Transcript of Interview with James Matthews - SKY News on 3rd September 2003
JAMES MATTHEWS: It’s 65 days since Jodi was killed, Luke, clearly it’s a tragedy for her family, do you see it as a tragedy for your family as well?
LUKE: Yes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Tell me about your experience over the last two months.
LUKE: It’s just been worse than a nightmare. At least a nightmare you wake up from eventually but this, you can’t wake up from it.
JAMES MATTHEWS: What’s been the worst part of the last two months?
LUKE: The worst part would be still finding Jodi. That was still the worst part. All the rest of it, the police and accusations and everything I couldn’t care about, it’s just … I just want to find out what happened and who did it.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Do you feel that the finger has been pointed at you as the person responsible?
LUKE: I feel it has been left to the media and public to decide. It is trial by media. They haven’t actually come out and totally accused me, apart from in interviews, the police have accused me but I feel it has been left to trial by media to see what the public decide, who’s guilty and who’s not. The way the police are handling it, they have searched other houses and they have other suspects but I seem to be really the only person they are mentioning by name in specific detail.
JAMES MATTHEWS: But you have an alibi for that night because you were with friends?
LUKE: Yes. I was, first I was waiting just at the end of the estate where I was in full view, cars were passing, people were just getting home from work on buses, then I met up with my friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Who vouch for you?
LUKE: Yes, they gave statements the same as mine.
JAMES MATTHEWS: It is a question on everybody’s lips in this community, it is a question you clearly have an answer for. Did you kill Jodi Jones?
LUKE: No, I never, I wouldn’t think of it. All the time we were going out we never had one argument at all, never. We never fell out or anything.
JAMES MATTHEWS: How do you feel at being told to stay away from the funeral?
LUKE: That was a hard blow. I was dreading going to the funeral but I did want to go and being told not to go due to the fact that it would turn the funeral into a circus, a media circus, was bad. It would have been a media circus without me but that was, if it was the family’s wishes, that’s what I was going to do?
JAMES MATTHEWS: You have paid your own tribute, you have written a poem. Tell me why you felt you needed to do that?
LUKE: I just felt I had to say goodbye in my own way.
JAMES MATTHEWS: So what would you say to those who would look at you and think he killed his girlfriend?
LUKE: I just say they are being naïve and not to believe everything you read in the papers. As a lot of folk know from what they’ve said and what’s turned out in the papers, they do change what people have said, not the whole truth is published in papers. It is basically what the people want to hear is what printed.
JAMES MATTHEWS: I suppose the difficulty is from 5 p.m. to whenever Jodie was found, that's a long time to fill and to account for, especially if you lose track of time. The question I suppose for detectives, for people who look at that is could anybody account for every minute in that sort of period? Can you, can you account for every minute?
LUKE: No. Well the police seem to expect people to, as you say, pin down every minute of their life, to expect us to know when we do small insignificant things like doing the dishes, expect us to have a time for that, it isn’t possible to keep a pin of every minute that you do something.
JAMES MATTHEWS: This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE: No, not that we know of.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Finally, do you miss Jodi?
LUKE: A lot. It’s just, everything I do seems to remind me, her views and everything come up everywhere. Everywhere you look, going about the streets, there are posters. It’s just, I can’t believe … it still feels like a nightmare.
ENDS
Did Luke Mitchell also do the dishes after having allegedly cooked and burnt the chicken pie?
If not, which one of the Mitchell’s did the dishes or was this also omitted from their statements?
What is he saying NO to? No it wasn’t his missing knife or no to “This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned?”
And is he referring to the police when he says “they?” “They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes[/i]
Meeting with a murderer.
James Matthews from Sky News interviewed Luke Mitchell on the day of Jodi's funeral.
Luke Mitchell insisted he did not murder his girlfriend Jodi Jones. Sky News' James Matthews recounts his exclusive interview with the youngster.
It was on the day of Jodi Jones' funeral that I met and interviewed Luke Mitchell.
It had been two months since Jodi's murder, and her family had told him to stay away. They suspected then what a jury would later confirm - that he was her killer.
I'd phoned the Mitchell house and his mother told me that Luke was paying his own, private tribute.
Mother and son agreed that we could film it. So the camera rolled as the teenager lit candles on a shrine to Jodi that he'd created on his dining table. No payment was asked for and none made.
Mitchell had turned 15 since Jodi's murder. He had the awkwardness of youth, but was nonetheless charming, obliging and friendly.
I interviewed him, as he sat with his mother's comforting arm around him.
It was an intriguing spectacle for viewers of Sky News - it also aroused the interest of detectives on the Jodi Jones murder squad.
They took formal steps to obtain a copy of the tape and flew to California where they showed it to the man known as the "Human Lie Detector".
Professor Paul Ekman is the world authority on the analysis of facial expression. He is an adviser to the FBI and CIA. In the course of the Jodi Jones murder inquiry, he became a consultant to Lothian & Borders Police.
Edinburgh-based detectives flew to San Fransisco to show my interview to Professor Ekman. He spent hours viewing the tape frame by frame, analysing the miniscule muscle movements on Mitchell's face. In the end, he supported police suspicions about Jodi's boyfriend.
According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.
On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.
In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone.
It was a time in the murder investigation when Detectives had precious little evidence. The findings of Prof. Ekman kept the focus of the inquiry on Mitchell.
There was to be one other showing of the interview - this time before the jury.
Again, formal steps were taken to secure a copy of the tape, and it was broadcast in the High Court. A packed courtroom watched as Luke Mitchell denied killing Jodi Jones, lit candles for her, and recited the poem he'd written, entitled "Goodbye Jodi".
It was the prosecution who wanted to broadcast the interview in court - they wanted to highlight Mitchell's demeanour on the day of Jodi's funeral - his lack of emotion.
"Not a tear, not a quiver" in the words of Advocate-Depute Alan Turnbull, from the teenager he described as a cold, calculating killer.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg22069.html#msg22069
Wish you would make your mind up. It was suggested in court that Luke Mitchell was seeing another girl Kimberly Thompson at the same time he was seeing poor Jodi.
The response to that from the Mitchell camp was that he was just a young boy and it was not a serious adult relationship and he was not two timing. (or words to that effect)
Ms Thompson said in court up until she heard about the murder she believed she was his girlfriend. Now why would she think this? Is this not two timing? Most teenage girls would see it as exactly that.
So if it was not a serious relationship like adults have and he could have as many girlfriends as he liked, what gave him or his mother the right to go to the grave when they had been told to stay away?
Not only did he go to the graveside with his mother and a girl pal plus a dog, they ended up with media there too. Plus giving the Sky interview on the very day Jodi was being buried was sickening.
Why did these people need to continually put themselves in the spotlight?
They would not like it if they told someone not to go somewhere and they did. The Mitchells have no respect for anyone.
Transcript of Interview with James Matthews - SKY News on 3rd September 2003
JAMES MATTHEWS: But you have an alibi for that night because you were with friends?
LUKE: Yes. I was, first I was waiting just at the end of the estate where I was in full view, cars were passing, people were just getting home from work on buses, then I met up with my friends.
Hmm
Does anyone have recording of sky james matthews interviiew? always wanted to have pass at this from micro expression perspective
Does anyone have recording of sky james matthews interviiew? always wanted to have pass at this from micro expression perspective
Transcript of Interview with James Matthews - SKY News on 3rd September 2003
JAMES MATTHEWS: It’s 65 days since Jodi was killed, Luke, clearly it’s a tragedy for her family, do you see it as a tragedy for your family as well?
LUKE: Yes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Tell me about your experience over the last two months.
LUKE: It’s just been worse than a nightmare. At least a nightmare you wake up from eventually but this, you can’t wake up from it.
JAMES MATTHEWS: What’s been the worst part of the last two months?
LUKE: The worst part would be still finding Jodi. That was still the worst part. All the rest of it, the police and accusations and everything I couldn’t care about, it’s just … I just want to find out what happened and who did it.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Do you feel that the finger has been pointed at you as the person responsible?
LUKE: I feel it has been left to the media and public to decide. It is trial by media. They haven’t actually come out and totally accused me, apart from in interviews, the police have accused me but I feel it has been left to trial by media to see what the public decide, who’s guilty and who’s not. The way the police are handling it, they have searched other houses and they have other suspects but I seem to be really the only person they are mentioning by name in specific detail.
JAMES MATTHEWS: But you have an alibi for that night because you were with friends?
LUKE: Yes. I was, first I was waiting just at the end of the estate where I was in full view, cars were passing, people were just getting home from work on buses, then I met up with my friends.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Who vouch for you?
LUKE: Yes, they gave statements the same as mine.
JAMES MATTHEWS: It is a question on everybody’s lips in this community, it is a question you clearly have an answer for. Did you kill Jodi Jones?
LUKE: No, I never, I wouldn’t think of it. All the time we were going out we never had one argument at all, never. We never fell out or anything.
JAMES MATTHEWS: How do you feel at being told to stay away from the funeral?
LUKE: That was a hard blow. I was dreading going to the funeral but I did want to go and being told not to go due to the fact that it would turn the funeral into a circus, a media circus, was bad. It would have been a media circus without me but that was, if it was the family’s wishes, that’s what I was going to do?
JAMES MATTHEWS: You have paid your own tribute, you have written a poem. Tell me why you felt you needed to do that?
LUKE: I just felt I had to say goodbye in my own way.
JAMES MATTHEWS: So what would you say to those who would look at you and think he killed his girlfriend?
LUKE: I just say they are being naïve and not to believe everything you read in the papers. As a lot of folk know from what they’ve said and what’s turned out in the papers, they do change what people have said, not the whole truth is published in papers. It is basically what the people want to hear is what printed.
JAMES MATTHEWS: I suppose the difficulty is from 5 p.m. to whenever Jodie was found, that's a long time to fill and to account for, especially if you lose track of time. The question I suppose for detectives, for people who look at that is could anybody account for every minute in that sort of period? Can you, can you account for every minute?
LUKE: No. Well the police seem to expect people to, as you say, pin down every minute of their life, to expect us to know when we do small insignificant things like doing the dishes, expect us to have a time for that, it isn’t possible to keep a pin of every minute that you do something.
JAMES MATTHEWS: This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE: No, not that we know of.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Finally, do you miss Jodi?
LUKE: A lot. It’s just, everything I do seems to remind me, her views and everything come up everywhere. Everywhere you look, going about the streets, there are posters. It’s just, I can’t believe … it still feels like a nightmare.
ENDS
Mitchell had been told to stay away from the funeral by Jodi's mother Judy Jones.
Later than afternoon Mitchell with mother, German Shepherd Mia and new
female friend in tow made their way to the cemetery at Gorebridge where
they laid a memorial.
(http://i.imgur.com/vebhF.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Wixes.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/QIa4y.jpg)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456407.html#msg456407
Parky41 - October 07, 2019, 12:26:PM »
Agree - this however interests me on different levels.
We have noted before the reasons behind why Luke, friend and mother chose to visit this girls grave,
on the day of her funeral.
It's in black and white - not to attend the funeral.
To show respect? He did not attend, not really of choice though,
would he have gotten anywhere near?
On one hand we have from Nug that this was but a teenage boy,
so what, his girlfriend didn't bother to show up that evening.
That they were just kids "for Christ sake". Not like they were married or owt.
They had barely known each other personally for three months.
He would see her at school the next day.
This girl is brutally murdered.
Some 9 weeks later her funeral takes place.
And everything has changed.
It appears clear at this stage - that this girls family, believed Luke to be responsible,
for this girls death.
He is asked to not attend the funeral.
They first of all do what some may do in these circumstances: (If innocent)
They choose to hold their own little vigil - a lovely little service at home.
This in itself may appear just a little OTT for some.
After all, this boy had barely known this girl.
He was just a wee laddie after all.
They take this a step further, they invite the media ( the hated media)
into their home - to film this private ceremony.
They do this at the same time of the funeral.
They know the media are going to be present there.
This is a high profile story -
Do we already see here, that Luke wants to be a part of this attention.
That he is perhaps, sticking the middle finger up to the Jones',
and to all and everyone else.
He does not like being told what to do - he is backing down to no-one.
He is most definitely not going to stay back.
It is not enough that they have this little service,
that they invite the hated media into film it.
So heavily medicated of course - that no emotion was shown, in this service.
More needs to be done - he is not staying back from all of this attention,
he is going to this grave also - within hours of this burial.
He knows the media will be present, watching from his house,
to see what he may do next.
He is not to be thwarted by this.
After all, it is his right - to do as he pleases.
It is his right, to show these OTT reactions towards someone,
and their family whom he barely knew.
This of course all done, with the personal sense and guidance of
a mother, who did not try to stop her son.
From showing this disrespect, not just to this girls family,
but to this girl herself.
Of course, none of us know what we may choose to do - we haven't walked in those shoes.
Would we however, as parents allow this clear show of disrespect to this girl.
It matters not at this point of innocence or not.
What matters are the wishes of this girls family for their daughter/loved one.
That the person, they clearly believed responsible should stay clear.
Not just from the funeral - but in general.
He had absolutely no rights, to be there at any time.
He was told NO - that was not allowed.
It clearly had nothing to do with respectful wishes.
He clearly showed no respect, for any type of authority.
Clearly shown in his interviews with the police,
with his mother.
This wee smite - that he clearly was not.
Nothing however was going to stop this laddie - he set the rules with his mother.
Something that was clearly shown - time and time again.
He was allowed to smoke.
He was allowed to get a tattoo.
He was allowed to carry knives.
He was allowed to drink.
He was allowed drive.
He was allowed to go around manky.
Strangely clean that evening though, when met with his friends.
He was allowed large sums of money.
He was allowed to have underage sex at home.
He was allowed to use cannabis at a young age.
He was by all account - allowed to do as he pleased.
He did not do anything wrong - It was clearly everyone else?
He had no rules set for him, bar, strangely enough,
having to make dinner of a Monday night, for all the family.
Which from the off was clearly wrong;
His mother cooked her own - vegetarian food of prawns.
Yet again, when challenged we are met with a singular hint of authority from his
mother.
That of this girl begging her mother not to tell Corrine something,
as Luke would get into trouble.
Would he though?
And of course, this will be met with;
He had every right to pay his definition of respect, publicly for this girl.
After all, he was so deeply in love with her, at 14,
that he had another girl, ready to meet in Kenmore the following week.
that there was no care of thought shown, in his ludicrous claims of,
waiting around Newbattle Road for nearly 90mins - without checking/
walking - going anywhere near this path.
That there is no oddity in not trying to locate her all evening.
No oddity in that she did not contact him all evening.
No oddity in his lack of concern in any shape or form -
yet, it was just and correct for him to go completely OTT again,
with all of his actions on the day of this girls funeral.
Messy:
Luke Mitchell was also ‘two timing’ Jodi with another girl
Was it the same girl pictured (Middle pic - crouching down red trousers)
And what does Sandra Lean say about the girl in the red trousers in her book ‘Innocence betrayed’?
Jodi accused had second girlfriend
Excerpt:
‘A teenager who considered herself to be the girlfriend of Luke Mitchell, the 16-year-old accused of murdering 14-year-old Jodi Jones, told a court how she became upset after the death of the schoolgirl because she realised that Mr Mitchell had "obviously been cheating" on her.
Kimberly Thomson, 15, told the high court in Edinburgh she was upset when she saw Mr Mitchell named in the newspapers as the boyfriend of the dead teenager.
The witness, who claimed she started dating Mr Mitchell after they met in the summer of 2002, also told the court she had never heard of Jodi Jones until after her death.
Mr Mitchell, who was 14 at the time Miss Jones died, denies murdering the teenager on June 30 last year and has lodged special defences of alibi and incrimination.’
Read more; https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
Was it the same girl pictured (Middle pic - crouching down red trousers)
And what does Sandra Lean say about the girl in the red trousers in her book ‘Innocence betrayed’?
I'm simply not a normal teenager; EXCLUSIVE: Luke Mitchell's chilling boast to the Mail.
Source: Daily Mail (London)
Date: 1/22/2005
Byline: GRACE MCLEAN
THE words coming out of his mouth were enough to chill the heart.
His voice flat and emotionless, Luke Mitchell was describing to me the moment he discovered the body of his girlfriend, mutilated and abandoned on the muddy earth.
For the schoolgirl who died an unspeakable death, horrifically mutilated, there was no expression of love from Luke Mitchell - and no tears.
This was Luke's story in his own words - the account the jury never heard as the teenager never gave evidence during his trial.
'My torch lit up the path like daytime and I was about 12 yards from Jodi when I saw her lying there,' he began. 'She was so white. Her throat had been slit and her head was to the side.
'Her eyes were staring up at me and she was naked but for a pair of socks, I think... no, she wasn't wearing anything. Her body was so white and she was just staring and staring.
'I shouted to the others but I couldn't tell them I'd found Jodi because I didn't want to upset her gran, but she said she wanted to come over the wall.
'The others held her back but she scrambled over the wall and said if her granddaugher was there she wanted to be with her.
'She sat down beside Jodi and cradled her in her arms.
I guess the family are suspicious of me because my dog Mia was the one who found Jodi and I was the one who first saw her lying there.' I interviewed Mitchell months before he had been charged with the murder of Jodi, and days after he had been questioned by detectives hunting for her killer.
Aged 15 at the time, the Luke Mitchell in front of me was an adult in everything but name. Chain smoking and dressed in baggy jeans and a dark-coloured T-shirt, he exuded confidence bordering on arrogance.
Yet all the time his eyes flicked towards his mother Corinne, as if seeking reassurance from the woman with whom he obviously had an extra-special bond.
Mitchell and his mother were like a well-rehearsed double act. As Corinne Mitchell ranted about the unfair treatment of her son, Mitchell would pace the floor as he vented his anger at the way the police had dealt with him.
Then his mother would touch him lightly on the arm and he would, as if by magic, calm down.
And as he gave his version of his whereabouts the night Jodi was brutally murdered, he constantly looked to her for reassurance, particularly when recalling the time he left the house to meet his girlfriend and the time he went on to meet his friends.
In the first moments of meeting Mitchell I was struck by how confident he was.
After a day at school he knew he was about to meet a journalist, but he walked into the room with a nonchalant air.
As I shook his hand, he gave me a cursory glance before sitting in a chair diagonally across from his mother.
It was clear he was a very sexually aware young man. I immediately felt uncomfortable as his eyes slowly looked me up and down. Mitchell may be a child but his sexuality, arrogance and misplaced maturity make him appear far older than his tender years.
There were a few flashes of childlike behaviour. But they only came as he was distracted by Mia - the dog he claimed picked up Jodi's scent and led him to her body.
As his story unfolded, it was clear he was a master of manipulation. His story was just too word-perfect. It was also, as has now transpired, a tissue of lies.
This was a 15-year-old who never buckled once during interviews with some of Scotland's most experienced policemen. The more police pushed him, the more arrogant he became.
He boasted to me: 'After a few hours I told them, "charge me or let me go".'
Mitchell leaned forward in his chair and stared intently at me as he told me how police had made his life 'a misery' and how they tried to relate to him through stories of rap star Eminem, shock rocker Marilyn Manson and pop singer Holly Valance.
He said: 'The cops asked me about my relationship with Jodi's friend Laura.
They kept asking me about the Eminem song Kim, the song where he fantasises about killing his wife.
'They asked me about the follow- up song in which Eminem sings about the "two of us", meaning him and his daughter. They asked me about Laura and if I wanted it to be just the two of us and asked if that was why I killed Jodi.
'It was all rubbish. Jodi and I would still be together if she was here today.' Detectives were astonished by how arrogant Mitchell was during interviews. Even when confronted with evidence he remained defiant.
He seemed to realise police were trying to relate to him as a teenager and find some kind of common ground.
However, as Mitchell saw himself as an adult, he found the tactic amusing and gained a sense of confidence as the interrogation went on.
Mitchell took to pacing the floor again as he told me how he had 'got really mad' with police.
