UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Parky41 on April 21, 2021, 11:15:35 AM
-
There has been for many years concentration on the evidence of Luke's brothers, but do we really need SM, to show beyond reasonable doubt that Luke was not at home? He was however the cherry on the icing.
First let's refresh again on one other detail. There are after all many new comers that have taken an interest in this case. Who it would seem, have been told not to ask too many questions where he is concerned. It has however been mentioned recently that the Mitchell house is of substantial proportion, reason as to why they they did not cross paths?
The Mitchell house however is no mansion, pretty much your averaged sized property. Luke however made claim to listening to music. HIs brother could not have failed to hear this, we know this, as - SM was on the internet somewhat caught in these pop ups? And of course that waft of burnt pies? Back to the crucial areas of this alibi.
LM had made claim that there had been no firm plans to meet from school that day. That the exchange of texts was of a meet to take place after dinner at the Mitchell home, that this would normally be around 6pm. This is where perhaps the truth becomes muddled with that of fiction. It would very much seem that this type of arrangement had on occasion happened, that this young couple would meet around 6pm after dinner. Jodi however was on punishment up until the 30th of June, she was not allowed out until she had completed chores, these chores were punishment for smoking cannabis. This punishment was lifted, only after Jodi arrived home from school that day. (cover this in another post) Back to the alibi;
After dinner, around 6pm, which appeared to be the standard time for dinner to be over. We are told repeatedly that this day was Just like any other albeit the pies were burnt. That the initial account of this alibi was that CM had gotten home around 5.05pm - the story of the pies/dinner, the clothing - Of LM leaving home around 5.45pm to go and wait for Jodi, for her arrival around 6pm. Perfect is it not, these timings cover nicely around that of the Sighting of AB, of the meet with Jodi and of F&W around 5.40pm. The alibi is set in place. However;
We know that the first claims of CM getting home around 5.05pm were wrong, that she arrived home no earlier than 5.15pm. The CCTV footage at the local store. Let's put further rational behind this arrival home and of LM being on Newbattle R'd at 5.32pm. Remember those claims, that this was just like any other day? and of this meet around 6pm after dinner. What are we left with?
Instead of an alibi of around 45 mins to be further added to at 6pm by the sighting by the school boys, we have one of approx 15mins. The dinner story, the relaxed version is no longer applicable. It simply did not happen, did it? The only thing that is apparently true in all of this, is that of the prawns, of the dinner CM had to make for herself. That truth amongst the fiction?
A reminder of that relaxed version, of this day being just like any other and rational behind SM remember nothing of dinner, of what he had and of not seeing his brother. It simply did not happen? As:
CM claimed to have gotten home from work around 5.05pm. The time taking to drive from Scotts Caravans to her home. That upon her arrival home Luke was standing in the kitchen brandishing some limp yellow broccoli. That he had asked her if it should be this colour. That she had told him to bin the broccoli. That the family shop had not been done, there was nothing much in the way of replacement. That they opted for beans instead. That CM chose prawns due to being a vegetarian. That they finished making dinner, Luke mashing tatties. Plated it up. That SM on his second time downstairs (the first being around 5.05pm when his mother arrived home, this was his reminded account) had taken his dinner up to his room, Luke ate in front of the TV and CM took hers outside. That she wanted to enjoy the summer sunshine after being cooped up all day at work. That after dinner Luke had came out into the garden. That he was heading out to meet with Jodi. That she remarked upon the t-shirt he was wearing, that he had told her it was Jodi's favourite T-shirt and of what was written on it.
-
As opposed to this rather relaxed version of events, that normal day, much the same as any other we have been left with a time frame of up to 15mins. That this dinner story was nothing short of that of haste. Of this meeting that was to have taken place around 6pm after dinner. Let's again add and refresh on this.
LM gave an account that he had left home around 5.45pm to meet with Jodi, we now know however, he had in fact left home around 5.30pm. We know this as he phoned the Jones landline at 5.32pm. That he was phoning to see if Jodi had left. But why phone instantly upon his arrival on Newbattle R'd? The meet was to take place at 6pm. It was after all only around 5.50pm according to Luke's first account. Why even at this point did he not simply walk this route in reverse? That upon walking the route, of not seeing Jodi at a certain point, then phone to ask after her?
The call to the Jones house could not have been to tell Jodi dinner was over early, as by his account it wasn't? It could not have been to tell Jodi that he had decided to walk up to meet with her, because he had no intention of doing so. It could not have in reality, been to check If Jodi had left or of what time. There would be no reason to do so, as we know at this point, by his account she is not late. That she would simply be, still en route?
Which leaves us with that plain simple reason - of setting his alibi in place, that he knew Jodi's parents would be aware she was going to meet with him. We know that due to him not phoning back, that her parents were of the sound opinion that this meet had taken place. We know this, as it was LM JuJ texted when her daughter was late home that evening.
What does LM them make claim to doing instead. That he stayed around the entrance of the Estate, at one point walking as far as Barondale cottage (where there is a bend in the road, to give further sight up Newbattle R'd) That he had waited a short while before simply giving up. That he then phoned his friends and arranged a meet in the Abbey. What however was the reality of these times;
That he had in fact, by his account been on Newbattle R'd for the best part of 90mins. From just after 5.30pm until 7pm when he phoned his mother. He claimed to have phoned his mother to ask if Jodi had been to the house? Remember here, he was supposed to have been on Newbattle R'd in reality for around those 90mins. That he had not only phoned his mother but his friends to arrange this meet. He also phoned them back.
-
Of JuJ - her account. Now obviously I do not have access to "all" of these statements and court transcripts. One does not need them for the following. The simple first account basics, it would seem - those in contrast to that of LM.
That Jodi had arrived home from school that day much like any other. Jodi however had by all accounts been off and on punishment of sorts. Firstly these were in line with skipping school:
“Jodi was grounded for skipping school. It was May 14th – I had an exam that day and came home early and caught her skipping school.” Janine Jones, statement
From this it is apparent that Jodi had indeed been grounded around mid-May for skipping school. And we know this first grounding had been relaxed as:
“Jodi had been grounded, but it had petered out until things went back to normal a few weeks ago” Alice Walker, statement
What I'm going to highlight here is that of answers that are obviously from questions around this grounding story. As above. Of those two excerpts from both Alice Walker and Janine. They are being asked to clarify information obtained from Jodi's mother.
As Judith, when given information of Jodi's movements that day, had stated that Jodi did not know she would be allowed out, earlier that evening, that she was still on punishment. That she had been grounded for skipping school. Which had evidently been relaxed as we can see from above. But that Jodi had also been caught smoking cannabis in the weeks prior to her death. That she had been grounded again. We have seen many times these claims, that this grounding story was unfounded, as Jodi had been at Luke's on Saturday the 28th of June. To cast doubt over Jodi's mothers honesty? Or to divert away from LM's testimony? What however is clear from Judith's statements is the following:
“She had been kind of grounded but that had changed to her doing chores in exchange for being allowed out” – Judith Jones, statement
What we do have, is that clear reason as to why Jodi had indeed been out earlier than anyone could have anticipated. Until her arrival home from school that day. Where this girls time had now become her own. She was not grounded at base anymore until these chores were done. Those prohibitions were lifted completely. That it was indeed true. That Jodi had been grounded and was still on punishment. That this punishment was only lifted on June 30th, upon her arrival home from school.
Is this important - It is, as it was upon this basis that Jodi had texted Luke from her mothers phone, of letting him know that she had no deterrent over time. That this girl did not stay home for dinner, as she had asked her mother to keep some for her? It is also important, as only LM and Jodi's parents would have known of this earlier time of getting out. The contrast:
We have LM of his account, of this meet in Newbattle. And we have Judith's account, of her daughter getting out earlier. Of her leaving to meet with Luke, of her telling her mother that they would be "mucking about up here"
-
Of JuJ - her account. Now obviously I do not have access to "all" of these statements and court transcripts. One does not need them for the following. The simple first account basics, it would seem - those in contrast to that of LM.
That Jodi had arrived home from school that day much like any other. Jodi however had by all accounts been off and on punishment of sorts. Firstly these were in line with skipping school:
From this it is apparent that Jodi had indeed been grounded around mid-May for skipping school. And we know this first grounding had been relaxed as:
What I'm going to highlight here is that of answers that are obviously from questions around this grounding story. As above. Of those two excerpts from both Alice Walker and Janine. They are being asked to clarify information obtained from Jodi's mother.
As Judith, when given information of Jodi's movements that day, had stated that Jodi did not know she would be allowed out, earlier that evening, that she was still on punishment. That she had been grounded for skipping school. Which had evidently been relaxed as we can see from above. But that Jodi had also been caught smoking cannabis in the weeks prior to her death. That she had been grounded again. We have seen many times these claims, that this grounding story was unfounded, as Jodi had been at Luke's on Saturday the 28th of June. To cast doubt over Jodi's mothers honesty? Or to divert away from LM's testimony? What however is clear from Judith's statements is the following:
What we do have, is that clear reason as to why Jodi had indeed been out earlier than anyone could have anticipated. Until her arrival home from school that day. Where this girls time had now become her own. She was not grounded at base anymore until these chores were done. Those prohibitions were lifted completely. That it was indeed true. That Jodi had been grounded and was still on punishment. That this punishment was only lifted on June 30th, upon her arrival home from school.
Is this important - It is, as it was upon this basis that Jodi had texted Luke from her mothers phone, of letting him know that she had no deterrent over time. That this girl did not stay home for dinner, as she had asked her mother to keep some for her? It is also important, as only LM and Jodi's parents would have known of this earlier time of getting out. The contrast:
We have LM of his account, of this meet in Newbattle. And we have Judith's account, of her daughter getting out earlier. Of her leaving to meet with Luke, of her telling her mother that they would be "mucking about up here"
Excellent attempt.
Now if you can supply the transcripts of all the Mitchell family interviews and an equally fair summation of the anomalies in the Jones family statements then we may just have the foundation for a proper discussion.
-
A call was made from the Mitchell’s landline at 4.25. Shane was with a friend fixing his car. Corrine was at work.
Luke didn’t know that Jodi’s grounding had been lifted until around 4.40.
A neighbour saw Jodi leave her house after 5 and she was also seen being followed by Stocky Man at that time. ( too late for AB’s sighting)
Jodi would have got to the place she was murdered around 5.20.
Luke was seen by someone who knew him sitting on the wall at the end of his road at 5.45.
The maths aren’t hard.
-
Can I ask - why did Jodi leave her house to meet Mitchell at 5pm?
-
Can I ask - why did Jodi leave her house to meet Mitchell at 5pm?
It is quite difficult to discern who saw what and when or what has been added later. I think there is an awful lot of misinformation which has become factoid.
For example we know officially of Andrina Bryson's sighting of a young couple the time of which the court accepted fitted the timeline for being Joni and Mitchell.
Snip
Sun 6 Jul 2003 01.47 BST
There have been no reported sightings of Jodi in the six hours between her leaving home and the discovery of the body after 11pm ...
Despite taking nearly 400 calls from people keen to help with the investigation, police have no reported sightings of Jodi as she left home.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jul/06/ukcrime.scotland
-
Excellent attempt.
Now if you can supply the transcripts of all the Mitchell family interviews and an equally fair summation of the anomalies in the Jones family statements then we may just have the foundation for a proper discussion.
You can't supply them - or can you?
-
A call was made from the Mitchell’s landline at 4.25. Shane was with a friend fixing his car. Corrine was at work.
Luke didn’t know that Jodi’s grounding had been lifted until around 4.40.
A neighbour saw Jodi leave her house after 5 and she was also seen being followed by Stocky Man at that time. ( too late for AB’s sighting)
Jodi would have got to the place she was murdered around 5.20.
Luke was seen by someone who knew him sitting on the wall at the end of his road at 5.45.
The maths aren’t hard.
Let's first of all perhaps have some clarity - LM was not witnessed on the wall until 6pm and after.
These sightings were by boys from his school who did know him. From 6pm - 6.15pm
There is no reason at all for LM to have been in his house after 4.25pm.
The dinner story being just that - a story?
The first text from Jodi was at 4.34pm - If? LM was still in his house when this text came through, there is no reason for him to have waited until 4.38pm. And that is only IF he was in the house at 4.34pm.
Had LM been barred from the Jones household? - There is nothing to say, that he may very well have been heading up to meet with Jodi - after these chores, her dinner time? If one wants to add continuous supposition of course.
These claimed, unverified sightings of exact times by neighbours, and being followed are just that. It's all in the wording is it not? - That "Jodi" was being "followed" it was "after 5pm." And let us not forget here, those repetitive habits of manipulation? Of stitching different information together. Of LM being "stripped" of his clothing rather than it simply being taken for forensic analysis.
Who really was the girl? that gave a verified sighting of Jodi? And what time was this at Faithlilly? I'll leave you with that.
As I did with the boys from the Abbey. Quite a turn around of events, now that there is no longer this denial, of LM smoking joints on the evening in question. Which of course answers, simply why, Jodi had cannabis in her system. From a joint with her regular companion. Just before her life was ended.
But taken all into account here - that of LM's defence team, that highly professional team of bodies. What did they make of these sightings? Much the same as the employee from the Tool Hire Place - Finlay used this to an extent, in his attempt to trip the boys up Faithlilly.
He did not use any of yours, in an attempt to show AB's sighting, nor that of the time of Jodi leaving home to be wrong - did he? Is it not better to put one's trust in these professionals than that of CM's friend? to leave aside these strawman arguments?
I have asked of Ms Lean before of this verification of times - What is in those accounts? that show these sightings were after 5pm? - There is none, there is of course good reason, it is after all a strawman argument is it not? As:
None of it explains Luke Mitchells actions in the slightest. The above does not give him an alibi, and does not back any that he had made with his mother?
The math is not difficult at all - 15mins not 45mins of an alibi. Of a concocted dinner story? It is not hard at all. These clear sound reasons as to "why suspicion fell upon Luke" and why it remained there. Not the fault of the police at all?
-
You can't supply them - or can you?
It’s you who are making claims. Can you back them up?
-
It is quite difficult to discern who saw what and when or what has been added later. I think there is an awful lot of misinformation which has become factoid.
For example we know officially of Andrina Bryson's sighting of a young couple the time of which the court accepted fitted the timeline for being Joni and Mitchell.
Snip
Sun 6 Jul 2003 01.47 BST
There have been no reported sightings of Jodi in the six hours between her leaving home and the discovery of the body after 11pm ...
Despite taking nearly 400 calls from people keen to help with the investigation, police have no reported sightings of Jodi as she left home.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jul/06/ukcrime.scotland
The witness who had seen Jodi being followed by Stocky Man put the time at slightly after 5 o’clock. The police appealed for Stocky Man to come forward so must have thought the eyewitness claim credible. The eyewitness’s evidence would have put Jodi at Luke’s road at around 5.30, just the time Luke says he left the house.
There was no appeal for the couple seen by AB, at this time they could have been just another innocent couple. There was no appeal because Bryson’s first and second statements put the time of her sighting at 5.45.
An excellent summary of the sighting from elsewhere by a poster called Rolfe.
A woman called Andrina Bryson stated that she saw two people, male and female, at the eastern end of the path early that evening. There's a lot in the book about Mrs Bryson not being the complete stranger to the Jones family that she claimed to be, and about the possibility that by the mediation of her brother-in-law (who was very close to the Jones family) her description of the couple might have been contaminated. I think that's all a bit of a red herring, and in fact the testimony doesn't stand on its own terms.
The prosecution claimed that the two people were Luke and Jodi, and this proved that Luke had walked along the path from his own house (which was some little way from the western end of the path) and met Jodi at the eastern end. Thus giving the lie to his story that he hadn't seen her at all, and placing him with her, close to where her body was found, about 20 minutes before the time the police had decided was the time of death.
There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.
Luke hadn't necesarily been expecting Jodi to "come out to play" that evening, because she was in her mother's bad books because of having played truant some time the previous week and originally she wasn't going to be allowed out until six, but around 4.30, after Jodi had come home from school and changed out of her school clothes, Judith had said, well OK, on you go. Jodi texted Luke (using her mother's phone as hers was broken) between 4.34 and 4.38, probably saying that she was coming over (the actual texts were deleted from both phones).
The implication is therefore that Luke was still at home when these texts were exchanged, because that was his first intimation that Jodi was free. You might think that if she was coming over to his neck of the woods, as seems to have been the arrangement, he would simply have waited for her. However her mother insisted that Jodi wasn't allowed to walk down Roan's Dyke path alone and that Luke was expected to come and meet her. This wasn't actually true, Janine confirmed that Jodi often walked the path on her own and Judith knew that, but the rendezvous at the eastern end was insisted on by Judith.
So if Luke immediately dropped everything as soon as he got those texts and walked briskly to the eastern end of the path to meet Jodi, what time could he have got there? In the end the time of that sighting was determined in court to be between 4.49 and 4.54, to fit with the (revised) time that Jodi was believed to have left the house, which was 4.50. If she had left at 4.50 she would have been at the eastern end of the path at 4.53, assuming she went straight there.
But hang on, if Luke was still in his own house texting at 4.38, could he have got to the eastern end of the path by 4.53, only 15 minutes later? The distance is about a mile, so yes, but he would have been hurrying. So that was the prosecution story. Luke had left his house the minute the texting exchange ended (or he was already on his way at that time, even though he didn't know Jodi was coming out unti he got the texts) and walked very fast and got to the spot by 4.53, just in time to meet Jodi, who had left her house at 4.50. And that's what Andrina Bryson saw.
It's not that simple. Andrina Bryson originally timed that sighting at about 5.40 to 5.45. According to the police theory Jodi was already dead by then. That time didn't work for the police at all, because there was a definite confirmed sighting of Luke sitting on a wall at the end of his own street in Newbattle at six o'clock. He said he hadn't left Newbattle at all and he was still waiting for Jodi to show up at that point, and no there was no arrangement that he was supposed to go and meet her at the eastern end of the path and walk her to Newbattle. (There was an arrangement that he would walk her home along the path, but not that he would go to meet her.) He was seen sitting on the wall waiting for her at 6.00 by friends who actually knew him, so there was no getting out of that one. Working back from that time the police figured that 5.15 was the latest he could possibly have committed the murder and still got back to Newbattle to be seen sitting on a wall as if he hadn't a care in the world. Therefore Jodi had to have left as early as 4.50 to get her to the spot where she was murdered in time for Luke to be the murderer and the whole mad-slasher thing to have happened.
So the Bryson sighting, if it was to remain part of the evidence (and it had to be, because nobody else claimed to have seen Luke at the eastern end of the path at that time, to give the lie to his story that he'd spent the entire evening west of the path), had to be earlier, and indeed had to be pretty much at 4.53 precisely.
Andrina Bryson's original story was that she got into her car with her two children (one a toddler) at 4.05, pretty much as soon as her daughter got home from school, to go to the supermarket. It took five to ten minutes to get to the supermarket and then about 35 to 45 minutes to do her weekly shopping. The police got her till receipt which said 4.45, so that more or less checks with the shorter of the time estimates. 4.05 leave the house, 4.10 arrive at the supermarket, 4.45 at the checkout. She wanted to look at a house for sale in Easthouses (the village where Jodi lived, at the eastern end of the path) so she drove there, getting a bit lost, looked at the house from the street, and then drove home. It was on the way home she saw the couple.
It was agreed she would have taken five minutes to get the messages and the kids into the car and drive away, so leaving the supermarket at 4.50. The minimum time to get to Easthouses from the supermarket was 12 minutes, or 17 minutes if she'd gone a longer way, so 5.02 to 5.07 arrival in the village. Then she had to find the house for sale, stop in the street to look at it, then turn the car in the cul-de-sac to head off home. Originally she gave herself more than half an hour for that, estimating that she'd seen the couple at the end of the path at 5.40 to 5.45. Another time point was that she'd received a phone call "about half an hour after she got back home". That call was logged at 6.17 (she originally guessed 6.20 before the time was checked), meaning she got home about 5.50.
I'm not quite sure how long it was supposed to take to drive from the western end of Roan's Dyke path back to Andrina Bryson's house, but possibly this sequence of events puts her sighting of the couple a little bit earlier than 5.45, perhaps 5.40 or a few minutes before that. Certainly not 4.53. So how did that happen? You'd think the till receipt timed at 4.45 would knock the whole thing on the head from the start.
Here's how it was done. The police got Mrs Bryson's bank statement, and for some reason the transaction was timed on the bank statement at 4.32 (and 45 seconds), 13 minutes earlier. They decided that had to be the correct time and the till receipt was wrong. Well OK, but that would have meant that Mrs Bryson managed to do her weekly shop (with a kid and a toddler in tow) in about 15 minutes, compared to her original estimate of 35 to 45 minutes. Given the 4.32 time, add 5 minutes to get kids and groceries into the car, then the 12 minutes minimum time to drive to Easthouses from the supermarket and you have 4.49, or 4.54 if you take the longer route. Hey presto, this is just right to have seen Luke and Jodi meet at the eastern end of the path exactly as the police timings needed them to have met.
But what about the drive to look at the house for sale? Mrs Bryson always put the sighting of the couple after she looked at the house, on her way home. They seem just to have forgotten about that, unless there's another altered statement that hasn't been mentioned.
So who did Andrina Bryson say she saw? Originally she described a male in his early 20s, white, average height and build, thick sandy brown hair standing up in a clump at the back. He was wearing a green fishing-style jacket with a lot of pockets and trousers to match. She didn't see his face at all. The girl had very dark shoulder-length hair, with a plain navy-blue hoodie and light blue boot-cut jeans. Again she didn't see the face and couldn't guess an age.
Luke Mitchell, on 30th June 2003, was a skinny 14-year-old kid with dead straight blond hair. The prosecution were adamant that he had been wearing a parka jacket (which he didn't actually possess at that time, but which in any case didn't match the fishing-jacket description). Jodi had mid-brown or auburn hair. She was wearing a baggy black top with a prominent logo on the back, and very baggy black trousers.
It's blindingly obvious that Andrina Bryson saw two completely different people, not Luke and Jodi, at maybe twenty to six. But it was vital for the prosecution that it had to be Luke and Jodi at 4.53. There's more, including a photospread which seems to have been about as fair as the one Tony Gauci was shown on 15th September 1991 (that is, anyone could probably have figured out which photo was the suspect) from which Mrs Bryson (who didn't see the man's face) obligingly picked out Luke - of course Luke was already the prime suspect by then and it's pretty unlikely she didn't know what he looked like even if her brother-in-law hadn't been as thick as thieves with the Joneses. And a parka which she said wasn't what the man had been wearing, but she picked it out because she'd been asked to pick the garment most like the one she'd seen the man wearing. (Again shades of Tony Gauci - well if I have to pick someone then the one that looks most like is the number eight - not the man I saw in my shop but the man who looks a little bit like is...)
I don't think the people Mrs Bryson saw have actually been identified. Of course if they weren't there till 5.40 and the police were concentrating on the period between 4.50 and 5.15, they might not have pinged anyone's radar. But since it seems likely Jodi was murdered later than 5.15 they might have been important witnesses.’
-
Can I ask - why did Jodi leave her house to meet Mitchell at 5pm?
Jodi had been on punishment. Her mother had lifted her restrictions after coming home from school. She had borrowed her mothers phone to text Luke (her own phone was broken). She had let her mother know she was going to meet with Luke. Her mother had obviously asked her what their plans were, to which Jodi had told her mum they would be "mucking around up here".
It would seem that Jodi, would have been out even earlier, but her mother had asked her to listen to some music first? I'll list all available verbatim at a later point - They do of course only fit around that of defence. Of the timings first given, between 5 and 5.30pm. Much the same as with the Mitchells - These timings were verified by other means. CCTV, til and ATM receipts. There is also more of Jodi and the ban from using this path it would seem. The accurate, approx: time of Jodi leaving home was determined around her father arrival home.
The question here is, why would Jodi's mother introduce this information in those first hours at all? Of getting out early, and of not using this path alone. - Highly relevant to the case against LM. We know that it was not concocted, and nothing to suggest it was. As we know that JuJ had visited Luke's house several times in the days following the murder. She obviously had no thought at this point of LM being responsible, therefore the evidence/account she gave is simply that of fact, which is proven.
-
It’s you who are making claims. Can you back them up?
Are you saying I am claiming that LM was only with his mother for 15mins?
That it is my claims he was on Newbattle R'd for 90mins.
As to claims - One does not need to back them up as in Ms Lean and so forth - that get out card. I can't release the information?
-
So how come the time logged by the bank was wrong? Surely it should have been accurate being an electronic transaction?
-
The witness who had seen Jodi being followed by Stocky Man put the time at slightly after 5 o’clock. The police appealed for Stocky Man to come forward so must have thought the eyewitness claim credible. The eyewitness’s evidence would have put Jodi at Luke’s road at around 5.30, just the time Luke says he left the house.
There was no appeal for the couple seen by AB, at this time they could have been just another innocent couple. There was no appeal because Bryson’s first and second statements put the time of her sighting at 5.45.
An excellent summary of the sighting from elsewhere by a poster called Rolfe.
A woman called Andrina Bryson stated that she saw two people, male and female, at the eastern end of the path early that evening. There's a lot in the book about Mrs Bryson not being the complete stranger to the Jones family that she claimed to be, and about the possibility that by the mediation of her brother-in-law (who was very close to the Jones family) her description of the couple might have been contaminated. I think that's all a bit of a red herring, and in fact the testimony doesn't stand on its own terms.
The prosecution claimed that the two people were Luke and Jodi, and this proved that Luke had walked along the path from his own house (which was some little way from the western end of the path) and met Jodi at the eastern end. Thus giving the lie to his story that he hadn't seen her at all, and placing him with her, close to where her body was found, about 20 minutes before the time the police had decided was the time of death.
There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.
Luke hadn't necesarily been expecting Jodi to "come out to play" that evening, because she was in her mother's bad books because of having played truant some time the previous week and originally she wasn't going to be allowed out until six, but around 4.30, after Jodi had come home from school and changed out of her school clothes, Judith had said, well OK, on you go. Jodi texted Luke (using her mother's phone as hers was broken) between 4.34 and 4.38, probably saying that she was coming over (the actual texts were deleted from both phones).
The implication is therefore that Luke was still at home when these texts were exchanged, because that was his first intimation that Jodi was free. You might think that if she was coming over to his neck of the woods, as seems to have been the arrangement, he would simply have waited for her. However her mother insisted that Jodi wasn't allowed to walk down Roan's Dyke path alone and that Luke was expected to come and meet her. This wasn't actually true, Janine confirmed that Jodi often walked the path on her own and Judith knew that, but the rendezvous at the eastern end was insisted on by Judith.
So if Luke immediately dropped everything as soon as he got those texts and walked briskly to the eastern end of the path to meet Jodi, what time could he have got there? In the end the time of that sighting was determined in court to be between 4.49 and 4.54, to fit with the (revised) time that Jodi was believed to have left the house, which was 4.50. If she had left at 4.50 she would have been at the eastern end of the path at 4.53, assuming she went straight there.
But hang on, if Luke was still in his own house texting at 4.38, could he have got to the eastern end of the path by 4.53, only 15 minutes later? The distance is about a mile, so yes, but he would have been hurrying. So that was the prosecution story. Luke had left his house the minute the texting exchange ended (or he was already on his way at that time, even though he didn't know Jodi was coming out unti he got the texts) and walked very fast and got to the spot by 4.53, just in time to meet Jodi, who had left her house at 4.50. And that's what Andrina Bryson saw.
It's not that simple. Andrina Bryson originally timed that sighting at about 5.40 to 5.45. According to the police theory Jodi was already dead by then. That time didn't work for the police at all, because there was a definite confirmed sighting of Luke sitting on a wall at the end of his own street in Newbattle at six o'clock. He said he hadn't left Newbattle at all and he was still waiting for Jodi to show up at that point, and no there was no arrangement that he was supposed to go and meet her at the eastern end of the path and walk her to Newbattle. (There was an arrangement that he would walk her home along the path, but not that he would go to meet her.) He was seen sitting on the wall waiting for her at 6.00 by friends who actually knew him, so there was no getting out of that one. Working back from that time the police figured that 5.15 was the latest he could possibly have committed the murder and still got back to Newbattle to be seen sitting on a wall as if he hadn't a care in the world. Therefore Jodi had to have left as early as 4.50 to get her to the spot where she was murdered in time for Luke to be the murderer and the whole mad-slasher thing to have happened.
So the Bryson sighting, if it was to remain part of the evidence (and it had to be, because nobody else claimed to have seen Luke at the eastern end of the path at that time, to give the lie to his story that he'd spent the entire evening west of the path), had to be earlier, and indeed had to be pretty much at 4.53 precisely.
Andrina Bryson's original story was that she got into her car with her two children (one a toddler) at 4.05, pretty much as soon as her daughter got home from school, to go to the supermarket. It took five to ten minutes to get to the supermarket and then about 35 to 45 minutes to do her weekly shopping. The police got her till receipt which said 4.45, so that more or less checks with the shorter of the time estimates. 4.05 leave the house, 4.10 arrive at the supermarket, 4.45 at the checkout. She wanted to look at a house for sale in Easthouses (the village where Jodi lived, at the eastern end of the path) so she drove there, getting a bit lost, looked at the house from the street, and then drove home. It was on the way home she saw the couple.
It was agreed she would have taken five minutes to get the messages and the kids into the car and drive away, so leaving the supermarket at 4.50. The minimum time to get to Easthouses from the supermarket was 12 minutes, or 17 minutes if she'd gone a longer way, so 5.02 to 5.07 arrival in the village. Then she had to find the house for sale, stop in the street to look at it, then turn the car in the cul-de-sac to head off home. Originally she gave herself more than half an hour for that, estimating that she'd seen the couple at the end of the path at 5.40 to 5.45. Another time point was that she'd received a phone call "about half an hour after she got back home". That call was logged at 6.17 (she originally guessed 6.20 before the time was checked), meaning she got home about 5.50.
I'm not quite sure how long it was supposed to take to drive from the western end of Roan's Dyke path back to Andrina Bryson's house, but possibly this sequence of events puts her sighting of the couple a little bit earlier than 5.45, perhaps 5.40 or a few minutes before that. Certainly not 4.53. So how did that happen? You'd think the till receipt timed at 4.45 would knock the whole thing on the head from the start.
Here's how it was done. The police got Mrs Bryson's bank statement, and for some reason the transaction was timed on the bank statement at 4.32 (and 45 seconds), 13 minutes earlier. They decided that had to be the correct time and the till receipt was wrong. Well OK, but that would have meant that Mrs Bryson managed to do her weekly shop (with a kid and a toddler in tow) in about 15 minutes, compared to her original estimate of 35 to 45 minutes. Given the 4.32 time, add 5 minutes to get kids and groceries into the car, then the 12 minutes minimum time to drive to Easthouses from the supermarket and you have 4.49, or 4.54 if you take the longer route. Hey presto, this is just right to have seen Luke and Jodi meet at the eastern end of the path exactly as the police timings needed them to have met.
But what about the drive to look at the house for sale? Mrs Bryson always put the sighting of the couple after she looked at the house, on her way home. They seem just to have forgotten about that, unless there's another altered statement that hasn't been mentioned.
So who did Andrina Bryson say she saw? Originally she described a male in his early 20s, white, average height and build, thick sandy brown hair standing up in a clump at the back. He was wearing a green fishing-style jacket with a lot of pockets and trousers to match. She didn't see his face at all. The girl had very dark shoulder-length hair, with a plain navy-blue hoodie and light blue boot-cut jeans. Again she didn't see the face and couldn't guess an age.
Luke Mitchell, on 30th June 2003, was a skinny 14-year-old kid with dead straight blond hair. The prosecution were adamant that he had been wearing a parka jacket (which he didn't actually possess at that time, but which in any case didn't match the fishing-jacket description). Jodi had mid-brown or auburn hair. She was wearing a baggy black top with a prominent logo on the back, and very baggy black trousers.
It's blindingly obvious that Andrina Bryson saw two completely different people, not Luke and Jodi, at maybe twenty to six. But it was vital for the prosecution that it had to be Luke and Jodi at 4.53. There's more, including a photospread which seems to have been about as fair as the one Tony Gauci was shown on 15th September 1991 (that is, anyone could probably have figured out which photo was the suspect) from which Mrs Bryson (who didn't see the man's face) obligingly picked out Luke - of course Luke was already the prime suspect by then and it's pretty unlikely she didn't know what he looked like even if her brother-in-law hadn't been as thick as thieves with the Joneses. And a parka which she said wasn't what the man had been wearing, but she picked it out because she'd been asked to pick the garment most like the one she'd seen the man wearing. (Again shades of Tony Gauci - well if I have to pick someone then the one that looks most like is the number eight - not the man I saw in my shop but the man who looks a little bit like is...)
I don't think the people Mrs Bryson saw have actually been identified. Of course if they weren't there till 5.40 and the police were concentrating on the period between 4.50 and 5.15, they might not have pinged anyone's radar. But since it seems likely Jodi was murdered later than 5.15 they might have been important witnesses.’
Excellent reply. It's amazing how much information is in the original post and your own, very good. My own view is somewhat shorter...............AO came in from work at about 440pm. He saw who was in that house. He saw if anything was going on. He saw if Jodi left, when she left and who she left with. Despite this information being absolutely crucial.......what happened? We recently find out that a statement made by Ovens was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003. AO holds the key to all these debates about timings and who was in the house between 440pm and 5pm, but we're still waiting after 17 years to find out what he told the Police.
There is obviously no non-sinister reason why AO's statement was buried. He was a key witness, as much as Ju J.
-
Jodi had been on punishment. Her mother had lifted her restrictions after coming home from school. She had borrowed her mothers phone to text Luke (her own phone was broken). She had let her mother know she was going to meet with Luke. Her mother had obviously asked her what their plans were, to which Jodi had told her mum they would be "mucking around up here".
It would seem that Jodi, would have been out even earlier, but her mother had asked her to listen to some music first? I'll list all available verbatim at a later point - They do of course only fit around that of defence. Of the timings first given, between 5 and 5.30pm. Much the same as with the Mitchells - These timings were verified by other means. CCTV, til and ATM receipts. There is also more of Jodi and the ban from using this path it would seem. The accurate, approx: time of Jodi leaving home was determined around her father arrival home.
The question here is, why would Jodi's mother introduce this information in those first hours at all? Of getting out early, and of not using this path alone. - Highly relevant to the case against LM. We know that it was not concocted, and nothing to suggest it was. As we know that JuJ had visited Luke's house several times in the days following the murder. She obviously had no thought at this point of LM being responsible, therefore the evidence/account she gave is simply that of fact, which is proven.
Jodi’s sister, in court, admitted that her sister did walk the path to Newbattle alone and her mother knew that. Could you please provide a quote where Jodi’s mother mentioned Jodi ‘ getting out early’?
-
Excellent reply. It's amazing how much information is in the original post and your own, very good. My own view is somewhat shorter...............AO came in from work at about 440pm. He saw who was in that house. He saw if anything was going on. He saw if Jodi left, when she left and who she left with. Despite this information being absolutely crucial.......what happened? AO is never cited to give evidence in Court. We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003. AO holds the key to all these debates about timings and who was in the house between 430pm and 5pm, but we're still waiting after 17 years to find out what he told the Police.
There is obviously no non-sinister reason why AO's statement was buried. He was a key witness, as much as Ju J.
Very good point.
-
Are you saying I am claiming that LM was only with his mother for 15mins?
That it is my claims he was on Newbattle R'd for 90mins.
As to claims - One does not need to back them up as in Ms Lean and so forth - that get out card. I can't release the information?
So are you saying that you have a vested interest?
If you can’t release the information you base your claims on, wouldn’t it be easy for you to just make things up? Who’s to know?
-
Excellent reply. It's amazing how much information is in the original post and your own, very good. My own view is somewhat shorter...............AO came in from work at about 440pm. He saw who was in that house. He saw if anything was going on. He saw if Jodi left, when she left and who she left with. Despite this information being absolutely crucial.......what happened? AO is never cited to give evidence in Court. We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003. AO holds the key to all these debates about timings and who was in the house between 430pm and 5pm, but we're still waiting after 17 years to find out what he told the Police.
There is obviously no non-sinister reason why AO's statement was buried. He was a key witness, as much as Ju J.
Your post puzzles me.
"We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003."
Do we know this?
What is your source?
-
Let's first of all perhaps have some clarity - LM was not witnessed on the wall until 6pm and after.
These sightings were by boys from his school who did know him. From 6pm - 6.15pm
There is no reason at all for LM to have been in his house after 4.25pm.
The dinner story being just that - a story?
The first text from Jodi was at 4.34pm - If? LM was still in his house when this text came through, there is no reason for him to have waited until 4.38pm. And that is only IF he was in the house at 4.34pm.
Jodi’s first text was 4.34 but her last text was at 4.38 to say that she would be down ‘later’. Why would Luke leave the house at 4.25 if he didn’t even know Jodi was coming out until 4.34? Are you suggesting that he was lying in wait just on the off chance Jodi might be allowed out?
As to the identification of Luke while sitting on the wall you are simply wrong.
Had LM been barred from the Jones household? - There is nothing to say, that he may very well have been heading up to meet with Jodi - after these chores, her dinner time? If one wants to add continuous supposition of course.
These claimed, unverified sightings of exact times by neighbours, and being followed are just that. It's all in the wording is it not? - That "Jodi" was being "followed" it was "after 5pm." And let us not forget here, those repetitive habits of manipulation? Of stitching different information together. Of LM being "stripped" of his clothing rather than it simply being taken for forensic analysis.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. The neighbour knew Jodi and had no reason to lie. Likewise the individual who spotted Jodi being followed by Stocky Man. She was obviously thought a credible witness by the investigation team.
