusion once you read the chapter on this person in her book.  It’s just a theory, but I suspect it is quite an accurate one.

[Nicholas]

Nicholas,

What appears to be the case is a suggestion in the book that this witness informed Police.  Sandra only managed to find out about this after gaining access to the case papers.   Again, it would appear that nothing was ever done about this identification, which according to Sandra is similar to the treatment of other potential witnesses.

The revealing part was when the witness described the person, who they claimed was Stocky Man, as being a member of Jodi’s family.  This family member supposedly never left the house that day, which when one looks at what Sandra has included in her book suggests this person is her brother [Name removed].   This person never had much in the form of an alibi, which off the top of my head was Jodi’s mother who said he very rarely left the house.   He always received transport, assuming due to his illness, and was supposedly at home on the day she was murdered.   

However, there was a period of time that went unaccounted for around five or six o’clock where this person may have been out the house.  Other statements appear to contradict the alibi of his mother. 

Corrine said the person following closely behind Jodi was Stocky Man.

She said this person also confessed.

Sandra never revealed the name, but said in a previous YouTube comment on one of the podcasts that the person who confessed was very well known to Jodi.

A witness said this person was a member of Jodi’s family.

When you join the dots and then look a little bit closer at this individual, their background, their character, their age, their mental status, their overall behaviour and the fact a sexual crime was not confirmed when her body was found, it is highly possible that this particular individual may well be the killer.

Thats if we are to believe that a confession has been made at all, and that we join the “Mitchell is Innocent” camp.

It’s not very difficult to come to this conclusion once you read the chapter on this person in her book.  It’s just a theory, but I suspect it is quite an accurate one.

Yet here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452085.html#msg452085 gordo30 states:

“Ok just the 20 on one person( I would t call them suspects)
1. Mental health problems treated by many different drugs exacerbated by the use of recreational drugs
2. Long time dealer of drugs.
3. Long history of violence
4. Use of knives
5. No alibi at at least 1 point that night
6. Never took part in the search for his sibling
7. Plans for that night we’re changed
8. Was seen following Jodi not long after she left the house.
9. Was one of the last people to see the victim alive
10. Would certainly know the area of the murder
11. Was never questioned by the police
12. Was there a danger to Jodi through his dealing with drugs?
13. Were told he never left the house for a long time although he had been out that weekend and was also that day
14. Missed appointment to see psychologist that day.
15. After the murder appeared withdrawn again possibly due to drugs
16. Threatening behaviour afterwards

Ok just the 16 points but many of these were applied circumstantially to Luke and quite a few of these points could be elaborated with more than one example. In all that I still could make up more to fit a circumstantial case. I don’t see the point as this looks like I’m claiming he committed  the murder and that would be wrong because I don’t believe he committed the murder

[Nicholas]

What appears to be the case is a suggestion in the book that this witness informed Police.  Sandra only managed to find out about this after gaining access to the case papers.   Again, it would appear that nothing was ever done about this identification, which according to Sandra is similar to the treatment of other potential witnesses.

It appeared that way in the Simon Hall case and with hindsight helped add to his false claims of innocence for so many years. In fact one of the men who I once wrongly believed was involved recently escaped from a secure facility https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/violent-prisoner-who-absconded-jail-2028345

[Nicholas]

Yet here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452085.html#msg452085 gordo30 states:

“Ok just the 20 on one person( I would t call them suspects)
1. Mental health problems treated by many different drugs exacerbated by the use of recreational drugs
2. Long time dealer of drugs.
3. Long history of violence
4. Use of knives
5. No alibi at at least 1 point that night
6. Never took part in the search for his sibling
7. Plans for that night we’re changed
8. Was seen following Jodi not long after she left the house.
9. Was one of the last people to see the victim alive
10. Would certainly know the area of the murder
11. Was never questioned by the police
12. Was there a danger to Jodi through his dealing with drugs?
13. Were told he never left the house for a long time although he had been out that weekend and was also that day
14. Missed appointment to see psychologist that day.
15. After the murder appeared withdrawn again possibly due to drugs
16. Threatening behaviour afterwards

Ok just the 16 points but many of these were applied circumstantially to Luke and quite a few of these points could be elaborated with more than one example. In all that I still could make up more to fit a circumstantial case. I don’t see the point as this looks like I’m claiming he committed  the murder and that would be wrong because I don’t believe he committed the murder

“Was never questioned by the police” or was questioned by police but witness statement not disclosed to or asked for by defence? Or police conversations recorded in notebook?

“Missed appointment to see psychologist that day.” How is this known and who disclosed this to Luke Mitchell and his team? If in the case files, doesn’t that then suggest police had investigated him?

It wasn’t until 2013, before Simon Hall confessed, that it became apparent to me (following the zenith burglary omission) that JamieB’s police interview had never been disclosed to or requested by the defence. He had been arrested along with Hall (Same day and time; taken to a different police station) and subsequently became a prosecution witness - along with his mother.

It’s quite possible JamieB disclosed details to the police during his interviews, whilst under arrest - on or off record - that didn’t become relevant until the zenith burglary became known in November 2012.

My point is, I cannot see the powers that be calling for a review of Luke Mitchell’s case in order to help answer people like Sandra Leans questions.

[Baz]

What do you make of it?

It's hard to make anything of it when I don't really know any details. If it were really made to the police then I assume they investigated it and dismissed it as false, although given the terrible investigation... who knows!!

Was it made at the time or more recently, after Luke's conviction?

How do we even know someone did confess?

It always seemed to me that the truth about this would only come out if Luke finally admitted guilt or if someone else confessed, either to someone or to the police. So it's intriguing to hear there has been a confession but if it's not something recent then I presume it's not finally the answer I'd been hoping for.

[Nicholas]

It's hard to make anything of it when I don't really know any details. If it were really made to the police then I assume they investigated it and dismissed it as false, although given the terrible investigation... who knows!!

An alleged confession is made to the police and Sandra Leans is told about it?

The first people to be informed of Simon Halls confession (outside of prison) were his victims family.