Clenching his fists he said: 'I started to get really mad after about four hours and asked them to charge me if they had anything to charge me with.' It was clear Mitchell enjoyed playing cat and mouse with detectives. He said: ' One copper stood, looked me straight in my face and said, "We've got you. We found your semen on her bra.
We've found sperm similar to yours." I laughed and said, "If it's similar, it's not the same then, is it?" ' He told how detectives showed him a video reconstruction of how it would have been impossible for him to see Jodi's body in the dark woods with only a torch - implying he must have known exactly where she was lying.
He said: 'Jodi's body was replaced with a tailor's dummy and I pointed out to police that I could see a limb. That' s when they switched the video off.'
But then, chillingly, he revealed that he, Jodi and their friend Laura had been talking about funeral arrangements a few nights before the murder.
He said: 'What happened to Jodi was so ironic because the Thursday before she died we were all talking about what records we would want played at our funeral.' I could picture him that night, talking in the bedroom with Jodi - taking a perverse pleasure in knowing the fate that awaited her.
He said police took a lock knife from him after being tipped off by friends.
But he added: 'The bloke who said this is a fantasist. Another of his friends told police Jodi and I were arguing all the time. But that's not true. We never had a cross word.' Mitchell also denied he was taunting police when he left a note with flowers for Jodi which quoted from Kurt Cobain's journals: 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came.' He said: 'The only reason I left it was because she loved that line. I wanted to be with Jodi and nobody else.' It was the first time in our interview that Mitchell spoke of any affection for Jodi. But then, to change the subject, he spent ten minutes talking about newly learned computer skills - just like any other teenage boy - before asking his mother for the keys to her 4x4 Land Rover.
Then, nonchalantly, he walked outside, started up the engine and drove at high speeds around nearby waste ground. It seemed, yet again, that Mitchell was playing at being an adult.
When he returned, he told his mother he was going to see his friend Laura and, since it was on my way, I offered to give Mitchell a lift.
In the car, he said very little about Jodi, continuing to talk about his computer course. When the car came to a standstill, he leaned over and gave me a hug before jumping out. Just four weeks later, he was arrested for Jodi's murder.
I truly believe Mitchell thought he could get away with it. As we parted, he couldn't resist having the final word. A last gesture, and his last chance to goad the police: 'I was never going to break down in public - I'm not that kind of bloke.
'They made a mistake and thought I was just a normal teenager.'
g.mclean@dailymail.co.uk
it wasnt - this was a diffrent fmale friend called laura from local dalkeith area. will spare the surname bcos i dont think she ever been named publicly or written about in sandras book
i do remember article - which i cant find - somwhere that mentioned the polices line of questioning which did include this girl laura - basicly they were asking "did you do this so you could be with laura? " (paraphrase)
Thanks WakeyWakey
Journalist Neil Mackay - who took part in the doc due to be screened next week - states in an article for the Scottish Herald today,
‘Mitchell was quickly painted as a dope-smoking teenage satanist. Lean says: “One of the things that made this case scary.. was this emphasis that Luke was a devil worshipper”
Am guessing they’ll be no reference to this
Jodi Jones killer Luke Mitchell demands right to study Satanic textbooks in prison due to his 'religious beliefs'
’JODI Jones’s killer Luke Mitchell has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in jail because of his “religious beliefs”.
Mitchell wants six books including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, claiming it’s his human right to have access to the occult materials.
Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.
He made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison where he is serving life for the murder of Jodi in June 2003.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
it wasnt - this was a diffrent fmale friend called laura from local dalkeith area. will spare the surname bcos i dont think she ever been named publicly or written about in sandras book
i do remember article - which i cant find - somwhere that mentioned the polices line of questioning which did include this girl laura - basicly they were asking "did you do this so you could be with laura? " (paraphrase)
What about Gemma ?
interesting that never seen anything about htis gemma c other than one article way back when he first imprisoned.
not surprising that youthful relationship might end, especially whne one person starting a life sentence but you might have expected to hear something since?
unless she no longer support the position she once did? - same for htis laura girl?
They may speak out after seeing him on the tele - who knows
Do youq recall Gemma C’s letter,
“I could go on all day telling of four or five different people who could have murdered Jodi and the funny thing is, all of them would have more evidence to prove it was them than Luke did’
More than likely Mitchell’s words
it wasnt - this was a diffrent fmale friend called laura from local dalkeith area. will spare the surname bcos i dont think she ever been named publicly or written about in sandras book
i do remember article - which i cant find - somwhere that mentioned the polices line of questioning which did include this girl laura - basicly they were asking "did you do this so you could be with laura? " (paraphrase)
Re Laura http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=487.msg546670#msg546670
Luke Mitchell knew he wasn’t a normal teenager
‘I'm simply not a normal teenager; EXCLUSIVE: Luke Mitchell's chilling boast to the Mail.
Source: Daily Mail (London)
Date: 1/22/2005
Byline: GRACE MCLEAN
THE words coming out of his mouth were enough to chill the heart.
His voice flat and emotionless, Luke Mitchell was describing to me the moment he discovered the body of his girlfriend, mutilated and abandoned on the muddy earth.
For the schoolgirl who died an unspeakable death, horrifically mutilated, there was no expression of love from Luke Mitchell - and no tears.
This was Luke's story in his own words - the account the jury never heard as the teenager never gave evidence during his trial.
'My torch lit up the path like daytime and I was about 12 yards from Jodi when I saw her lying there,' he began. 'She was so white. Her throat had been slit and her head was to the side.
'Her eyes were staring up at me and she was naked but for a pair of socks, I think... no, she wasn't wearing anything. Her body was so white and she was just staring and staring.
'I shouted to the others but I couldn't tell them I'd found Jodi because I didn't want to upset her gran, but she said she wanted to come over the wall.
'The others held her back but she scrambled over the wall and said if her granddaugher was there she wanted to be with her.
'She sat down beside Jodi and cradled her in her arms.
I guess the family are suspicious of me because my dog Mia was the one who found Jodi and I was the one who first saw her lying there.' I interviewed Mitchell months before he had been charged with the murder of Jodi, and days after he had been questioned by detectives hunting for her killer.
Aged 15 at the time, the Luke Mitchell in front of me was an adult in everything but name. Chain smoking and dressed in baggy jeans and a dark-coloured T-shirt, he exuded confidence bordering on arrogance.
Yet all the time his eyes flicked towards his mother Corinne, as if seeking reassurance from the woman with whom he obviously had an extra-special bond.
Mitchell and his mother were like a well-rehearsed double act. As Corinne Mitchell ranted about the unfair treatment of her son, Mitchell would pace the floor as he vented his anger at the way the police had dealt with him.
Then his mother would touch him lightly on the arm and he would, as if by magic, calm down.
And as he gave his version of his whereabouts the night Jodi was brutally murdered, he constantly looked to her for reassurance, particularly when recalling the time he left the house to meet his girlfriend and the time he went on to meet his friends.
In the first moments of meeting Mitchell I was struck by how confident he was.
After a day at school he knew he was about to meet a journalist, but he walked into the room with a nonchalant air.
As I shook his hand, he gave me a cursory glance before sitting in a chair diagonally across from his mother.
It was clear he was a very sexually aware young man. I immediately felt uncomfortable as his eyes slowly looked me up and down. Mitchell may be a child but his sexuality, arrogance and misplaced maturity make him appear far older than his tender years.
There were a few flashes of childlike behaviour. But they only came as he was distracted by Mia - the dog he claimed picked up Jodi's scent and led him to her body.
As his story unfolded, it was clear he was a master of manipulation. His story was just too word-perfect. It was also, as has now transpired, a tissue of lies.
This was a 15-year-old who never buckled once during interviews with some of Scotland's most experienced policemen. The more police pushed him, the more arrogant he became.
He boasted to me: 'After a few hours I told them, "charge me or let me go".'
Mitchell leaned forward in his chair and stared intently at me as he told me how police had made his life 'a misery' and how they tried to relate to him through stories of rap star Eminem, shock rocker Marilyn Manson and pop singer Holly Valance.
He said: 'The cops asked me about my relationship with Jodi's friend Laura.
They kept asking me about the Eminem song Kim, the song where he fantasises about killing his wife.
'They asked me about the follow- up song in which Eminem sings about the "two of us", meaning him and his daughter. They asked me about Laura and if I wanted it to be just the two of us and asked if that was why I killed Jodi.
'It was all rubbish. Jodi and I would still be together if she was here today.' Detectives were astonished by how arrogant Mitchell was during interviews. Even when confronted with evidence he remained defiant.
He seemed to realise police were trying to relate to him as a teenager and find some kind of common ground.
However, as Mitchell saw himself as an adult, he found the tactic amusing and gained a sense of confidence as the interrogation went on.
Mitchell took to pacing the floor again as he told me how he had 'got really mad' with police.
Clenching his fists he said: 'I started to get really mad after about four hours and asked them to charge me if they had anything to charge me with.' It was clear Mitchell enjoyed playing cat and mouse with detectives. He said: ' One copper stood, looked me straight in my face and said, "We've got you. We found your semen on her bra.
We've found sperm similar to yours." I laughed and said, "If it's similar, it's not the same then, is it?" ' He told how detectives showed him a video reconstruction of how it would have been impossible for him to see Jodi's body in the dark woods with only a torch - implying he must have known exactly where she was lying.
He said: 'Jodi's body was replaced with a tailor's dummy and I pointed out to police that I could see a limb. That' s when they switched the video off.'
But then, chillingly, he revealed that he, Jodi and their friend Laura had been talking about funeral arrangements a few nights before the murder.
He said: 'What happened to Jodi was so ironic because the Thursday before she died we were all talking about what records we would want played at our funeral.' I could picture him that night, talking in the bedroom with Jodi - taking a perverse pleasure in knowing the fate that awaited her.
He said police took a lock knife from him after being tipped off by friends.
But he added: 'The bloke who said this is a fantasist. Another of his friends told police Jodi and I were arguing all the time. But that's not true. We never had a cross word.' Mitchell also denied he was taunting police when he left a note with flowers for Jodi which quoted from Kurt Cobain's journals: 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came.' He said: 'The only reason I left it was because she loved that line. I wanted to be with Jodi and nobody else.' It was the first time in our interview that Mitchell spoke of any affection for Jodi. But then, to change the subject, he spent ten minutes talking about newly learned computer skills - just like any other teenage boy - before asking his mother for the keys to her 4x4 Land Rover.
Then, nonchalantly, he walked outside, started up the engine and drove at high speeds around nearby waste ground. It seemed, yet again, that Mitchell was playing at being an adult.
When he returned, he told his mother he was going to see his friend Laura and, since it was on my way, I offered to give Mitchell a lift.
In the car, he said very little about Jodi, continuing to talk about his computer course. When the car came to a standstill, he leaned over and gave me a hug before jumping out. Just four weeks later, he was arrested for Jodi's murder.
I truly believe Mitchell thought he could get away with it. As we parted, he couldn't resist having the final word. A last gesture, and his last chance to goad the police: 'I was never going to break down in public - I'm not that kind of bloke.
'They made a mistake and thought I was just a normal teenager.'
g.mclean@dailymail.co.uk
Did Laura’s police statement tally with Luke Mitchell’s ?
Girlfriend of Jodi's killer speaks of her love for him - The Scotsman - May 2005
LUKE MITCHELL'S secret girlfriend has spoken of her love for the teenage murderer.
‘Gemma Chapman, 17, described the convicted killer as "kind, caring and loving" and said he was wrongly found guilty of 14-year-old Jodi Jones' horrific murder on Roan's Dyke Path in Dalkeith.
In comments echoing those of Mitchell's defence at his trial, Ms Chapman, who lives with her parents near Edinburgh, said in a letter to a friend: "I could go on all day telling of four or five different people who could have murdered Jodi and the funny thing is, all of them would have more evidence to prove it was them than Luke did."
She said it was very painful being separated from the convicted killer, who was found guilty of slashing Jodi's throat about 20 times before mutilating her body.
The judge called the killing "one of the worst cases of murder of a single victim to have come before the court in many years".
Ms Chapman said: "It's so painful being away from the man I love and I feel angry because I don't know the truth and I'm still standing by him."
But she admitted she was frightened her loyalty could be misplaced.
She said: "I'm confused and very scared of making the wrong choices.
"I don't want him to be guilty and wasting my time with him."
Mitchell, 16, was jailed for a minimum of 20 years and is currently being held at Polmont Young Offenders' Institution, near Falkirk, until he turns 18, when he will be moved to Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow
https://www.scotsman.com/news/girlfriend-jodis-killer-speaks-her-love-him-2512833
I'd phoned the Mitchell house and his mother told me that Luke was paying his own, private tribute.
Mother and son agreed that we could film it.
They were like a pack of rabid dogs
In the first moments of meeting Mitchell I was struck by how confident he was.
Was she the reason Jodi died?
It was claimed that Jodi found out about the two-timing and confronted Mitchell who reacted with violence towards her.
What happened to Jodi was so ironic because the Thursday before she died we were all talking about what records we would want played at our funeral.
Luke MitchellQuoteWhat happened to Jodi was so ironic because the Thursday before she died we were all talking about what records we would want played at our funeral
It must have been dreadful for Jodi's gran Alice Walker to have seen her that night. The version above refers to her cradling Jodi but there is another which simply refers to her touching her forehead. It appeared the media couldn't even get that right.
She sat down beside Jodi and cradled her in her arms
I shouted to the others but I couldn't tell them I'd found Jodi because I didn't want to upset her gran, but she said she wanted to come over the wall
The others held her back but she scrambled over the wall and said if her granddaugher was there she wanted to be with her
She sat down beside Jodi and cradled her in her arms
It must have been dreadful for Jodi's gran Alice Walker to have seen her that night.
She sat down beside Jodi and cradled her in her arms
Was she the reason Jodi died?
It was claimed that Jodi found out about the two-timing and confronted Mitchell who reacted with violence towards her.
As far as I recall, Luke was asked to keep away from Jodi's funeral, which he did. He wasn't asked to keep away from the cemetery, and, IMO, nobody has the right to prevent another from visiting the grave of a person who was close to them.
I read that the girl with Luke and Corinne at the graveside was a friend of Jodi. I don't know whether or not that is true.
Many boys of Luke's age are guilty of cheating on their girlfriends (and girls on their boyfriends). I don't find this very significant, just a sign of immaturity!
The interview with James Matthews, on the day of Jodi's funeral was, IMO, rather naive and insensitive, but I don't think it indicates that Luke killed Jodi, or that he necessarily did not respect her family.
But that immaturity label doesn't tie in with the police and media interviews where he was considered mature for his age. We can't have it both ways.
But that immaturity label doesn't tie in with the police and media interviews where he was considered mature for his age. We can't have it both ways.
As far as I recall, Luke was asked to keep away from Jodi's funeral, which he did. He wasn't asked to keep away from the cemetery, and, IMO, nobody has the right to prevent another from visiting the grave of a person who was close to them.
I read that the girl with Luke and Corinne at the graveside was a friend of Jodi. I don't know whether or not that is true.
Many boys of Luke's age are guilty of cheating on their girlfriends (and girls on their boyfriends). I don't find this very significant, just a sign of immaturity!
The interview with James Matthews, on the day of Jodi's funeral was, IMO, rather naive and insensitive, but I don't think it indicates that Luke killed Jodi, or that he necessarily did not respect her family.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39293000/jpg/_39293666_coffinpa203.jpg)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3202419.stmMitchell expressed disappointment in his Sky News interview that Jodi's family had not wished his presence at her funeral and he respected their wishes.
Why then did he and his mother 'own' Jodi's grave by posing at it for publicity shots as recorded by tabloid photographers.
I hardly think that public display showed respect to Jodi's mother when a private visit to the cemetery would have sufficed and might have been more appropriate had avoiding causing offence been a real consideration.
I have to say, I hadn't realised they had posed for pictures.
I have to say, I hadn't realised they had posed for pictures.
That’s because he didn’t as is obvious from the photographs. A reporter did tell Jodi’s mother that Luke had left flowers at the grave, an action that can only have been contrived to cause hurt and anger.It wasn't the reporters actions that caused hurt and anger. Lukes arrogance and insensitivity by leaving the flowers was what caused the hurt and anger. His mother as an adult should've known this but obviously didn't care.
It wasn't the reporters actions that caused hurt and anger. Lukes arrogance and insensitivity by leaving the flowers was what caused the hurt and anger. His mother as an adult should've known this but obviously didn't care.
He really was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t, wasn’t he?
What is arrogant about leaving flowers? He respected the family’s wishes by not going to the funeral, and remember at that point, according to the law, he was innocent of any crime. The damage that that request by the family must have done to this child in his own community is incalculable. It does however show the family’s attitude to Luke at the time and how easy it must have been for the police to manipulate their recollections from what they said in their first statements to what they eventually said in court.
He really was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t, wasn’t he?What about the damage Luke did to the family by murdering Jodi? You're obviously certain he's 100% innocent. What makes you so sure? I'd love to know.
What is arrogant about leaving flowers? He respected the family’s wishes by not going to the funeral, and remember at that point, according to the law, he was innocent of any crime. The damage that that request by the family must have done to this child in his own community is incalculable. It does however show the family’s attitude to Luke at the time and how easy it must have been for the police to manipulate their recollections from what they said in their first statements to what they eventually said in court.
What about the damage Luke did to the family by murdering Jodi? You're obviously certain he's 100% innocent. What makes you so sure? I'd love to know.
It wasn't the reporters actions that caused hurt and anger. Lukes arrogance and insensitivity by leaving the flowers was what caused the hurt and anger. His mother as an adult should've known this but obviously didn't care.
Leaving flowers at his girlfriend's grave? What on earth is arrogant and insensitive about that ?
And what makes you so sure he's guilty? The case doesn't seem at all clear cut to me.I am not 100% sure about his guilt or innocence and have said as much, therefore I don't make categoric statements such as
Leaving flowers at his girlfriend's grave? What on earth is arrogant and insensitive about that ?So you suspect your loved one was murdered by their partner and you are quite OK with them attending the funeral or graveside to leave flowers are you?
Leaving flowers at his girlfriend's grave? What on earth is arrogant and insensitive about that ?
Leaving flowers at his girlfriend's grave? What on earth is arrogant and insensitive about that ?
I must agree with Mrs S. Corinne and Luke went to Jodi's grave after the funeral knowing full well that the media would be lurking. They didn't have to do that, they could have gone quietly later and paid their respects if that was what they truly intended.
The interview with Sky News' James Matthews whom Corinne referred to as, "that horrible little man" in the latest Ch5 documentary sort of backfired on Corinne too. She should have known better.
What time did Corrine and Luke go to the graveyard?Good question. Who took the photos if not the press, and who tipped them off that Luke and his mum were there...?
Do the press usually mooch around graveyards once funerals are over?
Good question. Who took the photos if not the press, and who tipped them off that Luke and his mum were there...?
The Press took the photos. Anybody with a scintilla of commonsense would have scarpered the moment they saw reporters in the graveyard but not Corinne. They were loving it!In the same way the McCanns couldn’t go anywhere without being photographed, no doubt Mitchell had the press on his tail every time he left the house (particularly on a significant day like the funeral) and he and his mother would surely have known this.
The Press took the photos. Anybody with a scintilla of commonsense would have scarpered the moment they saw reporters in the graveyard but not Corinne. They were loving it!
The Press took the photos. Anybody with a scintilla of commonsense would have scarpered the moment they saw reporters in the graveyard but not Corinne. They were loving it!
What evidence do you have that they were "loving it"?
Perhaps they would much rather NOT have encountered the press, but once at the cemetery, they decided they would lay the flowers anyway, rather than leave and come back later.
Jodi's mother Judy Jones took the flowers away immediately.
Jodi's mother Judy Jones took the flowers away immediately.
I am not 100% sure about his guilt or innocence and have said as much, therefore I don't make categoric statements such as
" The damage that that request by the family must have done to this child in his own community is incalculable". If he is indeed guilty then why should the family be made to feel guilty about asking their child's murderer to stay away from the graveside?
Mitchell had been told to stay away from the funeral by Jodi's mother Judy Jones.