Who really was the girl? that gave a verified sighting of Jodi? And what time was this at Faithlilly? I'll leave you with that.
As I did with the boys from the Abbey. Quite a turn around of events, now that there is no longer this denial, of LM smoking joints on the evening in question. Which of course answers, simply why, Jodi had cannabis in her system. From a joint with her regular companion. Just before her life was ended.
The girl was Jodi, identified by people who knew her, unlike Bryson. The answer to why there was cannabis in Jodi’s bloodstream was answered by Alistair Leitch, their school friend, in court :
‘“On June 30 last year, said Mr Leitch, there had been a school trip to Alton Towers, but he did not go. He met up with Mr Mitchell and Jodi in the China Gardens. ''They were smoking cannabis that day.''
But taken all into account here - that of LM's defence team, that highly professional team of bodies. What did they make of these sightings? Much the same as the employee from the Tool Hire Place - Finlay used this to an extent, in his attempt to trip the boys up Faithlilly.
He did not use any of yours, in an attempt to show AB's sighting, nor that of the time of Jodi leaving home to be wrong - did he? Is it not better to put one's trust in these professionals than that of CM's friend? to leave aside these strawman arguments?
I have asked of Ms Lean before of this verification of times - What is in those accounts? that show these sightings were after 5pm? - There is none, there is of course good reason, it is after all a strawman argument is it not? As:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/police-seek-youth-who-trailed-jodi-2469971
Around 5 o’clock and where was Luke? Hadn’t he been with Jodi at 4.49 when Bryson saw them?
None of it explains Luke Mitchells actions in the slightest. The above does not give him an alibi, and does not back any that he had made with his mother?
The math is not difficult at all - 15mins not 45mins of an alibi. Of a concocted dinner story? It is not hard at all. These clear sound reasons as to "why suspicion fell upon Luke" and why it remained there. Not the fault of the police at all?
-
As an aside,we were told by SIO Dobbie that they were looking for a parka that Luke had allegedly owned from the get go so why was Luke asked about a German army shirt on the 14th of August, 6 weeks after the murder?
“DC1 “Right, you’ve told us what you were wearing the day Jodi died. We have people saying you weren’t wearing that, you were wearing your murder dolls t-shirt. We also have people telling us that you were wearing your German army shirt.
Luke “I didn’t have a German army shirt at that time.”
DC1 “People are telling us you did….and not only that, people are telling us you were wearing it the day Jodi Jones died.”
DC1 “The obvious question is where is that German army shirt now?
Luke “I only bought the German army shirt on the Wednesday, a week after it happened.”
DC1 “What I’m telling you, you owned one and you were wearing one …prior to Jodi’s death.”
It always struck me as odd that Corrine would buy another parka if Luke had been accused of wearing one when he allegedly murdered Jodi but it’s now obvious that no one had claimed, certainly by the 14th of August, that Luke had owned let alone worn a parka on the 30th of June.
-
More observations from Rolfe.
“I am simply gobsmacked that the time needed for Mrs Bryson to go and look at the house seems to have been airbrushed from the narrative. Her original story was that she drove first to the supermarket, did the shopping, loaded it into the car, then drove to Easthouses where there was a house for sale she was interested in. This wasn't an arranged viewing, she just wanted to take a look at it from the outside. She got a bit lost trying to find the house, but found it, had a look, then drove back home. It was quite clear at that time that she had seen the couple at the eastern end of Roan's Dyke path on her way home, after she'd looked at the house, not on her way to the house.
She said she got home, unloaded the car, put away the shopping, and started to make the tea. Then her phone rang and she took a call. She estimated the call came in about half an hour after she got home, at about 6.20. In fact the call was logged on her phone as 6.17, so she was about right. That would put her return home at about 5.45 to 5.50. She originally said she saw the couple at the path about five or ten minutes before she got home, which is about right for the drive from there to her house. This puts the time of the sighting at about 5.35 to 5.45, without any need to reference the supermarket checkout time.
The till receipt time of 4.45 (and 31 seconds) tallies with Mrs Bryson's own estimate of what she did, giving her 30 to 35 minutes for the actual shopping in the store (she in fact estimated 35 to 45 minutes) and about an hour in total for the drive to Easthouses (12 to 17 minutes each way), the search for the house for sale, time to look at it, and then the drive back home again. If the bank statement time of 4.32 (and 45 seconds) is used instead, this cuts the time for the actual shopping to only 20 minutes maximum, including queueing up for the till and ringing up the purchases. I suppose it depends on how much she bought, but the till receipt tallies better with her own recollection of how the time went.
However, why does it matter? If you take 13 minutes off the time spent in the supermarket, all this does is add 13 minutes to the time spent looking for and looking at the house for sale, because it doesn't affect the timing of her return home. It moves her arrival in Easthouses 13 minutes earlier, but it doesn't change her departure time. And yet it was on her way out of Easthouses that she was supposed to have seen the couple at the end of the path!
Using the bank statement time for the completion of the supermarket shop instead of the till receipt gets her arrival in Easthouses to about 16.53, which is exactly the time the prosecution needed Luke to have been seen at the end of the path with Jodi. But that's not when Mrs Bryson said she saw the people at the path!
Bear in mind that Mrs Bryson was driving her car, with two children in it, one of them only a two-year-old. She didn't stop to scrutinise these people, she simply noticed them as she drove past. The layout of the road is important here. If you're driving south from Easthouses on the road in question, the end of the path is at a fairly sharp bend. In fact at that point the path appears to continue on in a south-west direction while the road makes a fairly sharp left turn to continue in a south-east direction.
https://goo.gl/maps/bXJREZafGbzEsHyr5
Note that a driver coming from this direction is pretty much looking straight up the path for a few moments, and Mrs Bryson would have had a reasonable view of anyone standing at the path entrance, although only for a couple of seconds. (Zoom in to the path itself here. https://goo.gl/maps/sNUEqCb9Uw3fQkVB8) This is what Mrs Bryson originally said she saw. She wouldn't have had much time to see the couple, and she would obviously have had to concentrate on the left-hand bend in front of her, but it's a reasonable enough story.
Now look at it from the other direction, driving north towards Easthouses.
https://goo.gl/maps/eYqPxmuHt7PPmxRB6
It's a bit different, isn't it? There's an indication of an entrance there, maybe, but an entrance to what? You can't see. Mrs Bryson didn't know Easthouses at all well. If she had seen a couple of people standing under that tree, how could she have known they were at the end of a footpath at all? It simply doesn't compute.
There's no possibility that anyone could be mistaken about which direction they were driving in when they noticed something at that spot. You're either driving south, when you have a left-hand bend in front of you and you can see right into the footpath, or you're driving north, when you have a right-hand bend in front of you and you can't even see that there's a path there. Even when you're right alongside the path entrance, driving north, you can't see that it's a path, as here. https://goo.gl/maps/MqJo8eNVTcnHazsKA You actually have to go past the entrance and twist back to see the path!
Not only that, in court the suggestion was put to Mrs Bryson that the male that she saw was as much as 10 yards into the path. This is all quite confused as she originally said she saw both people together at the entrance to the path, nevertheless she seemed to accede to the suggestion that the male was some little way into the path, facing towards the girl who was at the entrance. Even more bizarrely there was a suggestion that she'd seen the male move down the path - which is completely impossible whichever direction she was driving in as she couldn't have had the path in sight for long enough to see this happening. However, the point is that it would only have been possible for her to see into the path, to see that the male was 10 yards down the path (wherever that suggestion came from), if she was driving south. It's impossible for someone driving north to see into the path at all.
In order for Mrs Bryson to have seen anyone at that path at 4.53, she must have seen this when she was driving north, towards Easthouses, before she went to look at the house for sale. But driving north you simply can't see what she is supposed to have seen. Driving south, you can see it (although to clock that much detail in the couple of seconds as you drive past is quite a feat), but if she saw this when she was driving south then the time was about 5.40, not 4.53.
So what the hell was Donald Findlay (more on him later) thinking about, in court? All he had to say was, Mrs Bryson, which way was your car facing when you saw these people? Was the bend (you should have been concentrating on, two children in the car and all that) a right-hand bend or a left-had bend? Could you actually see into the path itself when you noticed the two people?
If she actually saw them on the way to the house viewing then that is not what her original account said, so how come she originally thought she was driving south towards a left-hand bend then revised her story so that she was actually driving north towards a right-hand bend? And how come she even realised there was a path there, let alone acceded to the suggestion that one of the people was as much as 10 yards down the path, when a driver travelling north can't see the path at all? And yet that's what we have to believe if the sighting was 4.53.
If she made the sighting as she drove south, as everything seems to suggest and indeed only a southbound driver could possibly see into the path or even realise there was a path there in the first place, then the time of the sighting was about 5.40. The prosecution case relied on Jodi having been killed at 5.15.”
-
Your post puzzles me.
"We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003."
Do we know this?
What is your source?
In the recent C5 documentary the 2 detectives had a suspect list. All the names had writing beside them. At the bottom was a name nobody's allowed to mention. The text in the box beside his name was blurry and was shown only momentarily, but it was long enough for people to freeze it and enlarge and enhance it. I did it myself after someone pointed it out. The comments said......." Could it be that the discovery of a witness statement by AO". The rest of the text is harder to make out, but there is another part which can be read, it said......."happened on the day of the murder".
The use of the word "discovery" obviously means it was discovered, hence not known about at the time by the Defence. When it was "discovered" is not known. It could be months or even years later. There is no reason to believe anything other than it was "hidden". It's obvious that what AO told Police at the time did not match with the "Mitchell did it" narrative which is why the statement disappeared.
C5 later edited out the comments next to the name. If you watch the programme again on Catch Up etc you won't see that name or the writing, but I and many others recorded it which they obviously can't edit.
-
In the recent C5 documentary the 2 detectives had a suspect list. All the names had writing beside them. At the bottom was a name nobody's allowed to mention. The text in the box beside his name was blurry and was shown only momentarily, but it was long enough for people to freeze it and enlarge and enhance it. I did it myself after someone pointed it out. The comments said......." Could it be that the discovery of a witness statement by AO". The rest of the text is harder to make out, but there is another part which can be read, it said......."happened on the day of the murder".
The use of the word "discovery" obviously means it was discovered, hence not known about at the time by the Defence. When it was "discovered" is not known. It could be months or even years later. There is no reason to believe anything other than it was "hidden" because that ties in 100% with AO never being cited to Court. It's obvious that what AO told Police at the time did not match with the "Mitchell did it" narrative which is why the statement disappeared.
C5 later edited out the above comments next to the name. If you watch the programme again on Catch Up etc you won't see that writing, but I and many others recorded it which they obviously can't edit.
Did he who shall not be named give evidence in court as I can’t find any reports of it?
-
Did he who shall not be named give evidence in court as I can’t find any reports of it?
No he didn't. Apparently he may have been protected by mental health legislation. The Police don't appear to have investigated him at all. His alibi was lame. His mother said he was in the house all day and evening, but the Stocky Man seen following Jodi was identified 2 weeks after the murder by a witness. The Police never bothered disclosing that the Stocky Man had been traced at the time. They also didn't check his room in his house when they were called out when Jodi was reported missing. Nor did they check it after her body was found. They reported "2 adults" at home. So in effect, nobody has much idea where he was from mid afternoon on the day of the murder until the following day. Despite all of that, I don't think he did it, but why he was following Jodi is interesting.
-
In the recent C5 documentary the 2 detectives had a suspect list. All the names had writing beside them. At the bottom was a name nobody's allowed to mention. The text in the box beside his name was blurry and was shown only momentarily, but it was long enough for people to freeze it and large and enhance it. I did it myself after someone pointed it out. The comments said......." Could it be that the discovery of a witness statement by AO". The rest of the text is harder to make out, but there is another part which can be read, it said......."happened on the day of the murder".
The use of the word "discovery" obviously means it was discovered, hence not known about at the time by the Defence. When it was "discovered" is not known. It could be months or even years later. There is no reason to believe anything other than it was "hidden" because that ties in 100% with AO never being cited to Court. It's obvious that what AO told Police at the time did not match with the "Mitchell did it" narrative which is why the statement disappeared.
Hmmm. A 'suspect list' allowed to be glimpsed in a discredited documentary.
I think your post is unsubstantiated speculation and I find the linking of named individuals distasteful. If there is a miscarriage of justice being perpetrated here, it lies in the kangaroo court of the internet.
Am I the only one finding all the associated fabrication and the lack of primary sources evident in all of this extremely tiresome.
I am yet to see a valid justification that even hints that Mitchell is anything other than the murderer his trial found him to be.
Mitchell's alibi did not stand up in court because it was a lie and I think much of what has been said in attempts to get him out of jail are from the same stable.
In my short experience of this case I am dizzy from the rotation and number of named individuals who have been put under the spotlight by internet detectives - none of which stood up when looked at by the real police.
-
No he didn't. Apparently he may have been protected by mental health legislation. The Police don't appear to have investigated him at all. His alibi was lame. His mother said he was in the house all day and evening, but the Stocky Man seen following Jodi was identified 2 weeks after the murder by a witness. The Police never bothered disclosing that the Stocky Man had been traced at the time. They also didn't check his room in his house when they were called out when Jodi was reported missing. Nor did they check it after her body was found. They reported "2 adults" at home. So in effect, nobody has much idea where he was from mid afternoon on the day of the murder until the following day. Despite all of that, I don't think he did it, but why he was following Jodi is interesting.
So three people were in Jodi’s house on the night of the murder yet only one gave evidence in court. The police went to the bother of checking CCTV in relation to AO’s movements yet didn’t ask him to testify. Isn't that odd?
-
Hmmm. A 'suspect list' allowed to be glimpsed in a discredited documentary.
I think your post is unsubstantiated speculation and I find the linking of named individuals distasteful. If there is a miscarriage of justice being perpetrated here, it lies in the kangaroo court of the internet.
Am I the only one finding all the associated fabrication and the lack of primary sources evident in all of this extremely tiresome.
I am yet to see a valid justification that even hints that Mitchell is anything other than the murderer his trial found him to be.
Mitchell's alibi did not stand up in court because it was a lie and I think much of what has been said in attempts to get him out of jail are from the same stable.
In my short experience of this case I am dizzy from the rotation and number of named individuals who have been put under the spotlight by internet detectives - none of which stood up when looked at by the real police.
If you look at almost every miscarriage of justice in this country there is one golden thread that runs through them all....tunnel vision by the investigating police force. First they find a perpetrator then fit the evidence around him or her.
SK’s semen was found on the murder victim. To a less blinkered police force that should have sounded alarm bells so loud you could have heard them in Glasgow....but no, not a sound.
To avoid confusion I’m not suggesting that SK had any part in the murder but in any professional police enquiry he would certainly have come under more suspicion than he did.
-
No he didn't. Apparently he may have been protected by mental health legislation. The Police don't appear to have investigated him at all. His alibi was lame. His mother said he was in the house all day and evening, but the Stocky Man seen following Jodi was identified 2 weeks after the murder by a witness. The Police never bothered disclosing that the Stocky Man had been traced at the time. They also didn't check his room in his house when they were called out when Jodi was reported missing. Nor did they check it after her body was found. They reported "2 adults" at home. So in effect, nobody has much idea where he was from mid afternoon on the day of the murder until the following day. Despite all of that, I don't think he did it, but why he was following Jodi is interesting.
I thought you were now saying the murderer was a female?
I can't help but notice that the person you're talking about here is male.
Also, the fact that this person's name was on Jack & Victor's list - that doesn't actually mean anything, in itself.
-
Hmmm. A 'suspect list' allowed to be glimpsed in a discredited documentary.
I think your post is unsubstantiated speculation and I find the linking of named individuals distasteful. If there is a miscarriage of justice being perpetrated here, it lies in the kangaroo court of the internet.
Am I the only one finding all the associated fabrication and the lack of primary sources evident in all of this extremely tiresome.
I am yet to see a valid justification that even hints that Mitchell is anything other than the murderer his trial found him to be.
Mitchell's alibi did not stand up in court because it was a lie and I think much of what has been said in attempts to get him out of jail are from the same stable.
In my short experience of this case I am dizzy from the rotation and number of named individuals who have been put under the spotlight by internet detectives - none of which stood up when looked at by the real police.
And we all know from which stable it all comes from.
-
I thought you were now saying the murderer was a female?
I can't help but notice that the person you're talking about here is male.
Also, the fact that this person's name was on Jack & Victor's list - that doesn't actually mean anything, in itself.
Is anyone really fooled for a second by the name on a computer screen that had to be edited out? These TV documentaries are always carefully edited and checked for legal issues so imo it was intentional but it backfired.
It was all a set-up intended to throw suspicion elsewhere, a repeat of the same old tired mantra that has been promoted from the sidelines the moment Luke Mitchell was convicted.
-
Is anyone really fooled for a second by the name on a computer screen that had to be edited out? These TV documentaries are always carefully edited and checked for legal issues so imo it was intentional but it backfired.
It was all a set-up intended to throw suspicion elsewhere, a repeat of the same old tired mantra that has been promoted from the sidelines the moment Luke Mitchell was convicted.
Perfectly understandable, IMO. The TV documentary was implying that Luke could well be innocent, so of course possible alternative perpetrators are going to be suggested.
-
Perfectly understandable, IMO. The TV documentary was implying that Luke could well be innocent, so of course possible alternative perpetrators are going to be suggested.
Given that the producers were forced to remove the name, it clearly wasn't legal.
-
Is anyone really fooled for a second by the name on a computer screen that had to be edited out? These TV documentaries are always carefully edited and checked for legal issues so imo it was intentional but it backfired.
It was all a set-up intended to throw suspicion elsewhere, a repeat of the same old tired mantra that has been promoted from the sidelines the moment Luke Mitchell was convicted.
Aye, it obviously was intentional - in keeping with the rest of the content in that nasty, insidious, biased and manipulative documentary.
It's managed to turn the heads of quite a lot of people, though - mainly people who clearly weren't paying attention at the time of the trial and appeals.
-
Given that the producers were forced to remove the name, it clearly wasn't legal.
As I’ve said before to prove Luke didn’t do it you don’t have to prove who did.
It is, however, legitimate to point out the lack of scrutiny paid to anomalies within the statements of those close to Jodi, if only to underscore how unfairly Luke was treated.
-
Aye, it obviously was intentional - in keeping with the rest of the content in that nasty, insidious, biased and manipulative documentary.
It's managed to turn the heads of quite a lot of people, though - mainly people who clearly weren't paying attention at the time of the trial and appeals.
People are so gullible.
-
Rolfe on Ms Leans book?
“I am simply gobsmacked that the time needed for Mrs Bryson to go look at the house seems to have been airbrushed from the narrative. Her original story was that she drove first to the supermarket, did the shopping, loaded it into the car, then drove to Easthouses where there was a house for sale she was interested in. This wasn't an arranged viewing, she just wanted to take a look at it from the outside. She got a bit lost trying to find the house, but found it, had a look, then drove back home. It was quite clear at that time that she had seen the couple at the eastern end of Roan's Dyke path on her way home, after she'd looked at the house, not on her way to the house.
Why was it airbrushed? - However. It has always been the case that AB saw this couple on her way home. She was driving towards Morris Road. Looking directly into the path, facing onto LM. From her first account to further clarification of times. That she had left the supermarket around 4.33pm. Aprox: 20-25 mins later she saw this couple. Lot's of missing information? Where is this supermarket? Where did AB stay. Which route did she drive?
She said she got home, unloaded the car, put away the shopping, and started to make the tea. Then her phone rang and she took a call. She estimated the call came in about half an hour after she got home, at about 6.20. In fact the call was logged on her phone as 6.17, so she was about right. That would put her return home at about 5.45 to 5.50. She originally said she saw the couple at the path about five or ten minutes before she got home, which is about right for the drive from there to her house. This puts the time of the sighting at about 5.35 to 5.45, without any need to reference the supermarket checkout time
.
But one very much does need to reference the checkout times, as all of this information is inclusive. That AB had been shopping, there would be receipts. That AB had received a call from her husband after arriving home. There is a starting point and a finishing point. There is a lot of estimates in between. Nothing more. These times needed to be determined. And where does one start, at the beginning. And upon clarification it was also known that AB had used the ATM. The wheat from the chaff. The starting point, upon completion of the shop, as it was after this shop AB drove to Easthouses.
The till receipt time of 4.45 (and 31 seconds) tallies with Mrs Bryson's own estimate of what she did, giving her 30 to 35 minutes for the actual shopping in the store (she in fact estimated 35 to 45 minutes) and about an hour in total for the drive to Easthouses (12 to 17 minutes each way), the search for the house for sale, time to look at it, and then the drive back home again. If the bank statement time of 4.32 (and 45 seconds) is used instead, this cuts the time for the actual shopping to only 20 minutes maximum, including queueing up for the till and ringing up the purchases. I suppose it depends on how much she bought, but the till receipt tallies better with her own recollection of how the time went.
Where is the fault of the till receipt? Upon checking AB's account, that Ms Bryson had did her shop, she used the ATM after her shop. As above the ATM was 12mins earlier than the till receipt, something was wrong? If AB's account was to be correct then one of these had to be faulty, and the till receipt time mechanism was out. This has been discussed many times. (will touch on this subject later, of what is actually evident, of "all" of this information that Ms Lean may have)
However, why does it matter? If you take 13 minutes off the time spent in the supermarket, all this does is add 13 minutes to the time spent looking for and looking at the house for sale, because it doesn't affect the timing of her return home. It moves her arrival in Easthouses 13 minutes earlier, but it doesn't change her departure time. And yet it was on her way out of Easthouses that she was supposed to have seen the couple at the end of
the path!
But you don't take 13mins spent off the time in the supermarket do you? There is no need to, as the till mechanism was out. Let's think about that. AB estimated she had been in the supermarket, as above for, 35-45mins. She had in fact only been in around 20mins, as you clearly deduced by the ATM receipt. These are estimations. Ms Bryson was not keeping tally. Much like the clarification of LM on Newbattle R'd. The police used clear starting and finishing points. The call to the Jones house at 5.32pm and to his friends after 7pm. His estimation was massively out, was it not? This short period turned into over 90mins. His claimed start point and finishing point. However, with LM there was nothing in this wait, was there? That could make him lose track of time??
However - it does change her departure time from Easthouses by 13mins. If one arrives 13mins earlier then they depart 13mins earlier. They arrive home 13mins earlier. And onto estimations yet again of the time in the house. Which clearly showed, that AB had been longer home than her estimate - before her husband called. That is all.
This lady had children, shopping, dinner and so forth - lot's to distract real time.
However again - The times were from leaving the store, to this sighting.
Using the bank statement time for the completion of the supermarket shop instead of the till receipt gets her arrival in Easthouses to about 16.53, which is exactly the time the prosecution needed Luke to have been seen at the end of the path with Jodi. But that's not when Mrs Bryson said she saw the people at the path!
No it does not - Let us think of other information missing here, that AB's children had been playing up, that she quickly gave up the notion of viewing this house in any detail at all. That upon her arrival in Easthouses, that she pretty much turned around to drive home. This yet again, has been discussed many times. AB arrived in Easthouses then went home again. This part of her journey was mere minutes. The sighting approx: 4.50-55pm, could have been slightly over this but not before. The lane is in Easthouses, AB was in Easthouses.
Bear in mind that Mrs Bryson was driving her car, with two children in it, one of them only a two-year-old. She didn't stop to scrutinise these people, she simply noticed them as she drove past. The layout of the road is important here. If you're driving south from Easthouses on the road in question, the end of the path is at a fairly sharp bend. In fact at that point the path appears to continue on in a south-west direction while the road makes a fairly sharp left turn to continue in a south-east direction.
At last - Clear cut information. However as you drive along Easthouses Road towards this bend (bearing in mind those children, speed restrictions and of approaching this bend.) You are looking straight onto the entrance of this lane. Here is the important part. This was not simply just two people standing at the entrance, was it? Where is the reason and explanation of why AB's attention was caught momentarily? You are correct there was no scrutinizing. AB, for those brief seconds was focussed upon this male, his actions, It was these very actions that captured her attention. They were odd. There appeared to be some form of altercation. It was this very reason, as to why, AB went forward the next day. Not simply, Just two people.
Note that a driver coming from this direction is pretty much looking straight up the path for a few moments, and Mrs Bryson would have had a reasonable view of anyone standing at the path entrance, although only for a couple of seconds. (Zoom in to the path itself here. Before you continue to Google Maps) This is what Mrs Bryson originally said she saw. She wouldn't have had much time to see the couple, and she would obviously have had to concentrate on the left-hand bend in front of her, but it's a reasonable enough story
.
It's not a story though, is it - it is the truth is it not? Interestingly here, think of the shade. Of that sandy coloured hair appearing darker. But most of all, think of one person facing out, and another looking right at them. The time it would take for a photograph. Click, there we have what was implanted in AB's mind, that image of LM, the person she ID.
In order for Mrs Bryson to have seen anyone at that path at 4.53, she must have seen this when she was driving north, towards Easthouses, before she went to look at the house for sale. But driving north you simply can't see what she is supposed to have seen. Driving south, you can see it (although to clock that much detail in the couple of seconds as you drive past is quite a feat), but if she saw this when she was driving south then the time was about 5.40, not 4.53.
And this I'm afraid is nothing short of guff. Where on Earth does Rolfe get this 48mins later from. Dear of dear?! Let's Just make this very simple, yet again. Remove all these IF's - AB drove to Easthouses. The lane and Easthouses are one and the same. Jodi stayed in Easthouses, a minutes walk from this lane. AB was going to view a house which she pretty much gave up on. She drove in and out of Easthouses. Her children were playing up. This part of her journey took no more than 2-3 mins. 4.50-55pm.
The police did not make up the ATM nor faulty till receipt. The police did not make up AB's route. AB did not make up anything. - AB ID LM and got the clothing pretty much 80% accurate. Not spot on, as Rolfe clearly states. There was not scrutinizing. It was LM who captured her attention. His actions for those brief seconds
-
Perfectly understandable, IMO. The TV documentary was implying that Luke could well be innocent, so of course possible alternative perpetrators are going to be suggested.
That is not the job of a TV production.
-
Wee question - I can't remember, but would rather not watch the 'documentary' again.
Does it mention SM's refusal to provide the alibi at any point?
-
Rolfe on Ms Leans book?
Why was it airbrushed? - However. It has always been the case that AB saw this couple on her way home. She was driving towards Morris Road. Looking directly into the path, facing onto LM. From her first account to further clarification of times. That she had left the supermarket around 4.33pm. Aprox: 20-25 mins later she saw this couple. Lot's of missing information? Where is this supermarket? Where did AB stay. Which route did she drive?
.
The supermarket was Scotmid in Gorebridge. AB lived in the Bryans. At trial AB could not remember what route she took on the 30th.
But one very much does need to reference the checkout times, as all of this information is inclusive. That AB had been shopping, there would be receipts. That AB had received a call from her husband after arriving home. There is a starting point and a finishing point. There is a lot of estimates in between. Nothing more. These times needed to be determined. And where does one start, at the beginning. And upon clarification it was also known that AB had used the ATM. The wheat from the chaff. The starting point, upon completion of the shop, as it was after this shop AB drove to Easthouses.
The starting point is 4.05 when she started out from her home. The finishing point is 6.17 when AB received her husband’s call. The receipt from Scotmid was timed at 4.45pm. I’m reliably informed by someone who worked at Scotmid at the time that all Scotmid tills were linked to a main computer for that shop and that information at end of working day was uploaded to head office and that the tills were never wrong.
Where is the fault of the till receipt? Upon checking AB's account, that Ms Bryson had did her shop, she used the ATM after her shop. As above the ATM was 12mins earlier than the till receipt, something was wrong? If AB's account was to be correct then one of these had to be faulty, and the till receipt time mechanism was out. This has been discussed many times. (will touch on this subject later, of what is actually evident, of "all" of this information that Ms Lean may have)
An ATM had nothing to do with it. The discrepancy was between the time on AB’s Scotmid receipt and the time that that payment appeared on her bank statement.
But you don't take 13mins spent off the time in the supermarket do you? There is no need to, as the till mechanism was out. Let's think about that. AB estimated she had been in the supermarket, as above for, 35-45mins. She had in fact only been in around 20mins, as you clearly deduced by the ATM receipt. These are estimations. Ms Bryson was not keeping tally. Much like the clarification of LM on Newbattle R'd. The police used clear starting and finishing points. The call to the Jones house at 5.32pm and to his friends after 7pm. His estimation was massively out, was it not? This short period turned into over 90mins. His claimed start point and finishing point. However, with LM there was nothing in this wait, was there? That could make him lose track of time??
There was no ATM receipt.
However - it does change her departure time from Easthouses by 13mins. If one arrives 13mins earlier then they depart 13mins earlier. They arrive home 13mins earlier. And onto estimations yet again of the time in the house. Which clearly showed, that AB had been longer home than her estimate - before her husband called. That is all.
This lady had children, shopping, dinner and so forth - lot's to distract real time.
However again - The times were from leaving the store, to this sighting.
AB, according to your good self, is pretty bad at estimating the time events occurred. According to her she went from the supermarket to the house that was for sale, getting lost on the way and on to the sighting so the times after she left the supermarket can only be estimates, and not very accurate ones if she is as easily distracted as you say. So with a sighting where 5 minutes either way would negate any value it had to the investigation, how can we possibly be sure AB’s time estimate was correct?
No it does not - Let us think of other information missing here, that AB's children had been playing up, that she quickly gave up the notion of viewing this house in any detail at all. That upon her arrival in Easthouses, that she pretty much turned around to drive home. This yet again, has been discussed many times. AB arrived in Easthouses then went home again. This part of her journey was mere minutes. The sighting approx: 4.50-55pm, could have been slightly over this but not before. The lane is in Easthouses, AB was in Easthouses.
There is absolutely no basis for your claim that AB’s children were playing up and there was no planned viewing of the house, AB simply wanted to look at it from outside. That she took some time to find the house also needs to be considered.
At last - Clear cut information. However as you drive along Easthouses Road towards this bend (bearing in mind those children, speed restrictions and of approaching this bend.) You are looking straight onto the entrance of this lane. Here is the important part. This was not simply just two people standing at the entrance, was it? Where is the reason and explanation of why AB's attention was caught momentarily? You are correct there was no scrutinizing. AB, for those brief seconds was focussed upon this male, his actions, It was these very actions that captured her attention. They were odd. There appeared to be some form of altercation. It was this very reason, as to why, AB went forward the next day. Not simply, Just two people.
Again AB didn’t mention her children ‘playing up’ or that there appeared to be an ‘altercation’ between the couple.
.
It's not a story though, is it - it is the truth is it not? Interestingly here, think of the shade. Of that sandy coloured hair appearing darker. But most of all, think of one person facing out, and another looking right at them. The time it would take for a photograph. Click, there we have what was implanted in AB's mind, that image of LM, the person she ID.
Had the children stopped ‘playing up’ long enough to let her take her ‘photograph’ and what about that sharp corner...not very wise to rubberneck while approaching dangerous corners.
And this I'm afraid is nothing short of guff. Where on Earth does Rolfe get this 48mins later from. Dear of dear?! Let's Just make this very simple, yet again. Remove all these IF's - AB drove to Easthouses. The lane and Easthouses are one and the same. Jodi stayed in Easthouses, a minutes walk from this lane. AB was going to view a house which she pretty much gave up on. She drove in and out of Easthouses. Her children were playing up. This part of her journey took no more than 2-3 mins. 4.50-55pm.
AB’s first two statements were very clear in their timings and those timings were corroborated by other evidence. I’d be interested to know if the bank statement which supposedly showed an earlier checkout time to the receipt was ever disclosed to the defence?
I do find it interesting that your narrative seems to be arguing even with itself. First AB is this easily distracted airhead with the concentration span of a gnat, then she is a super observant Miss Marple who uses her amazing powers of recall to pinpoint to the minute a chance sighting of no significance. Hilarious.
The police did not make up the ATM nor faulty till receipt. The police did not make up AB's route. AB did not make up anything. - AB ID LM and got the clothing pretty much 80% accurate. Not spot on, as Rolfe clearly states. There was not scrutinizing. It was LM who captured her attention. His actions for those brief seconds
There was no ATM...the discrepancy was between the supermarket receipt and AB’s bank statement. By the time AB gave evidence in court she didn’t know her route. Thick Sandy hair, green fishing jacket (definitely not a parka) , green trousers..not even close. In fact AB might have been closer if she had simply guessed.
-
I thought you were now saying the murderer was a female?
I can't help but notice that the person you're talking about here is male.
Also, the fact that this person's name was on Jack & Victor's list - that doesn't actually mean anything, in itself.
The person mentioned above is male yes and we know who it is, but I'm not suggesting he did it, although the lack of corroboration of his whereabouts should have at least have made him a person of interest. I do still think it was a female yes.
-
Hmmm. A 'suspect list' allowed to be glimpsed in a discredited documentary.
I think your post is unsubstantiated speculation and I find the linking of named individuals distasteful. If there is a miscarriage of justice being perpetrated here, it lies in the kangaroo court of the internet.
Am I the only one finding all the associated fabrication and the lack of primary sources evident in all of this extremely tiresome.
I am yet to see a valid justification that even hints that Mitchell is anything other than the murderer his trial found him to be.
Mitchell's alibi did not stand up in court because it was a lie and I think much of what has been said in attempts to get him out of jail are from the same stable.
In my short experience of this case I am dizzy from the rotation and number of named individuals who have been put under the spotlight by internet detectives - none of which stood up when looked at by the real police.
Discredited documentary @)(++(*.
-
Given that the producers were forced to remove the name, it clearly wasn't legal.
Funny that, when nobody moaned about other names being on view. MK's name has been mentioned everywhere except desert islands but nobody complained about that before he died. The person's name that did it wasn't on that list anyway.
-
Funny that, when nobody moaned about other names being on view. MK's name has been mentioned everywhere except desert islands but nobody complained about that before he died. The person's name that did it wasn't on that list anyway.
he complained about that himself before he died, extensively. used to post on the original miscarriage of justice web page. contacted the police about being hounded and assualted by SF. posted on this forum to that effect.
we can speculate how it's not widely known that all this happened, but the answer is probably as depressing as "he was a vulnerable drug user who didn't have a broad support network of close friends and family"
-
Discredited documentary @)(++(*. Answer this one then. We'll leave aside the "disappearing" AO statement seeing as you don't think these nice straight Police would ever have conveniently left something crucial in a locked drawer until the Trial was over. AO arrived home from work at about 440pm. Ju J said Jodi and Jo J were in the house when he came in and he was still in when Jodi went out supposedly to meet Luke. AO's importance as a witness at that stage was no more and no less than Ju J's, so why was AO never cited to give evidence in Court to verify Ju J's statement?
Let me put it bluntly to you that you are making up your own factoids based on your observation of two "nice straight Police" flashing libel on screen in the discredited Channel5 documentary.
I asked you for the source of your assertion that "We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003."
In return you gave me your opinion and supposition instead of a reliable source ~ and that simply isn't good enough for the expectations of this forum, the members and visitors who perhaps anticipate finding accurate and reliable information here.
I find this myth you are promulgating as fact about a witness statement being secreted in a locked drawer outrageous, particularly when it is dovetailed with the distrust you are projecting on named individuals in your posts.
-
MK's name has been mentioned everywhere except desert islands but nobody complained about that before he died.
MK did.
-
Let me put it bluntly to you that you are making up your own factoids based on your observation of two "nice straight Police" flashing libel on screen in the discredited Channel5 documentary.
I asked you for the source of your assertion that "We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003."
In return you gave me your opinion and supposition instead of a reliable source ~ and that simply isn't good enough for the expectations of this forum, the members and visitors who perhaps anticipate finding accurate and reliable information here.
I find this myth you are promulgating as fact about a witness statement being secreted in a locked drawer outrageous, particularly when it is dovetailed with the distrust you are projecting on named individuals in your posts.
Is it too late to nominate the above for comedy post of the month?
Ee but you have brightened up my day Brietta.
-
MK did.
Mark made only one post and here it is.
Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.
-
Was the information of the bank statements known to the defence? Yes, how do we know this, we know this as DF did not question the veracity of this information.
Thanks Faithlilly?? However it is more than safe and accurate to assume, that your 'I have it from a reliable source' that there was nothing wrong with the till timing mechanism, to be absolute piffle?
Before these discussions around the alibi and of AB continue let's touch on another area. That of 'is there anything in the defence papers' - You have touched on this several times, and of Ms Lean?
Three areas here - This question, of there being anything in the defence papers? - around the bank statement reliability?
Mr Kelly's statement, that of alibi for his son.
Multiple phone records.
Let us add another - that of the police investigation around elimination.
As you rightly point out, the defence papers/case notes/transcripts - "all" of the evidence that Ms Lean has? Is that of the defence. With me so far?
Prior to Ms Lean becoming POA, which was sometime after all appeals, and before the submission to the SCCRC? Her source of information, was mainly that of the Mitchells and any court proceedings? - Correct?
After becoming POA, after LM having no defence team/lawyer - Ms Lean gained access to all that the defence had?
Back to the police investigation and the Crown/Fiscal services. - Submissions are made, primarily around the evidence sourced against the appellant in question. Once this is submitted, (We know in this case, further work was required prior to full acceptance, by the Crown) - The case then lies with the Crown, any investigation that takes place from here, is by request of the Crown/Fiscal. Everything in the investigation, around elimination of others has in effect, nothing to do with the case against the appellant?