Later than afternoon Mitchell with mother, German Shepherd Mia and new
female friend in tow made their way to the cemetery at Gorebridge where
they laid a memorial.
(http://i.imgur.com/vebhF.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/Wixes.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/QIa4y.jpg)
Meeting with a murderer.
James Matthews from Sky News interviewed Luke Mitchell on the day of Jodi's funeral.
Luke Mitchell insisted he did not murder his girlfriend Jodi Jones. Sky News' James Matthews recounts his exclusive interview with the youngster.
It was on the day of Jodi Jones' funeral that I met and interviewed Luke Mitchell.
It had been two months since Jodi's murder, and her family had told him to stay away. They suspected then what a jury would later confirm - that he was her killer.
I'd phoned the Mitchell house and his mother told me that Luke was paying his own, private tribute.
Mother and son agreed that we could film it. So the camera rolled as the teenager lit candles on a shrine to Jodi that he'd created on his dining table. No payment was asked for and none made.
Mitchell had turned 15 since Jodi's murder. He had the awkwardness of youth, but was nonetheless charming, obliging and friendly.
I interviewed him, as he sat with his mother's comforting arm around him.
It was an intriguing spectacle for viewers of Sky News - it also aroused the interest of detectives on the Jodi Jones murder squad.
They took formal steps to obtain a copy of the tape and flew to California where they showed it to the man known as the "Human Lie Detector".
Professor Paul Ekman is the world authority on the analysis of facial expression. He is an adviser to the FBI and CIA. In the course of the Jodi Jones murder inquiry, he became a consultant to Lothian & Borders Police.
Edinburgh-based detectives flew to San Fransisco to show my interview to Professor Ekman. He spent hours viewing the tape frame by frame, analysing the miniscule muscle movements on Mitchell's face. In the end, he supported police suspicions about Jodi's boyfriend.
According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.
On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.
In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone.
It was a time in the murder investigation when Detectives had precious little evidence. The findings of Prof. Ekman kept the focus of the inquiry on Mitchell.
There was to be one other showing of the interview - this time before the jury.
Again, formal steps were taken to secure a copy of the tape, and it was broadcast in the High Court. A packed courtroom watched as Luke Mitchell denied killing Jodi Jones, lit candles for her, and recited the poem he'd written, entitled "Goodbye Jodi".
It was the prosecution who wanted to broadcast the interview in court - they wanted to highlight Mitchell's demeanour on the day of Jodi's funeral - his lack of emotion.
"Not a tear, not a quiver" in the words of Advocate-Depute Alan Turnbull, from the teenager he described as a cold, calculating killer.
Yes, I heard that. Didn't she dump them on the Mitchells' doorstep?
What made her so sure Luke had killed Jodi, I wonder.
Luke’s demeanour throughout the Sky interview struck me as peculiar and suspicious. He looked like he was sulking out of guilt and inconvenience rather than out of sadness or grief that Jodi had been murdered. That brooding, menacing look etched on his countenance throughout. There were definitely odd vibes emanating from Luke during that Sky interview, imo. Makes me feel uneasy. And, no, I don’t think his mother playing with his hair reassuringly during the interview is strange or odd; that was natural maternal instincts kicking in during a highly stressful situation.
Didn’t you notice the horns just under his hair, you could just about see them when his mother brushed it to one side and that 666 at his parting. Surely that has to be significant?
Didn’t you notice the horns just under his hair, you could just about see them when his mother brushed it to one side and that 666 at his parting. Surely that has to be significant?
Sarcasm and hyperbole aside, you don’t think Luke came across weirdly brooding in the interview? Not one flicker of emotion or one single solitary tear shed; just the look of a sulking, spoiled boy fixed firmly upon his countenance throughout. Very suspicious and strange, if you ask me. Even at 14, surely if you were accused of the most heinous crime of them all you’d be incredulous, animated and vocal about it if you hadn’t done it?!!?! You would choose to sit there like a lugubrious labrador giving detached, monotone answers?? I don’t think so! But, by his own admission, wasn’t the emotional type. He wasn’t that type of guy. Yeah, right! Be that as it may, it would be impossible to be as detached in that interview as he was, especially in the face of the extremely exceptional circumstances in which it was steeped.
is a recording available of the interview anywherre? i been looking for a recording of this for some time
I would also like to see it again but never been able to find it.
Found this in an article, Luke explain why he appears emotionless
“My mum had contacted the GP, who prescribed a heavy dose of Temazepam, Fluoxetine and later Lormetazepam. Temazepam and Lormetazepam are for short term relief of severe anxiety and insomnia. Side effects include marked personality disorder, confusion and amnesia. It is not recommended that either be given to a child.
Floxetine is for treatment of depressive illness. It is not recommended for adolescence under 18, I was later prescribed Trazodone Hydrochloride. Its side effects include behavioural disturbances, particularly in children.
For this medication regime, in such high doses, explains the obsession with calling me emotionless”
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20120506/281719791599736
Article’s from May 2012 — he’d had more than 7 years to concoct that story. Regardless of wether he was heavily medicated or advised by his legal team & the judge to remain emotionless, if one was innocent of a crime, especially the most heinous one of all, you’d still expect some reaction from him. It would not be unreasonable behaviour, even if Luke was shouting and cussing in frustration as he was led away to serve an unlimited life sentence; you’d expect an innocent person to be very emotional, animated and vocal (human nature kicking in), but not a peep from him. Not a peep from him ever — not even that night when he discovered the body and was on the phone to emergency services (it was SK who was emotional on the phone to emergency services, not LM). No tears at the discovery of the body, no overt signs of trauma. Nada. Nothing. Texting away nonchalantly and emotionless on his phone when ambulance crews arrived at the scene. I think it’s also very telling that he didn’t even make any attempt to go over a see the body as AW had done; if he was innocent or had even a modicum of respect for Jodi, human instincts would have kicked in and he would have went over to the body immediately and maybe even have cradled or touched Jodi, as Alice had done. But, nothing. Just trying to cover his tracks as per being DNA aware and paranoid. Even if he was DNA aware, surely if he had nothing to hide, human instincts of affection would’ve kicked in and he would’ve went over closer to the body and maybe even touched her. But, no. And not even a tear was shed. He wasn’t heavily medicated at this point, was he? There’s obviously been a reason as to why experienced officers had taken Luke’s clothing away immediately for examination early that morning and Luke quickly becoming a prime suspect; his behaviour immediately gave the police cause for concern, that’s why. Would obviously be helpful if we had a video or audio of the scene of the discovery of the body and an audio or video of Luke’s interview early that morning (and indeed all his police interviews). It would also be helpful if there was a video of the trial in full available.
Article’s from May 2012 — he’d had more than 7 years to concoct that story.
Killer Luke Mitchell
‘I tried to say I’d found Jodi but all that came out was: “I’ve found something.”
‘I went into shock.
‘I’ve found something’ yet claimed on the telephone for the channel 5 TV show - he knew it was Jodi *&^^&
‘I went into shock’
So killer Luke Mitchell is claiming here he ‘went into shock’ and apparently using this alleged ‘shock’ for why he said he’d found something instead of saying he’s ‘found Jodi’ *&^^&
Killer Luke Mitchell
‘My mum had been constantly phoning me, as it was either nearly or just after midnight’
Why didn’t he answer his phone to speak to his mum?
Sarcasm and hyperbole aside, you don’t think Luke came across weirdly brooding in the interview? Not one flicker of emotion or one single solitary tear shed; just the look of a sulking, spoiled boy fixed firmly upon his countenance throughout. Very suspicious and strange, if you ask me. Even at 14, surely if you were accused of the most heinous crime of them all you’d be incredulous, animated and vocal about it if you hadn’t done it?!!?! You would choose to sit there like a lugubrious labrador giving detached, monotone answers?? I don’t think so! But, by his own admission, wasn’t the emotional type. He wasn’t that type of guy. Yeah, right! Be that as it may, it would be impossible to be as detached in that interview as he was, especially in the face of the extremely exceptional circumstances in which it was steeped.
I think CM has said that they felt they were stitched up a bit in that interview, but I don't think either CM or LM were under undue pressure to take part in it.
I wonder what CM thought Sky NEWS were going to do with that recorded footage. Maybe broadcast it on Sky News? I believe CM said she expected it to be broadcast but not on that day. I think it just all backfired on her. Just my opinion.
I think CM has said that they felt they were stitched up a bit in that interview, but I don't think either CM or LM were under undue pressure to take part in it.
I wonder what CM thought Sky NEWS were going to do with that recorded footage. Maybe broadcast it on Sky News? I believe CM said she expected it to be broadcast but not on that day. I think it just all backfired on her. Just my opinion.
And if he’d bawled his eyes out ? Be truthful, would you be anymore convinced of his innocence?
It’s funny how we all see things differently. I saw a young, immature boy who had been put in a situation which was completely alien to him and was totally out of his depth. Of course we also don’t know how the interview was edited and what ended up on the cutting room floor. That footage may have told a completely different story.
What was heard re the evidence in court regarding when the footage was going to be aired ?
Why did the pair of them choose the day of [Name removed]’s funeral to be interviewed by Sky News - why not another day?
38.18 minutes into the video. There are other videos of CM and SL saying much the same thing as this but this is all I can find just now..
https://youtu.be/t6ysPeri0O4
As for Sky just wanting into their house "for a look," I'd have thought the cameras and microphones may have been a clue?
38.18 minutes into the video. There are other videos of CM and SL saying much the same thing as this but this is all I can find just now..
https://youtu.be/t6ysPeri0O4
As for Sky just wanting into their house "for a look," I'd have thought the cameras and microphones may have been a clue?
And if he’d bawled his eyes out ? Be truthful, would you be anymore convinced of his innocence?
It’s funny how we all see things differently. I saw a young, immature boy who had been put in a situation which was completely alien to him and was totally out of his depth. Of course we also don’t know how the interview was edited and what ended up on the cutting room floor. That footage may have told a completely different story.
But why choose to have them in her house and take part in an interview which they knew would be broadcast for all to see?
Corinne Mitchell ⬇️
‘….Yes I’m sorry your daughter is dead that’s awful that’s absolutely awful and he’s suffered for that he suffered tremendous trauma because he couldn’t even grieve for her because the press were fff right there the police were right there
Ain't that the truth! If you have someone who simply believes this case went to trial on air! - Not a snifter of evidence yet in the same breath confesses to there being no conspiracy, no need for one? No evidence, nothing, all made up and fabricated by the police from around 10.45pm that evening. They just felt it was him and spent 10 months fitting him up? Ignored this mass of evidence against others, patted murderers on the back and said "off you trot now and murder someone else" - such was their appreciation they decided not to bother.
And again those like minded - Those craws flying together! Where others as did the Jury see if for what it was, and again by his own hands, LM put another nail in his coffin. He aided yet again his own conviction. As with his mother, who pondered to his every whim. These ridiculous claims also of sleeping on couches in the lounge! They were sharing a bedroom with one bed for months on end, upstairs - not downstairs. Those half truths with the Mitchells lies. Where the author states the proof of sharing the bedroom was one occasion at the raid and arrest! In the bedroom together, in the April of 04.
To add weight to these nonsense claims of the shit load of drugs claimed he was on! - and yet again every piece of evidence tells us this is nonsense - he was not medicated at this age on any cocktail of drugs. He knew exactly what he was doing with that interview, and it was attention upon himself. How dare the killer, the person who had brought about that day, be left out of the limelight? It had been aired and they still went up to the grave amongst the limelight yet again. The press present on their arrival. Using them again to put himself out there, to be noticed. - They knew exactly what they were doing, even dressed up for the part. They were making sure this "media circus" was going to be just that! And they were centre stage of acts. All smoking such was that need to add to the controversary, this 15 -year old lad with his mother, showing the world he would do as he pleased. Not one snifter of respect in any of their actions that day. - And it came across exactly how it was - shameful, disrespectful and fake! - he was revelling plain and simple, letting the world know it was him.
Why did the pair of them choose the day of [Name removed]’s funeral to be interviewed by Sky News - why not another day?
Was it them who chose the day?
You are entitled not to believe Sandra Lean. You are also entitled to believe the Mitchells lied. However, if you cannot provide evidence for what you say is true, you are verging upon the libellous, particularly about certain people sharing a bedroom with one bed.
I have no idea, Nicholas. I have no idea why anyone would make that horrendous event all about them. I wish I had an answer.
Corinne Mitchell ⬇️
‘….Yes I’m sorry your daughter is dead that’s awful that’s absolutely awful and he’s suffered for that he suffered tremendous trauma because he couldn’t even grieve for her because the press were fff right there the police were right there
[quote LUKE: That was a hard blow. I was dreading going to the funeral but I did want to go and being told not to go due to the fact that it would turn the funeral into a circus, a media circus, was bad. It would have been a media circus without me but that was, if it was the family’s wishes, that’s what I was going to do?
ENDS
A media circus WITHOUT him? What on earth did he mean I wonder?
I probably wouldn’t be any more convinced of his innocence had he bawled his eyes out, no. When the circumstantial evidence against him is so considerable, it’s nigh on impossible to arrive on any other conclusion than guilty, imo.
Let me put you on the spot, faithlilly: if someone held a gun to your head and asked you if you thought Luke Mitchell was guilty or not guilty, what would you say? In this hypothetical situation, not proven is not an option. If you choose not guilty, I’d be very keen to read your reasons for this. Surely the considerable circumstantial evidence against him is just too strong to arrive at any other conclusion than guilty? Anyway, the floor is yours . . .
this CHILD was vilified in the press
Clearly another blatant lie
[quote LUKE: That was a hard blow. I was dreading going to the funeral but I did want to go and being told not to go due to the fact that it would turn the funeral into a circus, a media circus, was bad. It would have been a media circus without me but that was, if it was the family’s wishes, that’s what I was going to do?
ENDS
A media circus WITHOUT him? What on earth did he mean I wonder?
He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.
He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.
So just to get this clear? The person convicted of this girls death, the murderer who was suspect at the time - put himself at the fore of media attention not once but twice on the day of her funeral?
Now you may have your doubts upon this conviction but as it stands that is exactly what he is, and exactly what he was at the time. You put a ? around this lad arriving home and letting his mother know what he had done? I too do that, I find it highly unlikely he told her exactly what he had done, we as parents find this hard to fathom, of giving help. Are you saying as a parent, you would have allowed your child to go ahead with being interviewed on the day of her funeral and furthered this with a visit to the grave, awash again with media. Standing smoking with your 15 - year old son at her grave whilst those cameras were upon you, even without them being there? Or would you, as the majority of parents would have done, showed your respect privately? Honoured this girls life and death in a respectful private way, one that did not need the attention of the country, all eyes upon them?
No, surely not - which give insight does it not to exactly how their minds worked? And it does not show this meek, innocent lad doting on anyone, does it? It shows a lad who really did not give a toss, did he? - and why should he have?
Granted but it wasn't a circus without him.
Some ego though, eh?
He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.
So the next day’s papers weren’t filled with photos of Jodi’s funeral?
He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.
That killer ego ….He may not have attended the funeral itself but him and his mam certainly created a situation that firmly put the spotlight on them.
So just to get this clear? The person convicted of this girls death, the murderer who was suspect at the time - put himself at the fore of media attention not once but twice on the day of her funeral?
So just to get this clear? The person convicted of this girls death, the murderer who was suspect at the time - put himself at the fore of media attention not once but twice on the day of her funeral?
Now you may have your doubts upon this conviction but as it stands that is exactly what he is, and exactly what he was at the time. You put a ? around this lad arriving home and letting his mother know what he had done? I too do that, I find it highly unlikely he told her exactly what he had done, we as parents find this hard to fathom, of giving help. Are you saying as a parent, you would have allowed your child to go ahead with being interviewed on the day of her funeral and furthered this with a visit to the grave, awash again with media. Standing smoking with your 15 - year old son at her grave whilst those cameras were upon you, even without them being there? Or would you, as the majority of parents would have done, showed your respect privately? Honoured this girls life and death in a respectful private way, one that did not need the attention of the country, all eyes upon them?
No, surely not - which give insight does it not to exactly how their minds worked? And it does not show this meek, innocent lad doting on anyone, does it? It shows a lad who really did not give a toss, did he? - and why should he have?
Yes of course they were. That was to be expected. A circus implies it was a show, not genuine, for the cameras primarily, for an audience. I didn't see Jodi's funeral as a circus. The funeral itself and the mourners who attended the funeral I'm sure were all there for the right reasons. To mourn Jodi. However, it would seem LM and CM attending Jodi's grave and giving Sky a televised interview on that day generated far more media coverage and for all the wrong reasons. Hence, the circus.
The funeral would always have been a circus, with or without the Mitchells. The case sold too many papers for it to be anything else. Why the mourners were there had no effect on that. This was about newspaper sales. If the press had had any respect for the Jones family they would simply have stayed away.
As to the interview, Corrine claimed that she was told that the interview would not be shown on the day of the funeral and I have no reason to disbelieve her. Was she naive, of course but naivety, as far as I’m aware, isn’t a crime. The Mitchells respected Judith Jones’s request to stay away from the funeral. That they visited later when I suspect they thought there was less chance of a press presence, is to be commended not ridiculed. It was hardly the Mitchell’s fault that the press, disgracefully, used the visit to sell papers.
The funeral would always have been a circus, with or without the Mitchells. The case sold too many papers for it to be anything else. Why the mourners were there had no effect on that. This was about newspaper sales. If the press had had any respect for the Jones family they would simply have stayed away.
As to the interview, Corrine claimed that she was told that the interview would not be shown on the day of the funeral and I have no reason to disbelieve her. Was she naive, of course but naivety, as far as I’m aware, isn’t a crime. The Mitchells respected Judith Jones’s request to stay away from the funeral. That they visited later when I suspect they thought there was less chance of a press presence, is to be commended not ridiculed. It was hardly the Mitchell’s fault that the press, disgracefully, used the visit to sell papers.
The funeral was not a circus. The press coverage CM and LM made sure they enjoyed on the day of Jodi's funeral was the circus.
Agreed!Thanks. I just took a look at that. The Sky people wanted to "witness" the vigil? Maybe CM should have asked them to leave their cameras and sound equipment in the van then. If a "horrible little man" quizzed my child in his own home, the horrible little man's feet wouldn't touch the ground on his way out. Sky just happened to come to the door just as LM was about to light the vigil candles? Aye right! I've seen other videos where both CM and SL have said it was all pre arranged by phone. She's p****d off because it backfired IMO and who'd have thought????
Around 15.48 here ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J7eusTWVCEg
Agreed!
Around 15.48 here ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J7eusTWVCEg
Thanks. I just took a look at that. The Sky people wanted to "witness" the vigil? Maybe CM should have asked them to leave their cameras and sound equipment in the van then. If a "horrible little man" quizzed my child in his own home, the horrible little man's feet wouldn't touch the ground on his way out. Sky just happened to come to the door just as LM was about to light the vigil candles? Aye right! I've seen other videos where both CM and SL have said it was all pre arranged by phone. She's p****d off because it backfired IMO and who'd have thought????
It did backfire and Corinne confirmed it backfired but this wasn’t the only interview Corinne and Luke Mitchell gave to the media.Who else did they give an interview to?
It was set up and pre planned. Really, does this woman even know what truth means? That poem written, those candles laid out, the man from Sky (?) did not just turn up at their door, and one said, "well yes actually, we are" come on in and share it with us. The media were being the media the Mitchells were being the Mitchells - plain and simple. What had he planned to do? Read the poem to his mother!! - Poppycock and those bells just kept on jangling. He was making sure that he would be part of that day, nothing was going to stop Luke Mitchell. From the press would not leave us alone to inviting them into their home for their own purpose and gain. Used in equal measures. And as stated, they knew it was being aired, put out there and they still went up to the graveyard. On their arrival they knew yet again the press would be and were there and they intentionally danced to their tune, again using each other in equal measures. It suited and it fitted exactly what they intended - plain and simple.
They did not respectfully stay back - they had no choice. Attendance by police presence was controlled. They knew they would not get near so sought other means, as above. Does one really believe, that the Luke Mitchell who we know from the moment that girl was murdered, would simply conform to anything? No he would not. Even his first day back at school, he showed clear contempt for the system. He refused point blank to wear the school colours. It was his way or no way.
It did backfire and Corinne confirmed it backfired but this wasn’t the only interview Corinne and Luke Mitchell gave to the media - there were othersI think I do remember Grace Maclean. I believe she gave him a lift after the interview. Thanks.
Remember the ‘I’m simply not a normal teenager’ by Grace McLean http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=487.msg541296#msg541296
From the press would not leave us alone to inviting them into their home for their own purpose and gain. Used in equal measures. And as stated, they knew it was being aired, put out there and they still went up to the graveyard. On their arrival they knew yet again the press would be and were there and they intentionally danced to their tune, again using each other in equal measures.
‘The story became enormous’ ~ Neil McKay - lifting the killers sadistic and narcissistic egoNicholas or Parky, do either of you know which came first, the Sky interview or the Mitchell photoshoot at Jodi's grave? Thanks.
I think I do remember Grace Maclean. I believe she gave him a lift after the interview. Thanks.
He said: 'The cops asked me about my relationship with Jodi's friend Laura.
They kept asking me about the Eminem song Kim, the song where he fantasises about killing his wife.
'They asked me about the follow- up song in which Eminem sings about the "two of us", meaning him and his daughter. They asked me about Laura and if I wanted it to be just the two of us and asked if that was why I killed Jodi.
Didn't Laura accompany CM and LM to visit Luke after his arrest?
Also why did killer Luke Mitchell choose to take Laura to the cemetery
and what does Laurasay about all this today?
I’d like to hear from Laura
What does Laura make of it all
And when does killer Luke Mitchell mention the 2 girls called Kim?
And on what date did the police question him about the Kim he spoke to on the Saturday night?
Nicholas or Parky, do either of you know which came first, the Sky interview or the Mitchell photoshoot at Jodi's grave? Thanks.
Didn't Laura accompany CM and LM to visit Luke after his arrest?
I’m not sureThanks anyway. I was curious.
Thanks anyway. I was curious.
Luke Mitchell ⬇️
‘If God forgives everyone, then why the need to be sent to hell? If you ask me, God is just a futile excuse, at the most, for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with them.
"Are these people insane? Open your eyes.
People like you need satanic people like me to keep the balance. Once you shake hands with the Devil then you have truly experienced life."
How many 14 year olds - or younger (Don’t know exactly how old Luke Mitchell was when he wrote this) - do you know who think and write like the above ?
Why didn’t Laura feature in the channel 5 TV show?
I suppose Kirsten's mum must have been lying when she said Judy Jones phoned her because according to SL, [Name removed] didn't phone any of Jodi's friends.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3a+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
I don't know who the girl in this article is. I only wonder if she is Laura.
Didn't Laura accompany CM and LM to visit Luke after his arrest?
Kirsten refers to ‘Laura’ who killer Luke Mitchell was with at the cemetery on the day of [Name removed]’s funeral
‘But only weeks into the relationship, Jodi became worried about Mitchell's close friendship with Laura Wightman, a girl he would later take to her graveside.
Kirsten said: 'Laura was with Luke a lot and once Jodi heard that he might have been cheating on her but I think she spoke to him and they sorted it out.'
I suspect Laura could shed a whole lot more light on the facts regarding killer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne
She clearly no longer supports them!
They "lit up " at the graveside! Really??
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+BOND+BEYOND+MOTHERLY+LOVE%3b+Teenager+more+like+a+boyfriend+to+his...-a0127488553
Nicholas or Parky, do either of you know which came first, the Sky interview or the Mitchell photoshoot at Jodi's grave? Thanks.
Do you think the press photographers were hiding in nearby bushes...not possible as the grave is way out in the middle of a very large cemetary. The Mitchells knew exactly what they were doing by allowing themselves to be photographed. If they really wanted to pay their respects they could have done so in the late evening, quietly and modestly. Shame on them indeed!
Does this answer your question
‘Arrogantly, Mitchell broke his silence about Jodi's death at the exact time of her funeral
The funeral was not a circus. The press coverage CM and LM made sure they enjoyed on the day of Jodi's funeral was the circus. There isn't much else to say except their actions were appalling. What CM and LM did on the day of Jodi's funeral is generating more debate than the funeral itself even eighteen years on. They wanted to be the talking point, the centre of attention and because they achieved that in the most distasteful way, they still are.
I’m guessing the interview came first then the circus show at the cemetery afterwards?
And given his apparent interest at this time in satanism and his thoughts on ‘God’ ⬇️ etc
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn the cemetery visit was the idea of Corinne Mitchell or even Laura
Why wasn’t Laura seemingly at [Name removed]’s funeral?
What should have been a solemn, private ceremony was indeed turned into a circus. There are even photographs from inside the church as the funeral was taking place. Was permission given for a press presence inside the church? If so by whom and perhaps more importantly why?
What should have been a solemn, private ceremony was indeed turned into a circus. There are even photographs from inside the church as the funeral was taking place. Was permission given for a press presence inside the church? If so by whom and perhaps more importantly why?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Killer%27s+new+girlfriend+in+jail+visit+fury.-a0127892067
Apparently the grieving LM's new beau sat beside CM throughout the trial.
The articles says
’THE mother of Luke Mitchell's new girlfriend has sparked fury by allowing her daughter to visit him behind bars.
Twisted Mitchell, 16, who murdered and mutilated former girlfriend Jodi Jones when they were both just 14, has been seeing the teenager for months.
She sat in court alongside Mitchell's mother, Corinne, during his trial.
On Sunday, they visited him at Polmont Young Offenders Institute. The girl's dad drove her to Mitchell's house in Dalkeith, Midlothian, beforehand.
The 17-year-old cannot be identified because she is in full-time education.
Her mum is an administrative worker at a local primary school and helps run the local youth club.
She is also secretary of the community council, helps compile their newsletter and has fronted local campaigns.
Neighbours only discovered the girl's link to Mitchell when she was seen on TV leaving court.
One resident said: 'I can't believe she could be so stupid.
'It is beyond belief that any parent would allow their child to have anything to do with him.'
Another neighbour said: 'It is the talk of the village - no one can believe she'd be so stupid.
'Everyone knows teenagers can be outrageous but her parents should put a stop to this.'
Another local, a mum-of-two, said: 'She is a clever, sensible girl who has never been in any trouble.
'She is always polite and seems quite level-headed.
'Her family are popular and quite involved in the community, so it's very surprising.' [/i]
As I’ve said it woukd be really good to get Laura Wightmans thoughts on all of this
I don't know if Laura was at the funeral but I've often wandered if SM ever visited Jodi's grave.
Have you heard of long lenses John? How do you think the press got those photos of Kate Middleton topless? Do you think they were hiding in nearby buses too? Why were the press even there?
It was set up and pre planned. Really, does this woman even know what truth means? That poem written, those candles laid out, the man from Sky (?) did not just turn up at their door, and one said, "well yes actually, we are" come on in and share it with us. The media were being the media the Mitchells were being the Mitchells - plain and simple.
I don't know, faithlilly, if permission was given to film inside. Do you know?
I wonder how many of those mourners were smoking around the grave with their bellies hanging out.
Luke Mitchell ⬇️
‘If God forgives everyone, then why the need to be sent to hell? If you ask me, God is just a futile excuse, at the most, for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with them.
"Are these people insane? Open your eyes.
People like you need satanic people like me to keep the balance. Once you shake hands with the Devil then you have truly experienced life."
How many 14 year olds - or younger (Don’t know exactly how old Luke Mitchell was when he wrote this) - do you know who think and write like the above ?
There exists photographs from inside the church during the funeral. Do you think that the press simply walked into the church and started photographing the proceedings or were they invited in?
I suppose Kirsten's mum must have been lying when she said Judy Jones phoned her because according to SL, [Name removed] didn't phone any of Jodi's friends.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3a+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
Faithlilly, I've already told you I don't know. I asked if you know. Do you?
He went to a Catholic school, where he would have been taught about God's forgiveness. He wasn't a Catholic , obviously didn't believe in God, and compensated by dabbling in "satanism", which is the antithesis of Christianity. I would call it teenage rebellion. I bet he wasn't the only one in that school to rebel against Christian/Catholic teachings.
I’m asking you to use logic to form a conclusion.
The articles says
’THE mother of Luke Mitchell's new girlfriend has sparked fury by allowing her daughter to visit him behind bars.
Twisted Mitchell, 16, who murdered and mutilated former girlfriend Jodi Jones when they were both just 14, has been seeing the teenager for months.
She sat in court alongside Mitchell's mother, Corinne, during his trial.
On Sunday, they visited him at Polmont Young Offenders Institute. The girl's dad drove her to Mitchell's house in Dalkeith, Midlothian, beforehand.
The 17-year-old cannot be identified because she is in full-time education.
Her mum is an administrative worker at a local primary school and helps run the local youth club.
She is also secretary of the community council, helps compile their newsletter and has fronted local campaigns.
Neighbours only discovered the girl's link to Mitchell when she was seen on TV leaving court.
One resident said: 'I can't believe she could be so stupid.
'It is beyond belief that any parent would allow their child to have anything to do with him.'
Another neighbour said: 'It is the talk of the village - no one can believe she'd be so stupid.
'Everyone knows teenagers can be outrageous but her parents should put a stop to this.'
Another local, a mum-of-two, said: 'She is a clever, sensible girl who has never been in any trouble.
'She is always polite and seems quite level-headed.
'Her family are popular and quite involved in the community, so it's very surprising.' [/i]
As I’ve said it woukd be really good to get Laura Wightmans thoughts on all of this
It would be an opinion. That's all and I have no cite. Anyway, do you know?
You don’t want to answer, no problem.
As for me, I can make an educated guess how the press managed to take photographs like this one.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-jodi-jones-funeral-107308395.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=38562E25-30D6-4FEE-BA39-84887701CD71&p=318672&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3djodi%2520jones%2520funeral%26qt_raw%3djodi%2520jones%2520funeral%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d0%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0%26pl%3d
Good for you. An educated guess is still a guess. As for not, answering you? I don't know, is an answer.
Luke Mitchell ⬇️
‘If God forgives everyone, then why the need to be sent to hell? If you ask me, God is just a futile excuse, at the most, for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with them.
"Are these people insane? Open your eyes.
People like you need satanic people like me to keep the balance. Once you shake hands with the Devil then you have truly experienced life."
How many 14 year olds - or younger (Don’t know exactly how old Luke Mitchell was when he wrote this) - do you know who think and write like the above ?
Have you tried James Matthews?
There’s always this in the meantime
October 2007 - Sandra Lean’s first public speaking engagement (Alongside Mark McDonald - serial killers Michael Stone & Ben Geen’s representative Alan Jamieson, Michael Naughton, Gabe Tan, Joseph Oppenheimer etc’
Part 1 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDXHhXamUuo
Part 2 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BSgRnOo2cxI
Part 3 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KuS4BT_2l-8
Part 4 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KuS4BT_2l-8
I would be concerned if it were my child especially as LM had been referred for help with his mental health. As a parent, I would have made sure he took the help. If it all turned out to be nothing but teenage drama then no harm done. He was still a minor. His parents were responsible for his wellbeing.
Luke Mitchell ⬇️
‘If God forgives everyone, then why the need to be sent to hell? If you ask me, God is just a futile excuse, at the most, for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with them.
"Are these people insane? Open your eyes.
People like you need satanic people like me to keep the balance. Once you shake hands with the Devil then you have truly experienced life."
How many 14 year olds - or younger (Don’t know exactly how old Luke Mitchell was when he wrote this) - do you know who think and write like the above ?
Luke Mitchell ⬇️
‘If God forgives everyone, then why the need to be sent to hell? If you ask me, God is just a futile excuse, at the most, for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with them.
"Are these people insane? Open your eyes.
People like you need satanic people like me to keep the balance. Once you shake hands with the Devil then you have truly experienced life."
How many 14 year olds - or younger (Don’t know exactly how old Luke Mitchell was when he wrote this) - do you know who think and write like the above ?
What was ‘Dr’ Keith Richards referring to exactly when he stated,
‘I would think that’s just a typical adolescent meanderings and err fantas err daydreaming I don’t think that err that would cause an alarm to ring in my head about his degree of risk’
(Around 14:30 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0)
Whatever happened to the Rt. hon. S.F. Q.C with his silver bullet revelations to solving this case?
Death makes angels of us all and gives us wings where we had shoulders smooth as ravens claws.
-Jim Morrison
RIP Mark Kain
Death makes angels of us all and gives us wings where we had shoulders smooth as ravens claws.
-Jim Morrison
RIP Mark Kain
Thank you for you daily dose condescending Lithith but
shouldn't you be doin something funky on the 'Dark Laird of Shotts HMP' blood stone or whatever your cults calls
it.
Thank you for you daily dose condescending Lithith but
shouldn't you be doin something funky on the 'Dark Laird of Shotts HMP' blood stone or whatever your cults calls
it.
Thank you for you daily dose condescending Lithith but
shouldn't you be doin something funky on the 'Dark Laird of Shotts HMP' blood stone or whatever your cults calls
it.
The sentiments the same Kain, Kane...he had a name, Mark was his name, tarnished in the name of the insane.
I pity you for you lack of respect.
For me the matter is closed.
Private Taxi. He refused to take them back after the followed meda swarm.
LM is reported to have kicked the Taxi door after drivers refusal to let them back in.
A self confessed media backlash or more than likely prapaganda stunt which presented itself as a psychologist insight into a narcissist psychopath.
Perhaps your condenscending interjection of misspelt surnames dedication a ode to Mark 'Kane' but ofc what can we ever expect from the Cult of LM....
A self confessed media backlash or more than likely prapaganda stunt which presented itself as a psychologist insight into a narcissist psychopath.
’Luke, who has been quizzed three times by murder squad detectives, was banned from attending Jodi's funeral on Wednesday by her family.
After refusing to comment on her death, he chose that time to give a TV interview in which he denied murdering her.
On Thursday, he called police to his home claiming he was the victim of a media circus.
Officers left after informing him there were no grounds for action.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/LUKE+SKIPS+JODI+SCHOOL+AGAIN%3b+Boy+goes+to+work+with+mum.-a0107420191
You were using the poor lad’s death as a stick to beat those who don’t concur with your view. That you couldn’t even be bothered to spell his name properly is bad enough but to use his sad demise in such a way is unconscionable.What is this sactimonious nonsense you are spraffin off on now?
Which he apparently complained about the following day
Link ⬇️
Whatever day Sky news decided to air killer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne’s interview with James Matthews wouldn’t have made a great deal of difference regarding the moralistic aspect of it all
What is this sactimonious nonsense you are spraffin off on now?
You're pathetic attempt to play the devil's advocate is absolutely unconscionable.
I agree. The interview and photos on that day were exactly what they wanted until it all went t**s up and who wouldn't have guessed that would be a stupid move? IMO
‘I never wanted to be famous’ claimed Killer Luke Mitchell https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-rather-stay-behind-bars-admit-guilt-murder-jodi-jones/
It more than likely this his feeble adolescent deceptive attempt to cover his guilt but at the same time relishing in his notoriety which i believe he continuously does so to this day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dv8zJiggBs&t=596s
I'll leave that for your own conscience to answer.
First you imply that I’m ‘part of the faithful’ then that I’m taking a contradictory position to yours just to be awkward. I can’t be doing both so which is it?
‘A former babysitter for the family has said:
"Corinne was really weird with the boys. She liked to dress them just like herself when they were young. If she wore leg warmers, they were put in leg warmers."
Did anyone ask him if he wanted to be famous or did he just volunteer that?
Again I think you’re asking the wrong question which should be, was the case against Luke proved beyond a reasonable doubt and I would have to say for me, and several of the jury who heard all the evidence, the answer has to be a resounding no.
My reasons? Although on the face of it the circumstantial case against Luke may seem quite weighty when you dissect those individual pieces of evidence there is problems with every one. This is a case of truly moving parts. The TOD is questionable. How was it established? From LK hearing a strangling sound ? He didn’t though, did he? He told the court that he had changed his statement under duress. Then there’s Andrina Bryson, the main eye witness, whose timings in both her first and second statements meant that it was impossible for her to see a still alive Jodi if the police TOD was true and further the description of the clothes the couple were wearing does not tally with what the teenagers were known to have been wearing. RW’s evidence was all over the place as Donald Findlay so expertly revealed during his cross examination. The way the identification of Luke was obtained from the former two witnesses also raises questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. Then of course we have the constantly changing recollections of the search party who, it would appear, managed to remember that their primary statements had been wrong all at the same time.
Consider all of the above and add to the mix the absolutely horrendous way this CHILD was vilified in the press and no reasonable person could ever believe that the conviction was safe. Is Luke guilty? That’s between Luke and his god. Was he proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law after a competent investigation, absolutely not.
Fair enough. I’ve often said myself that my own personal view is that there is reasonable doubt in this case, and have stated many times the areas of the case that I’d like clarification on before I could feel comfortable in saying LM was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, I am more convinced he did it than he didn’t. The real dilemma I have is that I don’t know if the doubt I have is strong enough to sway me to the point where I could bring myself to comfortably say not proven, given just how strong the circumstantial evidence is against Luke. Pressed between guilty or not guilty, I’d categorically say guilty (and I have also outlined why I would do this, in previous posts).
Faithlilly — regarding LK changing his statement under duress, what is your source (or sources) for this info? There are readily available historical online articles from the Herald newspaper that mention that there was some ambiguity in relation to what he said he heard cycling east up the RDP; discrepancies between, in his words, “movement, rustling noises, branches and twigs and grass being trampled underfoot”, along with a “strangling noise — a human sound” and like “two laddies fighting — like someone was in a headlock”. Sure, there were discrepancies in his statements, but nothing that would suggest that anything he said was a result of being under duress. A lot of key witnesses for both the prosecution and defence changed their statements over the course of the investigation, did they not? The Mitchells certainly did, didn’t they? The crux of the matter — and what was always consistent in LK’s statements — is how uneasy and alarmed he became when he heard the noises; they even forced him to slow down and listen. LK also mentioned that when he slowed down to listen, the noises stopped. This would suggest, imo, that it was human activity and not that of wild animals; the person at the other end of that wall in the woodland was aware the cyclist had slowed down and was listening, and they then acted accordingly by stopping whatever it was that they were doing so as not to draw attention to themselves. For what they were doing was obviously criminal. LK was a grown man who conceded that the noises gave him a “fright” and “regretted not stopping”, even before he knew that someone had been killed where he heard those disturbing noises; it had played on his mind when he finally got home that day and later that evening. Also interesting is that in one of the statements he said he could hear the moped, but it sounded some distance away ... like north and possibly in the adjacent field, north of the wall & woodland strip. I’ve read IB and don’t think SL even addresses LK’s testimony or discrepancies in his statements. Maybe I’ve missed this in the book?
Also, re AB’s evidence .... I think the police very carefully and meticulously went over her routes that day and were able to ascertain that it was highly likely she would’ve seen the quarrelling couple at the path in Easthouses leading westwards down the RDP between 1654-1700. As she was driving southbound, she would’ve had a decent, uninterrupted view of them, even though she was preoccupied with her young kids in the back of the car who were restless and playing up. Interestingly, in this clear momentary glance she (most likely) got of them, it was the behaviour of the male that caught her attention; his hands by his side and palms oustretched as if they were having a dispute (the bbc frontline doco accurately reconstructs this account, imo). The time on the her til receipt from Gorebridge Coop was out and in their quest for accuracy in their investigation, the police checked AB’s bank statement timings as she had withdrawn cash at an ATM shortly after her shop. It was these accurate timings and reconstructions that were to prove to be LM’s undoing (along with all the other considerable circumstantial evidence, of course) as it made it highly likely it was LM & JODJ she saw — NOT that he was being fitted up and the rest of the potential suspects were being eliminated quickly and without being thoroughly investigated. Suspicion fell on LM for many reasons- and rightly so, imo. (I still think MK, JAF and the moped boys should’ve been investigated more professionally and robustly, as they are the reasons why I still have a lingering niggling doubt re the safeness of Luke’s conviction.)