Therefore Ms Lean does not have, and has never had - "all" that went into this investigation where elimination is concerned.
Ms Lean does not have access to everything, and has never had access to everything - yet?
Ms Lean has, (claimed) from 2003 - had close contact with the appellant and his family.
In effect, Ms Lean in her Ms Marple work - has made some pretty damming conclusions based on this? We know the bias, purely based on defence is from this, but we also have that impartiality, this personal, non professional side also?
It would also be fair to assume - that upon the conclusion, of this independent review by the SCCRC, Ms Lean realised just how much was not inclusive of the defence papers she has? - She had however been scratching one's head, has she not around trivial matters. The call to AW's daughter is one example. Let's refresh on that for those unaware:
It would seem that on the night of Jodi's discovery, her aunt had arrived at the scene. let us first of all be realistic here, common sense is all that is needed. That AW had phoned her daughter, this distraught grandmother? There is no need in the slightest, for the record of this call be inclusive of the defence papers, the information however is known - yet;
This very trivial matter has become something of a multiple investigation for Ms Marple and her team?
"How did this lady suddenly appear at the scene?"
"If the police are covering up for some one on high, what are the connections?"
'Oh I know, she is a friend of someone, who is a friend of someone else, in the police'
There is significantly more - we get the gist however. A mother phones her daughter, after the discovery of Jodi, her grand-daughter. There is no reason for the record of this call to be in the defence papers. For it is only the defence papers, that Ms Lean has. As with the other intricate areas of elimination of these 'others' Of quite a lot in fact. Yet, and again there are pretty damming statements made around this. Truth be told - Ms Lean does not know everything, she has no way of knowing when and why, anyone was eliminated - What she does know however, is every piece of damming evidence against LM. She simply excuses all of this away. Jodi's aunt is highly suspicious but LM is not?
Another point to highlight here - that of precognitions, that are done by both the defence and Crown. There is a lot of information that Ms Lean does have, it is however not mentioned - much of it airbrushed over. Or of extraordinary extremity - there are multiple theories added. (Occams Razor)
The final point in all of this is disclosure - This is nothing short of guff. Findlay and his highly trained team of professionals. Those multiple precognitions. Is it not more accurate to say that, most of what is questionable to Ms Lean, is just that - her questions. These questions around her opinions, nothing more? As we know that Findlay would be more than aware of Mr Kelly's alibi for his son - this is basic fact. He did not need to keep it in his defence case. SK was not on trial.
-
This alibi - the clarity that has been shown - That this dinner story did not fit at all. It was not like 'any other day'. Of Ms Mitchell arriving home. Helping with dinner. The usual, very relaxed norm. Of LM leaving around 5.45pm to meet with Jodi at 6. Transpired to be that of around 15mins. Of Ms Mitchell arriving home around 5.15pm and Luke's departure at 5.30pm. Of the claimed wait on Newbattle Road, at the latter heading into the Abbey - that time scale of approx: Two hours.
Of Jodi leaving her house prior to 5pm to meet with LM. - That complete contrast of account. That, as with LM, CM, AO, AB and so forth - outside factors were used to determine timings. JuJ's first approx: - being that Jodi had perhaps left sometime between 5 and 5.30pm, it was after AO had gotten home from work. There was the factor they used to determine time. That of AO's arrival home. That starting point, from CCTV footage.
That complete 'hullabaloo' over AB's sighting. Nothing of the extraordinaire above? Of the Mitchells. Of the complete disregard of the confirmed timings, of using outside factors, not AB's estimates. That of the bank statement. We have already shown clearly why the police knew the till receipt mechanism was out: Let's refresh on that:
AB's bank statement showed the transaction to be approx 12 mins earlier than it was. One had to be wrong. It was the till mechanism. - We don't need the introduction of mystery 'reliable sources' - Nothing short of 'that old chestnut?' DF did not query this, of it's veracity?
AB - A little more depth of reality here: Of Rolfe's narrative, (on the basis of Ms Lean?) this 48mins lapse of time.
Easthouses is a small mining village - Compact scheme which consists of approx: 10 streets, these are split by a park. The side AB was on, was that of the area where Jodi stayed, consisting of around 6 streets. It has one entrance in/out.
On the 30th of June, AB, after shopping, had driven to the area, to site a house that was up for sale. This confusion in finding this house, would have taken no time at all, as above - it consists of approx: 6 streets. AB did little more than site this house, and left. This small scheme and the entrance to the path, the lane are one and the same. They are connected. They are both Easthouses. AB had little more to drive than Jodi had to walk that day. It is of a very short distance, by car. It is ludicrous to suggest that this took 48mins - 2/3 mins is more than accurate. We do not need to add anything of AB's arrival home, her shopping nor the call from her husband. All that is needed is that start point, time to Easthouse's and departure.
After her departure from this Scheme? Whilst Ms Bryson was driving along Easthouse's Road towards Morris Road (small road that connects Easthouse's to Newtongrange.) On her way home to the "Bryans" (this area is on the other side of Morris Road) She passed the entrance to Roansdyke path (the east end). The entrance to the path is off this small lane. (This lane, used many times by Jodi and Luke Mitchell, a regular rendezvous) What Ms Bryson gave account of, could only be seen driving in this direction. These somewhat foolish, strawmen arguments about direction are just that. Her description only fits one way. Her description had always only fitted one way. She had to have been facing into this lane.
Her attention was captured by two people, one was at the start of the lane, the other, approx: 5-10 ft further in. This was the male. The male was looking out onto Easthouse's Road. AB was looking directly onto him. Her attention was drawn to him due to his actions. He looked confrontational, for want of a better word. His palms were out- turned as if beckoning the girl. Much like 'come on?' as he was approaching the girl.
Thinking no more of this - AB drove home. The next day it is known that a young girl had been found dead in Easthouse's. AB take's this information to the police. That brief account, around the actual sighting. - Around it, and of why she was there. 'I was driving home, when'-------
LM had phoned the speaking clock at 4.54pm - We know Jodi was held up slightly by her mother. Perfect reason for LM to be phoning the speaking clock, she was late? The sighting by AB was of approx: 4.50-55pm. The sighting closer to 4.55pm and after the call to the speaking clock?
Of the description of clothing - thank you Faithlilly for the trousers. I had not sourced this before. Of the males being green?
This parka, draw cord and length? - Quite remarkable is it not? Remember here, we are talking about that momentary sighting. Of the male, of the ID of him. All else was instant recall. This adds even more strength rather than the opposite. This appearance of a khaki green fishing style jacket, drawn at the waist with green trousers. These estimations of recall have Just went up by another % to around 85%. More than feasible for this to appear as two separate items. IMO. The male had mainly khaki green clothing on. The parka is long and has a draw cord around the waist? Can you give any more insight into the German badge? on the sleeve?
-
Is it too late to nominate the above for comedy post of the month?
Ee but you have brightened up my day Brietta.
Pretending to find posts comic that are anything but is a particularly irritating trait of yours if I may say so.
-
Pretending to find posts comic that are anything but is a particularly irritating trait of yours if I may say so.
The real comedy is Sandra Lean's repeated attempts to free killers. Her failed record in this area speaks volumes. Maybe she should stick to writing fairy stories?
-
The real comedy is Sandra Lean's repeated attempts to free killers. Her failed record in this area speaks volumes. Maybe she should stick to writing fairy stories?
I think that sadly she does a lot of damage to people with her writings and speculation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12058.msg648968#msg648968 and I don't think it is appropriate for her to continually run campaigns accusing all and sundry of the latest rehash of old history.
The tactic of incrimination was used at Mitchell's original trial. It failed at that first hurdle and it failed at two subsequent appeals so I think from that it can be taken that the accusations have been minutely scrutinised both by defence and prosecution.
I found Mark's post to the forum poignant when he told how the continued accusations and abuse he had suffered had prevented him gaining closure and it made me think of the merciless added pain Jodi's mother is forced to suffer every time Mitchell's campaign changes a gear.
-
Pretending to find posts comic that are anything but is a particularly irritating trait of yours if I may say so.
I find mocking exemplifies that the poster is unable to refute the points being made and when it is used against me I chalk up a point to myself 😉
-
I find mocking exemplifies that the poster is unable to refute the points being made and when it is used against me I chalk up a point to myself 😉
And that’s lovely...the use of positive affirmations are very much underestimated I find so well done you.
-
Was the information of the bank statements known to the defence? Yes, how do we know this, we know this as DF did not question the veracity of this information.
There was no discussion in court to how there was a disparity between the supermarket receipt and bank statement , no reason was offered. No reason was given either why the CCTV at Scotmid wasn’t accessed by the police to clear up the confusion. CCTV of the movements of Corrine Mitchell and Allan Ovens were sought out so why not Andrina Bryson? Two reasons perhaps....by the time the police decided that AB’s recollection may be of some use, around the middle of August, the CCTV footage was no longer available or that they knew the CCTV would disprove their earlier timeline for the sighting. You decide.
Thanks Faithlilly?? However it is more than safe and accurate to assume, that your 'I have it from a reliable source' that there was nothing wrong with the till timing mechanism, to be absolute piffle?
My source worked in the Gorebridge Scotmid in the eighties so forgive me if I rely on his recollections rather than your good self who has proved rather...flexible...when it comes to facts.
Before these discussions around the alibi and of AB continue let's touch on another area. That of 'is there anything in the defence papers' - You have touched on this several times, and of Ms Lean?
No let’s just stick to AB’s sighting for now. We’ll have a chance to discuss other aspects of the case later.
Three areas here - This question, of there being anything in the defence papers? - around the bank statement reliability?
Mr Kelly's statement, that of alibi for his son.
Multiple phone records.
Let us add another - that of the police investigation around elimination.
As you rightly point out, the defence papers/case notes/transcripts - "all" of the evidence that Ms Lean has? Is that of the defence. With me so far?
Prior to Ms Lean becoming POA, which was sometime after all appeals, and before the submission to the SCCRC? Her source of information, was mainly that of the Mitchells and any court proceedings? - Correct?
After becoming POA, after LM having no defence team/lawyer - Ms Lean gained access to all that the defence had?
Back to the police investigation and the Crown/Fiscal services. - Submissions are made, primarily around the evidence sourced against the appellant in question. Once this is submitted, (We know in this case, further work was required prior to full acceptance, by the Crown) - The case then lies with the Crown, any investigation that takes place from here, is by request of the Crown/Fiscal. Everything in the investigation, around elimination of others has in effect, nothing to do with the case against the appellant?
Therefore Ms Lean does not have, and has never had - "all" that went into this investigation where elimination is concerned.
Ms Lean does not have access to everything, and has never had access to everything - yet?
Ms Lean has, (claimed) from 2003 - had close contact with the appellant and his family.
In effect, Ms Lean in her Ms Marple work - has made some pretty damming conclusions based on this? We know the bias, purely based on defence is from this, but we also have that impartiality, this personal, non professional side also?
It would also be fair to assume - that upon the conclusion, of this independent review by the SCCRC, Ms Lean realised just how much was not inclusive of the defence papers she has? - She had however been scratching one's head, has she not around trivial matters. The call to AW's daughter is one example. Let's refresh on that for those unaware:
It would seem that on the night of Jodi's discovery, her aunt had arrived at the scene. let us first of all be realistic here, common sense is all that is needed. That AW had phoned her daughter, this distraught grandmother? There is no need in the slightest, for the record of this call be inclusive of the defence papers, the information however is known - yet;
This very trivial matter has become something of a multiple investigation for Ms Marple and her team?
"How did this lady suddenly appear at the scene?"
"If the police are covering up for some one on high, what are the connections?"
'Oh I know, she is a friend of someone, who is a friend of someone else, in the police'
There is significantly more - we get the gist however. A mother phones her daughter, after the discovery of Jodi, her grand-daughter. There is no reason for the record of this call to be in the defence papers. For it is only the defence papers, that Ms Lean has. As with the other intricate areas of elimination of these 'others' Of quite a lot in fact. Yet, and again there are pretty damming statements made around this. Truth be told - Ms Lean does not know everything, she has no way of knowing when and why, anyone was eliminated - What she does know however, is every piece of damming evidence against LM. She simply excuses all of this away. Jodi's aunt is highly suspicious but LM is not?
Another point to highlight here - that of precognitions, that are done by both the defence and Crown. There is a lot of information that Ms Lean does have, it is however not mentioned - much of it airbrushed over. Or of extraordinary extremity - there are multiple theories added. (Occams Razor)
Not at all interested in Miss Lean’s theories or what was happening on the periphery of the case....it’s simply more deflection. Now back to AB.
The final point in all of this is disclosure - This is nothing short of guff. Findlay and his highly trained team of professionals. Those multiple precognitions. Is it not more accurate to say that, most of what is questionable to Ms Lean, is just that - her questions. These questions around her opinions, nothing more? As we know that Findlay would be more than aware of Mr Kelly's alibi for his son - this is basic fact. He did not need to keep it in his defence case. SK was not on trial.
With regard to this case the two facts that need to be remembered about Steven Kelly is that his semen was found on the victim’s body and he his first statement was markedly different to the testimony he gave in court.
-
This alibi - the clarity that has been shown - That this dinner story did not fit at all. It was not like 'any other day'. Of Ms Mitchell arriving home. Helping with dinner. The usual, very relaxed norm. Of LM leaving around 5.45pm to meet with Jodi at 6. Transpired to be that of around 15mins. Of Ms Mitchell arriving home around 5.15pm and Luke's departure at 5.30pm. Of the claimed wait on Newbattle Road, at the latter heading into the Abbey - that time scale of approx: Two hours.
Of Jodi leaving her house prior to 5pm to meet with LM. - That complete contrast of account. That, as with LM, CM, AO, AB and so forth - outside factors were used to determine timings. JuJ's first approx: - being that Jodi had perhaps left sometime between 5 and 5.30pm, it was after AO had gotten home from work. There was the factor they used to determine time. That of AO's arrival home. That starting point, from CCTV footage.
Why didn’t AO give evidence in court? If he was so pivotal to the timeline why wasn’t he called by the Crown?
That complete 'hullabaloo' over AB's sighting. Nothing of the extraordinaire above? Of the Mitchells. Of the complete disregard of the confirmed timings, of using outside factors, not AB's estimates. That of the bank statement. We have already shown clearly why the police knew the till receipt mechanism was out: Let's refresh on that:
AB's bank statement showed the transaction to be approx 12 mins earlier than it was. One had to be wrong. It was the till mechanism. - We don't need the introduction of mystery 'reliable sources' - Nothing short of 'that old chestnut?' DF did not query this, of it's veracity?
Did the Crown call any witnesses to verify that the till mechanism was faulty? You mentioned an ATM yesterday. Are you still claiming AB used the ATM at Scotmid and if so did she keep the receipt for her withdrawal...or was it simply a discrepancy between the time on her till receipt and the time of that payment on her bank statement?
AB - A little more depth of reality here: Of Rolfe's narrative, (on the basis of Ms Lean?) this 48mins lapse of time.
Easthouses is a small mining village - Compact scheme which consists of approx: 10 streets, these are split by a park. The side AB was on, was that of the area where Jodi stayed, consisting of around 6 streets. It has one entrance in/out.
On the 30th of June, AB, after shopping, had driven to the area, to site a house that was up for sale. This confusion in finding this house, would have taken no time at all, as above - it consists of approx: 6 streets. AB did little more than site this house, and left. This small scheme and the entrance to the path, the lane are one and the same. They are connected. They are both Easthouses. AB had little more to drive than Jodi had to walk that day. It is of a very short distance, by car. It is ludicrous to suggest that this took 48mins - 2/3 mins is more than accurate. We do not need to add anything of AB's arrival home, her shopping nor the call from her husband. All that is needed is that start point, time to Easthouse's and departure.
If only things were that easy. These are the original times from Andrina Bryson’s first two statements on the left and the revised times on the right ( all times approx) Can you see the problem?
4.05 Left home. 4.05 Left home
4.15 Arrive at supermarket 4.15 Arrive at supermarket
4.45. Supermarket Receipt. 4.32 Bank Statement
4.50. Leaves supermarket 4.37 Leaves Supermarket
5.07 Arrives in Easthouses 4.50 Arrives in Easthouses.
5.40- 45. Sighting. 4.54. Sighting
5.50-55 Home. 5.50-55 Home
6.17 Call from husband. 6.17 Call from husband
In AB’s first statements she arrives in Easthouses at around 5.10, gets a bit lost as she said that she didn’t know Easthouses very well, finds the house, has a look and as it’s in a cul de sac has to manoeuvre back out and back up on to the main road to see the individuals at around 5.40...so around 20-30 minutes. Not long if have difficulty finding the house, have a good look from outside then retrace your steps back to the main road and travel on to the locus of the sighting.
The revised timeline however, as you can see, leaves no time for viewing the house. Of course you could argue that AB’s time estimates are only that, estimates but can we really believe that a woman who, we are told, narrowed down a sighting to minutes couldn’t tell the difference between taking 10 minutes to get home and taking around 55 minutes, if her 5.50 estimate is correct. Then again perhaps AB did get home 10 minutes after her 4.54 revised sighting time but then this would leave approximately an hour and fifteen minutes between getting home and her husband’s phone call, instead of the 30 minutes she first estimated ( a 45ish minute discrepancy, just as Rolfe posted). Does this sound plausible to you?
No matter what way that you slice it the revised timeline just does not work.
After her departure from this Scheme? Whilst Ms Bryson was driving along Easthouse's Road towards Morris Road (small road that connects Easthouse's to Newtongrange.) On her way home to the "Bryans" (this area is on the other side of Morris Road) She passed the entrance to Roansdyke path (the east end). The entrance to the path is off this small lane. (This lane, used many times by Jodi and Luke Mitchell, a regular rendezvous) What Ms Bryson gave account of, could only be seen driving in this direction. These somewhat foolish, strawmen arguments about direction are just that. Her description only fits one way. Her description had always only fitted one way. She had to have been facing into this lane.
Yes she did...but was she?
Her attention was captured by two people, one was at the start of the lane, the other, approx: 5-10 ft further in. This was the male. The male was looking out onto Easthouse's Road. AB was looking directly onto him. Her attention was drawn to him due to his actions. He looked confrontational, for want of a better word. His palms were out- turned as if beckoning the girl. Much like 'come on?' as he was approaching the girl.
AB did not say that the man was approaching the girl nor that he looked confrontational.. you are simply making that up. In fact it was suggested to AB in court by the prosecution barrister that the male walked further into the path so quite the opposite to your claim.
Thinking no more of this - AB drove home. The next day it is known that a young girl had been found dead in Easthouse's. AB take's this information to the police. That brief account, around the actual sighting. - Around it, and of why she was there. 'I was driving home, when'-------
Yes a sighting of individuals who were not asked to come forward. However to be fair AB’s initial two statements put the time of the sighting at 5.40-45 so I’m sure the police ruled it out on her timings.
LM had phoned the speaking clock at 4.54pm - We know Jodi was held up slightly by her mother. Perfect reason for LM to be phoning the speaking clock, she was late? The sighting by AB was of approx: 4.50-55pm. The sighting closer to 4.55pm and after the call to the speaking clock?
Of the description of clothing - thank you Faithlilly for the trousers. I had not sourced this before. Of the males being green?
This parka, draw cord and length? - Quite remarkable is it not? Remember here, we are talking about that momentary sighting. Of the male, of the ID of him. All else was instant recall. This adds even more strength rather than the opposite. This appearance of a khaki green fishing style jacket, drawn at the waist with green trousers. These estimations of recall have Just went up by another % to around 85%. More than feasible for this to appear as two separate items. IMO. The male had mainly khaki green clothing on. The parka is long and has a draw cord around the waist? Can you give any more insight into the German badge? on the sleeve?
DF asked AB in court about the jacket she had picked out as having been worn by Luke on June 30th and she said categorically that it was not a parka. She further testified that the police had pushed her to pick a photo that looked ‘most like’ the jacket and she had picked out the parka. Further AB described the jacket as being waist length, no drawcord mentioned. The jacket and trousers were described as green, khaki is your interpretation and AB described a bulge on the arm, not a badge, German or otherwise...again that is your interpretation. BTW woman’s parkas tend to have drawstrings at the waist, men’s parkas don’t.
I have already posted that Luke was interviewed on the 14th of August and was asked about the whereabouts of a German shirt that he was supposed to have been wearing on the day of the murder, a shirt that was bought a week after the murder. There was no mention of a parka at this interview. Indeed AB wasn’t asked to identify Luke’s jacket until October the 10th, 14 weeks after the murder and at a time when photographs of Luke in the new parka had been in the newspapers for weeks. Thankfully this witness didn’t take the bate.
-
We're all still waiting on that evidence which proves Luke Mitchell is innocent.
Any takers?
-
We're all still waiting on that evidence which proves Luke Mitchell is innocent.
Any takers?
Innocence doesn’t have to be proven...beyond reasonable doubt is the benchmark for a conviction and you yourself have said that there are doubts.
-
Innocence doesn’t have to be proven...beyond reasonable doubt is the benchmark for a conviction and you yourself have said that there are doubts.
Very true since the evidence that convicted him was circumstantial. Scottish courts regularly convict people to a lesser standard. The terms 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'simple majority verdicts' are incompatible with justice. I would certainly support any incentive that has as its aim the abolishment of simple majority verdicts in Scotland.
-
Very true since the evidence that convicted him was circumstantial. Scottish courts regularly convict people to a lesser standard. The terms 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'simple majority verdicts' are incompatible with justice. I would certainly support any incentive that has as its aim the abolishment of simple majority verdicts in Scotland.
Absolutely agree.
-
Very true since the evidence that convicted him was circumstantial. Scottish courts regularly convict people to a lesser standard. The terms 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'simple majority verdicts' are incompatible with justice. I would certainly support any incentive that has as its aim the abolishment of simple majority verdicts in Scotland.
I'm not sure about that John.
My experience is that there is nearly always one.
-
Very true since the evidence that convicted him was circumstantial. Scottish courts regularly convict people to a lesser standard. The terms 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'simple majority verdicts' are incompatible with justice. I would certainly support any incentive that has as its aim the abolishment of simple majority verdicts in Scotland.
Hang on, you think the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” is incompatible with justice? Why may I ask?
-
So three people were in Jodi’s house on the night of the murder yet only one gave evidence in court. The police went to the bother of checking CCTV in relation to AO’s movements yet didn’t ask him to testify. Isn't that odd?
It's more than "odd",
-
Let me put it bluntly to you that you are making up your own factoids based on your observation of two "nice straight Police" flashing libel on screen in the discredited Channel5 documentary.
I asked you for the source of your assertion that "We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003."
In return you gave me your opinion and supposition instead of a reliable source ~ and that simply isn't good enough for the expectations of this forum, the members and visitors who perhaps anticipate finding accurate and reliable information here.
I find this myth you are promulgating as fact about a witness statement being secreted in a locked drawer outrageous, particularly when it is dovetailed with the distrust you are projecting on named individuals in your posts.
You really don't have much idea of what was going on in 2003 do you? There's a very good reason AO's statement disappeared but you'll never work it out.
-
Is it too late to nominate the above for comedy post of the month?
Ee but you have brightened up my day Brietta.
Lol yes.
-
Hang on, you think the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” is incompatible with justice? Why may I ask?
Because in reality, juries are not deciding cases on the basis of being beyond reasonable doubt. The entire concept is now in the gutter in our discredited justice system.
-
You really don't have much idea of what was going on in 2003 do you? There's a very good reason AO's statement disappeared but you'll never work it out.
You certainly don't have much of an idea about providing sources to support your assertions.
For the second time of asking ~ cite please for "We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003."
-
Because in reality, juries are not deciding cases on the basis of being beyond reasonable doubt. The entire concept is now in the gutter in our discredited justice system.
so what system should they be using then? Which country does not have a”discredited justice system “. that we should be striving to emulate?
-
so what system should they be using then? Which country does not have a”discredited justice system “. that we should be striving to emulate?
The problem lies in that Judges are no longer empowered by the community they serve. Instead, they are now book learned lawyers who are put in place according to political leanings.
-
The problem lies in that Judges are no longer empowered by the community they serve. Instead, they are now book learned lawyers who are put in place according to political leanings.
And how did politics influence the outcome of the Mitchell case?
-
The problem lies in that Judges are no longer empowered by the community they serve. Instead, they are now book learned lawyers who are put in place according to political leanings.
I’m not sure that that was ever true.
-
Please enlighten us all as to why one of the last people, possibly THE last, to see Jodi alive was not cited to Court.
Clearly the police and the CO&PFS felt that his testimony would add little to the case.
-
From the appeal decision of 16 May 2008.
11] The appellant telephoned the deceased's house at 1732, but received no reply. At 1740 he called again, and spoke to Alan Ovens, asking if the deceased was in. He was informed that she had left to meet him. He replied, "OK, cool". Ovens informed Judith Jones about this call.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Clearly the police and the CO&PFS felt that his testimony would add little to the case.
There was a question mark over when Jodi left the house. It appears in various statements the family cited anywhere from 4.50 to 5.30. A neighbour said she saw her leave after 5pm, another witness saw someone who she thought was Jodi being followed by a ‘stocky man’ around 5.05, a man that the police appealed for so they must have found the witness credible.
Of course if any of the sightings but the 4.50 is true then Andrina Bryson could not have seen Luke and Jodi at the entrance to the path at 4.54. The testimony of Allan Ovens therefore could have proved pivotal which makes it all the odder that he wasn’t called to give evidence.
-
Shane not being able to provide an alibi for his own brother, for me personally, above all else, is the single most damning piece of evidence against Luke (at least, from what I’ve read of the case so far). And, of course, when you consider Shane’s testimony, and place it alongside all the other evidence, we have a strong circumstancial case against Luke, imo. Enough to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That is the crux of the matter.
But, let me go back to Shane’s testimony. I still haven’t had the time read Sandra’s book (will endeavour to read more over the weekend), but I’m guessing there will be an in-depth commentary about what evidence Shane gave in court and the circumstances surrounding it, and, of course, the different interpretations of it. Now, here are a few questions: to what extent was Shane a reliable witness? It’s common knowledge he said he had a memory problem that was the result of a drug problem. To what extent? Were there medical certificates produced in court, proving this? Was Shane, unlike Luke, bullied by police? Remember, Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004, along with Luke & Corinne, and told he would face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Did they, while Shane was in shock and probably scared and vulnerable, ambiguously ask if Shane was looking at pornography whilst on the internet between 1653 - 1716 on 30.06.03? For example, SL indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups. If this was the case, then that puts Shane in a dilemma, because, while he may not have been seeking out porn to look at for his own gratification, he was still looking at pornography wether he like it or not, cos of these pop-ups. It could’ve been that, on 14.04.03, Shane was scared to saying anything at all, lest he was arrested; that Shane was bullied by police aggression, and ambiguous questioning that he didn’t fully understand. I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?), and, even if he was, he was in his own bedroom. The bulk of the online material SM was viewing was car repair websites (which ties in with Shane helping his friend fix his car that day and why he arrived home later than normal; he normally got in from work around 1530, before Luke, but got home that day at 1630/1640). Furthermore, if you combine all of this police aggression, tactics of ambiguous questioning, a vulnerable, scared Shane with memory loss issues from drug abuse, along with the distress and humiliation of appearing at a high profile murder case where one has to talk about porn and masturbation, then, damn, that is one stressful situation. Taking all of this into account, I’m not so sure Shane’s testimony was/is reliable. That’s not to say I categorically think it isn’t, but it does make one wonder.
Also quite interesting is the evidence from DCI Cravens, who forensically analysed SM’s hard drive. Mr Cravens said that 131 files were stored on SM’s hard drive. Problem with this is that it does not mean 131 individual separate images; it is files — i.e. gifs, html, JPEGs, etc. To put it in context, a single solitary image accessed on the internet can create up to 50 or 60 files on your computer’s Hard drive. Very ambiguous stuff, like most of the evidence from this case.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Ps: typing from my iphone. Sorry for any typos, etc.
-
Shane not being able to provide an alibi for his own brother, for me personally, above all else, is the single most damning piece of evidence against Luke (at least, from what I’ve read of the case so far). And, of course, when you consider Shane’s testimony, and place it alongside all the other evidence, we have a strong circumstancial case against Luke, imo. Enough to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That is the crux of the matter.
But, let me go back to Shane’s testimony. I still haven’t had the time read Sandra’s book (will endeavour to read more over the weekend), but I’m guessing there will be an in-depth commentary about what evidence Shane gave in court and the circumstances surrounding it, and, of course, the different interpretations of it. Now, here are a few questions: to what extent was Shane a reliable witness? It’s common knowledge he said he had a memory problem that was the result of a drug problem. To what extent? Were there medical certificates produced in court, proving this? Was Shane, unlike Luke, bullied by police? Remember, Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004, along with Luke & Corinne, and told he would face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Did they, while Shane was in shock and probably scared and vulnerable, ambiguously ask if Shane was looking at pornography whilst on the internet between 1653 - 1716 on 30.06.03? For example, SL indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups. If this was the case, then that puts Shane in a dilemma, because, while he may not have been seeking out porn to look at for his own gratification, he was still looking at pornography wether he like it or not, cos of these pop-ups. It could’ve been that, on 14.04.03, Shane was scared to saying anything at all, lest he was arrested; that Shane was bullied by police aggression, and ambiguous questioning that he didn’t fully understand. I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?), and, even if he was, he was in his own bedroom. The bulk of the online material SM was viewing was car repair websites (which ties in with Shane helping his friend fix his car that day and why he arrived home later than normal; he normally got in from work around 1530, before Luke, but got home that day at 1630/1640). Furthermore, if you combine all of this police aggression, tactics of ambiguous questioning, a vulnerable, scared Shane with memory loss issues from drug abuse, along with the distress and humiliation of appearing at a high profile murder case where one has to talk about porn and masturbation, then, damn, that is one stressful situation. Taking all of this into account, I’m not so sure Shane’s testimony was/is reliable. That’s not to say I categorically think it isn’t, but it does make one wonder.
Also quite interesting is the evidence from DCI Cravens, who forensically analysed SM’s hard drive. Mr Cravens said that 131 files were stored on SM’s hard drive. Problem with this is that it does not mean 131 individual separate images; it is files — i.e. gifs, html, JPEGs, etc. To put it in context, a single solitary image accessed on the internet can create up to 50 or 60 files on your computer’s Hard drive. Very ambiguous stuff, like most of the evidence from this case.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Ps: typing from my iphone. Sorry for any typos, etc.
Wait until you see the Mitchell family police witness statements
-
Shane not being able to provide an alibi for his own brother, for me personally, above all else, is the single most damning piece of evidence against Luke (at least, from what I’ve read of the case so far). And, of course, when you consider Shane’s testimony, and place it alongside all the other evidence, we have a strong circumstancial case against Luke, imo. Enough to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That is the crux of the matter.
But, let me go back to Shane’s testimony. I still haven’t had the time read Sandra’s book (will endeavour to read more over the weekend), but I’m guessing there will be an in-depth commentary about what evidence Shane gave in court and the circumstances surrounding it, and, of course, the different interpretations of it. Now, here are a few questions: to what extent was Shane a reliable witness? It’s common knowledge he said he had a memory problem that was the result of a drug problem. To what extent? Were there medical certificates produced in court, proving this? Was Shane, unlike Luke, bullied by police? Remember, Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004, along with Luke & Corinne, and told he would face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Did they, while Shane was in shock and probably scared and vulnerable, ambiguously ask if Shane was looking at pornography whilst on the internet between 1653 - 1716 on 30.06.03? For example, SL indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups. If this was the case, then that puts Shane in a dilemma, because, while he may not have been seeking out porn to look at for his own gratification, he was still looking at pornography wether he like it or not, cos of these pop-ups. It could’ve been that, on 14.04.03, Shane was scared to saying anything at all, lest he was arrested; that Shane was bullied by police aggression, and ambiguous questioning that he didn’t fully understand. I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?), and, even if he was, he was in his own bedroom. The bulk of the online material SM was viewing was car repair websites (which ties in with Shane helping his friend fix his car that day and why he arrived home later than normal; he normally got in from work around 1530, before Luke, but got home that day at 1630/1640). Furthermore, if you combine all of this police aggression, tactics of ambiguous questioning, a vulnerable, scared Shane with memory loss issues from drug abuse, along with the distress and humiliation of appearing at a high profile murder case where one has to talk about porn and masturbation, then, damn, that is one stressful situation. Taking all of this into account, I’m not so sure Shane’s testimony was/is reliable. That’s not to say I categorically think it isn’t, but it does make one wonder.
Also quite interesting is the evidence from DCI Cravens, who forensically analysed SM’s hard drive. Mr Cravens said that 131 files were stored on SM’s hard drive. Problem with this is that it does not mean 131 individual separate images; it is files — i.e. gifs, html, JPEGs, etc. To put it in context, a single solitary image accessed on the internet can create up to 50 or 60 files on your computer’s Hard drive. Very ambiguous stuff, like most of the evidence from this case.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Ps: typing from my iphone. Sorry for any typos, etc.
How many times had Shane been arrested by the police before this?
-
Shane not being able to provide an alibi for his own brother, for me personally, above all else, is the single most damning piece of evidence against Luke (at least, from what I’ve read of the case so far). And, of course, when you consider Shane’s testimony, and place it alongside all the other evidence, we have a strong circumstancial case against Luke, imo. Enough to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That is the crux of the matter.
But, let me go back to Shane’s testimony. I still haven’t had the time read Sandra’s book (will endeavour to read more over the weekend), but I’m guessing there will be an in-depth commentary about what evidence Shane gave in court and the circumstances surrounding it, and, of course, the different interpretations of it. Now, here are a few questions: to what extent was Shane a reliable witness? It’s common knowledge he said he had a memory problem that was the result of a drug problem. To what extent? Were there medical certificates produced in court, proving this? Was Shane, unlike Luke, bullied by police? Remember, Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004, along with Luke & Corinne, and told he would face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Did they, while Shane was in shock and probably scared and vulnerable, ambiguously ask if Shane was looking at pornography whilst on the internet between 1653 - 1716 on 30.06.03? For example, SL indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups. If this was the case, then that puts Shane in a dilemma, because, while he may not have been seeking out porn to look at for his own gratification, he was still looking at pornography wether he like it or not, cos of these pop-ups. It could’ve been that, on 14.04.03, Shane was scared to saying anything at all, lest he was arrested; that Shane was bullied by police aggression, and ambiguous questioning that he didn’t fully understand. I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?), and, even if he was, he was in his own bedroom. The bulk of the online material SM was viewing was car repair websites (which ties in with Shane helping his friend fix his car that day and why he arrived home later than normal; he normally got in from work around 1530, before Luke, but got home that day at 1630/1640). Furthermore, if you combine all of this police aggression, tactics of ambiguous questioning, a vulnerable, scared Shane with memory loss issues from drug abuse, along with the distress and humiliation of appearing at a high profile murder case where one has to talk about porn and masturbation, then, damn, that is one stressful situation. Taking all of this into account, I’m not so sure Shane’s testimony was/is reliable. That’s not to say I categorically think it isn’t, but it does make one wonder.
Also quite interesting is the evidence from DCI Cravens, who forensically analysed SM’s hard drive. Mr Cravens said that 131 files were stored on SM’s hard drive. Problem with this is that it does not mean 131 individual separate images; it is files — i.e. gifs, html, JPEGs, etc. To put it in context, a single solitary image accessed on the internet can create up to 50 or 60 files on your computer’s Hard drive. Very ambiguous stuff, like most of the evidence from this case.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Ps: typing from my iphone. Sorry for any typos, etc.
Detective Inspector William Cravens, of the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, tells the court he examined Shane's computer. He says that on the day Jodi was killed it was used to access porn websites.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3a+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382
There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about what Detective Inspector William Craven told the trial ... I don't think he said anything about pop-ups.
-
Detective Inspector William Cravens, of the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, tells the court he examined Shane's computer. He says that on the day Jodi was killed it was used to access porn websites.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3a+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382
There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about what Detective Inspector William Craven told the trial ... I don't think he said anything about pop-ups.
He didn’t
-
Shane not being able to provide an alibi for his own brother, for me personally, above all else, is the single most damning piece of evidence against Luke (at least, from what I’ve read of the case so far). And, of course, when you consider Shane’s testimony, and place it alongside all the other evidence, we have a strong circumstancial case against Luke, imo. Enough to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That is the crux of the matter.
But, let me go back to Shane’s testimony. I still haven’t had the time read Sandra’s book (will endeavour to read more over the weekend), but I’m guessing there will be an in-depth commentary about what evidence Shane gave in court and the circumstances surrounding it, and, of course, the different interpretations of it. Now, here are a few questions: to what extent was Shane a reliable witness? It’s common knowledge he said he had a memory problem that was the result of a drug problem. To what extent? Were there medical certificates produced in court, proving this? Was Shane, unlike Luke, bullied by police? Remember, Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004, along with Luke & Corinne, and told he would face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Did they, while Shane was in shock and probably scared and vulnerable, ambiguously ask if Shane was looking at pornography whilst on the internet between 1653 - 1716 on 30.06.03? For example, SL indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups. If this was the case, then that puts Shane in a dilemma, because, while he may not have been seeking out porn to look at for his own gratification, he was still looking at pornography wether he like it or not, cos of these pop-ups. It could’ve been that, on 14.04.03, Shane was scared to saying anything at all, lest he was arrested; that Shane was bullied by police aggression, and ambiguous questioning that he didn’t fully understand. I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?), and, even if he was, he was in his own bedroom. The bulk of the online material SM was viewing was car repair websites (which ties in with Shane helping his friend fix his car that day and why he arrived home later than normal; he normally got in from work around 1530, before Luke, but got home that day at 1630/1640). Furthermore, if you combine all of this police aggression, tactics of ambiguous questioning, a vulnerable, scared Shane with memory loss issues from drug abuse, along with the distress and humiliation of appearing at a high profile murder case where one has to talk about porn and masturbation, then, damn, that is one stressful situation. Taking all of this into account, I’m not so sure Shane’s testimony was/is reliable. That’s not to say I categorically think it isn’t, but it does make one wonder.