Of course she won’t have done - all part of the facade
Faithlilly said that LK changed his statement under duress. What’s your opinion on this? Also, what about a bike that looked like Luke’s being seen parked at Newbattle high school on the day of the murder ... do you think Luke cycled to meet Jodi between 1634-1654? Do you have a link or a webpage where I can view the background or origins of the bike sighting story?
Faithlilly said that LK changed his statement under duress. What’s your opinion on this? Also, what about a bike that looked like Luke’s being seen parked at Newbattle high school on the day of the murder ... do you think Luke cycled to meet Jodi between 1634-1654? Do you have a link or a webpage where I can view the background or origins of the bike sighting story?
Fair enough. I’ve often said myself that my own personal view is that there is reasonable doubt in this case, and have stated many times the areas of the case that I’d like clarification on before I could feel comfortable in saying LM was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, I am more convinced he did it than he didn’t. The real dilemma I have is that I don’t know if the doubt I have is strong enough to sway me to the point where I could bring myself to comfortably say not proven, given just how strong the circumstantial evidence is against Luke. Pressed between guilty or not guilty, I’d categorically say guilty (and I have also outlined why I would do this, in previous posts).
Faithlilly — regarding LK changing his statement under duress, what is your source (or sources) for this info? There are readily available historical online articles from the Herald newspaper that mention that there was some ambiguity in relation to what he said he heard cycling east up the RDP; discrepancies between, in his words, “movement, rustling noises, branches and twigs and grass being trampled underfoot”, along with a “strangling noise — a human sound” and like “two laddies fighting — like someone was in a headlock”. Sure, there were discrepancies in his statements, but nothing that would suggest that anything he said was a result of being under duress. A lot of key witnesses for both the prosecution and defence changed their statements over the course of the investigation, did they not? The Mitchells certainly did, didn’t they? The crux of the matter — and what was always consistent in LK’s statements — is how uneasy and alarmed he became when he heard the noises; they even forced him to slow down and listen. LK also mentioned that when he slowed down to listen, the noises stopped. This would suggest, imo, that it was human activity and not that of wild animals; the person at the other end of that wall in the woodland was aware the cyclist had slowed down and was listening, and they then acted accordingly by stopping whatever it was that they were doing so as not to draw attention to themselves. For what they were doing was obviously criminal. LK was a grown man who conceded that the noises gave him a “fright” and “regretted not stopping”, even before he knew that someone had been killed where he heard those disturbing noises; it had played on his mind when he finally got home that day and later that evening. Also interesting is that in one of the statements he said he could hear the moped, but it sounded some distance away ... like north and possibly in the adjacent field, north of the wall & woodland strip. I’ve read IB and don’t think SL even addresses LK’s testimony or discrepancies in his statements. Maybe I’ve missed this in the book?
Also, re AB’s evidence .... I think the police very carefully and meticulously went over her routes that day and were able to ascertain that it was highly likely she would’ve seen the quarrelling couple at the path in Easthouses leading westwards down the RDP between 1654-1700. As she was driving southbound, she would’ve had a decent, uninterrupted view of them, even though she was preoccupied with her young kids in the back of the car who were restless and playing up. Interestingly, in this clear momentary glance she (most likely) got of them, it was the behaviour of the male that caught her attention; his hands by his side and palms oustretched as if they were having a dispute (the bbc frontline doco accurately reconstructs this account, imo). The time on the her til receipt from Gorebridge Coop was out and in their quest for accuracy in their investigation, the police checked AB’s bank statement timings as she had withdrawn cash at an ATM shortly after her shop. It was these accurate timings and reconstructions that were to prove to be LM’s undoing (along with all the other considerable circumstantial evidence, of course) as it made it highly likely it was LM & JODJ she saw — NOT that he was being fitted up and the rest of the potential suspects were being eliminated quickly and without being thoroughly investigated. Suspicion fell on LM for many reasons- and rightly so, imo. (I still think MK, JAF and the moped boys should’ve been investigated more professionally and robustly, as they are the reasons why I still have a lingering niggling doubt re the safeness of Luke’s conviction.)
It’s a matter of public record killer Luke Mitchell was in control of his actions from day one
He said it himself as did his mother
If there have been claims made his statement was changed ‘under duress’ the ideas been taken from another murdering con artist
I was talking about witness Leonard Kelly — the cyclist who was alarmed by the strange noises coming from behind the wall on RDP on the day of the murder.
My mistake
Leonard Kelly would not have changed his statements because he was under duress
Sandra Lean would have repeatedly brought this up if it had been the case
Then what other reason do you think lead him to alter his first statement where he didn’t mention a strangling noise?
Cognitive dissonance maybe
In what way?
In the, he initially said one thing then after some more thought on it changed his mind, way
Explain how cognitive dissonance played a part?
?
He was ‘psychologically uncomfortable’ with what he initially told police therefore was motivated to change his statement to bring about equilibrium
Faithlilly said that LK changed his statement under duress. What’s your opinion on this? Also, what about a bike that looked like Luke’s being seen parked at Newbattle high school on the day of the murder ... do you think Luke cycled to meet Jodi between 1634-1654? Do you have a link or a webpage where I can view the background or origins of the bike sighting story?
?
He was ‘psychologically uncomfortable’ with what he initially told police therefore was motivated to change his statement to bring about equilibrium
Similarly to how and why the search trio changed their witness statements
Their cognitive distortions (Based on killer Luke Mitchell’s behaviour and the fear of finding [Name removed]) initially convinced them what they said in their first statements were true
They were motivated by their cognitive dissonance to change their witness statements - nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of conspiracy or coercion
Google really is helpful, isn’t it?
If LK told the truth when he made his first statement, as you’d expect him to, why would he be ‘ psychologically uncomfortable’ with that? Are you saying that he was dishonest in some way?
You’re overreaching yourself again, psychologically speaking.
Do you experience a full range of emotions Faithlilly?
You’re entitled to your view
Google really is helpful, isn’t it?
Then what other reason do you think lead him to alter his first statement where he didn’t mention a strangling noise?
It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact.
It is obvious you are using psychiatric terms you do not understand.
Please stop.
Yes when I searched ‘cognitive dissonance’ it said
🙄
Then what other reason do you think lead him to alter his first statement where he didn’t mention a strangling noise?
Parky is the person who mentioned the ‘bike sighting story’
I wouldn’t put anything past these sadistic killing fraudsters
Wasn’t there mention of Corinne ‘s car being seen at the end of the path too?
I asked Parky where he got his info regarding the sighting of a bicycle at Newbattle high school that looked like Luke’s, but he’s been uncharacteristically reticent on the matter. Perhaps he hasn’t seen my previous post asking these questions. I suspect he’s gleaned information on other forums that discuss this case and formulated his own theories using acquired knowledge.
I asked Parky where he got his info regarding the sighting of a bicycle at Newbattle high school that looked like Luke’s, but he’s been uncharacteristically reticent on the matter. Perhaps he hasn’t seen my previous post asking these questions. I suspect he’s gleaned information on other forums that discuss this case and formulated his own theories using acquired knowledge.
Like so much in this case it’s hard to provide a source read some time ago, the knowledge however remains. The quote below is from the Times:
“Donald Findlay, QC, for the defence, read a statement that Mr Kelly gave police in July 2003, which said: “I cannot describe the noise. It wasn’t a voice. It sounded of movement, like branches moving on a tree.” Asked by Mr Findlay why he made no reference to strangling noises in his statement, the witness said: “I just put it down to nerves.”
I am aware that this doesn’t completely address your question but it does show that very early on LK did not mention hearing a strangling sound, just ‘branches moving on a tree’. It is absolutely logical then to ask when and why the ‘strangling noises’ were added to the narrative?
Then there’s AB’s testimony. If we completely ignore AB’s timings in her first statements and accept the police’s timings then there remains a 45 minute time discrepancy if AB’s return home was at 5.50 as she claimed. Also I have never read any credible source claim that AB’s children were ‘playing up’ or indeed that the teenagers seen by AB looked like they were ‘having a dispute’.
AB would also have been caught on CCTV on her journey to and from the supermarket as well as at the ATM machine and the queried timings could have been verified by accessing the footage yet unlike AO the CCTV footage was, as far as we are aware, never accessed. Of course it could have been wiped before it was asked for but CCTV footage is usually kept for 30 days and as AB gave her first two witness statements within days of the murder it does suggest that AB’s testimony wasn’t thought a priority. Was that because the sighting on AB’s timings was too late to have been the teenagers? The fact that no appeal was made for the them to come forward also suggests they were initially dismissed as unimportant.
Again from the Times :
“ In a statement to police the accused told officers that his dog, Mia, put her paws on a gap in the wall and drew his attention to the area where Jodi’s body lay. But Jodi’s sister Janine, 19, her grandmother Alice Walker, 67, and Janine’s fiancé, Steven Kelly, 21, all claimed that he headed straight for the gap in the wall without his dog having alerted him to the area.
Mr Turnbull said each of the three family members “gave a clear and telling account of what Luke Mitchell did”.
Of course we know this isn’t true. The search party’s first statements all concurred.
In her first statement JaJ claimed ‘Luke’s dog started jumping about at the wall and then Luke jumped over and started looking about’ and SK describes Luke’s dog ‘pulling him to the wall and jumping up’.
https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0 approx 23 minutes in.
Doesn’t that raise any questions for you?
I think LK’s initial statement may have been inaccurate as a direct result of him being startled and uneasy by what he heard over the wall; it was clearly a disconcerting experience for him and affected his emotional state & faculties and recollection. Also, we can infer from the online articles that it was a strange and unusual noise he heard; something unnatural and sinister. The police may have jogged his memory and may even have introduced the idea of ‘a strangling noise’, but that can hardly be construed as duress, can it? At any rate, I don’t think the police planting this idea would make him give him a factually inaccurate statement merely to just agree with the police for the sake of it; LK had a mind of his own and in the event the police did introduce the idea of a strangling sound, it would’ve likely jogged his memory and he probably had a lightbulb moment, whereupon that was probably the word he was looking for all along because that was what he heard, and not being a case of him sitting like a nodding donkey agreeing with the police for the sake of it, imo.
LK described the sound he heard as ‘ trees moving’ in his first statement. That is a fact and while we can suppose to the cows come home what might have made him change his mind that does not constitute any kind of proof. Being at the crime scene at the very time the police believed Jodi was murdered is it really beyond the realms of possibility that the police used this to apply pressure in future interviews? That’s certainly what I’m lead to believe.
Yeah, cctv footage of AB would’ve been very useful, but I suspect they couldn’t procure it as it was probably scrubbed. They used it for CM, AO & MK, so I’m confident they tried to use it where AB was concerned. Besides, the had official timings from her bank statements and were able to work out an accurate reconstruction of her movements from them.
In general CCTV footage, especially of ATM machines, are kept for at least 30 days then archived, not scrubbed. That would take us to the end of July, at a time when Luke was very much in the frame. Again if AB’s sighting was as crucial as we are lead to believe why was that CCTV not accessed as a matter of urgency? Was it yet another failure of L&B police or was it simply deemed unimportant at the time?
The search trio were all alibied. Very simple, really. And, obviously they were all distraught and not thinking straight immediately after funding Jodi’s murdered and mutilated body; this would explain their initial statements. They say that first statements are likely to be the most accurate, but there are exceptions to the rule — especially in horrific circumstances such as a brutal murder. Besides, LM was putting words in their mouths in respect of first statements, and it’s possible they didn’t want to argue or fall out, so just agreed with LM to avoid any aggravation initially. What I find odd is that when LM went through the V, he immediately turned left and went down the inside of the wall rather than use the path that was there in that woodland strip. For someone who allegedly wasn’t familiar with the part of the woods, he squeezed down the inside of the wall in the pitch black dark with only a standard house torch and, just like that, in a matter of seconds shouted “I’ve found something!”. Finding that body as quickly as he did when he went through the V was, imo, very incriminating. In fact, when I think about it, it seems to me that Luke was prepared for the finding Jodi’s body. He was awaiting the inevitable contact from Judith that evening and had a plan though out in advance in how he was going to find that body, imo; he was prepared and ready. But, he slipped up by finding her as quickly as he did, imo. The body was well hidden, so much so that no one discovered it in the 6 hours or so it lay there, and it was used frequently by local dog walkers and feral youths. Nothing. It’s really incriminating for Luke, imo. And no emotion from him throughout. No tears. Nothing. Just texting away casually and nonchalantly in front of the ambulance crew (who noted this and found it odd). The search trio were evidently beside themselves, screaming, shouting, crying; overwhelmed by the experience. Nothing from Luke the robot. Their statements were consistent throughout, unlike LM’s. Able to describe the tree, Jodi’s scrunchie and her clothing lucidly and clearly. Makes me feel uneasy. The only thing O found weird was SK saying “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?”, as soon as the police arrived. Has this ever been explained? I know Parky gave an explanation, but I didn’t agree with him on that. I think SL said that he allegedly said it as a nervous joke (what the hell?). I’d like to ask him personally. Very strange thing to ask the police immediately, is it not?
There’s so much to unpack in the post above. Firstly who said anything about an alibi? I don’t believe for an instant that any of the search trio had anything to do with the murder. Secondly could you please explain to me how Luke was able to ‘put words into the search trio’s mouths’ when their statements were taken at different times and in different locales? How could he make them believe that they saw things, such as the dog at the wall, that you appear to believe that they didn’t? Now if the trio had said “ Luke told me that his dog alerted to the wall” I could possibly see your point but that’s not what happened, is it? The trio all describe in their first and subsequent statements, seeing the dog alert to the wall. That much is certainly clear. Further Janine in one of her first statements describes Luke as looking around after he went over the wall which suggests that there was a length of time between Luke going over the wall and alerting the trio to his awful find, so it certainly wasn’t immediate. That the trio’s statements were anything but consistent is beyond argument. You only have to view the Frontline programme to establish that so why you keep on insisting that they were puzzles me. They certainly all said that the dog was jumping about at the wall, a fact that they denied in court and Luke was also described as upset ( a fact borne out by the telephone operator). As to SK’s statement, I have seen no clear evidence that he ever said it so until I do I’ll reserve judgment.
Do you have cites because all I can find is something about Luke's defence asking LK in court about his statement but do you have cites of LK saying he had changed his statement from what and why?
I’ve asked Parky many times for the sources of many of his claims but he seems rather reticent on those matters too so don’t take it personally.
Now let us expand just a little more on this search party: The dog! The claims of going up that path. Firstly that prepped and ready and onto that path by 11pm. There is not doubt just how ready he was. Here again, no deliberation, nothing, straight into that role and off he goes. Those calls. Judith tells him she is phoning the police, she tells him in the call at 10.59pm that she has called the police. This is the call that was made to the emergency services around 10.50pm. Lean has an uncovered call 6 years later made around 10.45pm. It is the same call! Times marked wrong or otherwise. Only one call to the emergency services, from Judith Jones. In those statements, to Luke that she is going to make it, and to Luke that she had made it. To her mother also. Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm, thus the call could not have been from her, even though she gave her name!? And there is only ever one call mentioned to them pre 11 and only one call logged, not two! But the author tries to grasp at that time of 10.45pm, and those claims of not knowing Jodi was missing - Absolute BS.
Now let us expand just a little more on this search party: The dog! The claims of going up that path. Firstly that prepped and ready and onto that path by 11pm.
There is no doubt to be had here, these are factors that can not be changed. Mitchel was ready and out that door in a flash. Mitchell did not rush up any path,
There is a lot more to this, and Nicholas is correct, the author is being a hell of lot less than truthful. And it is all done with deceitful intention - to take all the attention away from LM. Her game of Cluedo and innuendo, deflection from the killer. It is every side of that in depth investigation that she attempts to shore over with waffle. That taster by Nicholas, of statements - Lean in the book tells us of Judith Jones, of "nine days and seven statements later" just from her, gives you a sense of just how intense that investigation was.
I do however agree with this. Sandra Lean is a fraud. She goes out of her way in an attempt to confuse people, then plays the victim. This is what abusive people do. They will go to any length in order to hide behind the lie.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383150.html#msg383150
Sandra Lean was NOT worried these claims would reflect badly on me, she was worried these claims would reflect badly on her!http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383160.html#msg383160
The pity play. The sympathy seeking. It's all there. Sandra attempts to assert she is a victim when in actual fact she is the aggressor.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383164.html#msg383164
Sandra Lean is indeed unreliable and dishonest. No one undermined the Luke Mitchell case. Luke Mitchell is also guilty!
You are an extremely cruel women Sandra and your actions are callous and your motives are malicious!http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383174.html#msg383174
“However, as I told you privately, it isn’t Simon I want to show up, it’s you. So go ahead and make things up about what happened or didn’t happen, I don’t care. You can also ask Simon to tell you what really happened. Anyway, I thought you didn’t like the Halls? So what do you care? You F*** up Simon’s case as much as you like stupid.”(Source: 4th February 2013 https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/)
‘Now do you believe me?! If you ask your husband, he will tell you that he brought 2 cd players to my house when we were going out after he had disappeared for a weekend and noone knew where he was. He’d been nicked for the night but this was way before Joan was murdered, nothing to do with the case, so do you want to add another robbing to the list? maybe he’s lying to you? My brother was there and other people saw them, I went mental and threw them out! You stupid cow, are you going to announce another f**& up of his publicly? Shall i? unlike you, its not Simon i want to damage, its you!
So we have three people recollecting those events, and one person with this OTT, over egging the pudding claims of precise details. And they were taken back to that path, and they did have to go over that evenings events. To jog their memory, to give a more expansive account of what had taken place. And they do, and for the trio it is of Mitchell leading that search with his dog. Of him commanding his dog, and getting his dog to obey his actions, on that tight reign. Of Mitchell, he further egged that pudding, where he had his dog and the search trio parallel to where Jodi lay in the woodland, at that exact spot. For he was being asked further questions, of how he knew to go left, and he was making it clear that it was due to his dog being almost upon where Jodi lay.
And of going over those events, and that clear attempt in the book to implant seeds - "The agreed facts" that blatant manipulation
One can not change the events that took place from around 10.38pm. It does not matter a jot what that dog or it's master was doing on approaching that V - It was in complete contrast to Mitchells claims. There was nothing other that special knowledge, that accounted for Mitchell jumping over and heading directly to his left. To have walked around 10ft through greenery, overhanging branches, in a very narrow passage with no clear view in the dark. That time it took Kelly and JaJ to walk around 10ft, on an unobstructed path, with nothing in their way, with more light. To miraculously see something and shout out instantly what he knew it to be. To describe the tree and all else. Where Kelly had to walk around 20ft to have any view, and of AW going right down to check properly. There was no time in the slightest for any of Mitchells claims. It was rapid and to the point. - He knew exactly where he was going, knew exactly in every detail what was there, there was no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of steps - clear special knowledge.
The sequence. The text the response. Jodi is missing. Judith gets her mother out of bed, JaJ notes the time, remembers the time, it was near to a Qtr to 11. The others, it is guesstimates. They do not know, they are not clock watching. What we do know from this, irrespective of how many friends were phoned or otherwise - Jodi's mother was frantic, she knew something was wrong, the very reason she was on to the police in no time. She knew if her daughter had not been with Mitchell then something must have happened. There is a lot more to this, and Nicholas is correct, the author is being a hell of lot less than truthful. And it is all done with deceitful intention - to take all the attention away from LM. Her game of Cluedo and innuendo, deflection from the killer. It is every side of that in depth investigation that she attempts to shore over with waffle. That taster by Nicholas, of statements - Lean in the book tells us of Judith Jones, of "nine days and seven statements later" just from her, gives you a sense of just how intense that investigation was.