Also quite interesting is the evidence from DCI Cravens, who forensically analysed SM’s hard drive. Mr Cravens said that 131 files were stored on SM’s hard drive. Problem with this is that it does not mean 131 individual separate images; it is files — i.e. gifs, html, JPEGs, etc. To put it in context, a single solitary image accessed on the internet can create up to 50 or 60 files on your computer’s Hard drive. Very ambiguous stuff, like most of the evidence from this case.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Ps: typing from my iphone. Sorry for any typos, etc.
Why would you think " ... Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004 ...". Was he resisting arrest?
-
Why would you think " ... Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004 ...". Was he resisting arrest?
Yes I wondered that
Was there a previous marker on his name?
-
Did SM turn up to the protest at George square? To show his support for his brother, I mean we keep getting told he does support his brother's innocence. I'm sure he would have had a great time with the pedo's, ex con's & oddballs dancing & singing in the rain. Now is the time SM, show your support, Na thought so.
-
Shane not being able to provide an alibi for his own brother, for me personally, above all else, is the single most damning piece of evidence against Luke (at least, from what I’ve read of the case so far). And, of course, when you consider Shane’s testimony, and place it alongside all the other evidence, we have a strong circumstancial case against Luke, imo. Enough to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That is the crux of the matter.
But, let me go back to Shane’s testimony. I still haven’t had the time read Sandra’s book (will endeavour to read more over the weekend), but I’m guessing there will be an in-depth commentary about what evidence Shane gave in court and the circumstances surrounding it, and, of course, the different interpretations of it. Now, here are a few questions: to what extent was Shane a reliable witness? It’s common knowledge he said he had a memory problem that was the result of a drug problem. To what extent? Were there medical certificates produced in court, proving this? Was Shane, unlike Luke, bullied by police? Remember, Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004, along with Luke & Corinne, and told he would face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Did they, while Shane was in shock and probably scared and vulnerable, ambiguously ask if Shane was looking at pornography whilst on the internet between 1653 - 1716 on 30.06.03? For example, SL indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups. If this was the case, then that puts Shane in a dilemma, because, while he may not have been seeking out porn to look at for his own gratification, he was still looking at pornography wether he like it or not, cos of these pop-ups. It could’ve been that, on 14.04.03, Shane was scared to saying anything at all, lest he was arrested; that Shane was bullied by police aggression, and ambiguous questioning that he didn’t fully understand. I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?), and, even if he was, he was in his own bedroom. The bulk of the online material SM was viewing was car repair websites (which ties in with Shane helping his friend fix his car that day and why he arrived home later than normal; he normally got in from work around 1530, before Luke, but got home that day at 1630/1640). Furthermore, if you combine all of this police aggression, tactics of ambiguous questioning, a vulnerable, scared Shane with memory loss issues from drug abuse, along with the distress and humiliation of appearing at a high profile murder case where one has to talk about porn and masturbation, then, damn, that is one stressful situation. Taking all of this into account, I’m not so sure Shane’s testimony was/is reliable. That’s not to say I categorically think it isn’t, but it does make one wonder.
Also quite interesting is the evidence from DCI Cravens, who forensically analysed SM’s hard drive. Mr Cravens said that 131 files were stored on SM’s hard drive. Problem with this is that it does not mean 131 individual separate images; it is files — i.e. gifs, html, JPEGs, etc. To put it in context, a single solitary image accessed on the internet can create up to 50 or 60 files on your computer’s Hard drive. Very ambiguous stuff, like most of the evidence from this case.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Ps: typing from my iphone. Sorry for any typos, etc.
I think the bulk of your post is very misleading. For example;
"Sandra Lean indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups." Which is unadulterated nonsense.
The following is what really happened.
Quote As Shane is shown the photo of Jodi by Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC, he visibly recoils and asks for a break. Shane sips water and wipes away tears before he has to look at another four photos.
Alan Turnbull QC says to Shane: 'I am not surprised to see your reaction. The reason I asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what we are dealing with. Do you appreciate I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this?'
Shane agrees. He then admits he committed a sex act while viewing porn on his computer.
And he agrees he wouldn't have done this if he had thought there had been anyone else at home. End Quote
I have just categorically refuted your post of "I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?)" It was ridiculously quick and easy to do and is the sort of statement you should have checked before printing fantasy as fact.
As I see it the huge problem with the present campaign on behalf of Luke Mitchell is that there is no truth in it at all with reliance on fabrications and 'pop ups' being the currency.
There is no hint of miscarriage of justice here but there is evidence of a concerted effort to overthrow a lawful judgement and were it to be successful that would be a very dangerous path to follow indeed.
-
I think the bulk of your post is very misleading. For example;
"Sandra Lean indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups." Which is unadulterated nonsense.
The following is what really happened.
Quote As Shane is shown the photo of Jodi by Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC, he visibly recoils and asks for a break. Shane sips water and wipes away tears before he has to look at another four photos.
Alan Turnbull QC says to Shane: 'I am not surprised to see your reaction. The reason I asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what we are dealing with. Do you appreciate I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this?'
Shane agrees. He then admits he committed a sex act while viewing porn on his computer.
And he agrees he wouldn't have done this if he had thought there had been anyone else at home. End Quote
I have just categorically refuted your post of "I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?)" It was ridiculously quick and easy to do and is the sort of statement you should have checked before printing fantasy as fact.
As I see it the huge problem with the present campaign on behalf of Luke Mitchell is that there is no truth in it at all with reliance on fabrications and 'pop ups' being the currency.
There is no hint of miscarriage of justice here but there is evidence of a concerted effort to overthrow a lawful judgement and were it to be successful that would be a very dangerous path to follow indeed.
Just another example of innocence fraud
-
Shane not being able to provide an alibi for his own brother, for me personally, above all else, is the single most damning piece of evidence against Luke (at least, from what I’ve read of the case so far). And, of course, when you consider Shane’s testimony, and place it alongside all the other evidence, we have a strong circumstancial case against Luke, imo. Enough to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? That is the crux of the matter.
But, let me go back to Shane’s testimony. I still haven’t had the time read Sandra’s book (will endeavour to read more over the weekend), but I’m guessing there will be an in-depth commentary about what evidence Shane gave in court and the circumstances surrounding it, and, of course, the different interpretations of it. Now, here are a few questions: to what extent was Shane a reliable witness? It’s common knowledge he said he had a memory problem that was the result of a drug problem. To what extent? Were there medical certificates produced in court, proving this? Was Shane, unlike Luke, bullied by police? Remember, Shane was aggressively arrested by numerous police officers on April 14th, 2004, along with Luke & Corinne, and told he would face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Did they, while Shane was in shock and probably scared and vulnerable, ambiguously ask if Shane was looking at pornography whilst on the internet between 1653 - 1716 on 30.06.03? For example, SL indicates that the connection to the porn sites only lasted literally sections, implying that images SM was looking at were not images consciously & deliberately accessed, but were pop-ups. If this was the case, then that puts Shane in a dilemma, because, while he may not have been seeking out porn to look at for his own gratification, he was still looking at pornography wether he like it or not, cos of these pop-ups. It could’ve been that, on 14.04.03, Shane was scared to saying anything at all, lest he was arrested; that Shane was bullied by police aggression, and ambiguous questioning that he didn’t fully understand. I’ve never read any stories where SM has stated that, categorically, he was masturbating during the above timings (can someone refute this?), and, even if he was, he was in his own bedroom. The bulk of the online material SM was viewing was car repair websites (which ties in with Shane helping his friend fix his car that day and why he arrived home later than normal; he normally got in from work around 1530, before Luke, but got home that day at 1630/1640). Furthermore, if you combine all of this police aggression, tactics of ambiguous questioning, a vulnerable, scared Shane with memory loss issues from drug abuse, along with the distress and humiliation of appearing at a high profile murder case where one has to talk about porn and masturbation, then, damn, that is one stressful situation. Taking all of this into account, I’m not so sure Shane’s testimony was/is reliable. That’s not to say I categorically think it isn’t, but it does make one wonder.
Also quite interesting is the evidence from DCI Cravens, who forensically analysed SM’s hard drive. Mr Cravens said that 131 files were stored on SM’s hard drive. Problem with this is that it does not mean 131 individual separate images; it is files — i.e. gifs, html, JPEGs, etc. To put it in context, a single solitary image accessed on the internet can create up to 50 or 60 files on your computer’s Hard drive. Very ambiguous stuff, like most of the evidence from this case.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Ps: typing from my iphone. Sorry for any typos, etc.
You are doing a startling Job of putting forward Ms Leans reasoning in one hand whilst again saying you are only Just reading the book. Book or not. Ms Leans changes her mind quite literally like the weather - over time. We go from SM having complete amnesia within 24hrs. (he didn't have of course.) In his first account he did not see his brother and there was no dinner. within 36hrs he is back in contact with the police to change his statement. His second account is completely in line with what his mother told him to say.
The problem with this campaign - is the actual memory of those running it? - There is no consistency, which is hardly surprising. The more questions that have been asked over time - the more the answers change to suit. Of SM: - Of contacting the police and; The intricate details of the pie, of not wanting to upset his brother and so forth. Of where everyone was. - The times.
Shane spoke to his mother when she got home at 5.05. Asked her how her day had been. Luke was in the kitchen at this time. Shane returned upstairs, came back down when shouted for dinner at 5.15.
This was from that second account - the one in line exactly with his mothers. Of her arriving home at her usual time - before the CCTV and her arriving home at 5.15pm - then the narrative had to change. To include SM saying his brother was in on his arrival home.
His brother called ahead to say he might be late for dinner - in the event, he wasn't late (but did get home later than he would have if he'd come straight home from work). Brother came home, then mum came home. Both said Luke was in the house by the time they both got there (4.50 and 5.15 respectively.
Then we go to Shane not seeing his brother when he came in, that he only saw his brother when he came down for dinner, at 5.15pm when his mother came home.
The phone line was busy from 4.50 - 5.05 (approx) because when Shane came in from work, he went straight upstairs to use the internet - he didn't see Luke at that point because Luke was in the kitchen. He did see Luke when he came down for his tea at 5.15pm when his mum came in.
And of course - all it did was draw more attention upon them. As, not in any of the scenarios could SM have collected any dinner at 5.15pm. Not until around 5.25pm - which tied with the second account - where he said he had returned upstairs for around 10mins until shouted for dinner at 5.15pm.
The point I am making here is that of the investigation - Of the information gathered, that the Crown sought to use at trial. They knew it was a complete pack of lies, they knew from the above it was all made up. And of course we had LM's claimed call from the estate entrance at 5.32pm. And every other piece of information. Of Jodi leaving to meet with him at a much earlier time and so forth. That the evidence used, was to highlight those main areas gained from these lies - That SM was coerced by his mother. That he had neither seen nor heard his brother at home. That whilst having his jollies he was making sure he was at home alone - No music, no sound, no sign of anyone else. That by producing those images of Jodi. He was letting SM know exactly what he was attempting to cover for - And SM was traumatised. The gravity and reality, another sledgehammer moment. This had not by any means, been an argument where there was an attack and stabbing.
Whilst it is all very well - giving SM every reason under the sun then, to have amnesia, to remembering and of police tactics and courtroom shock - to now hand him on a plate every reason as to why, he may step forward and use Ms Leans reasoning - By making those very claims of being pressured into being confused. - It does not wash, does it? For anyone with a inkling of common sense, knows - That if there had been no doubt, whatsoever that his brother, had been home with him - It would have been in that very first statement that was given within 24hrs of this girls murder. Nothing causes that type of amnesia in such a short period of time. He was 21, there is absolutely no proof that he was brain damaged from heavy substance abuse. Neither is there proof that he was out of his head on the 30th of June. He was at work, he had been driving, he had helped a friend with their car. And he was back out driving again on more than one occasion that evening.
-
You are doing a startling Job of putting forward Ms Leans reasoning in one hand whilst again saying you are only Just reading the book. Book or not. Ms Leans changes her mind quite literally like the weather - over time. We go from SM having complete amnesia within 24hrs. (he didn't have of course.)
No he didn’t - the loss of memory excuse was yet another lie
-
You are doing a startling Job of putting forward Ms Leans reasoning in one hand whilst again saying you are only Just reading the book. Book or not. Ms Leans changes her mind quite literally like the weather - over time. We go from SM having complete amnesia within 24hrs. (he didn't have of course.) In his first account he did not see his brother and there was no dinner. within 36hrs he is back in contact with the police to change his statement. His second account is completely in line with what his mother told him to say.
*&^^&
-
The problem with this campaign - is the actual memory of those running it? -
8((()*/
And we are the ‘wilfully ignorant’
-
The point I am making here is that of the investigation - Of the information gathered, that the Crown sought to use at trial. They knew it was a complete pack of lies, they knew from the above it was all made up. And of course we had LM's claimed call from the estate entrance at 5.32pm. And every other piece of information. Of Jodi leaving to meet with him at a much earlier time and so forth. That the evidence used, was to highlight those main areas gained from these lies - That SM was coerced by his mother. That he had neither seen nor heard his brother at home. That whilst having his jollies he was making sure he was at home alone - No music, no sound, no sign of anyone else. That by producing those images of Jodi. He was letting SM know exactly what he was attempting to cover for - And SM was traumatised. The gravity and reality, another sledgehammer moment. This had not by any means, been an argument where there was an attack and stabbing.
Whilst it is all very well - giving SM every reason under the sun then, to have amnesia, to remembering and of police tactics and courtroom shock - to now hand him on a plate every reason as to why, he may step forward and use Ms Leans reasoning - By making those very claims of being pressured into being confused. - It does not wash, does it? For anyone with a inkling of common sense, knows - That if there had been no doubt, whatsoever that his brother, had been home with him - It would have been in that very first statement that was given within 24hrs of this girls murder. Nothing causes that type of amnesia in such a short period of time. He was 21, there is absolutely no proof that he was brain damaged from heavy substance abuse. Neither is there proof that he was out of his head on the 30th of June. He was at work, he had been driving, he had helped a friend with their car. And he was back out driving again on more than one occasion that evening.
He knew his mother and brother best and knew too much
-
You are doing a startling Job of putting forward Ms Leans reasoning in one hand whilst again saying you are only Just reading the book. Book or not. Ms Leans changes her mind quite literally like the weather - over time. We go from SM having complete amnesia within 24hrs. (he didn't have of course.) In his first account he did not see his brother and there was no dinner. within 36hrs he is back in contact with the police to change his statement. His second account is completely in line with what his mother told him to say.
The problem with this campaign - is the actual memory of those running it? - There is no consistency, which is hardly surprising. The more questions that have been asked over time - the more the answers change to suit. Of SM: - Of contacting the police and; The intricate details of the pie, of not wanting to upset his brother and so forth. Of where everyone was. - The times.
This was from that second account - the one in line exactly with his mothers. Of her arriving home at her usual time - before the CCTV and her arriving home at 5.15pm - then the narrative had to change. To include SM saying his brother was in on his arrival home.
Then we go to Shane not seeing his brother when he came in, that he only saw his brother when he came down for dinner, at 5.15pm when his mother came home.
And of course - all it did was draw more attention upon them. As, not in any of the scenarios could SM have collected any dinner at 5.15pm. Not until around 5.25pm - which tied with the second account - where he said he had returned upstairs for around 10mins until shouted for dinner at 5.15pm.
The point I am making here is that of the investigation - Of the information gathered, that the Crown sought to use at trial. They knew it was a complete pack of lies, they knew from the above it was all made up. And of course we had LM's claimed call from the estate entrance at 5.32pm. And every other piece of information. Of Jodi leaving to meet with him at a much earlier time and so forth. That the evidence used, was to highlight those main areas gained from these lies - That SM was coerced by his mother. That he had neither seen nor heard his brother at home. That whilst having his jollies he was making sure he was at home alone - No music, no sound, no sign of anyone else. That by producing those images of Jodi. He was letting SM know exactly what he was attempting to cover for - And SM was traumatised. The gravity and reality, another sledgehammer moment. This had not by any means, been an argument where there was an attack and stabbing.
Whilst it is all very well - giving SM every reason under the sun then, to have amnesia, to remembering and of police tactics and courtroom shock - to now hand him on a plate every reason as to why, he may step forward and use Ms Leans reasoning - By making those very claims of being pressured into being confused. - It does not wash, does it? For anyone with a inkling of common sense, knows - That if there had been no doubt, whatsoever that his brother, had been home with him - It would have been in that very first statement that was given within 24hrs of this girls murder. Nothing causes that type of amnesia in such a short period of time. He was 21, there is absolutely no proof that he was brain damaged from heavy substance abuse. Neither is there proof that he was out of his head on the 30th of June. He was at work, he had been driving, he had helped a friend with their car. And he was back out driving again on more than one occasion that evening.
‘Again, Shane replied: 'Yes.' The witness then admitted he had been engaged in a sex act while watching porn.
He agreed with the prosecutor that he wouldn't have done that if he thought anyone else had been home.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
-
Detective Inspector William Cravens, of the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, tells the court he examined Shane's computer. He says that on the day Jodi was killed it was used to access porn websites.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3a+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382
There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about what Detective Inspector William Craven told the trial ... I don't think he said anything about pop-ups.
The analyst's testimony mentions "131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session" without any specifics. This suggest they were a mix of html, images and other types such as css, js et cetera. There is no evidence of 131 images. It's entirely possible for the loading of a single webpage to create dozens of separate files as images are separate from html.
The analyst also states that the files were of a "pornographic nature", however it's pointed out that several of the sites visited related to vehicles and at least one images, from such a site, was classed by the officer as "pornographic". He also failed to rebut, or address, the issue pop-ups. The quoted portion of the analyst's testimony strikes me as highly selective, not to say biased. Why didn’t he expand on these ‘files’? Why didn’t he name the individual website or websites that Shane had visited during his internet session between 1656-1716? His evidence is very misleading.
-
The analyst's testimony mentions "131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session" without any specifics. This suggest they were a mix of html, images and other types such as css, js et cetera. There is no evidence of 131 images. It's entirely possible for the loading of a single webpage to create dozens of separate files as images are separate from html.
The analysts also states that the files were of a "pornographic nature", however it's pointed out that several of the sites visited related to vehicles and at least one images, from such a site, was classed by the officer as "pornographic". He also failed to rebut, or address, the issue pop-ups. The quoted portion of the analyst's testimony strikes me as highly selective, not to say biased. Why didn’t he expand on these ‘files’? Why didn’t the name the individual website or websites that Shane had visited during his internet session between 1656-1716? His evidence is very misleading.
From a member called Lithrael on another forum
“ As a web developer, I’d certainly call all the bits and bobs files. But it’s highly misleading to numerate them like that in order to let your audience think you’re talking about a stack of .jpg’s.
Even then, for example, swinging by a Rule 34 webpage for a laugh will get you around 30 images accessed before you even click on anything, just in thumbnails and ads.”
-
The analyst's testimony mentions "131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session" without any specifics. This suggest they were a mix of html, images and other types such as css, js et cetera. There is no evidence of 131 images. It's entirely possible for the loading of a single webpage to create dozens of separate files as images are separate from html.
The analysts also states that the files were of a "pornographic nature", however it's pointed out that several of the sites visited related to vehicles and at least one images, from such a site, was classed by the officer as "pornographic". He also failed to rebut, or address, the issue pop-ups. The quoted portion of the analyst's testimony strikes me as highly selective, not to say biased. Why didn’t he expand on these ‘files’? Why didn’t the name the individual website or websites that Shane had visited during his internet session between 1656-1716? His evidence is very misleading.
Why didn't Mitchell's defence ask all these pertinent questions?
Just as a matter of interest ... do you have a cite for all these popups? According to Shane's sworn testimony to the court he was in his bedroom in an empty house masturbating.
Now I know that young lads can get pretty excited about their wheels - but there is a limit and I think the best person to know what Shane Mitchell was doing is the man himself. And he told judge and jury precisely what that was.
Quote from Sandra Lean
Shane had a very regular girlfriend.
He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records.
"Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected.
These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi. End Quote
Someone is lying here.
So the choice is between two witnesses who in effect are being accused in one instance of perjury and the other in embroidering the truth a wee bit and the 'crime expert' whose expertise seems to be the kiss of death as far as proving miscarriage of justice is concerned.
I know about her unsuccessful cases - can anyone point me in the direction of her successes?
-
From a member called Lithrael on another forum
“ As a web developer, I’d certainly call all the bits and bobs files. But it’s highly misleading to numerate them like that in order to let your audience think you’re talking about a stack of .jpg’s.
Even then, for example, swinging by a Rule 34 webpage for a laugh will get you around 30 images accessed before you even click on anything, just in thumbnails and ads.”
Does it matter - he was not even on his computer at all - In those first few statements. How many statements until we go to the porn/car/pop ups jpegs of any size - How long did it take him to ejaculate? Was it a right to the point kinda pop up?
So he got home at 3.30, did not see Luke did not have dinner. Mum reminds him - and he is still home at 3.30 but this time he pops to see mum just after 5. Pleasantries exchanged. He knows his brother is in one minute, then the next he does not see him at first until the pleasantries are exchanged. Pops back upstairs until dinner is served. Then he leaves, before 5.30 as Faithlilly speaks for him here, saying it was before Luke as he did not see Luke at the entrance of the estate. Luke had to leave at 5.30 and not 5.45 as he first claimed, for that claimed call to the Jones house at 5.32pm. However he has contacted the police to update them. Perfect fits in nicely with mums account. Then Friday comes and the police let him know he stopped to help a friend (was this the Friday? or after the phone records?) So he now gets in around 4.50pm - You like lots of detail for missing time Faithlilly (AB) So prior to him being remembered by the police about fixing the car? via the phone records. Revert back to the first account - what did SM say he was doing from around 3.30pm until he went back out again? In that two hours? So he is now home at this new time, he still see's his mother etc etc. Three changes of story in matter of 4 days. And it does not fit at all. As we have the CCTV. No mum just after 5 and a dinner and all it entailed, plus leaving prior to Luke at 5.30pm? Then the computer is taking and SM has been busy with cars.?? He is a bloke, he pays no attention to any pop ups, far too engrossed in cars. he was watching porn. And talking of cars - you went into great detail of how dirty he would have become, in your fabulous description of fixing his friends car - shower, clean up - anything. At what point? It's a pretty standard thing for a mechanic - to shower when they get home, to be rid of the days grease and oil? At what point and what different times, depending on which statement and which account did SM get cleaned up? And all those changes in statements - onto to number four now to include the the internet access from his computer? - every single part of the above is irrelevant as we need to discuss jpegs?
And not one bit of anything - shows anything other than the truth, that SM did not see his brother that afternoon. This meek, weak boy whom we are told was bullied into everything - DF, 'just because you did not see your brother, does not mean he was not at home, is that correct?' - yes. You can not get plainer than that. Yes, we know - DF was only in it for the bucks. I do not for one moment think DF had any doubt of Tobins guilt nor Lukes - but as he clearly states "Everyone is entitled to a defence, it is their basic human right" - does not mean they are innocent.
-
Does it matter - he was not even on his computer at all - In those first few statements. How many statements until we go to the porn/car/pop ups jpegs of any size - How long did it take him to ejaculate? Was it a right to the point kinda pop up?
So he got home at 3.30, did not see Luke did not have dinner. Mum reminds him - and he is still home at 3.30 but this time he pops to see mum just after 5. Pleasantries exchanged. He knows his brother is in one minute, then the next he does not see him at first until the pleasantries are exchanged. Pops back upstairs until dinner is served. Then he leaves, before 5.30 as Faithlilly speaks for him here, saying it was before Luke as he did not see Luke at the entrance of the estate. Luke had to leave at 5.30 and not 5.45 as he first claimed, for that claimed call to the Jones house at 5.32pm. However he has contacted the police to update them. Perfect fits in nicely with mums account. Then Friday comes and the police let him know he stopped to help a friend (was this the Friday? or after the phone records?) So he now gets in around 4.50pm - You like lots of detail for missing time Faithlilly (AB) So prior to him being remembered by the police about fixing the car? via the phone records. Revert back to the first account - what did SM say he was doing from around 3.30pm until he went back out again? In that two hours? So he is now home at this new time, he still see's his mother etc etc. Three changes of story in matter of 4 days. And it does not fit at all. As we have the CCTV. No mum just after 5 and a dinner and all it entailed, plus leaving prior to Luke at 5.30pm? Then the computer is taking and SM has been busy with cars.?? He is a bloke, he pays no attention to any pop ups, far too engrossed in cars. he was watching porn. And talking of cars - you went into great detail of how dirty he would have become, in your fabulous description of fixing his friends car - shower, clean up - anything. At what point? It's a pretty standard thing for a mechanic - to shower when they get home, to be rid of the days grease and oil? At what point and what different times, depending on which statement and which account did SM get cleaned up? And all those changes in statements - onto to number four now to include the the internet access from his computer? - every single part of the above is irrelevant as we need to discuss jpegs?
And not one bit of anything - shows anything other than the truth, that SM did not see his brother that afternoon. This meek, weak boy whom we are told was bullied into everything - DF, 'just because you did not see your brother, does not mean he was not at home, is that correct?' - yes. You can not get plainer than that. Yes, we know - DF was only in it for the bucks. I do not for one moment think DF had any doubt of Tobins guilt nor Lukes - but as he clearly states "Everyone is entitled to a defence, it is their basic human right" - does not mean they are innocent.
I’m sorry Parky but are you saying that there is no evidence to substantiate SM’s amendment to his first statement ? That he didn’t get back home at 4.40pm instead of the 3.30pm of his first statement because from your post it’s not absolutely clear? As to the time needed to wash....home at 4.40pm...on the computer from 4.55pm...therefore plenty of time to wash up before logging on or perhaps after he had logged off but I think that’s less likely.
I asked a colleague if he knew he was going out how long it would take him to eat his dinner...ten minutes was his estimate. CM home at 5.15...dinner served 5 minutes later...dinner eaten and out by 5.30. Younger brother leaves a few minutes later. Perfectly doable.
-
Perfectly doable.
It’s isn’t though is it
Frozen pies take about 40-50 minutes to cook in the oven
15 minutes minimum to defrost frozen prawns - they couldn’t have been fresh because Corinne apparently usually did her food shopping on a Tuesday
4.55pm phone call to office
A minute or 2 on the phone - another few minutes for the oven to warm up
5.00 - 5.05pm ? Frozen pies into oven
Excerpt from Corinne Mitchell’s police statement
"When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."
5.15pm - the frozen pies have been in the oven for what 10 minutes?
How long did it take Luke to peel the potatoes ?
And how long did the potatoes take to boil ?
-
Did Sandra Lean ever establish the brand of frozen pies Corinne would buy and what brand were allegedly cooked that evening?
And what’s the story on the prawns?
If LM was allegedly draining the potatoes at approx 5.17/5.18pm - where were the prawns thawing out ?
-
I’m sorry Parky but are you saying that there is no evidence to substantiate SM’s amendment to his first statement ? That he didn’t get back home at 4.40pm instead of the 3.30pm of his first statement because from your post it’s not absolutely clear? As to the time needed to wash....home at 4.40pm...on the computer from 4.55pm...therefore plenty of time to wash up before logging on or perhaps after he had logged off but I think that’s less likely.
I asked a colleague if he knew he was going out how long it would take him to eat his dinner...ten minutes was his estimate. CM home at 5.15...dinner served 5 minutes later...dinner eaten and out by 5.30. Younger brother leaves a few minutes later. Perfectly doable.
Corinne apparently got home at 5.15pm
When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them”
How long are you allowing for ‘straining, and ‘mashing’?
5 minutes to peel the potatoes
15-20 minutes to boil them
Takes the time to around 5.20pm
LM hasn’t ‘mashed the tatties’ yet and he’s only got one pair of hands and he’s still got to boil the broccoli, ruin it and then allegedly heat beans instead
-
As I’ve stated several times now, the more I familiarise myself with this case and the more I read up about it, the more I am convinced that LM is guilty. Have I firmed up in my mind that I could say confidently and categorically that he did definitely murder Jodi? Alas, no — which is extremely problematic. DF tried to weave a narrative of uncertainty into an appeal by basically saying that there were aspects of the case that would make people feel ‘uneasy’ — the inference being that the individual grounds of appeal when taken in totality would render the conviction unsafe (verbatim quote from 2008 appeals document: ”Counsel submitted finally that, even if no particular ground of appeal on its own warranted quashing of the conviction, the matters complained of when taken together were such as should lead to that result. Anyone looking at the evidence in totality, he said, would "be left with a sense of unease"” ). Personally, I think the opposite is true of what DF proposed: that when looking at the evidence against LM, as a whole, there is a feeling of unease. And, yet, still, I cannot say for certain that he is guilty.
I’ve also mentioned a few times already on here that Shane not being able to give his younger brother an alibi is a major red flag for me; it is the one plank of evidence that, particularly, fills me with unease. And then taking all the other evidence together, along with no alibi from Shane, it presents a very strong circumstantial case against LM, imo. Watertight? No. Unequivocal? No. Beyond reasonable doubt? No. It’s very, very problematic for me, that I am still not 100% convinced he did it — or beyond reasonable doubt. The salient point for discussion in terms of what would cast doubt on Shane’s testimony, imo, is the fact that he had completely forgotten about repairing his friend’s car on the 30.06.03 and had to be reminded by his friend and the police (p.304 from SL’s book, IB). If he could forget about this as early as the 03.07.03 (when he gave his first statement to police), then it stands to reason that he might not have remembered seeing LM when he got home that day at 1640. (I know it is unlikely that he couldn’t have been sure if he saw Luke at home, even accounting for his supposed memory loss due to substance abuse, given their house was merely medium sized, detached and 2-storey, but it is not impossible; improbable, but not impossible.) In addition, it is important to remember that Shane was interrogated aggressively (9 months after the murder and not being offered a lawyer) by way of ‘The Reid Technique’ and threatened with being charged with perverting the course of justice, in order to elicit desired one-word answers to suit the police’s narrative and theories (Sandra covers this in her book, IB, in chapter 17, p303-320). There is a side of me that thinks SM became scared of the police’s tactics and was worried of saying anything for fear of being incarcerated. However, it does beg the question: was the ‘I don’t know’ answer, in response to the police’s question of had he seen Luke in the house between 1640-1730 that day, an outright lie or the truth? I personally feel it was a cop-out; after all, if you’d seen your own brother in the house, one would simply say so, would they not? Something doesn’t sit right with the SM’s version of events in the Mitchell household between 1640-1730, especially as he changed his statement to align exactly with his mother’s and then changed again in court (alarm bells ringing and the word ‘uneasy’ becomes apposite once again). But, I can’t be sure. I’ll reiterate: this case is frustrating and messy.
While I’m here, what do you think would’ve happened if Shane had said at court he did see Luke as Corinne did? Do you think Luke would’ve been a free boy? Had SM said he did see LM in the house and LM was still found guilty, what would have happened to SM? Finally, the calls to and from the Mitchell landline (1605 & 1622 respectively), we know who made them and call logs proved the phone calls connected, but was it confirmed in statements what was discussed during those phone calls? Was it definitely Luke who was using the landline on both occasions?
Thanks.
-
As I’ve stated several times now, the more I familiarise myself with this case and the more I read up about it, the more I am convinced that LM is guilty. Have I firmed up in my mind that I could say confidently and categorically that he did definitely murder Jodi? Alas, no — which is extremely problematic. DF tried to weave a narrative of uncertainty into an appeal by basically saying that there were aspects of the case that would make people feel ‘uneasy’ — the inference being that the individual grounds of appeal when taken in totality would render the conviction unsafe (verbatim quote from 2008 appeals document: ”Counsel submitted finally that, even if no particular ground of appeal on its own warranted quashing of the conviction, the matters complained of when taken together were such as should lead to that result. Anyone looking at the evidence in totality, he said, would "be left with a sense of unease"” ). Personally, I think the opposite is true of what DF proposed: that when looking at the evidence against LM, as a whole, there is a feeling of unease. And, yet, still, I cannot say for certain that he is guilty.
I’ve also mentioned a few times already on here that Shane not being able to give his younger brother an alibi is a major red flag for me; it is the one plank of evidence that, particularly, fills me with unease. And then taking all the other evidence together, along with no alibi from Shane, it presents a very strong circumstantial case against LM, imo. Watertight? No. Unequivocal? No. Beyond reasonable doubt? No. It’s very, very problematic for me, that I am still not 100% convinced he did it — or beyond reasonable doubt. The salient point for discussion in terms of what would cast doubt on Shane’s testimony, imo, is the fact that he had completely forgotten about repairing his friend’s car on the 30.06.03 and had to be reminded by his friend and the police (p.304 from SL’s book, IB). If he could forget about this as early as the 03.07.03 (when he gave his first statement to police), then it stands to reason that he might not have remembered seeing LM when he got home that day at 1640. (I know it is unlikely that he couldn’t have been sure if he saw Luke at home, even accounting for his supposed memory loss due to substance abuse, given their house was merely medium sized, detached and 2-storey, but it is not impossible; improbable, but not impossible.) In addition, it is important to remember that Shane was interrogated aggressively (9 months after the murder and not being offered a lawyer) by way of ‘The Reid Technique’ and threatened with being charged with perverting the course of justice, in order to elicit desired one-word answers to suit the police’s narrative and theories (Sandra covers this in her book, IB, in chapter 17, p303-320). There is a side of me that thinks SM became scared of the police’s tactics and was worried of saying anything for fear of being incarcerated. However, it does beg the question: was the ‘I don’t know’ answer, in response to the police’s question of had he seen Luke in the house between 1640-1730 that day, an outright lie or the truth? I personally feel it was a cop-out; after all, if you’d seen your own brother in the house, one would simply say so, would they not? Something doesn’t sit right with the SM’s version of events in the Mitchell household between 1640-1730, especially as he changed his statement to align exactly with his mother’s and then changed again in court (alarm bells ringing and the word ‘uneasy’ becomes apposite once again). But, I can’t be sure. I’ll reiterate: this case is frustrating and messy.
While I’m here, what do you think would’ve happened if Shane had said at court he did see Luke as Corinne did? Do you think Luke would’ve been a free boy? Had SM said he did see LM in the house and LM was still found guilty, what would have happened to SM? Finally, the calls to and from the Mitchell landline (1605 & 1622 respectively), we know who made them and call logs proved the phone calls connected, but was it confirmed in statements what was discussed during those phone calls? Was it definitely Luke who was using the landline on both occasions?
Thanks.
Remember that SM and CR Mitchell had been charged with perverting the course of justice and faced, possibly, a long jail sentence. It’s obvious that this was done to put pressure on both witnesses but also to destroy their credibility with the jury. TBH I don’t think by the time the case came to court it would have mattered what SM had said, he was already seen as a dishonest witness.
-
Excellent reply. It's amazing how much information is in the original post and your own, very good. My own view is somewhat shorter...............AO came in from work at about 440pm. He saw who was in that house. He saw if anything was going on. He saw if Jodi left, when she left and who she left with. Despite this information being absolutely crucial.......what happened? AO is never cited to give evidence in Court. We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003. AO holds the key to all these debates about timings and who was in the house between 440pm and 5pm, but we're still waiting after 17 years to find out what he told the Police.
There is obviously no non-sinister reason why AO's statement was buried. He was a key witness, as much as Ju J.
Firstly I have no idea whether the police appealed or not. I have not looked at witness statements or police transcripts. Have you? I would like something more solid than the word of one person, wouldn't you? When did you last mention Jodi Jones?
-
Firstly I have no idea whether the police appealed or not. I have not looked at witness statements or police transcripts. Have you? I would like something more solid than the word of one person, wouldn't you? When did you last mention Jodi Jones?
In the post above.
-
In the post above.
But I don't have to trawl through posts, do I? You and I both remember this. Why ask me to look back?
-
But I don't have to trawl through posts, do I? You and I both remember this. Why ask me to look back?
I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make.
You asked WW when he last mentioned Jodie Jones. He mentioned her in the post you were replying to so no trawling needed.
-
No he didn't. Apparently he may have been protected by mental health legislation. The Police don't appear to have investigated him at all. His alibi was lame. His mother said he was in the house all day and evening, but the Stocky Man seen following Jodi was identified 2 weeks after the murder by a witness. The Police never bothered disclosing that the Stocky Man had been traced at the time. They also didn't check his room in his house when they were called out when Jodi was reported missing. Nor did they check it after her body was found. They reported "2 adults" at home. So in effect, nobody has much idea where he was from mid afternoon on the day of the murder until the following day. Despite all of that, I don't think he did it, but why he was following Jodi is interesting.
This report was less than three weeks after Jodi's murder..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3079777.stm.
Do you know if anyone else walking behind Jodi was positively identified?
-
Remember that SM and CR Mitchell had been charged with perverting the course of justice and faced, possibly, a long jail sentence. It’s obvious that this was done to put pressure on both witnesses but also to destroy their credibility with the jury. TBH I don’t think by the time the case came to court it would have mattered what SM had said, he was already seen as a dishonest witness.
Yep, it definitely put pressure on them, but to what extent? I sometimes wonder if, owed to the pressure of the combination of being faced with criminal charges and the FLO’s continual refusal to believe or accept his accounts of events, Shane gave up and just went with the flow. Or, as I said, perhaps he was too naive for his age to deal with it all and was frightened or traumatised by it all to the extent that he was somewhat bullied and manipulated into telling them what they wanted to hear. Probably not, imo, but you just never know. Such a frustrating and complex case. I had a look at some old articles again re Shane’s testimony and they paraphrased quite a lot of what was actually said in court, particularly in relation to wether Shane had masturbated whilst looking at porn that day. For example, some are written as if he did admit it, without actually quoting a verbatim “yes” from Shane, while several articles said Shane said he “thought” he did). Less equivocal is the issue of wether Shane thought Luke or anyone was in the house at the time of his internet session: Shane is quoted as answering, “No one at the time.” This appears to be a verbatim quote from his testimony in court, and is enough to convince me that Luke wasn’t, in fact, in the house between 1640-1730. This opinion is reinforced by the fact he changed his initial statement (made on 03.07.03) on the 07.07.03, to align with his mother’s statement that she made on 04.07.03, to say that Luke was in the house and had made the dinner (alarm bells). It’s interesting that, even after heavily implying that Luke wasn’t in the house, he still couldn’t bring himself to say he categorically wasn’t (asked by DT if LM was there when he went downstairs, Shane said: “I don’t know. He could have been.”). Blood is thicker than water, I guess (no pun intended).
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Btw, faithlily, when Shane & Corinne were arrested along with Luke on the 14.04.04, was it widely known in the press at the time? And did the articles released in 2004 go into detail why the police arrested them?
-
Yep, it definitely put pressure on them, but to what extent? I sometimes wonder if, owed to the pressure of the combination of being faced with criminal charges and the FLO’s continual refusal to believe or accept his accounts of events, Shane gave up and just went with the flow. Or, as I said, perhaps he was too naive for his age to deal with it all and was frightened or traumatised by it all to the extent that he was somewhat bullied and manipulated into telling them what they wanted to hear. Probably not, imo, but you just never know. Such a frustrating and complex case. I had a look at some old articles again re Shane’s testimony and they paraphrased quite a lot of what was actually said in court, particularly in relation to wether Shane had masturbated whilst looking at porn that day. For example, some are written as if he did admit it, without actually quoting a verbatim “yes” from Shane, while several articles said Shane said he “thought” he did). Less equivocal is the issue of wether Shane thought Luke or anyone was in the house at the time of his internet session: Shane is quoted as answering, “No one at the time.” This appears to be a verbatim quote from his testimony in court, and is enough to convince me that Luke wasn’t, in fact, in the house between 1640-1730. This opinion is reinforced by the fact he changed his initial statement (made on 03.07.03) on the 07.07.03, to align with his mother’s statement that she made on 04.07.03, to say that Luke was in the house and had made the dinner (alarm bells). It’s interesting that, even after heavily implying that Luke wasn’t in the house, he still couldn’t bring himself to say he categorically wasn’t (asked by DT if LM was there when he went downstairs, Shane said: “I don’t know. He could have been.”). Blood is thicker than water, I guess (no pun intended).
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
Btw, faithlily, when Shane & Corinne were arrested along with Luke on the 14.04.04, was it widely known in the press at the time? And did the articles released in 2004 go into detail why the police arrested them?
Unless we know the context of the ‘no one at the time’ comment I think it’s difficult to gauge its importance. If, for example, the question was ‘ who did you remember being in the house in your first statement’’ and he answered the above he was simply being honest. He didn’t remember fixing his friend’s car either in that first statement so I’m not sure too much can be read into his lack of recall. Haven’t we all remembered, or been reminded, of something later that didn’t occur to us originally? Remember, with hindsight, we know how important the way the 30th of June unfolded was but before all hell broke loose it was just like any other day. I’d defy anyone to remember who was in a house shared by others at a certain time three days from now unless they had a specific reason to do so.
Yes it was widely reported in the press that Corrine and Shane, although they weren’t named, had been arrested for perverting the course of justice. I seem to remember that it said that a 46 year old woman and 21 year old male etc etc. Of course it would have been obvious who these people were. The jury were also not made aware that the charges had been dropped.
-
Unless we know the context of the ‘no one at the time’ comment I think it’s difficult to gauge its importance. If, for example, the question was ‘ who did you remember being in the house in your first statement’’ and he answered the above he was simply being honest. He didn’t remember fixing his friend’s car either in that first statement so I’m not sure too much can be read into his lack of recall. Haven’t we all remembered, or been reminded, of something later that didn’t occur to us originally? Remember, with hindsight, we know how important the way the 30th of June unfolded was but before all hell broke loose it was just like any other day. I’d defy anyone to remember who was in a house shared by others at a certain time three days from now unless they had a specific reason to do so.
Yes it was widely reported in the press that Corrine and Shane, although they weren’t named, had been arrested for perverting the course of justice. I seem to remember that it said that a 46 year old woman and 21 year old male etc etc. Of course it would have been obvious who these people were. The jury were also not made aware that the charges had been dropped.
According to this BBC article at the time of the trial, the court were made aware that Corinne Mitchell no longer faced criminal charges. Don't know about Shane Mitchell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4171943.stm
-
According to this BBC article at the time of the trial, the court were made aware that Corinne Mitchell no longer faced criminal charges. Don't know about Shane Mitchell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4171943.stm
Thank you. I wonder when the court were told?
Of course it was never about following through with criminal charges but exerting pressure and undermining the defendant’s credibility. On that score the prosecution was very successful.
-
Unless we know the context of the ‘no one at the time’ comment I think it’s difficult to gauge its importance. If, for example, the question was ‘ who did you remember being in the house in your first statement’’ and he answered the above he was simply being honest. He didn’t remember fixing his friend’s car either in that first statement so I’m not sure too much can be read into his lack of recall. Haven’t we all remembered, or been reminded, of something later that didn’t occur to us originally? Remember, with hindsight, we know how important the way the 30th of June unfolded was but before all hell broke loose it was just like any other day. I’d defy anyone to remember who was in a house shared by others at a certain time three days from now unless they had a specific reason to do so.
Yes it was widely reported in the press that Corrine and Shane, although they weren’t named, had been arrested for perverting the course of justice. I seem to remember that it said that a 46 year old woman and 21 year old male etc etc. Of course it would have been obvious who these people were. The jury were also not made aware that the charges had been dropped.
Exactly - and is this not all too familiar? This setting a challenge with memory?
Here's a little challenge - what did you eat on Monday 22nd October, with whom, where and when and can you prove it?
What did you eat on Tuesday this week, with whom, where and when and can you prove it?
I'll go first - no idea and no idea. I cheated and checked my diary, but I'm not in the habit of recording what I eat. I can tell you I was home alone both days, so even if I could remember what I ate, I couldn't prove it.
Anybody else?
However, it is nonsense. SM was playing it safe. He had not forgotten anything, he as with most people had no idea of what type of investigation would be had around checking anything out. He had for example: - Not murdered Jodi Jones - why would the police be checking him out? What he was more than aware of however - was the events that had taken place in his home that evening. - and it was this he was distancing himself from, was it not? Any aiding and abetting here? Would it not be closer to the mark, to say that he had played his part, he was not incriminating himself initially with claiming to see his brother when he did not? - waiting quite literally to see how things would pan out?
Furthermore - From the rest of his interviews, when he had been found out to be helping his mother, by changing that story to alibi - he reverted back to "I can't remember" - he was not sticking to the change, was he?
Where did SM spend his evening? Where did he go when he claimed to have left home directly after dinner? Can you refresh our memories on the first time, second time and subsequent times he gave for this? - What did he do, who's company was he in? What time did he arrive home at?
Failing that, how was is possible for Luke to go upstairs and borrow that torch? What time did the car get fuelled up at miles from home? When he claimed he was at home at this time? - Why do you think Faithlilly his memory served well for certain parts? When he had himself at home, yet again when he was not - at a time he needed to be home? - One would want to be home, if evidence was being disposed of, would they not?
And yes, isn't it vitally important to know the questions beforehand? - Exactly the reason Ms Lean should not be deciphering anything, for she had no idea what was being asked and discussed, at any given time with most of those statements. Completely blank to the before and after - and completely able to manipulate all and everything. As we have with this cherry picking of those minute areas. That 5% that is void of context, other than Ms Leans own?
-
Exactly - and is this not all too familiar? This setting a challenge with memory?
Apologies but I have no idea what you’re talking about.
However, it is nonsense. SM was playing it safe. He had not forgotten anything, he as with most people had no idea of what type of investigation would be had around checking anything out.
Why would Shane be playing it safe and in what way was he ‘playing it safe’ ?
He had for example: - Not murdered Jodi Jones - why would the police be checking him out?
According to you neither had JF but, again, according to you, he was investigated thoroughly and are you really trying to suggest that the police wouldn’t check out thoroughly the alibi that Shane had given his brother?
What he was more than aware of however - was the events that had taken place in his home that evening. - and it was this he was distancing himself from, was it not? Any aiding and abetting here? Would it not be closer to the mark, to say that he had played his part, he was not incriminating himself initially with claiming to see his brother when he did not? - waiting quite literally to see how things would pan out?
Waiting to see how things panned out? In what way? When did Shane tell the police about repairing his friend’s car?
Furthermore - From the rest of his interviews, when he had been found out to be helping his mother, by changing that story to alibi - he reverted back to "I can't remember" - he was not sticking to the change, was he?
Shane admitted in his revised statement that he’d been reminded of the events of the 30th by his mother. What did he have to hide?
Where did SM spend his evening? Where did he go when he claimed to have left home directly after dinner? Can you refresh our memories on the first time, second time and subsequent times he gave for this? - What did he do, who's company was he in? What time did he arrive home at?
It matters not a jot because if the police had had any hard evidence of any wrongdoing by Shane the charges wouldn’t have been dropped.
Failing that, how was is possible for Luke to go upstairs and borrow that torch? What time did the car get fuelled up at miles from home? When he claimed he was at home at this time? - Why do you think Faithlilly his memory served well for certain parts? When he had himself at home, yet again when he was not - at a time he needed to be home? - One would want to be home, if evidence was being disposed of, would they not?
Maybe he was a tad simple like JF (according to you).
And yes, isn't it vitally important to know the questions beforehand? - Exactly the reason Ms Lean should not be deciphering anything, for she had no idea what was being asked and discussed, at any given time with most of those statements. Completely blank to the before and after - and completely able to manipulate all and everything. As we have with this cherry picking of those minute areas. That 5% that is void of context, other than Ms Leans own?
Pot meet kettle. I believe you yourself have been accused of spreading misinformation in much the same way ( shampoo anyone? ).
-
Exactly - and is this not all too familiar? This setting a challenge with memory?
However, it is nonsense. SM was playing it safe. He had not forgotten anything, he as with most people had no idea of what type of investigation would be had around checking anything out. He had for example: - Not murdered Jodi Jones - why would the police be checking him out? What he was more than aware of however - was the events that had taken place in his home that evening. - and it was this he was distancing himself from, was it not? Any aiding and abetting here? Would it not be closer to the mark, to say that he had played his part, he was not incriminating himself initially with claiming to see his brother when he did not? - waiting quite literally to see how things would pan out?
Things don’t add up that’s for sure
-
Furthermore - From the rest of his interviews, when he had been found out to be helping his mother, by changing that story to alibi - he reverted back to "I can't remember" - he was not sticking to the change, was he?
Where did SM spend his evening? Where did he go when he claimed to have left home directly after dinner? Can you refresh our memories on the first time, second time and subsequent times he gave for this? - What did he do, who's company was he in? What time did he arrive home at?
Why has a detailed breakdown of Shane Mitchell’s exact movements that night never been made public ?
-
Failing that, how was is possible for Luke to go upstairs and borrow that torch?
The torch story doesn’t add up either
According to previous disclosures - Luke Mitchell was already out of the house when he received the first text message from JuJ at 10:41pm
-
And yes, isn't it vitally important to know the questions beforehand? - Exactly the reason Ms Lean should not be deciphering anything, for she had no idea what was being asked and discussed, at any given time with most of those statements. Completely blank to the before and after - and completely able to manipulate all and everything. As we have with this cherry picking of those minute areas. That 5% that is void of context, other than Ms Leans own?
It’s a complete shambles
-
Exactly - and is this not all too familiar? This setting a challenge with memory?
However, it is nonsense. SM was playing it safe. He had not forgotten anything, he as with most people had no idea of what type of investigation would be had around checking anything out. He had for example: - Not murdered Jodi Jones - why would the police be checking him out? What he was more than aware of however - was the events that had taken place in his home that evening. - and it was this he was distancing himself from, was it not? Any aiding and abetting here? Would it not be closer to the mark, to say that he had played his part, he was not incriminating himself initially with claiming to see his brother when he did not? - waiting quite literally to see how things would pan out?
Furthermore - From the rest of his interviews, when he had been found out to be helping his mother, by changing that story to alibi - he reverted back to "I can't remember" - he was not sticking to the change, was he?
Where did SM spend his evening? Where did he go when he claimed to have left home directly after dinner? Can you refresh our memories on the first time, second time and subsequent times he gave for this? - What did he do, who's company was he in? What time did he arrive home at?
Failing that, how was is possible for Luke to go upstairs and borrow that torch? What time did the car get fuelled up at miles from home? When he claimed he was at home at this time? - Why do you think Faithlilly his memory served well for certain parts? When he had himself at home, yet again when he was not - at a time he needed to be home? - One would want to be home, if evidence was being disposed of, would they not?
And yes, isn't it vitally important to know the questions beforehand? - Exactly the reason Ms Lean should not be deciphering anything, for she had no idea what was being asked and discussed, at any given time with most of those statements. Completely blank to the before and after - and completely able to manipulate all and everything. As we have with this cherry picking of those minute areas. That 5% that is void of context, other than Ms Leans own?
Parky41, I appreciate that you often take the time to submit lengthy, detailed posts for other forum members to ponder, but I find quite a lot of your posts to be quite cryptic and at times difficult to understand due to either too many commas and dashes or too few of them. The above post, I’ll admit, left me feeling like a mouse in a maze (okay, slightly hyperbolic, but you get the point I’m trying to make).
Anyway, was the inference in your post that SM had been out of the house a lot that night, in his own car, helping his mother and brother dispose of incriminating evidence? What’s all this business of his car being ‘fuelled miles from home’? I’d be interested to hear more about this as it’s the first I’ve head about it. In fact, the more I think about it, SM hasn’t really been analysed or discussed, particularly in regards to his movements on the evening of 30.06.03; discussions on SM are all focused on his activities between 1605 and 1730 on 30.06.03 (i.e. ‘the alibi’). Who were SM’s friends? Who was his girlfriend at the time? All of these things don’t seem to have been discussed at length — either on online forums, in newspaper articles, or even in SL’s book, IB. Why?
Also interesting is that the calls made to & from the Mitchell landline between 1605 & 1625 on 30.06.03 are seemingly never clarified. I’ll ask again: was it confirmed and accepted that SM & LM spoke to one another on the phone at 1605 that day? What was the conversation? Likewise, the outgoing call from the Mitchell house landline to Corinne’s work at 1625, was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM who made the call? If so, what was the call about and who spoke to who? Anyone know?
-
Parky41, I appreciate that you often take the time to submit lengthy, detailed posts for other forum members to ponder, but I find quite a lot of your posts to be quite cryptic and at times difficult to understand due to either too many commas and dashes or too few of them. The above post, I’ll admit, left me feeling like a mouse in a maze (okay, slightly hyperbolic, but you get the point I’m trying to make).
Anyway, was the inference in your post that SM had been out of the house a lot that night, in his own car, helping his mother and brother dispose of incriminating evidence? What’s all this business of his car being ‘fuelled miles from home’? I’d be interested to hear more about this as it’s the first I’ve head about it. In fact, the more I think about it, SM hasn’t really been analysed or discussed, particularly in regards to his movements on the evening of 30.06.03; discussions on SM are all focused on his activities between 1605 and 1730 on 30.06.03 (i.e. ‘the alibi’). Who were SM’s friends? Who was his girlfriend at the time? All of these things don’t seem to have been discussed at length — either on online forums, in newspaper articles, or even in SL’s book, IB. Why?
8((()*/
-
Parky41, I appreciate that you often take the time to submit lengthy, detailed posts for other forum members to ponder, but I find quite a lot of your posts to be quite cryptic and at times difficult to understand due to either too many commas and dashes or too few of them. The above post, I’ll admit, left me feeling like a mouse in a maze (okay, slightly hyperbolic, but you get the point I’m trying to make).
Anyway, was the inference in your post that SM had been out of the house a lot that night, in his own car, helping his mother and brother dispose of incriminating evidence? What’s all this business of his car being ‘fuelled miles from home’? I’d be interested to hear more about this as it’s the first I’ve head about it. In fact, the more I think about it, SM hasn’t really been analysed or discussed, particularly in regards to his movements on the evening of 30.06.03; discussions on SM are all focused on his activities between 1605 and 1730 on 30.06.03 (i.e. ‘the alibi’). Who were SM’s friends? Who was his girlfriend at the time? All of these things don’t seem to have been discussed at length — either on online forums, in newspaper articles, or even in SL’s book, IB. Why?
Also interesting is that the calls made to & from the Mitchell landline between 1605 & 1625 on 30.06.03 are seemingly never clarified. I’ll ask again: was it confirmed and accepted that SM & LM spoke to one another on the phone at 1605 that day? What was the conversation? Likewise, the outgoing call from the Mitchell house landline to Corinne’s work at 1625, was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM who made the call? If so, what was the call about and who spoke to who? Anyone know?
Luke was the only individual who could possibly have been in the house at the relevant times.
-
Luke was the only individual who could possibly have been in the house at the relevant times.
Hi, faithlilly. Yes, it stands to reason that it was LM who answered SM’s call @1605 (from SM’s mobile to the family landline) and LM who made the call on the family landline to CM’s workplace @ 1625. My point is that both calls were proven to have taken place, but, as far as I can tell, it wasn’t clearly confirmed that it was definitely LM who was on the landline during both calls. Or was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM both times? Any cites? Furthermore, I still haven’t read anything about the content of both those phone calls and what was said and discussed during them. Anyone any confirmation or cites re this? I have a vague recollection of reading that LM said that sometimes SM would call ahead if he was going to be late for dinner — the implication being that this was what SM did on that phone call @ 1605. However, from what I remember reading, the article never mentioned the reason Shane gave for going to be later home than usual. In fact, think I may have read all of this in chapter 17 of IB. I find this strange and concerning that SM’s reason for going to being late was omitted from the phone call to LM @ 1605. Why? Because I think SM already knew he was going to be fixing his friend’s car when he made the call — and yet, suddenly, on Thursday 03.07.03, when giving a statement to the police, he had forgotten all about fixing this friend’s car and had to be reminded by them. Of course it could be genuine (and I’ve indicated as much on previous posts), but my gut feeling now is that it’s a convenient answer; lying by omission & playing it safe. Likewise, I now have doubts regarding the veracity of what was discussed during the outgoing call LM made to CM @ 1625, a discussion that allegedly involved what LM was going to make for dinner (this is stated as fact in Chapter 17 of IB). I would be grateful if someone could expand on these landline phone calls and provide sources & cites.
Finally, yes one would presume it was LM that was in the house when those landline calls were made, but to say ‘it could only have been Luke’ is a tad naive and presumptuous. The fact is, it could have been anyone: eg, another family member, SM’s girlfriend, CM’s friend, and so on. This is why I’d like more discussion and clarification on this aspect of the case.
-
Hi, faithlilly. Yes, it stands to reason that it was LM who answered SM’s call @1605 (from SM’s mobile to the family landline) and LM who made the call on the family landline to CM’s workplace @ 1625. My point is that both calls were proven to have taken place, but, as far as I can tell, it wasn’t clearly confirmed that it was definitely LM who was on the landline during both calls. Or was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM both times? Any cites? Furthermore, I still haven’t read anything about the content of both those phone calls and what was said and discussed during them. Anyone any confirmation or cites re this? I have a vague recollection of reading that LM said that sometimes SM would call ahead if he was going to be late for dinner — the implication being that this was what SM did on that phone call @ 1605. However, from what I remember reading, the article never mentioned the reason Shane gave for going to be later home than usual. In fact, think I may have read all of this in chapter 17 of IB. I find this strange and concerning that SM’s reason for going to being late was omitted from the phone call to LM @ 1605. Why? Because I think SM already knew he was going to be fixing his friend’s car when he made the call — and yet, suddenly, on Thursday 03.07.03, when giving a statement to the police, he had forgotten all about fixing this friend’s car and had to be reminded by them. Of course it could be genuine (and I’ve indicated as much on previous posts), but my gut feeling now is that it’s a convenient answer; lying by omission & playing it safe. Likewise, I now have doubts regarding the veracity of what was discussed during the outgoing call LM made to CM @ 1625, a discussion that allegedly involved what LM was going to make for dinner (this is stated as fact in Chapter 17 of IB). I would be grateful if someone could expand on these landline phone calls and provide sources & cites.
Finally, yes one would presume it was LM that was in the house when those landline calls were made, but to say ‘it could only have been Luke’ is a tad naive and presumptuous. The fact is, it could have been anyone: eg, another family member, SM’s girlfriend, CM’s friend, and so on. This is why I’d like more discussion and clarification on this aspect of the case.
The call to Corrine’s work from Luke to ask what he should make for dinner was verified by not only Corrine but Luke’s gran. Now you could argue that they both may have lied to protect him but protect him from what at 4.25 when Luke still thought Jodi was grounded? Likewise with Shane’s call to the landline at 4.05 what would be gained by not being truthful about that call? Further there is absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in the Mitchell house on the 30th of June apart from Luke, Shane and Corrine.
-
The call to Corrine’s work from Luke to ask what he should make for dinner was verified by not only Corrine but Luke’s gran. Now you could argue that they both may have lied to protect him but protect him from what at 4.25 when Luke still thought Jodi was grounded? Likewise with Shane’s call to the landline at 4.05 what would be gained by not being truthful about that call? Further there is absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in the Mitchell house on the 30th of June apart from Luke, Shane and Corrine.
I think there is a very strong chance it was LM who was on the landline on those two occasions. What I’m more concerned with is the lack of detail in regards to the discussion between LM & SM; as far as I can tell, the discussion between them at 1605 has never been clarified; all we are given is the presumption that Shane phoned to say he would be later home that evening without stating why at that precise time. I put it to you that SM, during that phone call @ 1605, told LM specifically that he was going to fix a friend’s car — so I also reckon that both SM & LM remembered this clearly when first being questioned by police on 03.07.03 but chose deliberately to omit it. The coping out and playing it safe. Well, Shane was, imo. Lies by omission. “I don’t remember” is the convenient answer if there is something to hide. As for the call to CM, well, it is possible that dinner was discussed, or perhaps at that point LM said he was going out for one reason or another. Anyway, I think wherever Luke was @ 1634-1638, when those texts came through from Jodi to say she was ungrounded, he dropped whatever he was doing to go and meet her (after all, they were close, liked one another, spent most nights together since seeing one another and kept religiously to their meeting arrangements). CM continued the dinner story for the obvious alibi reasons, but, with a strong circumstanctial case, and more crucially SM’s lack of corroboration for said alibi, it all fell apart, which I completely understand. On the surface, it looks like LM had absolutely no reason to do what he was convicted for, but, when one digs a little deeper, the writing was on the wall, imo.
-
Hi, faithlilly. Yes, it stands to reason that it was LM who answered SM’s call @1605 (from SM’s mobile to the family landline) and LM who made the call on the family landline to CM’s workplace @ 1625. My point is that both calls were proven to have taken place, but, as far as I can tell, it wasn’t clearly confirmed that it was definitely LM who was on the landline during both calls. Or was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM both times? Any cites? Furthermore, I still haven’t read anything about the content of both those phone calls and what was said and discussed during them. Anyone any confirmation or cites re this? I have a vague recollection of reading that LM said that sometimes SM would call ahead if he was going to be late for dinner — the implication being that this was what SM did on that phone call @ 1605. However, from what I remember reading, the article never mentioned the reason Shane gave for going to be later home than usual. In fact, think I may have read all of this in chapter 17 of IB. I find this strange and concerning that SM’s reason for going to being late was omitted from the phone call to LM @ 1605. Why? Because I think SM already knew he was going to be fixing his friend’s car when he made the call — and yet, suddenly, on Thursday 03.07.03, when giving a statement to the police, he had forgotten all about fixing this friend’s car and had to be reminded by them.
I don’t believe for onemoment Shane Mitchell forget he was fixing his friends car
And this excuse about prolific drugs use affecting his memory was just that - an excuse
Although the Mitchell’s - Corinne, Luke & Shane - do appear to have all had a drug addiction
-
Likewise, I now have doubts regarding the veracity of what was discussed during the outgoing call LM made to CM @ 1625, a discussion that allegedly involved what LM was going to make for dinner (this is stated as fact in Chapter 17 of IB). I would be grateful if someone could expand on these landline phone calls and provide sources & cites.
Yes - does anyone know what Shane Mitchell’s police witness statements/interviews state regarding the content of these calls etc?
-
I think there is a very strong chance it was LM who was on the landline on those two occasions. What I’m more concerned with is the lack of detail in regards to the discussion between LM & SM; as far as I can tell, the discussion between them at 1605 has never been clarified; all we are given is the presumption that Shane phoned to say he would be later home that evening without stating why at that precise time. I put it to you that SM, during that phone call @ 1605, told LM specifically that he was going to fix a friend’s car — so I also reckon that both SM & LM remembered this clearly when first being questioned by police on 03.07.03 but chose deliberately to omit it. The coping out and playing it safe. Well, Shane was, imo. Lies by omission. “I don’t remember” is the convenient answer if there is something to hide. As for the call to CM, well, it is possible that dinner was discussed, or perhaps at that point LM said he was going out for one reason or another. Anyway, I think wherever Luke was @ 1634-1638, when those texts came through from Jodi to say she was ungrounded, he dropped whatever he was doing to go and meet her (after all, they were close, liked one another, spent most nights together since seeing one another and kept religiously to their meeting arrangements). CM continued the dinner story for the obvious alibi reasons, but, with a strong circumstanctial case, and more crucially SM’s lack of corroboration for said alibi, it all fell apart, which I completely understand. On the surface, it looks like LM had absolutely no reason to do what he was convicted for, but, when one digs a little deeper, the writing was on the wall, imo.
Then you seem to have formed your opinion and nothing that I say will change that.
18 years later and the charges laid against Corrine and Shane are still paying dividends. Once the police had destroyed their credibility, however dishonestly, then no lie was too large for them to tell.
It has been established that Jodi had failed to meet Luke before so your claim that they had kept religiously to their ‘meeting arrangements’ is simply untrue and can you explain why Shane would omit the fact that he’d fixed his friend’s car in his first statement? What did he have to gain?
And yes ‘I don’t remember’ is a pretty effective way of avoiding incriminating yourself. I believe JF used that very answer several times in his court testimony.
-
Parky41, I appreciate that you often take the time to submit lengthy, detailed posts for other forum members to ponder, but I find quite a lot of your posts to be quite cryptic and at times difficult to understand due to either too many commas and dashes or too few of them. The above post, I’ll admit, left me feeling like a mouse in a maze (okay, slightly hyperbolic, but you get the point I’m trying to make).
Anyway, was the inference in your post that SM had been out of the house a lot that night, in his own car, helping his mother and brother dispose of incriminating evidence? What’s all this business of his car being ‘fuelled miles from home’? I’d be interested to hear more about this as it’s the first I’ve head about it. In fact, the more I think about it, SM hasn’t really been analysed or discussed, particularly in regards to his movements on the evening of 30.06.03; discussions on SM are all focused on his activities between 1605 and 1730 on 30.06.03 (i.e. ‘the alibi’). Who were SM’s friends? Who was his girlfriend at the time? All of these things don’t seem to have been discussed at length — either on online forums, in newspaper articles, or even in SL’s book, IB. Why?
Also interesting is that the calls made to & from the Mitchell landline between 1605 & 1625 on 30.06.03 are seemingly never clarified. I’ll ask again: was it confirmed and accepted that SM & LM spoke to one another on the phone at 1605 that day? What was the conversation? Likewise, the outgoing call from the Mitchell house landline to Corinne’s work at 1625, was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM who made the call? If so, what was the call about and who spoke to who? Anyone know?
Have we met Mr Apples? Class of 84? I get your drift and the point is easy to understand. Thank you.
However:
Here's how I see it. Luke was not home. Whatever tale he told his mother, she helped him. At some point SM was asked to help, by his mother. That bond between a mother and child, stronger than that between siblings. However, It could only have been nothing short of madness that evening in the Mitchell home. Completely thrown into the mire. Concentration initially upon setting that story and of disposal. But how does one even get their head around any of it?
The mind of a lad barely 15yrs old, to not only murder someone but of all else inclusive of this. The blind side to what his mother could not possibly have known, nor his brother. In all honestly it gives me the jitters thinking about it. Unimaginable what it must have done to SM on the stand, other than making him tell the truth. The reality hitting of what he was being asked to cover for. But back to the night in question. Of not knowing what they were being asked to cover for, to help with. But of what Luke was to do next, which brought about prematurely, did it not how that story was going to kick off, witnessed by the police (the first mention of Shane) and of all else added to it. For this same youth, this 15yr old son, had eagerly wanted to be part of any search. And again, there could be no way of knowing what was to transpire, and I do believe that his eagerness was to play a massive part in his demise. - Of bringing him to Justice. That whilst people what to debate around reasonable doubt, there is no doubt in my mind that Luke was/is factually guilty.
That I am of the opinion that LM was on the path far too quickly. He was and had been waiting on something happening. That only he would have known the likelihood of Jodi being discovered over the course of the evening. That only the killer had control over time. That they knew how hidden this area where he left her was. It was off the beaten track and Jodi had not been discovered over the course of that evening. There could be no guarantee of this, which also plays a part in LM staying with the boys for a short amount of time. It served the purpose of further alibi. And he had left them much earlier than of which was normal. Which isn't in itself entirely true as the meet had not been of his norm of late. He spent all of his time with Jodi and their mutual female friend who was at school camp. And we do not need to go into the after, of the lies told of arriving home and all else. Only of that eagerness to be part of this search. Of being prepped and ready for that inevitable call, to see where Jodi was. And I do believe he had expected this sooner and not as late as 10.38 when that text came through. Thus why he was already prepped and ready, he had been waiting. The night had passed to a certain point, the next point was of Jodi known to be missing by her parents.
Yet again he could not have envisioned what was to take place. But yet again as the killer he had control. For even if this meet had taken place at Jodi's house, that search would still have ended up on RDP with Luke Mitchell in the thick of it. For he is the one who brought the whole notion of the path into play by claiming that Jodi was supposed to have met him in Newbattle. And back to SM and the mother.
They had no idea what they were dealing with. Of exactly what had happened to Jodi. That this boy who then eagerly needed to be in the thick of things, was only to bring all of the help they had given him, to this point - crashing down upon them. They had barely time for this help to be completed. Before CM is sitting in the police station with her son. And this is after she had asked the police on Newbattle Road if he was under arrest. That irrespective of what SM may have helped with, one could only wait to see what would transpire. And his mother did involve him further in the early hours of July the 1st, when Luke asked her "Was Shane there mum?" - Yes, and it was noted. And it was these small things that could be part of no plan, of the unknown, that horrendous situation she was in due to Luke. That initial talk with the police. This was the start of the process, where Luke Mitchell, mother or brother, could not have banked on the police being the police. Of which I have always stated. That cover up was never going to be easy, the wheels firmly in motion, as Jodi had left to meet with LM and only him - at exactly the time this concoction of lies was given for. And out of this whole sorry, sad saga. Only the killer needed an alibi for that time. And the only people in all of this, that strived to give an alibi was Luke Mitchell and his mother. And it completely disintegrated.
So it's not and never has been as simple as SM forgetting anything. I do believe firmly that SM was helping his mother. That he did not want to put neither her or himself in the proverbial. That he did give a story that placed him home before his brother, so as not to see him. That he chose to say he could not remember anything, he was playing it safe, for all of them. And again of what was to transpire, of what was good enough over that which was not. That upon his mother given further testimony, she had then included SM fully, she could not backtrack on what she had already said on the Tuesday. That she then needed this back up from Shane to help her along with Luke. It was not going to wash, this forgetfulness. It was making his mothers lies blatantly obvious. And when he did change that story, what a shambles, was it not? For it was in perfect harmony with his mothers, right down to her having a conversation with him, in the kitchen at/around 5.05pm - which of course was physically impossible, she was not home.
And of memory, of CM's - perfect was it not, right down to that t-shirt Luke was wearing (later that evening). Every single detail precise and rehearsed. And we are being asked to believe, she had forgotten stopping at the shop. She forgot nothing. It was exactly the length of time needed for everything to fit with that story - The time around Luke's meet with Jodi, her death and his arrival back at the house.
So no, SM not for one minute had forgotten anything. He changed that story as his mother had dragged him into it. I believe firmly that SM was helping his mother, of his brother no. And this is why it came to a head, when he saw those pictures. And we do not hear much of anything of him over that evening. This version of one's truth that needs to be controlled? Boundaries set upon what one is allowed to do, to ask. Not one boundary set upon others though? For is it not closer to the mark, that when control is needed, that only the comfort zone of teachings within a book are allowed - that it is this person who is actually "afraid of the truth" - for it is in everything else that the actual truth lies. It should not need controlled, for the truth does not change and testimony should not be altered to suit.
These silly tests and all on memory. Stemmed from Ms Lean - the irony of setting a test when she has the most amazing recall, when it suits, does she not? Of what else fell apart in that story from the Mitchells, of CM enjoying dinner out on the patio, after being cooped up all day at work. And of Ms Leans defence of this. That her memory and recall is so astute? That she too was out on her patio, reading and enjoying a glass of wine, when suddenly a black cloud appeared from nowhere and soaked her. When we know the weather that evening was cloudy, drizzly and remained overcast. The very reason people were wearing heavier outer wear. It was cool for the time of year. And we know that it was not just dinner time she was outdoors, but over the course of the evening. As Luke had claimed to call her, to ask if Jodi had been to the house (snuck past him on the road?). That she had said no. "How would you know, you are in the garden?" - And how exactly did LM know his mother was in the garden? We know why of course, he told the police her and Shane were having a fire? But Ms Mitchell denied this? - And here we have Shane yet again in the mix? And the fire was smokey and smelly. Hardly surprising with those big black clouds about? Here with SM in the mix, with those fires? Where exactly had he went in his claims of leaving home after dinner? Of the time he returned, and of course fuelling up that car miles from home, when he was supposed to have been in the house? For we can use common sense here, we know a fire was going over the course of the evening, we know whatever was used, whatever remnants were left, had to be disposed off. - And it is a false trail, this concentration on a tiny burner, no zips nor buttons or anything else in it. Common sense tells us that everything was gotten rid of that evening. And LM did taunt the police, of allowing the bins to be emptied the following day. And nothing was checked over for four days after this murder. - Hardly the actions of a police force who had it in for LM from the off, is it?
And of the calls. We do not know the contents, only what we are told. That the one at 4.25 we are told was of dinner, and what to make? And contrary and completely wrong are those claims that Luke Mitchell did not have to leave home until after the last text at 4.38. Nonsense. There was nothing to keep LM home. And of these talks of being premeditated. LM could not have known that Jodi would be out earlier, he was the only one however that she had contacted, to meet. But of the further evidence, of knowing the best way to kill someone. And of being young and naive enough to know certain things. That massive hook up on DNA awareness. This important factor, however unaware of circumstantial evidence. And the hand of fate dealt that day. That in those briefest of moments of being visible, Luke Mitchell was seen twice. Once by AB and the other by F&W. He knew he had not been seen on the path or in the woods. And of frequenting this woodland. If Luke Mitchell had already had that smoke he was used to on a dally basis - then there is every chance LM entered that woodland, prior to meeting with Jodi, the same way he exited it - by way of that entrance into the field, that is accessed just before the entrance to RDP, on Newbattle Road. Neither Luke Mitchell on his own, or after meeting with Jodi, had to use that V. From the East end, close to where they hung about, where the wall is completely broken down is where I believe this young couple entered the woods.
-
Have we met Mr Apples? Class of 84? I get your drift and the point is easy to understand. Thank you.
However:
Here's how I see it. Luke was not home. Whatever tale he told his mother, she helped him. At some point SM was asked to help, by his mother. That bond between a mother and child, stronger than that between siblings. However, It could only have been nothing short of madness that evening in the Mitchell home. Completely thrown into the mire. Concentration initially upon setting that story and of disposal. But how does one even get their head around any of it?
The mind of a lad barely 15yrs old, to not only murder someone but of all else inclusive of this. The blind side to what his mother could not possibly have known, nor his brother. In all honestly it gives me the jitters thinking about it. Unimaginable what it must have done to SM on the stand, other than making him tell the truth. The reality hitting of what he was being asked to cover for. But back to the night in question. Of not knowing what they were being asked to cover for, to help with. But of what Luke was to do next, which brought about prematurely, did it not how that story was going to kick off, witnessed by the police (the first mention of Shane) and of all else added to it. For this same youth, this 15yr old son, had eagerly wanted to be part of any search. And again, there could be no way of knowing what was to transpire, and I do believe that his eagerness was to play a massive part in his demise. - Of bringing him to Justice. That whilst people what to debate around reasonable doubt, there is no doubt in my mind that Luke was/is factually guilty.