Why? she claims is there not information on what Judith was texting to her husband prior to him coming home from work, whilst Jodi had just arrived home from school?
it does not pay to concentrate on the above, the clear reasons as to why that guilty verdict was brought about. - let's instead 'tunnel in' on the authors questions of vital importance. What was AB doing AFTER the sighting? Let's wonder why no CCTV footage was obtained to make sure the banking system was not accurate? But let's NOT check or wonder if AB's phone time was out, like Mitchells? As above: "nine days and seven statements later" - shows just how much is missing, the context that is everything to the depth of the investigation. And that is only one person and only 9 days.
"nine days and seven statements later" - shows just how much is missing, the context that is everything to the depth of the investigation. And that is only one person and only 9 days.
Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm,
Nonsense - LK heard noises that made him stop to listen, the noises stopped. Like rustling and movement. Asked to expand on this, he still heard rustling, it did not morph in to something else. He heard rustling/movement and a strangling sound, like someone in a headlock. Not the easiest thing to describe, but the clearest thing in this, it was enough for him to stop, there was something not right about the noise, it did not sit well with him - not just simple rustling. We hear of trauma people suffer from, does one imagine there was no trauma with this man? Whilst it is all very well highlighting, yet again the defence questioning, of DF "you heard noises yet did nothing?" - "yes" And he made it clear of how bad he felt afterwards, he also made it clear had the noises not stopped he would have investigated. Much like AB,with LK, the noises warranted worry/concern to stop. Something not right. Like AB, the male, he instantly caught her attention, something not right. He looked confrontational, beckoning the girl towards him. And she remembered him. And LK remembered those noises, of how they made him feel and he also went forward. LK was nervous of going forward, of being in the vicinity should he become suspect. This was the pressure he felt, not actual pressure from the police.
Now let us expand just a little more on this search party: The dog! The claims of going up that path. Firstly that prepped and ready and onto that path by 11pm. There is not doubt just how ready he was. Here again, no deliberation, nothing, straight into that role and off he goes. Those calls. Judith tells him she is phoning the police, she tells him in the call at 10.59pm that she has called the police. This is the call that was made to the emergency services around 10.50pm. Lean has an uncovered call 6 years later made around 10.45pm. It is the same call! Times marked wrong or otherwise. Only one call to the emergency services, from Judith Jones. In those statements, to Luke that she is going to make it, and to Luke that she had made it. To her mother also. Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm, thus the call could not have been from her, even though she gave her name!? And there is only ever one call mentioned to them pre 11 and only one call logged, not two! But the author tries to grasp at that time of 10.45pm, and those claims of not knowing Jodi was missing - Absolute BS. Judith knew her daughter was missing, immediately those words were spoken from Mitchell, that he had "not seen her" And as soon as she had spoken with her mother, that hope her daughter may be there, she was not. All prior to 10.45pm, and of course the actual time was, at around 10.50pm.
For now, we do not need to go into the superfluous IF's the author consistently uses, of - IF we believe JF here, there or anywhere - then we have Jodi missing from around 10pm when the news was on! Just ignore everything else, and go with his guesstimates! - BS
The sequence. The text the response. Jodi is missing. Judith gets her mother out of bed, JaJ notes the time, remembers the time, it was near to a Qtr to 11. The others, it is guesstimates. They do not know, they are not clock watching. What we do know from this, irrespective of how many friends were phoned or otherwise - Jodi's mother was frantic, she knew something was wrong, the very reason she was on to the police in no time. She knew if her daughter had not been with Mitchell then something must have happened. There is a lot more to this, and Nicholas is correct, the author is being a hell of lot less than truthful. And it is all done with deceitful intention - to take all the attention away from LM. Her game of Cluedo and innuendo, deflection from the killer. It is every side of that in depth investigation that she attempts to shore over with waffle. That taster by Nicholas, of statements - Lean in the book tells us of Judith Jones, of "nine days and seven statements later" just from her, gives you a sense of just how intense that investigation was.
But Mitchell, prepped and ready and that dog - the family guard dog for the caravan park. Not a tracker a guard dog, this was the side that was a little more than the family pet. A work dog for guarding the business. The claims:
That Mitchell instantly offered his services to Judith, that he would look on the path that Jodi would need to use to get to his, to go to her house to look through his phone with numbers. He/they claim that he just wanted up and off this path as quickly as possible. There is a call whilst this search trio were apart at 11.18pm. Of, the going to meet with Mitchell and all else. Just as the trio were heading out the complex, a couple of minutes prior to the meet. There we have those two clear outside factors of calls. One at 10.59pm where Mitchell tells Judith he is on/at the path. The entrance. The other just prior to the meet. And we have Mitchell on this path for at least 20mins. A journey, by those claims of rushing, should have taken less than ten mins: 11 by police timings walking. And which fitted exactly in with what the search trio accounted for. Of that call just after 11pm in AW's, just before they left, to her landline. And those timings to get to the path.
So Mitchell and that call at 10.49pm where he offers to search, to go to Judith's. To get ready and claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm. 3mins to get ready and out that door. 7mins later and on that path. 20mins later and he is still on that path.
The trio. That call to AW prior to 10.45pm and it is 18mins later before they are ready to leave Mayfield, 17mins later they are at the paths.
There is no doubt to be had here, these are factors that can not be changed. Mitchel was ready and out that door in a flash. Mitchell did not rush up any path, he was on that path for at least 20mins. Which wipes completely out any claim around that dog, of not having in seek mode due to wanting up and off the path. This is why we have the nonsense, as above, with those IF's around JF. Of claims of Jodi being known to be missing earlier and every other piece of nonsense, for deflection - for nothing changes those clear facts, it makes absolutely no difference to Mitchells actions, in the slightest. An abundance of time for that dog to pick up anything - equally an abundance of time for Mitchell to be doing anything?
The dog and this seek mode! First AW, and in her statements, that they headed to the path rather than go to Judith's to collect something of Jodi's at that point (Lean puts a ? around this, why?, as it was only minutes away) The point here is, that she knew something had been asked for of Jodi's from Mitchell, prior to meeting with him. That their aim after heading out, was to meet with him, that loose arrangement of half way. And contrary to Mitchell/Lean, they did not wait about at the junction of the paths, they each saw the others torch light and AW shouted out "is that you Luke" and they walked to meet each other, slightly down from the Junction.
Seek: After being asked if he had saw anything, and no. AW wanted to have a proper look, check it thoroughly, she stated in case Jodi had fallen and hurt herself - the reality, they did not expect to be finding anything at all, did they? caught up in this rapid series of events. And LM asked "did you bring anything of Jodi's?" So he puts this dog, which is on a tight reign into seek mode! And it is him with JaJ and Kelly directly behind and AW directly behind them. Looking into different areas. Why did Mitchell therefore climb the wall at the Gino break? The dog did not seek/scent Jodi, he just did it. He climbed down and again took himself into the front. He wandered slightly into the field. And again, he just did it. And again he took himself into the front.
And here is where those clear attempts to turn the search trio's words into something they were not. Not one of that search trio made any such claim of the dog alerting to anything. It had, as with at other points being doing as dogs do, sniffing about, scenting at the path and to the sides, peeing! Which dogs in tracking and seek modes do not do! They are completely focused on the task at hand. They approach that break and both Mitchell and his dog go to it, directly to it. These are the words used - standing up at the V, pulling. Not alerting, not leading to anything. The stark contrasts to Mitchell. Of bounding (on a short lead), Of ears up, alerting, of jumping up at the wall, of air sniffing, of leading them to. And that further stark contrast, of being some distance past where there was a break in the wall. Of having to go back to the break in the wall to access the woodland. On his own with AW being there to take the lead. No Kelly, no JaJ. - they were all there together, not a foot past that V had, been had. And they saw everything, Of the lead being handed over, of Mitchell in the wood and turning directly left.
So we have three people recollecting those events, and one person with this OTT, over egging the pudding claims of precise details. And they were taken back to that path, and they did have to go over that evenings events. To jog their memory, to give a more expansive account of what had taken place. And they do, and for the trio it is of Mitchell leading that search with his dog. Of him commanding his dog, and getting his dog to obey his actions, on that tight reign. Of Mitchell, he further egged that pudding, where he had his dog and the search trio parallel to where Jodi lay in the woodland, at that exact spot. For he was being asked further questions, of how he knew to go left, and he was making it clear that it was due to his dog being almost upon where Jodi lay.
And of going over those events, and that clear attempt in the book to implant seeds - "The agreed facts" that blatant manipulation, where the author claims "they all walked several meters past". Then of the dog and of them all agreeing to it alerting to Jodi - BS. No they did not, the only time Kelly and JaJ mentioned walking past was after Mitchell entered that woodland, and their several metres was around 10ft! And it was whilst they were walking that 10ft or so, that Mitchell was "looking around". And this raised further flags with the police. For the short distance he could only have walked, he could NOT have seen what he made claim to. Furthermore, when Kelly and JaJ darted back those 10ft or so, Mitchell was yet again on the other side of that V. He made not claim of rushing back, therefore it was unlikely he had even walked as much as ten feet.
One can not change the events that took place from around 10.38pm. It does not matter a jot what that dog or it's master was doing on approaching that V - It was in complete contrast to Mitchells claims. There was nothing other that special knowledge, that accounted for Mitchell jumping over and heading directly to his left. To have walked around 10ft through greenery, overhanging branches, in a very narrow passage with no clear view in the dark. That time it took Kelly and JaJ to walk around 10ft, on an unobstructed path, with nothing in their way, with more light. To miraculously see something and shout out instantly what he knew it to be. To describe the tree and all else. Where Kelly had to walk around 20ft to have any view, and of AW going right down to check properly. There was no time in the slightest for any of Mitchells claims. It was rapid and to the point. - He knew exactly where he was going, knew exactly in every detail what was there, there was no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of steps - clear special knowledge.
And that Jury, taken to the path, hearing all the evidence, even DF's attempts in those meaningless clarifications in statements. It did not change or alter the impossible!
And you tie in that non alibi, those ludicrous claims of hanging around for 90mins, of waiting for his girlfriend not appearing on the other side of that isolated path. Of not arriving home until 10pm after leaving the boys before 9pm. Of the lies, the denial of being in that woodland before, of never seeing that V break. Of not knowing of the ban on the path. Of saying she was not coming out or grounded. Of those fires. That missing knife, that missing jacket and boots. That calm collectiveness. Those witnesses who saw him and the list goes on. - Tunnel vision??
"nine days and seven statements later" - police presence with the Mitchells at all times, they were certainly with the Jones family at all times. Ms Lean claims they were not investigated thoroughly enough, yet she can tell you from those statements, if those first days, every movement of [Name removed] down to the clothes he was wearing? - Brushed over? Every movement of JF and GD, every movement of SK and JaJ - brushed over? - contradictory nonsense! No clothes taken on the first day! AW and SK's shoes were taken, AW's jacket.
Why? she claims is there not information on what Judith was texting to her husband prior to him coming home from work, whilst Jodi had just arrived home from school? - A whole page on different phone numbers and who's belonged to who, not the Mitchells though. - yet nothing at all to merit a ? around those 90mins on Newbattle Road. Nothing to merit a ? or a mention of the rest of the Mitchell phone logs, or phones? Why did the search trio not search the caravan park, I mean she was not with Luke, surely the sensible thing to do, would be to check his mothers work place?? - waffle to fill pages on others, with no common sense and sheer deflection - it does not pay to concentrate on the above, the clear reasons as to why that guilty verdict was brought about. - let's instead 'tunnel in' on the authors questions of vital importance. What was AB doing AFTER the sighting? Let's wonder why no CCTV footage was obtained to make sure the banking system was not accurate? But let's NOT check or wonder if AB's phone time was out, like Mitchells? As above: "nine days and seven statements later" - shows just how much is missing, the context that is everything to the depth of the investigation. And that is only one person and only 9 days.
I can only imagine the sheer volume of BS in Sandra Leans 2nd book and it’s partly why I wasn’t going to read it
Plus seeing her pull those weird looking faces and expressions on channel 5 was bad enough
I don’t recall her being as facially expressive when we previously met face to face on those few occasions
It struck me as really odd
This case spans 16 yearshttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y
There was no opportunity for anybody to dispose of ash because as I say they were in the police station all night
There is a lot more to this, and Nicholas is correct, the author is being a hell of lot less than truthful. And it is all done with deceitful intention - to take all the attention away from LM. Her game of Cluedo and innuendo, deflection from the killer. It is every side of that in depth investigation that she attempts to shore over with waffle. That taster by Nicholas, of statements - Lean in the book tells us of Judith Jones, of "nine days and seven statements later" just from her, gives you a sense of just how intense that investigation was.
For me Sandra Leans behaviour is extremely cruel and calculating and behaviour I recognised in her several years ago
Nonsense - LK heard noises that made him stop to listen, the noises stopped. Like rustling and movement. Asked to expand on this, he still heard rustling, it did not morph in to something else. He heard rustling/movement and a strangling sound, like someone in a headlock. Not the easiest thing to describe, but the clearest thing in this, it was enough for him to stop, there was something not right about the noise, it did not sit well with him - not just simple rustling. We hear of trauma people suffer from, does one imagine there was no trauma with this man?
And he made it clear of how bad he felt afterwards
Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm,
I had two daughters around Jodi's age at the time - why on earth would I make any effort whatsoever to help someone whom I had reason to suspect might be freed back into my own community, where my children lived, to do the same again?http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383624.html#msg383624
Stop attempting to emotionally manipulate by bringing your daughters to the board Sandra, it won't wash anymore.
Yet more telling factors to consider about the author
Why would Sandra Lean choose to omit the emotions of LK?
Did she not recognise them?
There was so much damage done at the beginning of the investigation
It’s very easy to convince people beyond reasonable doubt if you only tell them half the story
If you don’t give them anything to counter then you can make it appear there is no doubthttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y
I don’t suppose Corrine Mitchell asking her son to take the dog for a walk ever happened
Killer Luke Mitchell may well have gone off out with Mia on his own accord and for more sinister reasons than taking her out to ‘pee’ - there was a back and front garden for that!
The, ‘Not at this time of night you’re not young man’ comment was, I suspect , another bare faced lie *&^^&
I would tend to agree with all of this. When she made the ‘not at this time’ comment during the JE podcast, I got the feeling it was exaggerated and insincere. I felt a tad embarrassed for her, tbh.
Sandra Lean https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y
No - Her promotion of killer Luke Mitchell’s actual factual guilt and the innocence fraud ‘spans 16 years’
Sandra Lean
Killer Luke Mitchell has plenty of time to dispose of ‘ash’ or anything else whilst he was out walking Mia the dog at 10pm and doing whatever else he was doing then - he could have put the ‘ash’ in the river nearby for example
Where was Corrine Mitchell at 10pm that night anyway? What was she doing? Drinking?
Where was she drinking ? In her lounge ? I don’t recall any of the neighbours saying they saw her in the garden?
Was she maybe drinking because of the stress of trying to cover up for her son all that evening? Seems to be quite odd someone drinking on a Monday when they have a business to run the following day. Or maybe she was just having a couple that evening, nothing excessive? Maybe she did drink often, being a lonely divorcee and all? Did the police note the extent of her drunkenness that evening/morning?
Was she maybe drinking because of the stress of trying to cover up for her son all that evening? Seems to be quite odd someone drinking on a Monday when they have a business to run the following day. Or maybe she was just having a couple that evening, nothing excessive? Maybe she did drink often, being a lonely divorcee and all? Did the police note the extent of her drunkenness that evening/morning?
tittle tattle
Was she maybe drinking because of the stress of trying to cover up for her son all that evening? Seems to be quite odd someone drinking on a Monday when they have a business to run the following day.
Maybe she did drink often
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg658958#msg658958
And on cue. Not got much time to address everything, have read however. The book Nicholas is the creation of those two sides, the divide of the Mitchells and Jones family. This revealing the other side, is more to do with them, not the defence side. Those two sides have always been out there. It is all about why? Why was the Jones family not given the same treatment as the Mitchells. Why were they not investigated the same, negative media coverage, as we had with Judith Jones drink driving. The reality of course is the media printed the story, they let it be known - so not quite some favourable treatment, it was news, plain and simple - first and foremost.
It is for the most a bitter pill for the author - very much my reason for stating, it is her justice being served upon them, not that she is seeking favourable Justice for them. As we see with Faiths comments, that those who read the book, swallow up the authors bitterness, churn it round and spit it back out again. As we have seen on many discussions, the attacks upon not only Jodi's family, but Jodi also. - the most horrendous is those claims, that just because there is no evidence of rape, does not mean it did not take place! Where in one breath we have the author and followers bleating, that the police showed disrespect to this girl, by leaving her uncovered for hours, and in the next we have the invention of the possibility that this girl was raped. Which in turn reaps comments such as "there was five o them there wi cotter as the lookout" Where the author puts out, if someone is all but dead, then there would be no signs of force, thus no evidence of rape! Tie this in with condoms being "just yards" from the body, sperm hair and all else present - with the lie of "none of it Mitchells"
So, what does the ? around reasons as to why CM was drinking on the 30th of June have to do with Judith Jones? - nothing. It is clear, was it stress, duress over her sons actions, was it habitual, nothing to do with Luke or that evening?, just the norm? Lean claims she had a drink problem? Is it true? - one cancels out the other, if it was habitual then nothing to do with Luke's actions. If it were not habitual then she may very well have been drinking that evening, due to her sons actions.
What has always been the case however, is the lies of Mitchell being taken to Dalkeith solely to being treated differently by the police, it was for his mother he was taken there. What it also highlights is those claims of him being stripped and all else prior to her arrival - not true, is it? For she was speaking to them on Newbattle R'd, she was on her way in what is a ten minute walk in total, she was well up that road when they stopped to speak with her. Only just behind them. The others were all taken to different places too? Not the same place.
And what of the Jones house being searched repeatedly, police photographers the lot? - That is what is called the other side! But as Ms Lean states " a modern day witch hunt" - indeed!
Not interested until you provide sources and stop obfuscating. I believe Mr Apples also has some questions that he wants you to answer.
Strange then that it was Judith Jones who was prosecuted for drink driving and not Corrine Mitchell. I wonder if her mum’s drinking was the reason Jodi wanted to live with her gran ? Of course it wasn’t but you can see where this speculative, malicious sort of tittle tattle can lead.
Don't you believe the evidence then? Are you disputing that Luke Mitchell was prepped and ready for the off? That at 10.49pm Judith told him she was phoning the police, that he claimed to leave home by 10.52pm, that he was on/at RDP by 10.59pm and Judith told him she had phoned the police. That the search trio were on the phone in the complex at 11.18pm heading to meet with Mitchell. That AW shouted out " is that you Luke?" That the time was just after 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on the path - do you not believe Lean anymore?
It all speaks for itself - what do you assume LM was doing Faith in those 20mins? Or as Lean states "there is both dispute around where the search trio were and what was said in that 11.18pm call", why do you assume there is a dispute here Faith? Does not do to go with the statements or phone logs, or that there was no call in Mitchells presence - best to mangle it around with this dispute, of course there has to be a dispute, could not have LM on that path for 20mins now, could we.? But he was Faith and nothing is going to change that. So what do we do with this rushing up the path, at haste to get to Judith's as quickly as possible? Did not let his dog do any searching and so forth?
And it does open up every other possibility. That Mitchell was not home when that text came through, he did not leave from his house at all, did he? It is bad enough as it stands by his own claims, of just how prepped and ready he was. But that frantic rush, to get ready and be out that door and onto that path?! 10-mins in total?
That we know without a shadow of a doubt that search trio left from AW's just after 11pm. Witnessed Faith. They were nowhere else. The call to AW's landline not her mobile, as with the other calls before this. Why do you assume the author has the walk from GD's house to YW's at just over 10mins, yet has the walk from AW's to the paths longer? Where the first takes longer than 10mins as does the latter. They were exactly where they said they were, and went exactly where they went from A-B. And they got there around 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on that path.
What was Mitchell doing for those 90mins Faith, where did he go when he left the boys around 8.30pm? What proof is there that he was home from 4.25pm?
How many phones did LM have Faith? What happened to his old handset? Why is that not mentioned in the book? We have every phone and record of the Jones phones, JF and YW - where are the Mitchells?