Mine either
I’d be interested to know what year Shane moved out of the family home and of the family dynamics today
-
That I am of the opinion that LM was on the path far too quickly. He was and had been waiting on something happening. That only he would have known the likelihood of Jodi being discovered over the course of the evening. That only the killer had control over time. That they knew how hidden this area where he left her was. It was off the beaten track and Jodi had not been discovered over the course of that evening. There could be no guarantee of this, which also plays a part in LM staying with the boys for a short amount of time. It served the purpose of further alibi. And he had left them much earlier than of which was normal. Which isn't in itself entirely true as the meet had not been of his norm of late. He spent all of his time with Jodi and their mutual female friend who was at school camp. And we do not need to go into the after, of the lies told of arriving home and all else. Only of that eagerness to be part of this search. Of being prepped and ready for that inevitable call, to see where Jodi was. And I do believe he had expected this sooner and not as late as 10.38 when that text came through. Thus why he was already prepped and ready, he had been waiting. The night had passed to a certain point, the next point was of Jodi known to be missing by her parents.
Sandra has again made claim recently Luke was in the house watching a video that night but we KNOW he wasn’t in the house when he received the first text message from JuJ and he was seen walking past the neighbours house at 10:00pm - he could well have been coming back from the crime scene or disposing ‘stuff’
-
So no, SM not for one minute had forgotten anything. He changed that story as his mother had dragged him into it. I believe firmly that SM was helping his mother, of his brother no. And this is why it came to a head, when he saw those pictures. And we do not hear much of anything of him over that evening. This version of one's truth that needs to be controlled? Boundaries set upon what one is allowed to do, to ask. Not one boundary set upon others though? For is it not closer to the mark, that when control is needed, that only the comfort zone of teachings within a book are allowed - that it is this person who is actually "afraid of the truth" - for it is in everything else that the actual truth lies. It should not need controlled, for the truth does not change and testimony should not be altered to suit.
It’s been a very see through diversionary tactic - nothing whatsoever to do with ‘boundaries’
Although I get what you mean re her cult like following
-
These silly tests and all on memory. Stemmed from Ms Lean - the irony of setting a test when she has the most amazing recall, when it suits, does she not? Of what else fell apart in that story from the Mitchells, of CM enjoying dinner out on the patio, after being cooped up all day at work. And of Ms Leans defence of this. That her memory and recall is so astute? That she too was out on her patio, reading and enjoying a glass of wine, when suddenly a black cloud appeared from nowhere and soaked her. When we know the weather that evening was cloudy, drizzly and remained overcast. The very reason people were wearing heavier outer wear. It was cool for the time of year. And we know that it was not just dinner time she was outdoors, but over the course of the evening.
I’m still waiting on answer regarding those alleged PRAWNS Corinne claimed she had that night in the garden
She apparently didn’t do her food shopping until a Tuesday - whcih would have been the following day - so where did the prawns come from ?
Were they fresh - were they frozen?
There appears to have been no mention anywhere of PRAWNS in all these years - other than on one occasion by Corrine ?
-
It was cool for the time of year. And we know that it was not just dinner time she was outdoors, but over the course of the evening. As Luke had claimed to call her, to ask if Jodi had been to the house (snuck past him on the road?). That she had said no. "How would you know, you are in the garden?" - And how exactly did LM know his mother was in the garden? We know why of course, he told the police her and Shane were having a fire? But Ms Mitchell denied this? - And here we have Shane yet again in the mix? And the fire was smokey and smelly. Hardly surprising with those big black clouds about? Here with SM in the mix, with those fires? Where exactly had he went in his claims of leaving home after dinner? Of the time he returned, and of course fuelling up that car miles from home, when he was supposed to have been in the house? For we can use common sense here, we know a fire was going over the course of the evening, we know whatever was used, whatever remnants were left, had to be disposed off. - And it is a false trail, this concentration on a tiny burner, no zips nor buttons or anything else in it. Common sense tells us that everything was gotten rid of that evening. And LM did taunt the police, of allowing the bins to be emptied the following day. And nothing was checked over for four days after this murder. - Hardly the actions of a police force who had it in for LM from the off, is it?
8((()*/
-
And of the calls. We do not know the contents, only what we are told. That the one at 4.25 we are told was of dinner, and what to make? And contrary and completely wrong are those claims that Luke Mitchell did not have to leave home until after the last text at 4.38. Nonsense. There was nothing to keep LM home.
Shane phoned to say he would be late - so Luke wouldn’t be cooking him a ‘steak’ pie
-
And of these talks of being premeditated. LM could not have known that Jodi would be out earlier, he was the only one however that she had contacted, to meet. But of the further evidence, of knowing the best way to kill someone. And of being young and naive enough to know certain things. That massive hook up on DNA awareness. This important factor, however unaware of circumstantial evidence.
Luke was most certainly DNA aware
-
Shane phoned to say he would be late - so Luke wouldn’t be cooking him a ‘steak’ pie
Wasn't it a chicken pie? Anyway, isn't CM a vegetarian?
-
Wasn't it a chicken pie?
To date - it’s never been made clear as far as I’m aware - at least by Sandra Lean or the Mitchell’s
‘Steak’ pie was defo used by at least one of the newspapers reporting on the trial ⬇️
Shane even ‘smelt’ the steak - ALLEGEDLY 🙄
Note: No mention of smelling the alleged PRAWNS though - on this warm summers evening when they would all apparently be out in their gardens reading books 🙄
A STEAK pie is mentioned here:
“THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family’s house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".
The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.
Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane’s statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother’s car being in the driveway and the front door being open.
His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.
"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.
"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.
Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell’s statement given on the previous day to Shane’s. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."
Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."
Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.
"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"
Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."
Mr Turnbull said: "Who".
Mitchell replied: "My mother."
Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.
"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.
Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: ‘You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.’"
Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.
Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan’s Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-s-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-1-958502
-
Luke was most certainly DNA aware
I have to agree with that but I'm ten years older than Luke so I wondered if maybe the DNA basics were taught in schools by 2003? It's something I noticed though. It was a while back and I don't remember where I came across it but I know a police officer said to Luke, we have a partial DNA match and Luke said something like, you don't have a match then.
-
I have to agree with that but I'm ten years older than Luke so I wondered if maybe the DNA basics were taught in schools by 2003? It's something I noticed though. It was a while back and I don't remember where I came across it but I know a police officer said to Luke, we have a partial DNA match and Luke said something like, you don't have a match then.
He was also quick to comment when allegedly asked to go over the wall with the police officer to show them where [Name removed]’s body lay
Do you think Luke’s comment displayed a sense of paranoia ?
-
He was also quick to comment when allegedly asked to go over the wall with the police officer to show them where [Name removed]’s body lay
Do you think Luke’s comment displayed a sense of paranoia ?
What was his reason for not going over the wall?
-
What was his reason for not going over the wall?
Again- It was something to do with his DNA
-
Again- It was something to do with his DNA
I expected you to say something like, it was too horrifying or he was too afraid. I would be afraid. Poor wee girl.
-
I expected you to say something like, it was too horrifying or he was too afraid. I would be afraid. Poor wee girl.
No - Luke Mitchell’s first thoughts appeared to be for himself or should I say his DNA
-
No - Luke Mitchell’s first thoughts appeared to be for himself or should I say his DNA
That's a very odd thing to be concerned about if there's no need for concern.
-
Some verbatim posts from SL herself on Shane’s thoughts and evidence, replying to another forum member from another message board (in bold text):
This is the post from said other forum, talking to SL and asking her about Shane M & also about some of Shane’s evidence (in italics):
I know there are 2 sides to Shane’s evidence given in court. Some say he did not support Luke others say he was not given the chance to give his side properly. He has never clarified his side publicly since then to my knowledge and had no intention to any time soon from what has been said. Bottom line is without Shane Luke has no credible alibi.
I’m sure I’ve asked before but I can’t seem to find it. Sandra can I ask you, have you spoken to Shane directly, and heard it from the horses mouth that he was home and Luke was making tea or is this information from CM or elsewhere?
Sandra’s reply to the above:
I spoke with Shane directly - he, like everyone else in Luke's family, believed that sooner or later, the police would realise they were going after the wrong person and shift the direction of the investigation. They never did. Shane's experience with the police on April 14th 2004, when he and Corinne were also arrested was horrific - they (the police) lied throughout, telling Shane they had evidence that they didn't have, witnesses that didn't exist, "quoted" things they claimed Luke, Shane and Corinne had said in previous statements (they didn't) and so on. He'd been dragged from his car and laid out on the road, then held for over 6 hours with no contact with anyone, ostensibly on a charge of "perverting the course of justice."
He said in court, he would willingly have gone with them to the station had they come to the door and asked. There was nothing in his previous dealings with them to suggest otherwise. At that point, Shane left the area (with Corinne's blessing). The family decided there was no point in having Shane dragged through the media circus as well - they still thought, at that point, the truth would come out at trial.
They told him, in that interrogation, that they knew he was lying about Luke being home because they had witnesses. Shane insisted his earlier accounts were true, that he'd been sure, at the time, that Luke was at home and that they were "putting words in his mouth" now. Donald Findlay argued that "evidence" from that interrogation should never have been allowed at trial because of the behaviour of the police and their refusal to accept Shane's account of a day 9 months earlier. The judges agreed that, if Shane had been a suspect, the evidence could not have been used, but, because he was "only a witness," the same rules didn't apply. But Shane wasn't "only a witness" - he'd been arrested, so he as a suspect. There was virtually nothing in the interrogation about "perverting the course of justice" - it was all about trying to get Shane to "agree" that he'd "lied" about Luke being home making dinner.
-
And some more from some other message board:
Thanks Sandra, so you spoke to him directly at the time. He was not forced into giving a false statement by his mother, she simply reminded him about that evening? He then remembered the events rather than just going with what him mum said?
No, he wasn't forced to say anything by his mother. He didn't initally remember what he'd eaten for dinner and only mentioned it to his mother because it seemed like such a strange thing for the police to be focusing on - this was within the first few days of a murder investigation and all of the Mitchells believed they were simply helping the police with their enquiries - they had no idea, at that point, that Luke was a suspect. It's easy to see how they thought what they ate for dinner was of no importance. Corinne reminded Shane he'd complained on Monday because Luke had burnt the pies at which point, Shane remembered. Although he contacted the liaison officer to let her know, it was another two days before an amended statement was taken, making it look (on paper) like Shane and Corinne had spent two days talking about it - they hadn't - they spent all of five minutes talking about it!
Quote
And just to be clear he stands by that to this day but does not want to be dragged back into the public eye by making statements and doing interviews etc? Which I can fully understand.
I haven't spoken with Shane in a long time. For good reasons, he decided he did not want to be part of the public campaign highlighting Luke's case (those reasons were nothing to do with him believing Luke to be guilty, though), so the best way I can answer your question is, the last time I spoke with Shane, he stood by his original statements but had decided, by then, that he would not comment publicly on the case or the campaign.
Quote
I take it there is nothing that can be done legally now even if he did come out to clarify his side as he had already gave his evidence in court?
If there was a retrial would his evidence be taken into account again, would he get the chance to put his side as he remembers it?
The only thing that could have been done legally was the attempt, by Donald Findlay, to argue that Shane's evidence should never have been allowed because (a) the interrogation was a "sham" designed to "break Shane" and (b) the nature of the interrogation - the lies, the manipulation and the massive confusion techniques used by the police - rendered the "evidence" elicited by it unlawful.
It's impossible to say how a retrial might go - it would depend on the grounds that a retrial was based on. However, it seems pretty certain that the "evidence" from the police interrogation would not be allowed.
Shane initially didn't remember anything about the early part of the Monday evening - it was, he said, just the same as every other weekday evening - he'd come home from work, gone upstairs to his room, had his tea and gone out. Other evidence reminded him of the particular evening - receipts and phone records showed he's stopped at a friend's house on the way home from work the same evening that Luke burnt the pies.
Also, Luke said he thought he'd called Shane to check if he was going to be in for tea - if Shane had already been home, there would have been no need for such a call. There was a call in the phone records showing Shane had called the house (not the other way around) to say he'd be home for tea, but might be a little bit later. As it turned out, we know Shane was home for tea because of the internet records but we also know, because of the call to the landline, that Luke was at home to take that call from Shane.
So, without Shane's evidence, we can say with a high degree of certainty that Luke was in his house until at least 4.30pm because of answered calls on the home phone - quite simply, there was no-one other than Luke who could have answered them. The exchange of texts between Luke and Judith's phone arranging for him and Jodi to meet up was between 4.34 and 4.38 -if the grounding story is correct, Luke could not have known until that point that Jodi would be out that evening. If it is not correct, this series of texts is the only point at which it has ever been suggested Jodi and Luke arranged to meet that evening. Either way, Luke would have had no reason to be heading towards Easthouses prior to that exchange of texts. If he left immediately after the last text, he could not have been the person seen by Andrina Bryson between 4.49 and 4.54 because there would not have been enough time for him to get from his house to the place where the sighting was claimed to have taken place.
So, even without Shane's evidence, the information available strongly suggests that Luke could not have been at the Easthouses end of the path at the time of the Andrina Bryson sighting (which is, in itself, deeply flawed). Which makes Shane's evidence - that Luke was at home cooking and eating dinner - the most plausible explanation
-
So, even without Shane's evidence, the information available strongly suggests that Luke could not have been at the Easthouses end of the path at the time of the Andrina Bryson sighting (which is, in itself, deeply flawed). Which makes Shane's evidence - that Luke was at home cooking and eating dinner - the most plausible explanation
That's incredible - even if we were to assume that AB didn't see LM at the Easthouses end of the path, that in no way implies that LM must have been at home - incredible that someone would infer that.
They keep saying 'even without Shane's evidence' - are they just choosing to ignore the evidence of a key witness whenever it doesn't suit the agenda?
Then they say that 'without Shane's evidence...Shane's evidence...[is]...the most plausible explanation'
That's just all over the place.
Deary me!
-
That's incredible - even if we were to assume that AB didn't see LM at the Easthouses end of the path, that in no way implies that LM must have been at home - incredible that someone would infer that.
They keep saying 'even without Shane's evidence' - are they just choosing to ignore the evidence of a key witness whenever it doesn't suit the agenda?
Then they say that 'without Shane's evidence...Shane's evidence...[is]...the most plausible explanation'
That's just all over the place.
Deary me!
How do you explain the disparity in timings from AB’s first two statements to her evidence in court?
There does seem to be a theme with many prosecution witnesses. Their first statements either rule Luke out completely or are, at the least, favourable to him. A couple of rounds of police questioning and a certain amount of pressure later and everything changes.
Odd that.
-
How do you explain the disparity in timings from AB’s first two statements to her evidence in court?
There does seem to be a theme with many prosecution witnesses. Their first statements either rule Luke out completely or are, at the least, favourable to him. A couple of rounds of police questioning and a certain amount of pressure later and everything changes.
Odd that.
His brother doesn't see him then he does then he doesn't!
-
And some more from some other message board:
And just to be clear he stands by that to this day but does not want to be dragged back into the public eye by making statements and doing interviews etc? Which I can fully understand.
Is that Lean pretending she speaks for SM again? How old is that post?
She fully understands, that SM does not want to be dragged back into the public eye, but all the others are fair game to be dragged though the dirt. Hypocrisy at its finest.
-
Is that Lean pretending she speaks for SM again? How old is that post?
She fully understands, that SM does not want to be dragged back into the public eye, but all the others are fair game to be dragged though the dirt. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Absolutely. If one witness is good enough to be left alone then why not the others?
-
Absolutely. If one witness is good enough to be left alone then why not the others?
Extraordinary isn’t. SM has always been a touchy subject for Lean, and it always will be. Her normal response, as per, you can see above. It is a copy & paste.
The others will never be left alone, it has become quite evident with the comments and wild accusations all over the internet, most of them would be contempt of court. But this is not about re-trails or independent reviews. It is all about drama & pound notes. Her audience is getting smaller by the day, she is left with single mothers that watch daytime tv & ex-cons with a grudge against the system. It is quite sad actually.
-
Extraordinary isn’t. SM has always been a touchy subject for Lean, and it always will be. Her normal response, as per, you can see above. It is a copy & paste.
The others will never be left alone, it has become quite evident with the comments and wild accusations all over the internet, most of them would be contempt of court. But this is not about re-trails or independent reviews. It is all about drama & pound notes. Her audience is getting smaller by the day, she is left with single mothers that watch daytime tv & ex-cons with a grudge against the system. It is quite sad actually.
Sounds rather prejudiced!
-
Extraordinary isn’t. SM has always been a touchy subject for Lean, and it always will be. Her normal response, as per, you can see above. It is a copy & paste.
The others will never be left alone, it has become quite evident with the comments and wild accusations all over the internet, most of them would be contempt of court. But this is not about re-trails or independent reviews. It is all about drama & pound notes. Her audience is getting smaller by the day, she is left with single mothers that watch daytime tv & ex-cons with a grudge against the system. It is quite sad actually.
Well, to put it bluntly, if SM was pleasuring himself and it was embarrassing for him. Why does the prosecution have to deliberately embarrass him, then why does SL not give the same respect to JF? He didn't kill that poor girl either so why is his humiliation ok when SLs isn't ok?
-
Well, to put it bluntly, if SM was pleasuring himself and it was embarrassing for him. Why does the prosecution have to deliberately embarrass him, then why does SL not give the same respect to JF? He didn't kill that poor girl either so why is his humiliation ok when SLs isn't ok?
Sorry. I don't see letters the way you might. What I mean is, Why is it not ok to humiliate SM but humiliate J? Why is that ok?
-
Sorry. I don't see letters the way you might. What I mean is, Why is it not ok to humiliate SM but humiliate J? Why is that ok?
Surely the humiliation of J is unacceptable?
-
And your posts aren't confusing?
-
And your posts aren't confusing?
You're my only complaint so far. Maybe I'm confusing to you.
-
Well, to put it bluntly, if SM was pleasuring himself and it was embarrassing for him. Why does the prosecution have to deliberately embarrass him, then why does SL not give the same respect to JF? He didn't kill that poor girl either so why is his humiliation ok when SLs isn't ok?
You make an excellent point. One rule for one and all that.
But having an innocent man's used condom, full of fresh semen "in Leans words" found yards away from the mutilated body of a child, adds to the drama of the fairy tale. Designed to suck people in. It works, as you have probably seen, many of the comments on the internet regarding JF. All false.
-
You make an excellent point. One rule for one and all that.
But having an innocent man's used condom, full of fresh semen "in Leans words" found yards away from the mutilated body of a child, adds to the drama of the fairy tale. Designed to suck people in. It works, as you have probably seen, many of the comments on the internet regarding JF. All false.
Is it JF? Thanks.I wasn't sure. I don't always see letters the way you may. But what I do know is, not a single one of LM'S appeals were based on innocence. If not,.why not?
-
You make an excellent point. One rule for one and all that.
But having an innocent man's used condom, full of fresh semen "in Leans words" found yards away from the mutilated body of a child, adds to the drama of the fairy tale. Designed to suck people in. It works, as you have probably seen, many of the comments on the internet regarding JF. All false.
Anyone caught up in this is a victim of Sandra Lean. Sandra Lean will use anyone to further her cause. IMO. Her book is not factual. Her personal needs need to be taken into account. Sandra Lean and her books are fiction. She has said so herself. She has said, publicly, she wrote the first book without facts. She said she was withdrawing that book. Did she??
-
You reply to yourself then quote someone but write nothing. Makes sense in your world I guess 8((()*/
I'm trying my best. I don't see words as you do but I'm trying.
-
You reply to yourself then quote someone but write nothing. Makes sense in your world I guess 8((()*/
Regardless of my learning difficulties, I have all the respect in the world for Judy Jones. My heart goes out to her.
-
Is that Lean pretending she speaks for SM again? How old is that post?
She fully understands, that SM does not want to be dragged back into the public eye, but all the others are fair game to be dragged though the dirt. Hypocrisy at its finest.
I think that was a discussion I was having with Sandra on another forum back in Nov 2019.
I have to agree if everyone else named and involved in the court case is ok to talk about then so should Shane be, after all his evidence is a major part of the case and needs to be talked about and clarified IMO I always thought it was wrong to refuse to answer questions about him, but I don’t see Shane coming out any time soon to set the record right, which as I’ve said a number of times, doesn’t look good. Sandra said she spoke to him direct but as others from the guilty side have said they have spoken to him too leaves us all back at square one, make up your own mind from info available. Maybe Luke’s new spokes person will be able to release the info or better yet speak to Shane, after all she is in contact with Luke and him mum ….
-
Shame on her
-
I think that was a discussion I was having with Sandra on another forum back in Nov 2019.
I have to agree if everyone else named and involved in the court case is ok to talk about then so should Shane be, after all his evidence is a major part of the case and needs to be talked about and clarified IMO I always thought it was wrong to refuse to answer questions about him, but I don’t see Shane coming out any time soon to set the record right, which as I’ve said a number of times, doesn’t look good. Sandra said she spoke to him direct but as others from the guilty side have said they have spoken to him too leaves us all back at square one, make up your own mind from info available. Maybe Luke’s new spokes person will be able to release the info or better yet speak to Shane, after all she is in contact with Luke and him mum ….
Would not happen to be the blue forum Bullseye? That is probably where I have seen it before. Although there is a load of posts disappeared from there, some real good reading gone. It is also very similar response she would give on the WAP forum.
Anyway, Sandra knows that SM is the key to all of this, she also knows he could destroy everything she has fought for over the years, if he was to make a public statement, he was after all the main argument for the defence. She also knows he will never make a public statement, he has nothing to gain from doing so. But as long as she continues to be at the forefront, this question will forever haunt her. It will never go away, and she will never be able to splain her way out of it, because it is quite simple, she does not speak for SM.
If we are to believe Sandra about SM. Why do you think the gutter press have never hounded him? It would be quite the story.
-
Indeed she does.
-
Indeed she does.
Sorry! That was to Rusty and before anyone jumps on me, I can't work this out!
-
Sorry! That was to Rusty and before anyone jumps on me, I can't work this out!
It's not that anyone jumps on you... You make many points to others while doing stuff yourself. Everyone makes mistakes...
-
It's not that anyone jumps on you... You make many points to others while doing stuff yourself. Everyone makes mistakes...
. Anyway, have you got any evidence about the claims you made about MK, it has been months we've been waiting, i would be interested in seeing them.
-
It's not that anyone jumps on you... You make many points to others while doing stuff yourself. Everyone makes mistakes...
My mistakes are jumped on. Even by a moderator occasionally. Anyway, that's disappointing but it doesn't matter.
-
Do you take it in turns to post with someone else cos your posts are baffling. You seem to want to be nice then decide against it
You demand answers but then deny it
You get your questions answered then deny the source but continue to demand more no matter how rude you are.
How very strange indeed.
What kind of riddle is this? Take a deep breath, compose yourself. Then try again.
Now, we have got that out the way. I managed to decipher from your riddle, something about sources, but scrolling back though some of the thread, I see no sources that you have provided. That I'm supposed to be denying. Going to give it another bash? Just copy and paste from the WWW it is easy. Show the forum, the evidence from the claims you made about MK.
-
What kind of riddle is this? Take a deep breath, compose yourself. Then try again.
Now, we have got that out the way. I managed to decipher from your riddle, something about sources, but scrolling back though some of the thread, I see no sources that you have provided. That I'm supposed to be denying. Going to give it another bash? Just copy and paste from the WWW it is easy. Show the forum, the evidence from the claims you made about MK.
And what claims did I make? Oh you mean the answers SF gave about his actions?
You can be as nasty as you choose it really doesn't bother me. At least if you attack others while making your own claims dont go on and do the very same thing yourself.
-
What kind of riddle is this? Take a deep breath, compose yourself. Then try again.
Now, we have got that out the way. I managed to decipher from your riddle, something about sources, but scrolling back though some of the thread, I see no sources that you have provided. That I'm supposed to be denying. Going to give it another bash? Just copy and paste from the WWW it is easy. Show the forum, the evidence from the claims you made about MK.
I don't take anything in turn with anyone. I don't know anyone on this forum. Perhaps you are trying to distract?
-
I don't take anything in turn with anyone. I don't know anyone on this forum. Perhaps you are trying to distract?
Sorry, that was for Dexter. Got things wrong again. Forgive me.
-
Would not happen to be the blue forum Bullseye? That is probably where I have seen it before. Although there is a load of posts disappeared from there, some real good reading gone. It is also very similar response she would give on the WAP forum.
Anyway, Sandra knows that SM is the key to all of this, she also knows he could destroy everything she has fought for over the years, if he was to make a public statement, he was after all the main argument for the defence. She also knows he will never make a public statement, he has nothing to gain from doing so. But as long as she continues to be at the forefront, this question will forever haunt her. It will never go away, and she will never be able to splain her way out of it, because it is quite simple, she does not speak for SM.
If we are to believe Sandra about SM. Why do you think the gutter press have never hounded him? It would be quite the story.
Yeah there is lots missing making some of it hard to make sense of but some good reading and a lot of info from Sandra, she was always good enough to take time to reply.
Imo Shane has no reason to release a statement or any kind of information if he doesn’t support Lukes campaign, If he does he should stand up and say so like many others have.
To be honest I think if he was going to say something he would have by now. Maybe he does just want to keep out of it all and to be honest who can blame him.
-
Yeah there is lots missing making some of it hard to make sense of but some good reading and a lot of info from Sandra, she was always good enough to take time to reply.
Imo Shane has no reason to release a statement or any kind of information if he doesn’t support Lukes campaign, If he does he should stand up and say so like many others have.
To be honest I think if he was going to say something he would have by now. Maybe he does just want to keep out of it all and to be honest who can blame him.
SL didn't always reply to me. Some have suggested that's because I'm a troll. I am not.
-
*%^^&
Go to bed pal. You have been on here all day, must be tiring, arguing into the void. I'm off tomorrow again, you know from one of those things you call jobs. dunno if you have heard of them. Depending on the weather, I may or may not be here, to see this evidence that you have promised to produce about MK. Needs to be black & white, none of this 3/4th hand gossip. Toddle pip &^&*%
Oh and it was SF who promised to provide info... soon. Guess you will just have to try and be patient
-
SL didn't always reply to me. Some have suggested that's because I'm a troll. I am not.
Going by what I seen she tried to reply to most questions. Can you remember what you asked that she didn’t reply, be interesting to hear. Did you try asking during her q and a weekly updates also?
-
Are you serious about expecting everyone to wait for SF to speak to the masses? Like everyone's actually waiting and we'll all have to be patient? Well, that's a laugh right there! Tell the idiot we're sick of waiting please.
-
Are you serious about expecting everyone to wait for SF to speak to the masses? Like everyone's actually waiting and we'll all have to be patient? Well, that's a laugh right there! Tell the idiot we're sick of waiting please.
Once again I didnt start this convo. The only things i have stated tonight including having to defend myself are...
Sandra handed over the paperwork and what happened afterwards new legal team etc isn't down to her
I don't agree with nasty comments about Jodi and her family
I haven't been on here all day
I didnt make any claims about MK or in fact mention him to tonight.
Oh and you replied again quoting yourself but asking me to explain why you mentioned MK? *%87
Are you keeping up ? Do I need to continue?
-
Once again I didnt start this convo. The only things i have stated tonight including having to defend myself are...
Sandra handed over the paperwork and what happened afterwards new legal team etc isn't down to her
I don't agree with nasty comments about Jodi and her family
I haven't been on here all day
I didnt make any claims about MK or in fact mention him to tonight.
Oh and you replied again quoting yourself but asking me to explain why you mentioned MK? *%87
Are you keeping up ? Do I need to continue?
I didn't say you were on here all day. I think you're tired and confused.
-
Would not happen to be the blue forum Bullseye? That is probably where I have seen it before. Although there is a load of posts disappeared from there, some real good reading gone. It is also very similar response she would give on the WAP forum.
Anyway, Sandra knows that SM is the key to all of this, she also knows he could destroy everything she has fought for over the years, if he was to make a public statement, he was after all the main argument for the defence. She also knows he will never make a public statement, he has nothing to gain from doing so. But as long as she continues to be at the forefront, this question will forever haunt her. It will never go away, and she will never be able to splain her way out of it, because it is quite simple, she does not speak for SM.
If we are to believe Sandra about SM. Why do you think the gutter press have never hounded him? It would be quite the story.
How do we know the press have never hounded him? Perhaps he flatly refuses to speak to them.
-
Once again I didnt start this convo. The only things i have stated tonight including having to defend myself are...
Sandra handed over the paperwork and what happened afterwards new legal team etc isn't down to her
I don't agree with nasty comments about Jodi and her family
I haven't been on here all day
I didnt make any claims about MK or in fact mention him to tonight.
Oh and you replied again quoting yourself but asking me to explain why you mentioned MK? *%87
Are you keeping up ? Do I need to continue?
As for SF, you are like a bodyguard. You know him. IMO
-
I didn't say you were on here all day. I think you're tired and confused.
Once again you are wrong..I confirmed what I did and didn't write about tonight.
Maybe reread before your comment and check your own thoughts. I never said you told me I had been here all day. I pointed out what I HAD posted not the mumbo jumbo you mentioned
Think it's actually your bedtime as trying to appear clever at this time is obviously a struggle for you
-
Would not happen to be the blue forum Bullseye? That is probably where I have seen it before. Although there is a load of posts disappeared from there, some real good reading gone. It is also very similar response she would give on the WAP forum.
Anyway, Sandra knows that SM is the key to all of this, she also knows he could destroy everything she has fought for over the years, if he was to make a public statement, he was after all the main argument for the defence. She also knows he will never make a public statement, he has nothing to gain from doing so. But as long as she continues to be at the forefront, this question will forever haunt her. It will never go away, and she will never be able to splain her way out of it, because it is quite simple, she does not speak for SM.
If we are to believe Sandra about SM. Why do you think the gutter press have never hounded him? It would be quite the story.
Surely if he thought his brother was guilty of such a horrific crime it would be easy to distance himself from both his brother and the crime by saying so? What does he lose? According to some here Shane and his mother are estranged so it’s certainly not loyalty to his family that would be keeping him silent. Further how do you know that the gutter press haven’t hounded him? Are you privy to that sort of detail?
Perhaps, just perhaps Shane told his truth in his statements and wasn’t listened to so feels that it would be futile to drag it all up to be called a liar over again?
-
How do we know the press have never hounded him? Perhaps he flatly refuses to speak to them.
Exactly.
-
As for SF, you are like a bodyguard. You know him. IMO
Seriously pathetic. What an imagination you have . I didn't even mention SF in the post.
-
Once again you are wrong..I confirmed what I did and didn't write about tonight.
Maybe reread before your comment and check your own thoughts. I never said you told me I had been here all day. I pointed out what I HAD posted not the mumbo jumbo you mentioned
Think it's actually your bedtime as trying to appear clever at this time is obviously a struggle for you
Rambling. You're allowed to do that.
-
Rambling. You're allowed to do that.
I think you set the precedent.
-
Rambling. You're allowed to do that.
Seems to be ok for you to do it. Dont like it when you are proven wrong again...so you attack
-
I think you set the precedent.
How true. &^^&*
-
How true. &^^&*
Don't see where you proved anyone wrong though. If people don't respond to you, you probably haven't out talked them. They're probably just bored.
-
Please-------would posters treat each other with respect.
Thank you.
-
Please-------would posters treat each other with respect.
Thank you.
There you are! Welcome to the discussion!
-
Please-------would posters treat each other with respect.
Thank you
.
Me? Or everyone?
-
Anyway, hungry baby. Need to dash.
-
How do we know the press have never hounded him? Perhaps he flatly refuses to speak to them.
Well, what we know for a fact is. He flat out refuses to speak to Lean and his mother. And even you can work out why. It's not as if he stays that far away from them.
-
Well, what we know for a fact is. He flat out refuses to speak to Lean and his mother. And even you can work out why. It's not as if he stays that far away from them.
Indeed. The purge of the obviously stupid is a curse for the rest of us.
-
Well, what we know for a fact is. He flat out refuses to speak to Lean and his mother. And even you can work out why. It's not as if he stays that far away from them.
So if he has no loyalty to his mother and brother why not clarify that his brother was not at home on the evening of the 30th? He could lout all this appeal, review etc nonsense to bed by simply speaking up. Isn’t that what anyone with any morals would do rather than taking the chance that a child killer may be freed?
-
Me? Or everyone?
Of course NOT just you!
-
Well, what we know for a fact is. He flat out refuses to speak to Lean and his mother. And even you can work out why. It's not as if he stays that far away from them.
I've no idea where Shane lives. I've never even seen a photo of him, so he obviously doesn't speak to the press, and they must have some arrangement with him, otherwise someone would have photographed him without his permission, and published it by now.
DO we know for a fact that he doesn't speak to his mother?
Do you know whether or not he speaks to his father?
-
Of course NOT just you!
Thank goodness. I was beginning to wonder if you were constantly picking on me.
-
Thank goodness. I was beginning to wonder if you were constantly picking on me.
Certainly not.
-
Certainly not.
Ok.
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/lukes-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-2510985
Is the inference from this article, that when Shane stated he was ‘affected’ by what his mother had told him and was ‘shaken’ when giving his amended statement to the police, that he was feeling alarmed and uneasy because he knew, deep down, it was a lie? Maybe at that point (between the 4th-6th July ‘03) SM wasn’t fully aware yet that Luke was involved or fully responsible for Jodi’s murder? Perhaps at that point Luke had only confided in Corinne what he had done? She hadn’t told Shane the full details yet? This being kept in the dark and unaware led to Shane’s confusion & uneasiness? Or, inversely, perhaps SM was using the investigation & circumstances as a device to be evasive and ambiguous in his statements (i.e., tell lies by omitting info)? There’s no doubt it would have been a stressful and traumatic experience for all 3 of them, but maybe Shane used it to be evasive so as not to drop anyone in it? After all, there were other indicators in the article that Shane was being a bit evasive — notice that when asked if he had discussed with anyone what he should say in his statement, he said “in a way”; and when asked if he would have been able to give this information without his mother, he said “not really”. He avoids being unequivocal, much like he did by saying he “couldn’t remember” if Luke was in the house and that he “he might have been there” (he, imo, couldn’t bring himself to categorically say his brother was or wasn’t there, so played it safe; he knew he hadn’t seen his brother, but didn’t want to drop his family in it, so played it safe). I would also like clarification on the landline calls between 1605 & 1625. I’ve never read anything that categorically states that it was Luke who was on both those landline calls and what the exact contents of the phone discussions were. The call from Shane to Luke at 1605 is still shrouded in mystery, and none of them have ever confirmed they spoke to each other on that call. It’s just been assumed they spoke to one another.
The alibi in this case, above all else, makes me feel the most
uneasy. Imo, Luke wasn’t there and was very likely en route to meet Jodi between 1634-1640, after the text exchanges indicating Jodi was no longer grounded (could easily have been in easthouses by 1654 if he left between those times). It’s also very telling that Shane gave no mention of Luke in the house in his very first statement to police (on 03.07.03). He said he couldn’t remember.
While I’ve no doubt that Shane was aggressively interrogated on the 14.04.03 and the police employed tactics to break him, including charging him with perverting the course of Justice, I don’t believe that he couldn’t remember. If you had definitely seen your brother, you would just simply say you did, regardless of the consequences of saying so, especially as it was the one plank of the defence’s case that could’ve seen Luke being free today. The Mitchell household was only a 2-storey detached property — not some mansion. It’s difficult to imagine them not seeing one another that day if they had been in the house together for more than 45 mins and one was allegedly making dinner and playing music whilst doing so. The fact that Shane initially said he couldn’t remember if he had seen Luke (on 03.07.03), then changed it after his mum approached him to remember him about Luke being there (on the 04.07.03), to then renege on that amended statement and revert back to not remembering if he had seen Luke (on 14.04.04), is a concern to me and makes me feel uneasy.
Btw, who was the person on here or on another site to claim they knew SM and that SM had told them, and many others, that he thought Luke was guilty? This person also said they’d be willing to give out Shane’s phone number so that people could phone him personally. It was hard to tell if they were trolling. There was also another post from someone who said that LM’s uncle (his dad’s brother, if memory serves) thinks Luke did it, though it has been suggested that the uncle in question is not mentally stable.
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/lukes-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-2510985
Is the inference from this article, that when Shane stated he was ‘affected’ by what his mother had told him and was ‘shaken’ when giving his amended statement to the police, that he was feeling alarmed and uneasy because he knew, deep down, it was a lie? Maybe at that point (between the 4th-6th July ‘03) SM wasn’t fully aware yet that Luke was involved or fully responsible for Jodi’s murder? Perhaps at that point Luke had only confided in Corinne what he had done? She hadn’t told Shane the full details yet? This being kept in the dark and unaware led to Shane’s confusion & uneasiness? Or, inversely, perhaps SM was using the investigation & circumstances as a device to be evasive and ambiguous in his statements (i.e., tell lies by omitting info)? There’s no doubt it would have been a stressful and traumatic experience for all 3 of them, but maybe Shane used it to be evasive so as not to drop anyone in it? After all, there were other indicators in the article that Shane was being a bit evasive — notice that when asked if he had discussed with anyone what he should say in his statement, he said “in a way”; and when asked if he would have been able to give this information without his mother, he said “not really”. He avoids being unequivocal, much like he did by saying he “couldn’t remember” if Luke was in the house and that he “he might have been there” (he, imo, couldn’t bring himself to categorically say his brother was or wasn’t there, so played it safe; he knew he hadn’t seen his brother, but didn’t want to drop his family in it, so played it safe). I would also like clarification on the landline calls between 1605 & 1625. I’ve never read anything that categorically states that it was Luke who was on both those landline calls and what the exact contents of the phone discussions were. The call from Shane to Luke at 1605 is still shrouded in mystery, and none of them have ever confirmed they spoke to each other on that call. It’s just been assumed they spoke to one another.
The alibi in this case, above all else, makes me feel the most
uneasy. Imo, Luke wasn’t there and was very likely en route to meet Jodi between 1634-1640, after the text exchanges indicating Jodi was no longer grounded (could easily have been in easthouses if he left between those times). It’s also very telling that Shane gave no mention of Luke in the house in his very first statement to police (on 03.07.03). He said he couldn’t remember.
While I’ve no doubt that Shane was aggressively interrogated on the 14.04.03 and the police employed tactics to break him, including charging him with perverting the course of Justice, I don’t believe that he couldn’t remember. If you had definitely seen your brother, you would just simply say you did, regardless of the consequences of saying so, especially as it was the one plank of the defence’s case that could’ve seen Luke being free today. The Mitchell household was only a 2-storey detached property — not some mansion. It’s difficult to imagine them not seeing one another that day if they had been in the house together for more than 45 mins and one was allegedly making dinner and playing music whilst doing so. The fact that Shane initially said he couldn’t remember if he had seen Luke (on 03.07.03), then changed it after his mum approached him to remember him about Luke being there (on the 04.07.03), to then renege on that amended statement and revert back to not remembering if he had seen Luke (on 14.04.04), is a concern to me and makes me feel uneasy.
Btw, who was the person on here or on another site to claim they knew SM and that SM had told them, and many others, that he thought Luke was guilty? This person also said they’d be willing to give out Shane’s phone number so that people could phone him personally. It was hard to tell if they were trolling. There was also another post from someone who said that LM’s uncle (his dad’s brother, if memory serves) thinks Luke did it, though it has been suggested that the uncle in question is not mentally stable.
All I know is, Shane didn't see Luke in the house, then, he did then he didn't,.
-
I've no idea where Shane lives. I've never even seen a photo of him, so he obviously doesn't speak to the press, and they must have some arrangement with him, otherwise someone would have photographed him without his permission, and published it by now.
DO we know for a fact that he doesn't speak to his mother?
Do you know whether or not he speaks to his father?
You have almost figured it out. Well you are still a long way off, but your getting there.
Also like to point out, anyone can photograph anything from a public place and publish it anywhere. With or without permission.
-
All I know is, Shane didn't see Luke in the house, then, he did then he didn't,.
Basically, yes. If he saw him, why not just say so? After all, it is the one piece of evidence that could’ve gotten his brother free. Shane really got caught out and dropped the ball. Or was he so profoundly affected by Turnbull showing him the graphic pics of Jodi’s mutilated body that he just couldn’t tell lies? But, still, he couldn’t bring himself to say, unequivocally, that his brother wasn’t there (blood being thicker than water, and all). I think, above all, Shane’s testimony was the most detrimental to Luke’s defense.
-
Basically, yes. If he saw him, why not just say so? After all, it is the one piece of evidence that could’ve gotten his brother free. Shane really got caught out and dropped the ball. Or was he so profoundly affected by Turnbull showing him the graphic pics of Jodi’s mutilated body that he just couldn’t tell lies? But, still, he couldn’t bring himself to say, unequivocally, that his brother wasn’t there (blood being thicker than water, and all). I think, above all, Shane’s testimony was the most detrimental to Luke’s defense.
Shane changed his story way before court, Mr.Apples.
-
Shane changed his story way before court, Mr.Apples.
I know. What about it?
-
You have almost figured it out. Well you are still a long way off, but your getting there.
Also like to point out, anyone can photograph anything from a public place and publish it anywhere. With or without permission.
What do you think I have almost figured out?
Why do you think it is that we have never seen a picture of Shane?
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/lukes-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-2510985
Is the inference from this article, that when Shane stated he was ‘affected’ by what his mother had told him and was ‘shaken’ when giving his amended statement to the police, that he was feeling alarmed and uneasy because he knew, deep down, it was a lie? Maybe at that point (between the 4th-6th July ‘03) SM wasn’t fully aware yet that Luke was involved or fully responsible for Jodi’s murder? Perhaps at that point Luke had only confided in Corinne what he had done? She hadn’t told Shane the full details yet? This being kept in the dark and unaware led to Shane’s confusion & uneasiness? Or, inversely, perhaps SM was using the investigation & circumstances as a device to be evasive and ambiguous in his statements (i.e., tell lies by omitting info)? There’s no doubt it would have been a stressful and traumatic experience for all 3 of them, but maybe Shane used it to be evasive so as not to drop anyone in it? After all, there were other indicators in the article that Shane was being a bit evasive — notice that when asked if he had discussed with anyone what he should say in his statement, he said “in a way”; and when asked if he would have been able to give this information without his mother, he said “not really”. He avoids being unequivocal, much like he did by saying he “couldn’t remember” if Luke was in the house and that he “he might have been there” (he, imo, couldn’t bring himself to categorically say his brother was or wasn’t there, so played it safe; he knew he hadn’t seen his brother, but didn’t want to drop his family in it, so played it safe). I would also like clarification on the landline calls between 1605 & 1625. I’ve never read anything that categorically states that it was Luke who was on both those landline calls and what the exact contents of the phone discussions were. The call from Shane to Luke at 1605 is still shrouded in mystery, and none of them have ever confirmed they spoke to each other on that call. It’s just been assumed they spoke to one another.
The alibi in this case, above all else, makes me feel the most
uneasy. Imo, Luke wasn’t there and was very likely en route to meet Jodi between 1634-1640, after the text exchanges indicating Jodi was no longer grounded (could easily have been in easthouses by 1654 if he left between those times). It’s also very telling that Shane gave no mention of Luke in the house in his very first statement to police (on 03.07.03). He said he couldn’t remember.
While I’ve no doubt that Shane was aggressively interrogated on the 14.04.03 and the police employed tactics to break him, including charging him with perverting the course of Justice, I don’t believe that he couldn’t remember. If you had definitely seen your brother, you would just simply say you did, regardless of the consequences of saying so, especially as it was the one plank of the defence’s case that could’ve seen Luke being free today. The Mitchell household was only a 2-storey detached property — not some mansion. It’s difficult to imagine them not seeing one another that day if they had been in the house together for more than 45 mins and one was allegedly making dinner and playing music whilst doing so. The fact that Shane initially said he couldn’t remember if he had seen Luke (on 03.07.03), then changed it after his mum approached him to remember him about Luke being there (on the 04.07.03), to then renege on that amended statement and revert back to not remembering if he had seen Luke (on 14.04.04), is a concern to me and makes me feel uneasy.
Btw, who was the person on here or on another site to claim they knew SM and that SM had told them, and many others, that he thought Luke was guilty? This person also said they’d be willing to give out Shane’s phone number so that people could phone him personally. It was hard to tell if they were trolling. There was also another post from someone who said that LM’s uncle (his dad’s brother, if memory serves) thinks Luke did it, though it has been suggested that the uncle in question is not mentally stable.
Apparently, Shane also forgot that he had stopped off at a friend's house after work, to help him with his car, and so said he had arrived home earlier than he had (said it in a statement, not in court). I wonder how good Shane's memory was in general?
Do you really think Luke killed Jodi, and then went home and told his mother he had done it?
-
Apparently, Shane also forgot that he had stopped off at a friend's house after work, to help him with his car, and so said he had arrived home earlier than he had (said it in a statement, not in court). I wonder how good Shane's memory was in general?
Do you really think Luke killed Jodi, and then went home and told his mother he had done it?
I don't believe Shane had a bad memory, I believe Shane was at home on 30th June when he initially said he was. I don't believe Luke Mitchell was at home. I believe the landline calls were Shane. I don't believe Shane and Luke saw each other at all. I don't think Luke Mitchell was at home. That's why I think Shane Mitchell's statements were all over the place despite what Sandra Lean says. Just my opinion.
-
Apparently, Shane also forgot that he had stopped off at a friend's house after work, to help him with his car, and so said he had arrived home earlier than he had (said it in a statement, not in court). I wonder how good Shane's memory was in general?
Do you really think Luke killed Jodi, and then went home and told his mother he had done it?
Yes, he did forget that. Well, supposedly. Even if he had forgotten about this, I still don’t think he would’ve forgotten he had seen his brother, or indeed heard him in the house. Maybe he didn’t forget repairing his friend’s car, that it was a ruse, and the beginning of Shane playing safe so as not to arouse suspicion. Not remembering is the easiest answer if you don’t want to get caught out, imo. That’s why I’d like more clarification on the 1605 phone call to the Mitchell landline and the contents of it. Did either Luke or Shane say in court that they had spoken to one another at that time on the family landline? And what exactly was discussed?
Yes, I believe he told his mother immediately, either via mobile phone calls or texts and they both wiped their phones’ histories immediately afterwards. Or, failing that, I think he was at home between 1830 - 1920 giving her the lowe-down of what happened and he got washed and changed to meet up with David High and co, while Corinne began burning his jacket, clothes and shoes.
-
I don't believe Shane had a bad memory, I believe Shane was at home on 30th June when he initially said he was. I don't believe Luke Mitchell was at home. I believe the landline calls were Shane. I don't believe Shane and Luke saw each other at all. I don't think Luke Mitchell was at home. That's why I think Shane Mitchell's statements were all over the place despite what Sandra Lean says. Just my opinion.
Which time did he (sm) initially say he was home at? Do you think Luke was at home at all on 30.06.03 before 2100? Do you think he went home straight after school that day?
I agree that they didn’t see each other between 1530 and 1730 and that’s why sm’s statements were all over the place.
-
Yes, he did forget that. Well, supposedly. Even if he had forgotten about this, I still don’t think he would’ve forgotten he had seen his brother, or indeed heard him in the house. Maybe he didn’t forget repairing his friend’s car, that it was a ruse, and the beginning of Shane playing safe so as not to arouse suspicion. Not remembering is the easiest answer if you don’t want to get caught out, imo. That’s why I’d like more clarification on the 1605 phone call to the Mitchell landline and the contents of it. Did either Luke or Shane say in court that they had spoken to one another at that time on the family landline? And what exactly was discussed?
Yes, I believe he told his mother immediately, either via mobile phone calls or texts and they both wiped their phones’ histories immediately afterwards. Or, failing that, I think he was at home between 1830 - 1920 giving her the lowe-down of what happened and he got washed and changed to meet up with David High and co, while Corinne began burning his jacket, clothes and shoes.
Multiple witnesses saw Luke on the Newbattle Road between 17.50-18.15.
-
Multiple witnesses saw Luke on the Newbattle Road between 17.50-18.15.
This is true. But what are you implying here? What is the significance of those sightings in relation to my post? I don’t get what point you are trying to make.
-
Yes, he did forget that. Well, supposedly. Even if he had forgotten about this, I still don’t think he would’ve forgotten he had seen his brother, or indeed heard him in the house. Maybe he didn’t forget repairing his friend’s car, that it was a ruse, and the beginning of Shane playing safe so as not to arouse suspicion. Not remembering is the easiest answer if you don’t want to get caught out, imo. That’s why I’d like more clarification on the 1605 phone call to the Mitchell landline and the contents of it. Did either Luke or Shane say in court that they had spoken to one another at that time on the family landline? And what exactly was discussed?
Yes, I believe he told his mother immediately, either via mobile phone calls or texts and they both wiped their phones’ histories immediately afterwards. Or, failing that, I think he was at home between 1830 - 1920 giving her the lowe-down of what happened and he got washed and changed to meet up with David High and co, while Corinne began burning his jacket, clothes and shoes.
I find it incredible that a teenage boy can murder his girlfriend in such an appalling way, go home and tell his mother, who is so unappalled that she immediately sets to work burning his clothes, while he goes out on a social jaunt with friends.
I cannot believe it happened this way. I must concede that Luke might have murdered Jodi, but if he did, I can't see him confessing all to his mum, and then going out as if it were a normal evening. Sorry, but my common sense tells me that a teenage boy would not tell his mum, and a mum wouldn't cover it up while allowing her son to go out socializing.
-
This is true. But what are you implying here? What is the significance of those sightings in relation to my post? I don’t get what point you are trying to make.
If he got changed between 18.30-19.20 why was he not wearing the fabled parka jacket but the bomber jacket he admitted wearing when seen by those witnesses earlier?
-
I find it incredible that a teenage boy can murder his girlfriend in such an appalling way, go home and tell his mother, who is so unappalled that she immediately sets to work burning his clothes, while he goes out on a social jaunt with friends.
I cannot believe it happened this way. I must concede that Luke might have murdered Jodi, but if he did, I can't see him confessing all to his mum, and then going out as if it were a normal evening. Sorry, but my common sense tells me that a teenage boy would not tell his mum, and a mum wouldn't cover it up while allowing her son to go out socializing.
Of course not and there was nothing in Corrine’s behaviour later at the police station that suggested that the murder was anything but a huge shock to her.
-
Do you really think Luke killed Jodi, and then went home and told his mother he had done it?
While you seem to be completely ruling this out, it's not impossible - stranger things have happened.
-
While you seem to be completely ruling this out, it's not impossible - stranger things have happened.
Not impossible, but, IMO, very unlikely!
-
There is another possibility, of course, which is that LM committed the murder, but that CM knew nothing about it.
The two did seem to collude, though.
-
Not impossible, but, IMO, very unlikely!
Isn't it for most everyone, It Is not easy to fathom at all is it? Of anyone carrying out such a horrendous act. Good to see, you are completely leaning towards a fully grown, adult serial killer type. That in no way do you believe in the slightest, that the 16-year old youths on the bike, the 18-year old Kelly, the 19-year old brother had any part whatsoever in this horrendous murder either, do you? That the 15 -year old you speak of is no different from those others, where age, experience and cover up and all else come into play? Unlikely, isn't it? Their parents, siblings and all else would cover up either, would they?
But the reality here is of course the false alibi. And the lies being told around this. Where it is pretty much key to understand the extent of the lies told, that gives us that clear picture, that LM was not at home. It has nothing to do with what can possibly be done in 13 mins, but everything to do with, what was in reality claimed to have happened in and around 40-45 mins. At it's very basic, If everything was in truth around Mitchell being home, then why that need to strive to make it into something else, to pull the brother into it? To extend that time out, to have him covered at home, longer? In advance, and exactly around the time needed. They were the only ones, to strive to put an alibi in place, that is what stands out. And if one is striving to give an alibi, it is because they needed one. - That is common sense and logic, is it not?
The first time SM was spoken to , was not the "first statement at the station". A brief account had already been given to the FLO, after being appointed to the Mitchell household. Within 36hrs of this girls death. A more detailed one on the Thursday, within 72hrs of this girls death, and a further brief one, still within 72hrs. When it became abundantly clear that on his arrival home, his mother had given a further account, and she put SM centre in those lies. And we know they were lies, and not memory loss - for she had her son coming out his room, downstairs on her arrival home at five past five. She had him return to his room for around 10mins while dinner was being completed. That he collected that dinner at around 5.15, ate it and she claims he left the house. She did not see him just after five, and she neither saw nor heard him leave home. So by her own claims again, she had no way of knowing what time he left, did she? And those first accounts, all included LM leaving home around 5.45pm, to go meet with Jodi for around 6pm. Her memory loss, and regaining it, already had her memory put SM somewhere he could not have been, for she was not even home. And he could not have waited to have dinner made, to then eat it and be out - for he had to be out before 5.30pm for him still not to see his brother. - Now if you feel, due to not believing a 14-year old could carry out this type of crime, that they must be telling the truth about the alibi - then it is hardly surprising one puts complete faith in Ms Leans version on the back of the Mitchells?
Memory - every single detail of that dinner, with those clear and precise descriptions of Luke, all centred around Luke, driving that point that he was home. This is from the off. The clothing, of everything he was wearing, again driving that point home, those precise details of what he had on. Those timings, again precise, driving the point home, that she seen him just after 5pm, that he stayed home until around 5.45pm. Of putting herself in the back garden, again the detail of her work and all else. Putting her outside, when most would be in? It was overcast and wet. Low temps. It stood out like a sore thumb in comparison to these others, did it not? That precision, yet forgot she had not went directly home? That she even had an imaginary discussion with her other son at a time she could not have. - So yes it was blatant, and yes it disintegrated - he was not at home.
So, she was covering for him, at a time he obviously needed cover for. And she dragged her other son into it, to get one to lie to cover for the other also. From the moment she decided to help LM, irrespective of what tale he told her, she set herself on a road of no return. Only CM or her son/s can answer why, to what story was told by Luke to them. People again under the impression that this maniac had arrived home, dripping blood and all else, the person who murdered Jodi Jones, those injuries, was not simply a murderer, where they? - And I do believe, whatever help he managed to get, he threw it back in her face. For the moment he crossed that threshold from fantasy to reality, something else was born. That change, and this was the person who needed to be at the centre of the action later that evening. There is no rational to that type of mind, no logic and common sense of distancing oneself completely, is there? The person who murdered Jodi Jones, was cold and they were calculated - exactly the traits LM displayed throughout. Every meet, every interview, through the trial and present day. - That complete "flat affect" monotone voice. Exactly how the operator described him, "not how one would expect someone to be, after finding a body" Exactly the voice the Jury heard that day, that chilling voice.
Is this the basis of what sucked Ms Lean in? For instantly upon that murder happening she had LM as being innocent, didn't she? That controversy, whilst her friends were saying I wonder, she was saying I don't. It was not him. Confirmed by that hand shake, he looked her in the eye, and she decided he was innocent. - And people have to believe her wonderful judgement of character, based on what exactly? - for it is certainly not evidence.
So, the question should be, should it not, why did she lie for him, and why did she involve her other son? Look at it this way. IF he had been home on her arrival, then she saw him for mere minutes. You can not make a mistake with seeing someone for mere minutes, can you? So why not simply say this? in the first instance. Tell the truth, as with Luke and wanting him over the wall for his DNA, as with his mother on Newbattle Road, "Jodi dead, breathing attack, is he under arrest" - She knew before having contact with her son that evening, that Jodi was dead. They had not spoken on the phone, he had been ignoring her.
So, not the fault of the police, is it? - They did not concoct the stories, lie to cover up, whatever they thought it was, they were covering for? Even that disgusting attempt to embroil SM into it, only sealed that fate more, they were digging the hole bigger. Adding more and more prior to the CCTV footage and the phone logs. And the arrest and the charges, and the future? Where we are asked to believe, that his grown up son, simply left this mother to it, by her blessing! - not much choice really, but it certainly tells it's own story, does it not?
-
Of course not and there was nothing in Corrine’s behaviour later at the police station that suggested that the murder was anything but a huge shock to her.
Really? That she already knew that Jodi was dead, that she also asked if he were under arrest. Perhaps you are correct, perhaps Luke had told her earlier in the evening that he found Jodi, after dying from a breathing attack? Or had one whilst he was with her, and he panicked - is this why the alibi was born?
-
Not impossible, but, IMO, very unlikely!
I genuinely cannot believe, the stuff I read that comes out of this poster. They make it sound like, children that kill other children and others is a rare occurrence. There are many in the UK alone, over the years, that have not only killed, but showed very little to no emotion in doing so. There was one in Scotland only just a few years ago, with the brutal rape and murder of a minor from a 15yo heavy cannabis abuser. Hundred's more examples in the UK, and thousands of them in the US.
Do you actually do any research before you type?
-
Really? That she already knew that Jodi was dead, that she also asked if he were under arrest. Perhaps you are correct, perhaps Luke had told her earlier in the evening that he found Jodi, after dying from a breathing attack? Or had one whilst he was with her, and he panicked - is this why the alibi was born?
Unless we know the exact flow of that conversation we can’t possibly know when Corrine found out Jodi was dead. Do we have a transcript?
-
I genuinely cannot believe, the stuff I read that comes out of this poster. They make it sound like, children that kill other children and others is a rare occurrence. There are many in the UK alone, over the years, that have not only killed, but showed very little to no emotion in doing so. There was one in Scotland only just a few years ago, with the brutal rape and murder of a minor from a 15yo heavy cannabis abuser. Hundred's more examples in the UK, and thousands of them in the US.
Do you actually do any research before you type?
I would think it's a rare occurrence that they go home and tell their mothers what they've done. That is what I was referring to, not whether or not children kill! You did not read my post properly.
Yes , I do my research. Do you?
-
I would think it's a rare occurrence that they go home and tell their mothers what they've done. That is what I was referring to, not whether or not children kill! You did not read my post properly.
Yes , I do my research. Do you?
But who else was going to help him? Who else could LM have expected to help him?
-
But who else was going to help him? Who else could LM have expected to help him?
I don't think I'd be expecting any help from my family if I murdered someone!
-
I don't think I'd be expecting any help from my family if I murdered someone!
But if he had no option but to ask for help, who could that be? Where would he go?
-
I don't think I'd be expecting any help from my family if I murdered someone!
I believe he would go to his family. Where else?
-
Unless we know the exact flow of that conversation we can’t possibly know when Corrine found out Jodi was dead. Do we have a transcript?
So, who do you think stumbled upon poor Jodi's body and mutilated her post mortem?
-
So, who do you think stumbled upon poor Jodi's body and mutilated her post mortem?
I’m not with you. We are talking about how and when Corrine found out about Jodi’s murder.
-
Unless we know the exact flow of that conversation we can’t possibly know when Corrine found out Jodi was dead. Do we have a transcript?
Did Corinne initially know Jodi had been murdered on the night of the 30th? Genuine question because I don't know
-
I’m not with you. We are talking about how and when Corrine found out about Jodi’s murder.
Corinne can't have been told Jodi had been murdered at that point in time because the police wouldn't have had the post mortem results. They obviously had strong reasons for thinking she had been murdered but did Corinne ask if her son had been arrested? Do you know?
-
So if he has no loyalty to his mother and brother why not clarify that his brother was not at home on the evening of the 30th? He could lout all this appeal, review etc nonsense to bed by simply speaking up. Isn’t that what anyone with any morals would do rather than taking the chance that a child killer may be freed?
Maybe Luke and Corinne didn't have any loyalty for Shane.
-
If he got changed between 18.30-19.20 why was he not wearing the fabled parka jacket but the bomber jacket he admitted wearing when seen by those witnesses earlier?
Changed after 18.30? Where did you get that from?
-
Changed after 18.30? Where did you get that from?
Do you think Luke had need to get changed at all? I have no idea what you believe, (well, a bit) but I have always believed that it's really straight forward. One boy, two coats. With help.
-
You really don't have much idea of what was going on in 2003 do you? There's a very good reason AO's statement disappeared but you'll never work it out.
We now know AO spoke directly to the High Court at the time of LM's trial. It is comedy gold for those who think comedy mixes well in chat with a murdered child and it is as simple as that. It's for all to see and all to decide what is in good taste and who is not.
-
Changed after 18.30? Where did you get that from?
It’s Mr Apples theory I believe.
-
Do you think Luke had need to get changed at all? I have no idea what you believe, (well, a bit) but I have always believed that it's really straight forward. One boy, two coats. With help.
And if there was sufficient blood on his parka to necessitate changing it surely there would be blood on his trousers and shoes too. Did he bring another pair of each of those to change in to?
-
And if there was sufficient blood on his parka to necessitate changing it surely there would be blood on his trousers and shoes too. Did he bring another pair of each of those to change in to?
Doubtful. It's unlikely he left his house wearing two jackets either but I'm glad you mentioned the parka because he had a parka.
-
Doubtful. It's unlikely he left his house wearing two jackets either but I'm glad you mentioned the parka because he had a parka.
If you say so.
-
If you say so.
I do say so and even CM said in court that she wasn't calling the pals of LM, the pupils at his school and the teachers who swore to LM having a parka prior to Jodi's murder, eight witnesses in all, liars, she wasn't aware of LM having a parka. Not that he didn't have one prior. She said, if LM had a parka, she didn't know about it.
-
I do say so and even CM said in court that she wasn't calling the pals of LM, the pupils at his school and the teachers who swore to LM having a parka prior to Jodi's murder, eight witnesses in all, liars, she wasn't aware of LM having a parka. Not that he didn't have one prior. She said, if LM had a parka, she didn't know about it.
Who were the 8 witnesses?
-
Apparently, Shane also forgot that he had stopped off at a friend's house after work, to help him with his car, and so said he had arrived home earlier than he had (said it in a statement, not in court). I wonder how good Shane's memory was in general?
Do you really think Luke killed Jodi, and then went home and told his mother he had done it?
I find it incredible that a teenage boy can murder his girlfriend in such an appalling way, go home and tell his mother, who is so unappalled that she immediately sets to work burning his clothes, while he goes out on a social jaunt with friends.
I cannot believe it happened this way. I must concede that Luke might have murdered Jodi, but if he did, I can't see him confessing all to his mum, and then going out as if it were a normal evening. Sorry, but my common sense tells me that a teenage boy would not tell his mum, and a mum wouldn't cover it up while allowing her son to go out socializing.
I understand your reasoning, but, Luke was not a normal 14-year-old. He was advanced for his age (was cool and calculating and, according to Dobbie, was able to take control of police interviews despite never having any experience previously in the legal process), sexually mature for his age (a female journalist who interviewed him, or perhaps it was FLO Michelle Lindsay, commented that, judging from his body language, eye contact and confidence in conversation, Luke was sexually confident and advanced for his age), was forensically aware (as per his comments to the police, “you don’t have a match then”), was physically very strong (as per his ex-girlfriend’s comments when he pranked her at cadets), was something of an outcast, used and distributed large quantities of cannabis (usage that could clearly affect his mental health in a negative way), had an assortment of knives and was clearly interested in them as a hobby of sorts (was a David Crockett type — was keen on camping, the outdoors, hunting, the cadets), was an ardent fan of the macabre (court heard excerpts from taped police interviews where Luke admitted that ‘The Omen’ films were his particular favourites), was advised, even as early as primary school, to seek psychological help for trying to ‘throttle’ another pupil, in high school he was advised to seek psychological help as teachers were concerned about the content of his English essays, then there are the girls/previous girlfriends that Luke had threatened with knives and tried to sexually impose himself on, was used to getting his own way as he was spoiled by his mother in lieu of not having a father in the house (parents were divorced), was the man about the house in the absence of his father, making him more grown up and independent (ties in with him being ‘advanced’ for his age), was clearly two-timing Jodi, by his own admission ‘had a short fuse’ and quick temper (inherited from Corrine and Granny Ruby). Now, each of these things per se aren’t alarming or concerning, but, when taken together, along with the strong circumstancial evidence against him in the case, is very unsettling. Looking at all of the aforementioned, can you say that this is normal for a boy of 14? Given his nature, all of what I mentioned above and his cannabis usage, I think it’s entirely possible he carried out the horrific murder and acted nonchalantly and in control immediately after, especially if he was stoned.
As regards Luke not telling his mum and her not covering it up, well, just look at my list of reasons above; it negates your argument, imo. Furthermore, Corrine, while being an intelligent & independent woman, was not exactly a paragon of innocence. She indulged Luke, lied in order to get Luke a tattoo, had a short fuse, smoked cannabis herself and frequently drank (she had been drinking on the Monday evening and had to walk to the police station that night. Said the log burner wasn’t lit on that evening, but was refuted by her sons and neighbours. The bond between a mother and son is probably the strongest of all bonds, so, yes, I think she would be prepared to lie and cover up for him (the tatto parlour dishonesty does seem minor, but it nonetheless exposes a willingness to lie so her son can get his way). Also, just my gut instinct, I think there’s something a bit off about Corrine. Nothing against her, but there’s just something about her that doesn’t sit right with me.
-
Who were the 8 witnesses?
I don't know but I read an article where Alan Turnbull QC, asked Corinne Mitchell about the parka in court. He said there were 8 witnesses, at least, to Luke's prior parks and Corinne's answer was that she wasn't aware he owned one prior to Jodi's death. I've posted the cite for that previously on this forum somewhere.
-
If he got changed between 18.30-19.20 why was he not wearing the fabled parka jacket but the bomber jacket he admitted wearing when seen by those witnesses earlier?
I think he either had the bomber Jacket on underneath the parka, hid the parka in the woodland between 1740-1800 (i.e. between the f&w sighting & the pushbike boys trio sighting or the mo&dh sighting). I think, before he left to meet Jodi, he looked at the overcast weather and put the parka on top of the bomber just in case it rained (this could also explain why the parka looked, according to AB, bulging at the pocket). If this was the case, he may have started panicking whilst on the N’battle rd, as the parka was probably slightly blood-stained (not heavily blood-stained, not enough blood for passers-by to notice), but he couldn’t take any chances because there were still traces of blood on it. He knew at that point he had to get rid of it (and he knew also that someone might have seen him over on Easthouses with it on — two wrongs don’t make a right; very incriminating for him and he knew it). Ideally, Luke would have been hoping no one had seen him at that time on the N’battle rd, but they did, so he had to act cool and unflustered (casually hanging onto the gate, but he was looking angry and peeved underneath his hair, not making eye contact with people in the passing cars, instead staring at the ground). So, what he did next was one of two possibilities: he either started panicking and hid the jacket somewhere in the woodland at the Eskbank river, cleaned up slightly there at the river (and, no, it’s not ridiculous to suggest this, as Luke was the outdoor David Crockett type and had already been exposed to camping, hunting, the cadets, survival, etc, at an early age). Or else he went home very quickly, just after 1740 (just after the F & W sighting), gave Corrine the parka to destroy, and then was back on the N’battle rd for 1800 (for the pushbike trio’s two sightings, the couple sighting (mo & DH) and the Scottish executive employee sighting). Luke also knew that people seeing him in the bomber jacket on the N’battle rd would work in his favour, especially as it was not bloodstained and he had worn it to school that day, and, more importantly, it would throw a spanner in the works in terms of eyewitness evidence (I believe Luke was already thinking about this and wanted to be seen at this point with it on — this was the start of the alibi being set in motion).
Regardless of what happened to the parka (and he did own a parka before the 30.06.03 ... a teacher, friends and school friends all testified to this in court), I think he definitely went home between 1830-1930, before he met up with his mates in the abbey. I think he told his mum all of what happened, took a shower and changed all his clothes and footwear (though, I am surprised no neighbours saw him going home at this time, even if he did go home via the Eskbank river route ... perhaps he got lucky, and of course the Mitchell house was well covered at the front with plants, bushes, trees and climbing ivy). Remember, Luke said he was on the N’battle rd for about 2 hours waiting on Jodi, and yet there was not one single solitary sighting of him on this road between 1830-1930. Very peculiar, especially as this was during the height of summer and at a time when the road would have been particularly busy with traffic, walkers and joggers. Also significant was the words of one of his mates who said that Luke was more kempt than normal that evening (anyone have the article containing this mate’s account? I read it a few months back, but haven’t been able to find it again).
So, basically, Luke hid twice on the N’battle rd. Firstly just after 1740 until 1800. And secondly between 1830-1930. He got rid of that parka after the f&w sighting (he knew, though trying to act cool on the gate, he was panicking and looking at the ground, looking pissed off and angry and therefore also looking suspicious; he knew this, was aware of looking suspicious, so had to dispose of this slightly blood-stained jacket, not only because it contained incriminating dna evidence, but also to nullify eyewitness evidence; changing jackets or appearing with another jacket on soon after the f&w sighting would be an effective way to achieve this. Notice how, despite it being the height of summer and a particularly busy road at a time when the volume of traffic would’ve been heavy, there was not one sighting of Luke. It’s very strange, imo.
-
I think he either had the bomber Jacket on underneath the parka, hid the parka in the woodland between 1740-1800 (i.e. between the f&w sighting & the pushbike boys trio sighting or the mo&dh sighting). I think, before he left to meet Jodi, he looked at the overcast weather and put the parka on top of the bomber just in case it rained (this could also explain why the parka looked, according to AB, bulging at the pocket). If this was the case, he may have started panicking whilst on the N’battle rd, as the parka was probably slightly blood-stained (not heavily blood-stained, not enough blood for passers-by to notice), but he couldn’t take any chances because there were still traces of blood on it. He knew at that point he had to get rid of it (and he knew also that someone might have seen him over on Easthouses with it on — two wrongs don’t make a right; very incriminating for him and he knew it). Ideally, Luke would have been hoping no one had seen him at that time on the N’battle rd, but they did, so he had to act cool and unflustered (casually hanging onto the gate, but looking angry and peeved underneath his hair, and making eye contact with people in the passing cars, instead staring at the ground). So, what he did next was one of two possibilities: he either started panicking and hid the jacket somewhere in the woodland at the Eskbank river, cleaned up slightly there at the river (and, no, it’s not ridiculous to suggest this, as Luke was the outdoor David Crockett type and had already been exposed to camping, hunting, the cadets, survival, etc, at an early age). Or else he went home very quickly, just after 1740 (just after the F & W sighting), gave Corrine the parka to destroy, and then was back on the N’battle rd for 1800 (for the pushbike trio’s two sightings, the couple sighting (mo & DH) and the Scottish executive employee sighting). Luke also knew that people seeing him in the bomber jacket on the N’battle rd would work in his favour, especially as it was not bloodstained and he had worn it to school that day, and, more importantly, it would throw a spanner in the works in terms of eyewitness evidence (I believe Luke was already thinking about this and wanted to be seen at this point with it on — this was the start of the alibi being set in motion).
Regardless of what happened to the parka (and he did own a parka before the 30.06.03 ... a teacher, friends and school friends all testified to this in court), I think he definitely went home between 1830-1930, before he met up with his mates in the abbey. I think he told his mum all of what happened, took a shower and changed all his clothes and footwear (though, I am surprised no neighbours saw him going home at this time, even if he did go home via the Eskbank river route ... perhaps he got lucky, and of course the Mitchell house was well covered at the front with plants, bushes, trees and climbing ivy). Remember, Luke said he was on the N’battle rd for about 2 hours waiting on Jodi, and yet there was not one single solitary sighting of him on this road between 1830-1930. Very peculiar, especially as this was during the height of summer and at a time when the road would have been particularly busy with traffic, walkers and joggers. Also significant was the words of one of his mates who said that Luke was more kempt than normal that evening (anyone have the article containing this mate’s account? I read it a few months back, but haven’t been able to find it again).
So, basically, Luke hid twice on the N’battle rd. Firstly just after 1740 until 1800. And secondly between 1830-1930. He got rid of that parka after the f&w sighting (he knew, though trying to act cool on the gate, he was panicking and looking at the ground, looking pissed off and angry and therefore also looking suspicious; he knew this, was aware of looking suspicious, so had to dispose of this slightly blood-stained jacket, not only because it contained incriminating dna evidence, but also to nullify eyewitness evidence; changing jackets or appearing with another jacket on soon after the f&w sighting would be an effective way to achieve this. Notice how, despite it being the height of summer and a particularly busy road at a time when the volume of traffic would’ve been heavy, there was not one sighting of Luke. It’s very strange, imo.
I believe that's all very possible or someone helped him. Two witnesses said in court that the male wearing a green bomber jacket on Newbattle Road was definitely not LM so who could the male in the green bomber jacket have been at that point in time? Then, LM shows up wearing a green bomber jacket. Positively identified.
-
I believe that's all very possible or someone helped him. Two witnesses said in court that the male wearing a green bomber jacket on Newbattle Road was definitely not LM so who could the male in the green bomber jacket have been at that point in time? Then, LM shows up wearing a green bomber jacket. Positively identified.
I know there are no photos of LM in a parka prior to Jodi's murder. Are there any photos of LM in a bomber jacket prior to Jodi's murder? I'd be interested to know.
-
I know there are no photos of LM in a parka prior to Jodi's murder. Are there any photos of LM in a bomber jacket prior to Jodi's murder? I'd be interested to know.
Good question. I don’t know, either. The main thing is that the police were one step ahead of Luke and managed to ascertain, crucially, that he owned a parka prior to 30.06.03.
-
I don't know but I read an article where Alan Turnbull QC, asked Corinne Mitchell about the parka in court. He said there were 8 witnesses, at least, to Luke's prior parks and Corinne's answer was that she wasn't aware he owned one prior to Jodi's death. I've posted the cite for that previously on this forum somewhere.
Were the witnesses called to court or their statements read out ?
-
Good question. I don’t know, either. The main thing is that the police were one step ahead of Luke and managed to ascertain, crucially, that he owned a parka prior to 30.06.03.
I agree but unfortunately they didn't know about the parka initially. They didn't take the log burner until 4th July. That's if anything incriminating was even burned in it. Who's to say there was only one fire? What I do find really odd though is that CM bought LM a replacement parka before the police were even looking for one.
-
Were the witnesses called to court or their statements read out ?
I don't know.
-
Were the witnesses called to court or their statements read out ?
I don't remember the cite now but whether they were read out or not, CM didn't deny that LM had a parka. She said she wasn't aware he had a parka.
-
I think he either had the bomber Jacket on underneath the parka, hid the parka in the woodland between 1740-1800 (i.e. between the f&w sighting & the pushbike boys trio sighting or the mo&dh sighting). I think, before he left to meet Jodi, he looked at the overcast weather and put the parka on top of the bomber just in case it rained (this could also explain why the parka looked, according to AB, bulging at the pocket). If this was the case, he may have started panicking whilst on the N’battle rd, as the parka was probably slightly blood-stained (not heavily blood-stained, not enough blood for passers-by to notice), but he couldn’t take any chances because there were still traces of blood on it. He knew at that point he had to get rid of it (and he knew also that someone might have seen him over on Easthouses with it on — two wrongs don’t make a right; very incriminating for him and he knew it). Ideally, Luke would have been hoping no one had seen him at that time on the N’battle rd, but they did, so he had to act cool and unflustered (casually hanging onto the gate, but he was looking angry and peeved underneath his hair, not making eye contact with people in the passing cars, instead staring at the ground). So, what he did next was one of two possibilities: he either started panicking and hid the jacket somewhere in the woodland at the Eskbank river, cleaned up slightly there at the river (and, no, it’s not ridiculous to suggest this, as Luke was the outdoor David Crockett type and had already been exposed to camping, hunting, the cadets, survival, etc, at an early age). Or else he went home very quickly, just after 1740 (just after the F & W sighting), gave Corrine the parka to destroy, and then was back on the N’battle rd for 1800 (for the pushbike trio’s two sightings, the couple sighting (mo & DH) and the Scottish executive employee sighting). Luke also knew that people seeing him in the bomber jacket on the N’battle rd would work in his favour, especially as it was not bloodstained and he had worn it to school that day, and, more importantly, it would throw a spanner in the works in terms of eyewitness evidence (I believe Luke was already thinking about this and wanted to be seen at this point with it on — this was the start of the alibi being set in motion).