Now that you do know, without a shadow of a doubt that Mitchell (and you even quoted the Times) did not go past that V with his dog. That you do not even believe his own statements? How do you account for those ten steps JaJ and Kelly took, whilst Mitchel was "searching around" in the woods, that he found Jodi so quick;y? Mere seconds with no indication of where in the woods, straight ahead or otherwise? As you say "no one is interested in him going past" Only the dog. Show us exactly what that search trio said, in sequence from that first statement onwards. Show us when they were taken to RDP to go over that night. Show us those precognitions done by both the Crown and defence? - no you can't can you? So you mosey on along now with your blind faith and trust in the author, with your "wafer thin case", and here is that same record again - that only those who soak in the pages of that book can come out with, that there was no evidence - indeed, 9 weeks of waffle, that even the author did not witness!
"beyond a reasonable doubt?" Every single piece of that case screams it was LM. Nothing is going to change that. That clear attempt, that strive to give an alibi from just after 5pm until 5.45pm. To add her other son to the mix, to lie - and one wants to question if she knew what Luke had done? or why he needed cover, when she could drag her other son in at ease. Leave the family alone, that he left home with his mothers blessing, smack bang at a time of leaving her alone to face the backlash, those attacks and all else. Does not fit, does it? United in true belief of innocence = equal standing and fighting together. That clear contradiction and irony, of "if it were your son, brother, would you not want everyone shouting from the rooftops?" Damn right you would, inclusive of the father and brother. 4.25 until nearly 6pm = nothing of LM. Around 6.15pm until 7.30pm = nothing of LM. 8.30pm until 10pm = nothing of LM. To 11.20pm = nothing of LM then minutes later Jodi is found, in a isolated area, hidden behind a large Oak tree in a dark woodland, that no one was searching.
And we have those sightings, those positive ID's of him. And he was prepped and ready from that curfew time - and again every single part of that time screams this at us. And there is only one reason why he was prepped and ready, why he knew that call/text would come - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Don't you believe the evidence then? Are you disputing that Luke Mitchell was prepped and ready for the off? That at 10.49pm Judith told him she was phoning the police, that he claimed to leave home by 10.52pm, that he was on/at RDP by 10.59pm and Judith told him she had phoned the police. That the search trio were on the phone in the complex at 11.18pm heading to meet with Mitchell. That AW shouted out " is that you Luke?" That the time was just after 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on the path - do you not believe Lean anymore?
It all speaks for itself - what do you assume LM was doing Faith in those 20mins? Or as Lean states "there is both dispute around where the search trio were and what was said in that 11.18pm call", why do you assume there is a dispute here Faith? Does not do to go with the statements or phone logs, or that there was no call in Mitchells presence - best to mangle it around with this dispute, of course there has to be a dispute, could not have LM on that path for 20mins now, could we.? But he was Faith and nothing is going to change that. So what do we do with this rushing up the path, at haste to get to Judith's as quickly as possible? Did not let his dog do any searching and so forth?
And it does open up every other possibility. That Mitchell was not home when that text came through, he did not leave from his house at all, did he? It is bad enough as it stands by his own claims, of just how prepped and ready he was. But that frantic rush, to get ready and be out that door and onto that path?! 10-mins in total?
That we know without a shadow of a doubt that search trio left from AW's just after 11pm. Witnessed Faith. They were nowhere else. The call to AW's landline not her mobile, as with the other calls before this. Why do you assume the author has the walk from GD's house to YW's at just over 10mins, yet has the walk from AW's to the paths longer? Where the first takes longer than 10mins as does the latter. They were exactly where they said they were, and went exactly where they went from A-B. And they got there around 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on that path.
What was Mitchell doing for those 90mins Faith, where did he go when he left the boys around 8.30pm? What proof is there that he was home from 4.25pm?
How many phones did LM have Faith? What happened to his old handset? Why is that not mentioned in the book? We have every phone and record of the Jones phones, JF and YW - where are the Mitchells?
Now that you do know, without a shadow of a doubt that Mitchell (and you even quoted the Times) did not go past that V with his dog. That you do not even believe his own statements? How do you account for those ten steps JaJ and Kelly took, whilst Mitchel was "searching around" in the woods, that he found Jodi so quick;y? Mere seconds with no indication of where in the woods, straight ahead or otherwise? As you say "no one is interested in him going past" Only the dog. Show us exactly what that search trio said, in sequence from that first statement onwards. Show us when they were taken to RDP to go over that night. Show us those precognitions done by both the Crown and defence? - no you can't can you? So you mosey on along now with your blind faith and trust in the author, with your "wafer thin case", and here is that same record again - that only those who soak in the pages of that book can come out with, that there was no evidence - indeed, 9 weeks of waffle, that even the author did not witness!
"beyond a reasonable doubt?" Every single piece of that case screams it was LM. Nothing is going to change that. That clear attempt, that strive to give an alibi from just after 5pm until 5.45pm. To add her other son to the mix, to lie - and one wants to question if she knew what Luke had done? or why he needed cover, when she could drag her other son in at ease. Leave the family alone, that he left home with his mothers blessing, smack bang at a time of leaving her alone to face the backlash, those attacks and all else. Does not fit, does it? United in true belief of innocence = equal standing and fighting together. That clear contradiction and irony, of "if it were your son, brother, would you not want everyone shouting from the rooftops?" Damn right you would, inclusive of the father and brother. 4.25 until nearly 6pm = nothing of LM. Around 6.15pm until 7.30pm = nothing of LM. 8.30pm until 10pm = nothing of LM. To 11.20pm = nothing of LM then minutes later Jodi is found, in a isolated area, hidden behind a large Oak tree in a dark woodland, that no one was searching.
And we have those sightings, those positive ID's of him. And he was prepped and ready from that curfew time - and again every single part of that time screams this at us. And there is only one reason why he was prepped and ready, why he knew that call/text would come - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rather than start a new thread, I’ll digress a little and leave this here:
I was curious to know what people on here thought of Luke’s chances of getting released in 2023? Given the barbaric nature of the crime and his entrenched denial, do you think these factors render his chances extremely slim? Even if he did admit to it, would it make any difference to his chances of release in 2023? Will he ever get released? I wonder how many risk assessments he’s had by the authorities and what the results were? High risk offender? I sometimes wonder if his denial was/is an attempt to make his prison life more bearable (I have a hunch he’s in segregation and often an easy target for other inmates).
Rather than start a new thread, I’ll digress a little and leave this here:
I was curious to know what people on here thought of Luke’s chances of getting released in 2023? Given the barbaric nature of the crime and his entrenched denial, do you think these factors render his chances extremely slim? Even if he did admit to it, would it make any difference to his chances of release in 2023? Will he ever get released? I wonder how many risk assessments he’s had by the authorities and what the results were? High risk offender? I sometimes wonder if his denial was/is an attempt to make his prison life more bearable (I have a hunch he’s in segregation and often an easy target for other inmates).
Where do you get all your facts from, Parky?
Just interested to know, since I don't know of anyone other than SL who has researched the case in detail.
He was furious at the evidence of the map Mitchell drew to the FLO.
And it has always been the case, that these areas of statements, in sequence could always have been shown, to back up these nonsense claims of agreeing with Mitchell. They have not been and will not be shown, for they do not.
The pages of waffle set to confuse are for just that reason - to deflect away from Mitchell.
So the waffle - not one bit of it makes any difference to Mitchells actions and to what took place from 10.38pm.
Surprised somewhat at the question as most comes from the book, from Lean over time where the logs etc are concerned. As stated repeatedly around the search trio - It has always been that they arrived at that the V, not a foot past it. And not from the first account onwards has it been different. It was only ever Mitchell who stated they did. And I have discussed this directly with SL, and her proof as always is around the dog. Of Kelly and the "dogs head being level with the V" - That is not proof of Mitchells account or actions, not even close to it. And it is an accumulation of events not just a dog at the V.
And my repetition of being easily led and blind faith stands - You, nor anyone else have ever been shown any proof of those changes, that come close to agreeing with Mitchell and changing their minds. The evidence led, the reason for that wall and the jury being taken to RDP, was to show them one thing clearly. That Mitchel and his dog did not go past the V. That he turned immediately to his left when he went over. That he had barely had time to walk ten steps when he shouted out. That he did not, when Kelly or AW go over, even walk around 10 steps to show them. That he did describe what was impossible to do. Kelly had to walk around 20 feet to see.
And it has always been the case, that these areas of statements, in sequence could always have been shown, to back up these nonsense claims of agreeing with Mitchell. They have not been and will not be shown, for they do not. The only thing DF could do at trial, was attempt the same where the dog was concerned. What he did not do and could not do, was take anyone of that search party, passed the V. He was furious at the evidence of the map Mitchell drew to the FLO.
So it was never about the dog, or Kelly forgetting (claimed) that it was standing at the V. It was always about Mitchells claims of going past that V. with his dog, THEN the dog reacting. It did not happen. There was nothing other than special knowledge for his actions. Every one of them.
And that time line can not be changed - that clear sequence of phone logs which back up the statements. And Mitchel in less than 10mins was ready and on that path in comparison to the search trio. 35mins it took to get ready and be on that path. And they did arrive at the junctions until around 11.20pm and they did see Mitchel and they walked to meet with him, in the top half of that path. And the time was approx 11.23 when they set off down together. I will work backwards here for you:
11.34pm call to 999, and AW and JaJ can be heard screaming in that call. It was made whilst AW was with her granddaughter. Work those 40ft or so back to the V, to being helped over. To Kelly and his 20ft and back and it brings you to Mitchell and just after 11.30 when he went over and walked his ten ft or so inline with JaJ and Kelly. And we work back our 6-7 mins from here to that meet and start of the walk down at around 11.23pm. And back from this to the search trio leaving AW's after that call at 11.03pm. To JF saying it was "around 11pm" he saw them leaving. YW stayed in a top flat overlooking, down the St to her Grandmothers house.
The pages of waffle set to confuse are for just that reason - to deflect away from Mitchell. The total time for walking the full length of RDP was timed at just over 11mins. He was on that path twice that time, by is own claims. And he was prepped and ready for the off. Ms Lean claims he "grabbed the torch and dog and left" - Not what Mitchell said though, is it? And not what Lean has shown before on forums. That he went upstairs and asked his brother for the torch, that SM came down and located said torch, the debate with his mother, then left.
So the waffle - not one bit of it makes any difference to Mitchells actions and to what took place from 10.38pm. And there is not one single piece of evidence other that waffle to put that search trio, anywhere other than AW's at 11.03pm. There is no multiple IF's around if they had arrived this time or that time - they arrived at that path when they did. It is Mitchell that does not fit into any rational. Plain and simple, attempting to tie him in with the search trio, does not work. You can not change the evidence.
So I studied the book, the forums - was part and still part of a group, two of whom attended the trial. The one area I studied was reason as to why suspicion fell upon Mitchell. - there was no tunnel vision.
As an aside I can highly recommend the documentary A Killing In Tiger Bay shown on BBC2..
Michael O’Brien is on the warpath over this
Michael A O’Brien
‘I am not happy with the way the BBC has portrayed there is only one miscarriage of justice case in South Wales because South Wales Police has caught the real killer what about the other cases of injustice? BBC doesn't give a f..k about the rest bang out of order they are
most comes from the book
most comes from the book
Just quoting this again for those who seem to have missed it.
Just quoting this again for those who seem to have missed it.
A case of believing what you want to believe.
‘A case of’ separating the fantasy from the reality
And Sandra Lean wasn’t there - Janine Jones was
Yes she was and gave two very different scenarios regarding what happened.
Only the perpetually easily lead wouldn’t question that.
As an aside I can highly recommend the documentary A Killing In Tiger Bay shown on BBC2. This was the story of the Cardiff Three and the shocking miscarriage of justice they endured in a large part due to the tunnel vision of the South Wales police.
Probably true
Michael O’Brien is on the warpath over this
Michael A O’Brien
‘I am not happy with the way the BBC has portrayed there is only one miscarriage of justice case in South Wales because South Wales Police has caught the real killer what about the other cases of injustice? BBC doesn't give a f..k about the rest bang out of order they are
I suspect they did yes
Would be interesting to see what notes were made in respect to this and whether or not there were any delays in speaking to her killer son when he was taken to the police station
Or maybe that’s why he was taken to the police station in the first place because police had concerns his mother wasn’t in a fit state to supervise him - especially given all the circumstances
Yes she was and gave two very different scenarios regarding what happened.
Only the perpetually easily lead wouldn’t question that.
Absolutely. LM was a minor. CM couldn't drive. The police had a responsibility to keep LM safe regardless of anything.
A case of believing what you want to believe.
Janine Jones court testimony “ Luke went straight over the wall”
Janine Jones first statement “Luke’s dog was carrying on at the wall and then Luke jumped over and started looking about”.
Source : BBC Scotland Frontline
I’m guessing this isn’t explored in Sandra Leans book?
Where was Shane when all this was going on? And did he know by this point [Name removed] had been murdered?
Where was he? In bed asleep or did he follow his mother Corinne Mitchell down to the police station?
And when Corinne was phoning and texting LM was Shane made aware of her alleged concerns? Did she wake Shane up? (If he was asleep)
Did Shane go out looking for his younger brother?
Or are these details omitted from Sandra Leans story?
No of course not! You do not get to know much of anything around the Mitchells, yet one can tell you how many handsets Judith owned, what clothing [Name removed] was wearing and so forth. It is deflection onto others and simple input of the Mitchells. Where the author has "he grabbed the torch, dog and left" - But that is not what she has clarified before? Omitted from the book. That Mitchell went upstairs and asked his brother for the torch, that SM went down and located it for him, of the debate with his mother and off he went?" Everything changes to suit, does it not? As we have already witnessed with CM's podcast - what happened to the truth and it's consistency?
What also struck me is this mother attempting repeatedly to get hold of her son? Where he ignores her. But, she claimed to be under the impression that he was walking up to Judith's, to help go through those phone numbers. Why was she so concerned?, he was with this bruit of a dog, a large menacing guard dog? Why if she actually knew where he was going, could not get hold of him, did she not contact Judith's home? Asking if he were there? That upon finally having contact, to seeing her son she knew that Jodi was dead, and she asked the police if he were under arrest?
But the rest does not fit either? It is a short walk from Newbattle Road up to Dalkeith police station, she spoke with them up and on this road. She was mere minutes behind his arrival - yet the impression given is that in those mere minutes, he had been stripped, examined and all else - nonsense, is it not?
The author can tell you and dissects the information around the police, in their statements that [Name removed] was first to arrive at the paths, that the police stopped him from going down. Then the author attempts to make claim that he was perhaps not even there, that somewhere it changed to Judith Jones being the first there. - She really lays it on thick where Jodi's brother is concerned. - It can not be clearer from every account that he was at home, that he had been woken by his mother etc........... And it takes me back repeatedly to Jigsawman, and those clear attempts to implicate Jodi's brother in her death.
The only attention in reality upon the Mitchells, is where the author attempts to show how unfairly they were treated. Bottom line, she simply has Mitchell innocent, as she did prior to even meeting him. It is not about proving he is innocent, he simply is. And the deflection onto others, is to fill the readers head with other possibilities whilst leaving the Mitchells and the actual evidence from them aside, that brought about that suspicion, kept it there and subsequently found guilty.
No of course not! You do not get to know much of anything around the Mitchells, found guilty.
Of course - this book just jammed back with outstanding proof of Mitchells innocence! So outstanding the author can't show statements to back this, to show the truth. Course one can't for it does not exist, so one goes into deceitful waffle instead. Is that what truthseeking is. Justice? - Not on your life.
Of course - this book just jammed back with outstanding proof of Mitchells innocence! So outstanding the author can't show statements to back this, to show the truth. Course one can't for it does not exist, so one goes into deceitful waffle instead. Is that what truthseeking is. Justice? - Not on your life.
Let us do a little reversal here - They all mentioned the dog at a wall, to the author in her deceitful interpretation of the statements = it must be the same as Mitchell, if they mentioned the dog then it must have been where Mitchell claimed. So she makes statements such as "Janine and Steven were telling that exact same story as Luke - that the dog alerted a little way past the V break" But further back in this also, the author states in her "agreed facts" that "they all walked several meters past the V break". There is nothing used from the statements, just that wide ref that the information given is from the defence files - must be true then, must it not? I mean this is a truthseeker, a Dr of criminology, studied this case for years - what reason could one have for lying, for misleading the reader - the answer is simple, one is backing a liar, and to do so one must do the same. The truth is the reason why Mitchell is in Jail, can't have that now, not when one is proclaiming innocence?
Firstly, you do know of course that this search trio did not use the word V in those first statements at all, they used breaks in the wall. The big and the little break. The big break being the Gino spot, a large break along the top of the wall, the smaller the V break, with it going down the wall. (The AD questioning, highlighting and reading from the statements to the Jury and witnesses) So they walked to the first break and Mitchell climbed the wall and they walked to the second break and Mitchell went into the woods. All down that path, they make reference to everyone, (each other) and of course the dog. Faith has obliged us many times with those lines from JaJ's statement and in court from the FS documentary, and we have some cross examination from DF at court. - We do not have, and never had anything, from those statements of this search trio going past that break with Mitchell, we do not have anything that states "alerting", "led them to" "because of the dog" - nothing. And it take little to realise, that along with those lines from the FS programme, that cross examination by DF, that if there had been anything of them going past, using any same terms as Mitchell - they would be shown clearly and repeatedly as proof. Turnball (AD) showed that clear sequence of events from the meet and down that path, until they reached the V break.
I have mentioned precognitions many times now, and for most we know what these are. - Where both the Crown and defence interview key witnesses, any witnesses they choose to, to go over those statements, highlighting and discussing those crucial areas. And everything around that search was crucial. It had to be shown clearly, that LM was leading the search with his dog in tow. Does one imagine, he simply took it in and out of this professionally claimed, trained seek mode at will? I mean, do dogs urinate and scent when in seek mode? Why was it out of seek mode at the Gino break, or that slight walk into the crop field with it, the dog was on a tight reign. And he climbed that wall and he was at haste to go back in front. And he did the same after walking several feet into the field, and he was at haste yet again to go in front. His dog was not seeking, scenting and leading him, he was taking the lead at all times, at haste. And he was in front when they approached that second break and not a foot past it did Mitchell go.
And not once has there been any denial that this search trio gave accounts of this dog at the V - that they could only ever have done this, with that stark reality that they were all at the V. There was no "several meters past" - They could not have seen the dogs head level with it, they could not have seen that lead getting handed to AW, they could not have seen him in the woodland, and they could not have seen him turning to his left, they could not have used terms then of, continuing to walk down after he went over, of walking those ten steps or more when he shouted out, that they darted back to the V break and Mitchell was there. They were all together, at the V with the dog. And AW made it clear to DF that she was just behind, they were in line. That when they stopped at the break, she was right behind them, and Mitchell handed her the lead.
And this is what the police saw in those first statements - that stark contrast of Mitchell and his cartoon image of a 'pointer dog' Like it had been zapped into this major alert stance! Diving to that wall and jumping up at it, air sniffing, alerting "them" to where Jodi lay. And the description does not match, and they are not saying it happened in the same fashion and not where Mitchell claimed. So they do seek further clarification, to the point that these witnesses are taken back to that path - to re live that evening, to think and clarify those statements. They are the same! They are still at the same spot, The dog is still there, going to the wall and all else, at and to the V break on approaching it. But what they clarify, is many actions of that dog all the way down that path, inclusive of it leaving it's scent in different areas? It was being a dog at Mitchells command. He put himself in front, not the dog and all times.This family/business guard dog, that was trained to protect property.
And Mitchell did the same, he went over and clarified that walk down the path - and he could not be clearer, to the point he drew a diagram/map - And he had those X's on the path that were him, Kelly and JaJ on the path, and one for Jodi in the woods directly over the wall, and he stated "parallel to" where she lay. Jodi was over 40ft down from the V break.
Mirror image, not on your life - truthseeker! - that is a joke, surely?
And those contradictions over and over - Where we know, and with the timings done over each account, that there was no time for any of Mitchells claims. The author tries as best she can, manipulatively with that deflective waffle to have that search trio there prior to 11.10pm, in her attempt to fit in all of Mitchells claims. To have him rushing up that path, to have the search trio there, to have this slower pace going down, scraping and scraping and contradicting oneself over and over. - For there is nothing to back any of it up. This slower pace in comparison to the brisk walk down from AW's was went over with the police, at the pace they walked - it does not change to suit the author. It most certainly does not change that very precise account that Mitchell gave, and as with most of his claims - they simply disintegrated under scrutiny.
Anyone know what happened to the ‘what lessons did Sandra Lean learn from the exposure of Simon Halls guilt’ thread?
Anyone know what happened to the ‘what lessons did Sandra Lean learn from the exposure of Simon Halls guilt’ thread?
The thread was getting far too personal and was dragging up stuff from the past which really has no relevance now.
Absolutely. LM was a minor. CM couldn't drive. The police had a responsibility to keep LM safe regardless of anything.
My, my I do appear to have struck a nerve.
And while I admire your tenacity my quote had nothing to do with Dr Lean so I’m not sure why she’s relevant. Lest we forget Dr Lean didn’t have the case files in 2007 when Frontline was produced so the quotes from the witness statements must have come from an official source.
BBC Scotland took direct quotes from, arguably, two of the most important witnesses’s statements and demonstrated how there were very real, and damning, differences between those and the testimony given in court. Turnbull said while summing up that if the family's account were consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer, except as Frontline proved so conclusively that that wasn’t the case.
Janine Jones court testimony “ Luke went straight over the wall”
Janine Jones first statement “Luke’s dog was carrying on at the wall and then Luke jumped over and started looking about”.
Source : BBC Scotland Frontline
And further
“LM, JaJ and SK all gave statements to police over the following weeks that it was the dog who was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall.”
Source : BBC Scotland Frontline
Also from the BBC.
“ Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.
By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court.”
So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too and of course the comment in his first statement that Kelly saw the dog ‘pull’ Luke to the break makes perfect sense.
The thread was getting far too personal and was dragging up stuff from the past which really has no relevance now.
So you hid it ?
No ‘relevance’ ?
How so?
‘Far too personal’ - for whom exactly?
And how could it have been ‘dragging stuff up from the past’ if the evidence was never in the public domain to drag it up from?
Were any of the posts ‘reported to a moderator’ or was this your decision John?
Given it’s you John - I would be interested to hear why you think this ⬇️
“LM, JaJ and SK all gave statements to police over the following weeks that it was the dog who was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall.”
Also from the BBC.
“ Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.
By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court.”
So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too and of course the comment in his first statement that Kelly saw the dog ‘pull’ Luke to the break makes perfect sense.
Yes we know Kelly went past the break with JaJ - it was important evidence in his trial, that they had walked past after Mitchell entered the woods. And this nonsense of "the dog was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall" - Really?
Firstly - The "first" look into any woodland was with Mitchell at the Gino break area of that wall. This "So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too" Let's split that up. Yes they were all, apart from AW past that V in the wall at/around the same time. JaJ and Kelly on the path and Mitchell in that narrow passage on the inside of the wall. Now we know without a shadow of a doubt that they did not walk past on that path side together. One does not have eyes in the back of their head, neither can they see through walls. Neither could they see around 40ft back up that path! with the torch, neither did they claim to look back up it! For seeing that lead being handed over, seeing Mitchell in the wood turning to his left, and the dog standing up on that V. Every action the trio described, was not a foot past that break, it was on approaching it, watching Mitchell go to it. And they did not just describe, they used words "when we came to" ....... There was no going back with Mitchell to that break.
But you know all of this. So let us cut to the chase again here and why it was important, this "he ran after hearing a shout" For in those statements, both him and JaJ spoke of walking around 10-15 ft past that break once Mitchell commenced to his left. And he shouted out, and at haste they went 'back' to that break in the wall, and low and behold, Mitchell, was once more on the other side = that Mitchell had not walked the same distance as them, at an almighty push, no more than 10ft. The reality, around five steps! after they saw him walk that initial one or two, to the left. Now you see him on the other side, step or two, now you don't. They walk several feet, haste back and now you see him again!
Four accounts and one of them with precision - This family business guard dog/pet. Trained to 'seize' as opposed to 'seek'. The reality, having a professional team of bodies and setting them to task, with trained dogs. The dog if it had picked up on anything would not have been left behind!! It would have been over that V with the person leading it, and still seeking. - But you know all of this of course, as you rightly say "you're not daft" -So was it a case of third time lucky here? Up at the Gino, few steps into the field, hasting back in front, straight to that V break, and bingo! No dog needed, nothing, seconds later, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, few steps to the left and 'Hey presto!' Where every area of context is required here:
That denial of ever being in that woodland - denial of that V. - mere seconds it is found, he is over and instantly spies that narrow passage. And that tree, the clothing, the hair fastener, right down to those DC shoes. But as his mother clearly states 'super torch, that lit up the entire woodland, like someone flicking a switch!' Walked that path a plenty! and in the dark he sees not one but two breaks. The second one you claim whilst the dog has it's nose firmly to the ground, Mitchell following precisely were it was "seeking" . But he just happened to see that break, that he claimed he "backtracked" to after walking around 40ft past it - jingle jingle.
And all this "it makes no sense" To phone, to want to be part of a search and all else - sense? in the mind of someone who can not only murder then mutilate!!
And of "daft" the police certainly were not, neither the crown and onto that Jury. Going to that path, the locus. Mere minutes for Mitchell to do the impossible without special knowledge. And it was impossible.
Everything rapid bar that time going up that path. 10.49pm - 'I will search the path, if I do not find Jodi! I will come to yours'.(SL) 10.59pm and he is on that path. After 11.20pm and he is on that path. Gino look, field look, over the V and bang - Around 7 - 8 mins. Alibi in place, disposal in place. And his mother, ring, ring , ring , ring, ring and ignore. She is frantic, her son is 'supposed to be at Judith's' - did she phone there in her worry? - No she did not, did she? How long exactly had her son been out that house, that she did not know where he was, exactly?
Yes we know Kelly went past the break with JaJ - it was important evidence in his trial, that they had walked past after Mitchell entered the woods. And this nonsense of "the dog was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall" - Really?
Firstly - The "first" look into any woodland was with Mitchell at the Gino break area of that wall. This "So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too" Let's split that up. Yes they were all, apart from AW past that V in the wall at/around the same time. JaJ and Kelly on the path and Mitchell in that narrow passage on the inside of the wall. Now we know without a shadow of a doubt that they did not walk past on that path side together. One does not have eyes in the back of their head, neither can they see through walls. Neither could they see around 40ft back up that path! with the torch, neither did they claim to look back up it! For seeing that lead being handed over, seeing Mitchell in the wood turning to his left, and the dog standing up on that V. Every action the trio described, was not a foot past that break, it was on approaching it, watching Mitchell go to it. And they did not just describe, they used words "when we came to" ....... There was no going back with Mitchell to that break.
But you know all of this. So let us cut to the chase again here and why it was important, this "he ran after hearing a shout" For in those statements, both him and JaJ spoke of walking around 10-15 ft past that break once Mitchell commenced to his left. And he shouted out, and at haste they went 'back' to that break in the wall, and low and behold, Mitchell, was once more on the other side = that Mitchell had not walked the same distance as them, at an almighty push, no more than 10ft. The reality, around five steps! after they saw him walk that initial one or two, to the left. Now you see him on the other side, step or two, now you don't. They walk several feet, haste back and now you see him again!
Four accounts and one of them with precision - This family business guard dog/pet. Trained to 'seize' as opposed to 'seek'. The reality, having a professional team of bodies and setting them to task, with trained dogs. The dog if it had picked up on anything would not have been left behind!! It would have been over that V with the person leading it, and still seeking. - But you know all of this of course, as you rightly say "you're not daft" -So was it a case of third time lucky here? Up at the Gino, few steps into the field, hasting back in front, straight to that V break, and bingo! No dog needed, nothing, seconds later, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, few steps to the left and 'Hey presto!' Where every area of context is required here:
That denial of ever being in that woodland - denial of that V. - mere seconds it is found, he is over and instantly spies that narrow passage. And that tree, the clothing, the hair fastener, right down to those DC shoes. But as his mother clearly states 'super torch, that lit up the entire woodland, like someone flicking a switch!' Walked that path a plenty! and in the dark he sees not one but two breaks. The second one you claim whilst the dog has it's nose firmly to the ground, Mitchell following precisely were it was "seeking" . But he just happened to see that break, that he claimed he "backtracked" to after walking around 40ft past it - jingle jingle.
And all this "it makes no sense" To phone, to want to be part of a search and all else - sense? in the mind of someone who can not only murder then mutilate!!
And of "daft" the police certainly were not, neither the crown and onto that Jury. Going to that path, the locus. Mere minutes for Mitchell to do the impossible without special knowledge. And it was impossible.
Everything rapid bar that time going up that path. 10.49pm - 'I will search the path, if I do not find Jodi! I will come to yours'.(SL) 10.59pm and he is on that path. After 11.20pm and he is on that path. Gino look, field look, over the V and bang - Around 7 - 8 mins. Alibi in place, disposal in place. And his mother, ring, ring , ring , ring, ring and ignore. She is frantic, her son is 'supposed to be at Judith's' - did she phone there in her worry? - No she did not, did she? How long exactly had her son been out that house, that she did not know where he was, exactly?
Firstly did Corrine have Judith’s number? I think it would have been very odd if she did. My mother didn’t have any of my boyfriend’s mother’s numbers. Did yours?
Secondly, there are two undeniable facts related to the finding of the body scenario. One, that Janine and Steven’s statements in the first month after Jodi’s murder agreed with Luke’s in that his dog alerted Luke to the break in the wall. Two that by the time the case came to court Janine and Steven, under oath, had changed their recollection completely and described a scenario where Luke, of his own volition, climbed over the wall. There is really no getting away from those facts.
Steven Kelly described in his first statements seeing the dog pulling Luke towards the wall. That couldn’t have happened if Kelly was walking on past the break and Luke was some way behind. That couldn’t have happened if Luke was over the wall and Kelly was brought back by Luke shouting. So how did it happen? Isn’t it more plausible that Kelly, Janine and Luke all walked past the break together and that’s where the dog started to pull Luke to the wall? That’s when Kelly and Janine saw what they described in their first statements, the dog ‘carrying on’ at the wall. That’s when Luke went over the wall.
And this ‘ Every action the trio described, was not a foot past that break, it was on approaching it, watching Mitchell go to it.’ Perhaps…except the pair, under oath, testified that the dog didn’t alert to the wall at all, that Luke, of his own volition, simply jumped over it….and therein lies the rub.
It did not happen, that's why. The dog was 'standing' up at the wall in one place only. The V break. The search trio did not describe what Mitchell claimed, that's why. There was no dog "alerting to" "air sniffing" "bounding" " tail and ears up! some distance past any break in the wall. There was no Mitchell "backtracking" - they all approached that break in the wall, and Mitchell with his dog went directly to it and over. And walked no more than 10ft - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, he knew exactly what was there, and he had been in that woodland countless times before. Does one imagine that the Jury did not get to hear all of the accounts, of course they did. And is one forgetting the dog was up at the V, looking for it's master! who had went over! Standing there when Kelly and JaJ, then and only then walked past those 10 - 15 steps.
The author states - "that all of the earlier statements "indicated" that "Steven and Janine had overtaken Luke a couple of times" ( they did not indicate this they stated this as fact, at the Gino break and into that field a few steps) then the lies "indicated" therefore, "that they carried on walking down the path after Luke doubled back to the V point" - No they did not "indicate" this ever, and as above - They could not have witnessed anything at that break, it was as they clearly described, upon approaching it. Not once did any of that search trio state LM had "doubled back" anywhere. And yet again this "alerted to" and all else - these were Mitchells words.
And here is an excerpt from page 64 under "How the stories changed" Where she states the wall was reconstructed on the basis of "altered stories" - no it was not, it was on the basis of what they all stated at first. LM stated he was some 40ft down past with Kelly and JaJ. Kelly stated at the V, JaJ at the V and AW at the V. The reconstruction on each individual account of where they each stated,, they were.
"However on the basis of altered stories a reconstruction of the wall was built for the trial and the prosecuting QC placed each member of the search trio at the V point. He then walked 16.3 metres away (the distance Jodi's body lay from the V point) and then back towards the person standing at the V and, asking "is this what you saw?" and she states
"Not one witness (including Luke himself) had ever suggested this had happened, either in court or in statements, yet this dramatic reconstruction was used to convince Jurors that Luke was "lying" about what happened at the V"
My poor head yet again from all that shaking! The reconstruction was done on the basis of exactly what each stated happened. The trio at that V where they stated Mitchell and his dog had not walked past, and Mitchell who stated they were "parallel" to where Jodi lay in that wood. Where it was shown clearly, that they made it clear from that very first account that they had not walked past. That if Mitchell had taken the lead here again, past that V break, to where he stated he walked and his dog reacted! Then why did none of the search trio see him walking past, or state they had all walked past with him? And the AD asked at different points, not just from 16.3 meters. He stopped every few feet, and asked that same question. "from here?" until he was upon them - And SL's last part "to convince Jurors that Luke was "lying" about what happened at the V" - Really? but Ms Lean, Luke gave no account of what happened at that V with his dog, only that he had walked past it, around 16.3meters "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods, then and only then did his dog "alert" was his claim. It was to show that the search trio were always telling the correct account, from that first statement, "on approaching that break" that "Luke with his dog went straight to it" To show the Jury that the search trio could not have been past it with Mitchell, to then continue walking, by his claims, after he had "doubled/backtracked" to it. For it was impossible to see anything that the dog did, at that break, of him being in the woods, the lead and all else - it was to show the jury that LM was yet again telling a whole load of 'porkies!'
And the AD stated clearly to that Jury 'how could the search trio not remember such graphics as a dog doing what Mitchell claimed, and where he claimed. That "air sniffing" and all else, how could they not remember Mitchell walking back to that break?' How could they not remember him backtracking/doubling back? - in short Mitchell was lying, it mattered not a jot what he said that dog was doing at the wall, for him and his dog - were not where he claimed to be. That the only reason for Mitchell hopping over that V and going left, as he had been in that woodland with Jodi earlier in the evening. He knew every inch of those tracks. That narrow passage! - and he just kept on given and he just kept on lying.
And DF is asking SK, of that dog at the V and the Jury are thinking in reality, so what! Mitchell himself stated that SK could not have seen that dogs head level with that V, he has already stated that JaJ could not have seen him in the woods, he has already stated that the dog was not pulling to the break in the wall, he has already stated that they could not have seen that lead being handed over, he has already stated, without a shadow of a doubt, that his dog went nowhere near that break in the wall, pulling to the break, that it did not stand up at that break in the wall, - That his dog only jumped, bounded to that wall, some 40ft past it. That it's nose was twitching like b....ry and he just knew Jodi was on the other side, that he then backtracked to that V and JaJ and Kelly walked on down. - and this is from those 1st statements. The search trio were spot on, when they went over that walk a couple of weeks after the murder. There was no agreeing with Mitchell in the slightest. Not alerting, not leading them to, nothing. For they were at that V and Mitchell could not have been clearer, that his dog did nothing at that V - to alert, lead to anything. The very reason he was making it clear of some distance past, as he knew it had to look like the dog had actually picked something up, that could even scrape at explaining the ease in which he hopped over - no unfamiliarity, not trepidation of step, straight to where he had left her earlier!
And the AD had all of that on his side, he had those statements from that first one - that he could place that trio firmly at the V break and not a foot past it! No Mitchell walking back towards them, no back tracking if with them, absolutely nothing - but a dog with its master, doing what dogs do.
So Faith it does not matter a jot, if SK said he could not remember the dog up at the wall, from his first statements, of it's head up at the V. level with it - for it had naff all to do with Mitchells account, in the slightest! What Kelly, JaJ and AW were making clear, is that dog had not been alerting to anything at that break, and if the rest of those statements should be shown - one will see mention of that dog, scenting, scurrying at other areas on the way down, to that V break.
The one who prompts a search, Mitchell as he was the very first to mention, and not just to offer to search, but to search that path. Less than ten minutes from uttering those words he is on that path. And he is still on that path, and he had asked for something of Jodi's to be brought with the search trio, and they had not diverted to Judith's to get it. And the first thing he did ask, was "do you have anything of Jodi's?" And in enters the notion of that isolated woodland, by Mitchell at that Gino break. In around 7mins from commencing on that path together. He introduces the notion of the woods at the first break and he enters that wood at the second - and he shouts out. He may have been adverse to any God, but he certainly had a miracle happen, did he not?! - he knew exactly what he was doing!
And again, the "why, it does not make any logical sense?" does not come into it, at all - murdering and mutilating someone, makes no logical sense, does it? Prepped and ready, and chapping at the bit from that girls curfew time. And as soon as correspondence is made - less than 50mins later he has miraculously found her, less than ten mins with that search trio and bang!!
Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm,
It sounds like Sandra Lean has failed to bother to put her parent hat on
And alll those comments to her being a mother of two girls (Altohugh she omitted to mention the fact only one daughter lived with her at the time and didn’t bother to explain to her readers why and how this came about)
Sandra Lean http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383624.html#msg383624
I had two daughters around Jodi's age at the time
There are too many red flags regarding Sandra Leans behaviour, character and manipulative tactics to list
But her comments regarding the timings of Jodi being missing are concerning - especially in relation to her empathy levels
What drives her in this case?
Is it the genuine belief that Luke Mitchell is innocent despite all the damning evidence
or is it the need to protect her reputation given she has been wrong so many times previously in relation to other high profile murder cases like Prout and Hall?
What drives her in this case? Is it the genuine belief that Luke Mitchell is innocent despite all the damning evidence or is it the need to protect her reputation given she has been wrong so many times previously in relation to other high profile murder cases like Prout and Hall?
I had two daughters around Jodi's age at the time
Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm,
Luke Mitchell gave a Sky News interview to James Matthews
on the very day that Jodi Jones was laid to rest.
Luke's Poem to Jodi
"Goodbye Jodi. Please can you say what happened,
Please tell us who it was, who took your life so cruelly
For no apparent cause.
You had so much to give us, you lived life your own way,
Whoever did this to you, should just be put away.
You didn’t see bad in others, you didn’t like to judge,
We’re sorry Jodi, truly, but we’ll always hold a grudge.
You were taken from us so cruelly,
Please don’t ask us to forgive,
We cannot get this from our hearts however long we live.
You’ve been laid to rest, but not in peace,
We know that just can’t be,
But we’ll say goodbye and forever hope
That justice we will see."
This was after liar Corinne Mitchell had written to Judith Jones stating;
“Although we are deeply hurt, we will respect your wishes
'As you will understand we, too, wish to say goodbye so we wrote her a poem as she herself loved poetry
'As we cannot be there, could you please have the poem read out so at least Luke can express his feelings
*&^^&
This was after liar Corinne Mitchell had written to Judith Jones stating;
“Although we are deeply hurt, we will respect your wishes
'As you will understand we, too, wish to say goodbye so we wrote her a poem as she herself loved poetry
So f.....r Scott Forbes is pretending James Matthews had a brother who is a special police constable
*&^^&
Also falsely alleged there were two Jones relatives in L&B Police and was all a police conspiracy. Possibly one of the most common surnames around but Det Forbes put 2+2=5 as usual.
Forbes motive is more likely retribution at being caught, convicted and imprisoned for armed robbery for 5 years.
Now here’s a thing. I went to school in Edinburgh with a friend whose family knows the Matthews, their fathers worked together or something. So after Scott Forbes last podcast with, I think, James English or Roddy McCleod, I asked my friend about Forbes claim and he verified that it was true. Of course I don’t know if he fed his brother any information about the case but it does appear rather likely.
Can you prove that? Do you have a screenshot or recording of this conversation? It sounds a bit vague when you apply similar techniques to others claims. Anyone mentioning Forbes as a credible source cannot be taken seriously.