Regardless of what happened to the parka (and he did own a parka before the 30.06.03 ... a teacher, friends and school friends all testified to this in court), I think he definitely went home between 1830-1930, before he met up with his mates in the abbey. I think he told his mum all of what happened, took a shower and changed all his clothes and footwear (though, I am surprised no neighbours saw him going home at this time, even if he did go home via the Eskbank river route ... perhaps he got lucky, and of course the Mitchell house was well covered at the front with plants, bushes, trees and climbing ivy). Remember, Luke said he was on the N’battle rd for about 2 hours waiting on Jodi, and yet there was not one single solitary sighting of him on this road between 1830-1930. Very peculiar, especially as this was during the height of summer and at a time when the road would have been particularly busy with traffic, walkers and joggers. Also significant was the words of one of his mates who said that Luke was more kempt than normal that evening (anyone have the article containing this mate’s account? I read it a few months back, but haven’t been able to find it again).
So, basically, Luke hid twice on the N’battle rd. Firstly just after 1740 until 1800. And secondly between 1830-1930. He got rid of that parka after the f&w sighting (he knew, though trying to act cool on the gate, he was panicking and looking at the ground, looking pissed off and angry and therefore also looking suspicious; he knew this, was aware of looking suspicious, so had to dispose of this slightly blood-stained jacket, not only because it contained incriminating dna evidence, but also to nullify eyewitness evidence; changing jackets or appearing with another jacket on soon after the f&w sighting would be an effective way to achieve this. Notice how, despite it being the height of summer and a particularly busy road at a time when the volume of traffic would’ve been heavy, there was not one sighting of Luke. It’s very strange, imo.
Teachers, friends and school friends all testified in court? Do you have a cite?
-
I don't remember the cite now but whether they were read out or not, CM didn't deny that LM had a parka. She said she wasn't aware he had a parka.
Any newspaper report will do. The parka was one of the main planks of the prosecution case so the witness testimony to Luke owning such a garment must have been widely reported.
-
Any newspaper report will do. The parka was one of the main planks of the prosecution case so the witness testimony to Luke owning such a garment must have been widely reported.
No. Not 3 days after Jodi's murder and the police weren't interested in the new parka. They were looking for the old one. The parka that disappeared.
-
I believe that's all very possible or someone helped him. Two witnesses said in court that the male wearing a green bomber jacket on Newbattle Road was definitely not LM so who could the male in the green bomber jacket have been at that point in time? Then, LM shows up wearing a green bomber jacket. Positively identified.
The reason why they said it definitely wasn’t Luke in the green bomber jacket, imo, was because Luke had changed considerably by the time the trial came around. He looked like a completely different person by the time the trial came around (owed to puberty and stress; Luke was obviously still growing and developing at that age, and of course the stress of the whole ordeal obviously contributed to his change of appearance .... he also had a lot longer hair at trial and it was in a ponytail). The 3 guys on the pushbikes who knew Luke positively identified him on the N’battle rd wearing the green bomber jacket. They also identified him at court. AB said she was as sure as she could be that it was Luke she saw on Easthouses path, but she too, like the couple mo & dh, couldn’t identify him at court. Like I said, Luke had drastically changed in appearance between June ‘03 & the end of ‘04.
-
I think he either had the bomber Jacket on underneath the parka, hid the parka in the woodland between 1740-1800 (i.e. between the f&w sighting & the pushbike boys trio sighting or the mo&dh sighting). I think, before he left to meet Jodi, he looked at the overcast weather and put the parka on top of the bomber just in case it rained (this could also explain why the parka looked, according to AB, bulging at the pocket). If this was the case, he may have started panicking whilst on the N’battle rd, as the parka was probably slightly blood-stained (not heavily blood-stained, not enough blood for passers-by to notice), but he couldn’t take any chances because there were still traces of blood on it. He knew at that point he had to get rid of it (and he knew also that someone might have seen him over on Easthouses with it on — two wrongs don’t make a right; very incriminating for him and he knew it). Ideally, Luke would have been hoping no one had seen him at that time on the N’battle rd, but they did, so he had to act cool and unflustered (casually hanging onto the gate, but he was looking angry and peeved underneath his hair, not making eye contact with people in the passing cars, instead staring at the ground). So, what he did next was one of two possibilities: he either started panicking and hid the jacket somewhere in the woodland at the Eskbank river, cleaned up slightly there at the river (and, no, it’s not ridiculous to suggest this, as Luke was the outdoor David Crockett type and had already been exposed to camping, hunting, the cadets, survival, etc, at an early age). Or else he went home very quickly, just after 1740 (just after the F & W sighting), gave Corrine the parka to destroy, and then was back on the N’battle rd for 1800 (for the pushbike trio’s two sightings, the couple sighting (mo & DH) and the Scottish executive employee sighting). Luke also knew that people seeing him in the bomber jacket on the N’battle rd would work in his favour, especially as it was not bloodstained and he had worn it to school that day, and, more importantly, it would throw a spanner in the works in terms of eyewitness evidence (I believe Luke was already thinking about this and wanted to be seen at this point with it on — this was the start of the alibi being set in motion).
Regardless of what happened to the parka (and he did own a parka before the 30.06.03 ... a teacher, friends and school friends all testified to this in court), I think he definitely went home between 1830-1930, before he met up with his mates in the abbey. I think he told his mum all of what happened, took a shower and changed all his clothes and footwear (though, I am surprised no neighbours saw him going home at this time, even if he did go home via the Eskbank river route ... perhaps he got lucky, and of course the Mitchell house was well covered at the front with plants, bushes, trees and climbing ivy). Remember, Luke said he was on the N’battle rd for about 2 hours waiting on Jodi, and yet there was not one single solitary sighting of him on this road between 1830-1930. Very peculiar, especially as this was during the height of summer and at a time when the road would have been particularly busy with traffic, walkers and joggers. Also significant was the words of one of his mates who said that Luke was more kempt than normal that evening (anyone have the article containing this mate’s account? I read it a few months back, but haven’t been able to find it again).
So, basically, Luke hid twice on the N’battle rd. Firstly just after 1740 until 1800. And secondly between 1830-1930. He got rid of that parka after the f&w sighting (he knew, though trying to act cool on the gate, he was panicking and looking at the ground, looking pissed off and angry and therefore also looking suspicious; he knew this, was aware of looking suspicious, so had to dispose of this slightly blood-stained jacket, not only because it contained incriminating dna evidence, but also to nullify eyewitness evidence; changing jackets or appearing with another jacket on soon after the f&w sighting would be an effective way to achieve this. Notice how, despite it being the height of summer and a particularly busy road at a time when the volume of traffic would’ve been heavy, there was not one sighting of Luke. It’s very strange, imo.
Yet there is not a scintilla of evidence for any of the above and I’m afraid that’s the only thing that matters.
With the greatest respect your posts always read as if you are trying to manufacture evidence to justify your faith in the guilty verdict rather than actually going where the actual evidence leads.
-
I think he either had the bomber Jacket on underneath the parka, hid the parka in the woodland between 1740-1800 (i.e. between the f&w sighting & the pushbike boys trio sighting or the mo&dh sighting). I think, before he left to meet Jodi, he looked at the overcast weather and put the parka on top of the bomber just in case it rained (this could also explain why the parka looked, according to AB, bulging at the pocket). If this was the case, he may have started panicking whilst on the N’battle rd, as the parka was probably slightly blood-stained (not heavily blood-stained, not enough blood for passers-by to notice), but he couldn’t take any chances because there were still traces of blood on it. He knew at that point he had to get rid of it (and he knew also that someone might have seen him over on Easthouses with it on — two wrongs don’t make a right; very incriminating for him and he knew it). Ideally, Luke would have been hoping no one had seen him at that time on the N’battle rd, but they did, so he had to act cool and unflustered (casually hanging onto the gate, but he was looking angry and peeved underneath his hair, not making eye contact with people in the passing cars, instead staring at the ground). So, what he did next was one of two possibilities: he either started panicking and hid the jacket somewhere in the woodland at the Eskbank river, cleaned up slightly there at the river (and, no, it’s not ridiculous to suggest this, as Luke was the outdoor David Crockett type and had already been exposed to camping, hunting, the cadets, survival, etc, at an early age). Or else he went home very quickly, just after 1740 (just after the F & W sighting), gave Corrine the parka to destroy, and then was back on the N’battle rd for 1800 (for the pushbike trio’s two sightings, the couple sighting (mo & DH) and the Scottish executive employee sighting). Luke also knew that people seeing him in the bomber jacket on the N’battle rd would work in his favour, especially as it was not bloodstained and he had worn it to school that day, and, more importantly, it would throw a spanner in the works in terms of eyewitness evidence (I believe Luke was already thinking about this and wanted to be seen at this point with it on — this was the start of the alibi being set in motion).
Regardless of what happened to the parka (and he did own a parka before the 30.06.03 ... a teacher, friends and school friends all testified to this in court), I think he definitely went home between 1830-1930, before he met up with his mates in the abbey. I think he told his mum all of what happened, took a shower and changed all his clothes and footwear (though, I am surprised no neighbours saw him going home at this time, even if he did go home via the Eskbank river route ... perhaps he got lucky, and of course the Mitchell house was well covered at the front with plants, bushes, trees and climbing ivy). Remember, Luke said he was on the N’battle rd for about 2 hours waiting on Jodi, and yet there was not one single solitary sighting of him on this road between 1830-1930. Very peculiar, especially as this was during the height of summer and at a time when the road would have been particularly busy with traffic, walkers and joggers. Also significant was the words of one of his mates who said that Luke was more kempt than normal that evening (anyone have the article containing this mate’s account? I read it a few months back, but haven’t been able to find it again).
So, basically, Luke hid twice on the N’battle rd. Firstly just after 1740 until 1800. And secondly between 1830-1930. He got rid of that parka after the f&w sighting (he knew, though trying to act cool on the gate, he was panicking and looking at the ground, looking pissed off and angry and therefore also looking suspicious; he knew this, was aware of looking suspicious, so had to dispose of this slightly blood-stained jacket, not only because it contained incriminating dna evidence, but also to nullify eyewitness evidence; changing jackets or appearing with another jacket on soon after the f&w sighting would be an effective way to achieve this. Notice how, despite it being the height of summer and a particularly busy road at a time when the volume of traffic would’ve been heavy, despite Luke saying he was on this road between 1730-1930, there was not one sighting of Luke between 1740-1800 and 1830-1930. It’s very strange, imo.
-
No. Not 3 days after Jodi's murder and the police weren't interested in the new parka. They were looking for the old one. The parka that disappeared.
But the prosecution were so where is the reports of the witness testimony of those who saw Luke wearing the parka before the murder?
It does strike me that it would have been rather foolish for Luke to deny that he owned a parka if he had worn it as often as we are lead to believe not least to school. Surely if he was as cunning as some believe he would have known how suspicious that that looked?
-
The reason why they said it definitely wasn’t Luke in the green bomber jacket, imo, was because Luke had changed considerably by the time the trial came around. He looked like a completely different person by the time the trial came around (owed to puberty and stress; Luke was obviously still growing and developing at that age, and of course the stress of the whole ordeal obviously contributed to his change of appearance .... he also had a lot longer hair at trial and it was in a ponytail). The 3 guys on the pushbikes who knew Luke positively identified him on the N’battle rd wearing the green bomber jacket. They also identified him at court. AB said she was as sure as she could be that it was Luke she saw on Easthouses path, but she too, like the couple mo & dh, couldn’t identify him at court. Like I said, Luke had drastically changed in appearance between June ‘03 & the end of ‘04.
He looked completely different yet RW and her passenger managed, without any hesitation, to point him out in court. Who does that work then?
-
The reason why they said it definitely wasn’t Luke in the green bomber jacket, imo, was because Luke had changed considerably by the time the trial came around. He looked like a completely different person by the time the trial came around (owed to puberty and stress; Luke was obviously still growing and developing at that age, and of course the stress of the whole ordeal obviously contributed to his change of appearance .... he also had a lot longer hair at trial and it was in a ponytail). The 3 guys on the pushbikes who knew Luke positively identified him on the N’battle rd wearing the green bomber jacket. They also identified him at court. AB said she was as sure as she could be that it was Luke she saw on Easthouses path, but she too, like the couple mo & dh, couldn’t identify him at court. Like I said, Luke had drastically changed in appearance between June ‘03 & the end of ‘04.
You may well be right. Luke's physical development is the reason I think Andrina Bryson said in court, when asked if she recognised the male at the path, I can't say. I do believe LM had help though whoever that may have come from.
-
You may well be right. Luke's physical development is the reason I think Andrina Bryson said in court, when asked if she recognised the male at the path, I can't say. I do believe LM had help though whoever that may have come from.
Yet RW and her passenger managed to identify him. Surely he couldn’t have changed that much?
-
He looked completely different yet RW and her passenger managed, without any hesitation, to point him out in court. Who does that work then?
How do the perceptions of any individuals work? Are you suggesting that because one person couldn't positively point LM out that no one else should have been able to?
-
Yet RW and her passenger managed to identify him. Surely he couldn’t have changed that much?
Yet, SL has often argued that the two ladies in the car saw someone else and not LM.
-
How do the perceptions of any individuals work? Are you suggesting that because one person couldn't positively point LM out that no one else should have been able to?
I’m pointing out that two people who claimed that they had seen Luke on the night of the 30th managed to identify Luke in court so he must still have been recognisable as the youth that they saw. It’s not about perceptions but visual recognition.
-
Yet, SL has often argued that the two ladies in the car saw someone else and not LM.
But you don’t believe that so the question still remains.
-
I’m pointing out that two people who claimed that they had seen Luke on the night of the 30th managed to identify Luke in court so he must still have been recognisable as the youth that they saw. It’s not about perceptions but visual recognition.
What's the difference? Because two people who didn't know him but still recognised him, others should be able to too? People don't work like that.
-
Yet there is not a scintilla of evidence for any of the above and I’m afraid that’s the only thing that matters.
With the greatest respect your posts always read as if you are trying to manufacture evidence to justify your faith in the guilty verdict rather than actually going where the actual evidence leads.
Fair enough. As the evidence of the case is entirely circumstantial, then it stands to reason that lot of people’s theories aren’t going to be 100% water tight. And just because some people don’t provide cites with every single post, it doesn’t mean they are guessing, or pandering to their own hunches, promulgating a false narrative, or their theories lack veracity; it often means they cannot trace the cite or are too busy.
-
What's the difference? Because two people who didn't know him but still recognised him, others should be able to too? People don't work like that.
You are trying to suggest that Luke had changed beyond all recognition between the murder and his trial. RW’s court room identification proves that was not the case. That’s the point. It really couldn’t be any clearer.
-
You are trying to suggest that Luke had changed beyond all recognition between the murder and his trial. RW’s court room identification proves that was not the case. That’s the point. It really couldn’t be any clearer.
Again, because one or two people who didn't know him could identify Luke Mitchell doesn't mean everyone should have been able to. Unless we're robots, that doesn't make any sense.
-
You are trying to suggest that Luke had changed beyond all recognition between the murder and his trial. RW’s court room identification proves that was not the case. That’s the point. It really couldn’t be any clearer.
I think it's also fair to point out that Andrina Bryson did identify Luke Mitchell not long after she did see him and I believe her. I believe anyone who had the guts to be honest about not recognising him in court in front of the press, the lawyers, the judge, the public, would certainly have been happy to tell a policeman she didn't recognise him.
-
He looked completely different yet RW and her passenger managed, without any hesitation, to point him out in court. Who does that work then?
We could argue about this indefinitely. It’s all down to individual perceptions and interpretations.
-
We could argue about this indefinitely. It’s all down to individual perceptions and interpretations.
Mr Turnbull then named eight people, including some of Mitchell's teachers, who all said they had seen him with a parka-type jacket before Jodi died.
But Mrs Mitchell said: 'I find it odd because he didn't own one. He always wore a short green bomber jacket.
'I am not saying they are lying. I am saying I am not aware Luke had a parka. I had never seen him with one in my house.'
-
We could argue about this indefinitely. It’s all down to individual perceptions and interpretations.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURDER+ACCUSED%27S+MUM+TELLS+COURT+OF+ALIBI%3a+Luke+was+at+home+with+me...-a0127039909
-
I think it's also fair to point out that Andrina Bryson did identify Luke Mitchell not long after she did see him and I believe her. I believe anyone who had the guts to be honest about not recognising him in court in front of the press, the lawyers, the judge, the public, would certainly have been happy to tell a policeman she didn't recognise him.
AB recognised Luke after, what experts have described as a flawed identification process. Why wasn’t Luke put on an identity parade? Police procedures in place at the time dictated that if the suspect and the witness were available then an identity parade should take place. Why do you think that that didn’t happen?
-
We could argue about this indefinitely. It’s all down to individual perceptions and interpretations.
Why do you think that L&B’s police did not hold any identities parades as procedures in place at the time dictated?
-
Mr Turnbull then named eight people, including some of Mitchell's teachers, who all said they had seen him with a parka-type jacket before Jodi died.
But Mrs Mitchell said: 'I find it odd because he didn't own one. He always wore a short green bomber jacket.
'I am not saying they are lying. I am saying I am not aware Luke had a parka. I had never seen him with one in my house.'
Of those eight named people who gave evidence in court?
-
Of those eight named people who gave evidence in court?
I've already told you I don't know. It doesn't say in the cite I provided.
-
I've already told you I don't know. It doesn't say in the cite I provided.
I thought you needed to see the evidence before you believed it?
-
Of those eight named people who gave evidence in court?
The problem and wrongful assumption people make are primarily based upon the book, not at all surprising is it? - when the author tells the reader that it is "everything" known to the public, put together for the first time in the same place. Further to this of course is that wonderful inside knowledge - the result that they actually equate this to being the whole case, with Ms Lean putting forward the problems, the questions, the supposition and the 'obvious conclusions. - And there we have this "wafer thin case" - stretched out (cough) in 378 pages of large text that is mainly made up of irrelevant narrative.
The result given of course is that minority, those easily led along this psychological approach of deflection to hide the actual truth in the case. For that minority it is "buy the book" it tells you everything you need to know. Once read, some have taken up the role of expertise on the case. Giving people answers directly from the book. Any real stumbling blocks then it is the author who is asked to clarify, the case?? As we witnessed recently with the debacle over Ovens, amongst many other areas coming to light. So much so, that when WW was playing their role in muddying up the direction of discussion on the thread - instantly those who favoured the book as being the bibliography on the case, liked and commented, 'excellent points!' Such is their actual lack of knowledge.
What one does do of course, is lean as heavily as possible to what one perceives to be in the public domain, to work around this. We have of course covered most of what Ms Lean has never actually been privy to, around 90% of everything "missing" (cough) it would seem. A good proportion of that 10% is actually the stuff that is in the public domain.
To this parka and those questions now of those 8 witnesses (at trial, not in total) testifying to this parka Jacket. The two main witnesses who's evidence alone was on the Parka, were the teacher who left that semester and the Eskbank Trading. Let us clarify this some more first. The teacher did not see LM at school after the 30th of June, he had left his job there. He gave witness to seeing him, clearly before the murder took place. Making reference to him looking like "a monk" with the hood up. The lad from Eskbank Trading and DF, where this "coz of the murder and everything" came from. Now this lad gave precise details also around the actual sighting being prior to the murder and of Mitchell in the shop. Centered around his mother and why there was no doubt of it being prior to the 30th, his mother owned and wore the exact same coat. He had not been in the shop after that date. Now the AD and some realism, in providing these two witnesses where no doubt could be placed upon the time of the sightings being prior to this date. To these other witnesses at court who were giving evidence on other areas, who had also seen Mitchell in the coat, some when in the company of Jodi - impossible for it to have been after the murder. Where DF attempted to use evidence from a witness who had been excused from court on medical grounds, to dispute this coat which again failed miserably. For the person who was closely linked to both Jodi and Luke had NOT said that LM did not wear such a coat. Where the clear attempt was to do as SM had done, not say either way, simply "I can't remember" - to the AD showing that she had stated, yes he could have. What the witness would not do, was directly lie and say NO. Or as it would, directly tell the truth and say NO! For they could not do this.
The German army shirt and the badge on the sleeve, the interview on the 14th just prior to the pictures being released and of course after the purchase of the new coat. To catch a killer indeed, and of course that tiny area from the questioning. Putting to Mitchell that he had been seen in this green khaki item of clothing with that distinctive badge. Tactics nothing more, they were not going to say, we know you were in a green parka, it is the last thing they wanted to make him aware of at that point. To let him know that they knew it was missing. And of course the burner, that brick item 30inches in height with no top other than a dustpan lid and removal base. Not just a bbq base, the whole thing. The nonsense still to this day of attempting to worm out of having that fire - and it is worming and it is blatant. And the obvious back up, just to add some weight? That Ms Lean herself had "accidently" set fire to a candle once also, as she did when she too could not find "the V", along with also enjoying the summer sunshine on her "patio reading"-------- And the gaslighting around that joint theory that CM humbly let her viewer learn of, to Ms Leans denial, that this had not happened........But they did discuss it with someone else as a possibility once, instigated by the third party?
So, no alibi, not simply that there were only 13mins there was none, it was concocted and only one reason can be given for this. When someone was striving to place themselves at home, exactly at the time needed. To the sighting by F&W with the parka on. Nothing for at least 15mins to then be sighted by the motorists, who saw him in the green bomber, at a point he claimed NOT to have walked to. Close to the gate by F&W and the entrance and exit to the woodland leading home. This sighting just short of 6pm. To the boys and the space apart actually timed up to 15mins, on the return as they had a puncture. To the other motorist. Than nothing until in the company of the boys at 7.30pm. And of course AB who like F&W and that straggly hair, likened LM to the actor in his role of "Shaggy" in the 2002 movie of Scooby Doo. She remembered him, the clothes and colour, style around 90%. Not bad at all. Both times the actions that drew attention. One with his hands beckoning the girl, looking confrontational. The other looking to the ground, up to no good, avoiding full on contact.
One other thing to note here, that deflection onto Jodi's parents. Firstly this other claimed no show, there was contact and there was no lad idling his time anywhere, waiting and waiting. Much like the boys from the Abbey when late, a little allowance given only. But of the ball (obvs) being firmly in Mitchells court, and of course that of his mother?! If your son had been waiting for the best part of 90mins? on a road, waiting on their girlfriend walking this isolated path, that she never denied the ban on. Would you simply say "she will be gabbing away somewhere" at that point it was hours later, but what of 7pm also? The advice surely would be to get your son to check, to contact, to make sure all was well?
Compulsive liars? - Ms Mitchell, ' when you catch a child being naughty and you confront them and they deny it, say I don't know, I don't understand and they keep their head turned away from you and refuse to answer and acknowledge, are you familiar with this type of situation?' - "yes" - 'Is that you? are you playing at being that naughty child? (AT - AD)
This Jury and all the were privy to, everything inclusive of visiting that locus - these two witnesses both the mother and son, played a massive part in highlighting just how made up most of that evening was. So when one wants to think logically and attempt to apply it, they had no control over what Luke did and as with Luke, disposal was the easy part, was it not? - Those wheels in motion that there could be no control over, were never going to be easy to cover for - and they didn't for it was nigh on impossible to do so. The best attempt was at that alibi. The logic to the other end of the evening, may very well have been to stay back, but? - what was the best option here, just in-case there was trace DNA found upon him, he needed to be part of that along with whatever horrors were in his mind. The very reason for being prepped and ready, of introducing the path to any search, of staying on that path and introducing the woodland, and of the find - of being there and as quickly as possible, before the police became actively involved. - that rush as things out of his control became part of it, namely the police. - were in turn to be his downfall? Planning ahead in case, for yes logically, as much as he had left Jodi hidden out of sight off the beaten track, It is certainly not something he could bank on. But one thing he did know, is that time was on his side, whichever way it panned out. The sole concentration until curfew time was of disposal and putting himself in others company just long enough for it to count, to serve purpose.
We know he was smoking in the Abbey with the boys but not much of anything else. The activities, the rain and so forth. Getting pretty dirty. Barely an hour and he was off again, not to arrive home however until 10pm. Of these boys seeing this coat before also, part of the other 8? Would that be DH, the "notorious little liar?" - rich to say the least?
"procedures in place" - that did not state ID had to be met this way, it had been standard practice to a degree which was in the process of the changeover. To the present day where it does not happen but by means of photo ID now more so. So are you saying that todays standards are wrong? That the 'old' way should never have been changed?
-
I thought you needed to see the evidence before you believed it?
I have a cite that I have no reason disbelieve at this point in time. Where's your evidence to the contrary?
-
The problem and wrongful assumption people make are primarily based upon the book, not at all surprising is it? - when the author tells the reader that it is "everything" known to the public, put together for the first time in the same place. Further to this of course is that wonderful inside knowledge - the result that they actually equate this to being the whole case, with Ms Lean putting forward the problems, the questions, the supposition and the 'obvious conclusions. - And there we have this "wafer thin case" - stretched out (cough) in 378 pages of large text that is mainly made up of irrelevant narrative.
The result given of course is that minority, those easily led along this psychological approach of deflection to hide the actual truth in the case. For that minority it is "buy the book" it tells you everything you need to know. Once read, some have taken up the role of expertise on the case. Giving people answers directly from the book. Any real stumbling blocks then it is the author who is asked to clarify, the case?? As we witnessed recently with the debacle over Ovens, amongst many other areas coming to light. So much so, that when WW was playing their role in muddying up the direction of discussion on the thread - instantly those who favoured the book as being the bibliography on the case, liked and commented, 'excellent points!' Such is their actual lack of knowledge.
What one does do of course, is lean as heavily as possible to what one perceives to be in the public domain, to work around this. We have of course covered most of what Ms Lean has never actually been privy to, around 90% of everything "missing" (cough) it would seem. A good proportion of that 10% is actually the stuff that is in the public domain.
To this parka and those questions now of those 8 witnesses (at trial, not in total) testifying to this parka Jacket. The two main witnesses who's evidence alone was on the Parka, were the teacher who left that semester and the Eskbank Trading. Let us clarify this some more first. The teacher did not see LM at school after the 30th of June, he had left his job there. He gave witness to seeing him, clearly before the murder took place. Making reference to him looking like "a monk" with the hood up. The lad from Eskbank Trading and DF, where this "coz of the murder and everything" came from. Now this lad gave precise details also around the actual sighting being prior to the murder and of Mitchell in the shop. Centered around his mother and why there was no doubt of it being prior to the 30th, his mother owned and wore the exact same coat. He had not been in the shop after that date. Now the AD and some realism, in providing these two witnesses where no doubt could be placed upon the time of the sightings being prior to this date. To these other witnesses at court who were giving evidence on other areas, who had also seen Mitchell in the coat, some when in the company of Jodi - impossible for it to have been after the murder. Where DF attempted to use evidence from a witness who had been excused from court on medical grounds, to dispute this coat which again failed miserably. For the person who was closely linked to both Jodi and Luke had NOT said that LM did not wear such a coat. Where the clear attempt was to do as SM had done, not say either way, simply "I can't remember" - to the AD showing that she had stated, yes he could have. What the witness would not do, was directly lie and say NO. Or as it would, directly tell the truth and say NO! For they could not do this.
The German army shirt and the badge on the sleeve, the interview on the 14th just prior to the pictures being released and of course after the purchase of the new coat. To catch a killer indeed, and of course that tiny area from the questioning. Putting to Mitchell that he had been seen in this green khaki item of clothing with that distinctive badge. Tactics nothing more, they were not going to say, we know you were in a green parka, it is the last thing they wanted to make him aware of at that point. To let him know that they knew it was missing. And of course the burner, that brick item 30inches in height with no top other than a dustpan lid and removal base. Not just a bbq base, the whole thing. The nonsense still to this day of attempting to worm out of having that fire - and it is worming and it is blatant. And the obvious back up, just to add some weight? That Ms Lean herself had "accidently" set fire to a candle once also, as she did when she too could not find "the V", along with also enjoying the summer sunshine on her "patio reading"-------- And the gaslighting around that joint theory that CM humbly let her viewer learn of, to Ms Leans denial, that this had not happened........But they did discuss it with someone else as a possibility once, instigated by the third party?
So, no alibi, not simply that there were only 13mins there was none, it was concocted and only one reason can be given for this. When someone was striving to place themselves at home, exactly at the time needed. To the sighting by F&W with the parka on. Nothing for at least 15mins to then be sighted by the motorists, who saw him in the green bomber, at a point he claimed NOT to have walked to. Close to the gate by F&W and the entrance and exit to the woodland leading home. This sighting just short of 6pm. To the boys and the space apart actually timed up to 15mins, on the return as they had a puncture. To the other motorist. Than nothing until in the company of the boys at 7.30pm. And of course AB who like F&W and that straggly hair, likened LM to the actor in his role of "Shaggy" in the 2002 movie of Scooby Doo. She remembered him, the clothes and colour, style around 90%. Not bad at all. Both times the actions that drew attention. One with his hands beckoning the girl, looking confrontational. The other looking to the ground, up to no good, avoiding full on contact.
One other thing to note here, that deflection onto Jodi's parents. Firstly this other claimed no show, there was contact and there was no lad idling his time anywhere, waiting and waiting. Much like the boys from the Abbey when late, a little allowance given only. But of the ball (obvs) being firmly in Mitchells court, and of course that of his mother?! If your son had been waiting for the best part of 90mins? on a road, waiting on their girlfriend walking this isolated path, that she never denied the ban on. Would you simply say "she will be gabbing away somewhere" at that point it was hours later, but what of 7pm also? The advice surely would be to get your son to check, to contact, to make sure all was well?
Compulsive liars? - Ms Mitchell, ' when you catch a child being naughty and you confront them and they deny it, say I don't know, I don't understand and they keep their head turned away from you and refuse to answer and acknowledge, are you familiar with this type of situation?' - "yes" - 'Is that you? are you playing at being that naughty child? (AT - AD)
This Jury and all the were privy to, everything inclusive of visiting that locus - these two witnesses both the mother and son, played a massive part in highlighting just how made up most of that evening was. So when one wants to think logically and attempt to apply it, they had no control over what Luke did and as with Luke, disposal was the easy part, was it not? - Those wheels in motion that there could be no control over, were never going to be easy to cover for - and they didn't for it was nigh on impossible to do so. The best attempt was at that alibi. The logic to the other end of the evening, may very well have been to stay back, but? - what was the best option here, just in-case there was trace DNA found upon him, he needed to be part of that along with whatever horrors were in his mind. The very reason for being prepped and ready, of introducing the path to any search, of staying on that path and introducing the woodland, and of the find - of being there and as quickly as possible, before the police became actively involved. - that rush as things out of his control became part of it, namely the police. - were in turn to be his downfall? Planning ahead in case, for yes logically, as much as he had left Jodi hidden out of sight off the beaten track, It is certainly not something he could bank on. But one thing he did know, is that time was on his side, whichever way it panned out. The sole concentration until curfew time was of disposal and putting himself in others company just long enough for it to count, to serve purpose.
We know he was smoking in the Abbey with the boys but not much of anything else. The activities, the rain and so forth. Getting pretty dirty. Barely an hour and he was off again, not to arrive home however until 10pm. Of these boys seeing this coat before also, part of the other 8? Would that be DH, the "notorious little liar?" - rich to say the least?
"procedures in place" - that did not state ID had to be met this way, it had been standard practice to a degree which was in the process of the changeover. To the present day where it does not happen but by means of photo ID now more so. So are you saying that todays standards are wrong? That the 'old' way should never have been changed?
I know LM had a parka but I don't have a cite of an individual saying so and I know Kane had a parka because two other friends and myself all put money in to buy him a parka for his 18th. I wish I'd kept my share and bought him a pair of f*****g jeans.
-
I know LM had a parka but I don't have a cite of an individual saying so and I know Kane had a parka because two other friends and myself all put money in to buy him a parka for his 18th. I wish I'd kept my share and bought him a pair of f*****g jeans.
And for the record, I never saw or heard that Kane carried a knife. If Kane HAD carried a knife he would have been a danger to himself as opposed to anyone else.
-
AB recognised Luke after, what experts have described as a flawed identification process. Why wasn’t Luke put on an identity parade? Police procedures in place at the time dictated that if the suspect and the witness were available then an identity parade should take place. Why do you think that that didn’t happen?
Wasn't it a bomber jacket the police suggested to AB? (They still didn't know about the parka the next day.) The police had taken a bomber jacket from LM but AB said that wasn't the jacket.
-
Wasn't it a bomber jacket the police suggested to AB? (They still didn't know about the parka the next day.) The police had taken a bomber jacket from LM but AB said that wasn't the jacket.
The experts from the documentaries? Do you have cites from other experts who weren't hand picked? I don't know about you but if I was sure I recognised someone from a photograph, the background would mean nothing.
-
I know LM had a parka but I don't have a cite of an individual saying so and I know Kane had a parka because two other friends and myself all put money in to buy him a parka for his 18th. I wish I'd kept my share and bought him a pair of f*****g jeans.
You knew Mark Kane, rulesapply? Interesting. Did you know any of the rest of the ‘persons of interest’ from the case? Were you his close mate or just a friend of a friend? Did you go to high school or college with him?
Btw, I too have read about people (namely, Luke’s friends, school friends and a school teacher who had just left St David’s that year) testifying at court about Luke owning a parka prior to the 30.06.03, but I can no longer trace the source.
-
You knew Mark Kane, rulesapply? Interesting. Did you know any of the rest of the ‘persons of interest’ from the case? Were you his close mate or just a friend of a friend? Did you go to high school or college with him?
Btw, I too have read about people (namely, Luke’s friends, school friends and a school teacher who had just left St David’s that year) testifying at court about Luke owning a parka prior to the 30.06.03, but I can no longer trace the source.
Hi. Kane was my good friend. I call him Kane because we all did. No one ever called him Mark in our circle apart from his mum🙂. His mum is a really nice lady. i knew him really well. I gave him a lift to Newbattle Abbey College on his first day of being there with a shed load of his stuff. It was a beautiful day and he showed me around the grounds. We walked around for ages and I was so pleased for him because he had fallen into drugs and this was the start of something new for him until it wasn't. I thought I was taking him to a new life and so did he. I wish I'd dropped him off at the bus station now. Kane was funny, talented, articulate and he could have been anything he wanted to be. He wanted to be a famous musician at a point in time. He could have been but not infamous for this. He doesn't deserve this and neither does Norma. I am astounded by the lengths some people will go to to fulfill their own, hollow agenda.
-
Hi. Kane was my good friend. I call him Kane because we all did. No one ever called him Mark in our circle apart from his mum🙂. His mum is a really nice lady. i knew him really well. I gave him a lift to Newbattle Abbey College on his first day of being there with a shed load of his stuff. It was a beautiful day and he showed me around the grounds. We walked around for ages and I was so pleased for him because he had fallen into drugs and this was the start of something new for him until it wasn't. I thought I was taking him to a new life and so did he. I wish I'd dropped him off at the bus station now. Kane was funny, talented, articulate and he could have been anything he wanted to be. He wanted to be a famous musician at a point in time. He could have been but not infamous for this. He doesn't deserve this and neither does Norma. I am astounded by the lengths some people will go to to fulfill their own, hollow agenda.
I don't know JF.
-
Wasn't it a bomber jacket the police suggested to AB? (They still didn't know about the parka the next day.) The police had taken a bomber jacket from LM but AB said that wasn't the jacket.
No. In her first statement AB said the the male youth she saw was wearing a green fisherman’s style jacket with matching trousers. In court AB made it clear that of the photographs shown to her by the police some months after the sighting the parka jacket was ‘ most like’ the jacket worn by her sighting but that it was not a parka she saw. She said that she made this clear to the police at the time.
AB has always struck me as a rather reluctant prosecution witness.
-
No. In her first statement AB said the the male youth she saw was wearing a green fisherman’s style jacket with matching trousers. In court AB made it clear that of the photographs shown to her by the police some months after the sighting the parka jacket was ‘ most like’ the jacket worn by her sighting but that it was not a parka she saw. She said that she made this clear to the police at the time.
AB has always struck me as a rather reluctant prosecution witness.
So what? The woman doing the reconstruction for the C5 soap opera didn't get the clothes/ hair correct either. It was just further proof that the clothes may not be remembered correctly. Not MONTHS, 6 weeks. Andrina Bryson may have looked reluctant to you, (were you in court?) but I think she looked honest and brave. If you weren't in court, how could AB have struck you as anything?
-
No. In her first statement AB said the the male youth she saw was wearing a green fisherman’s style jacket with matching trousers. In court AB made it clear that of the photographs shown to her by the police some months after the sighting the parka jacket was ‘ most like’ the jacket worn by her sighting but that it was not a parka she saw. She said that she made this clear to the police at the time.
AB has always struck me as a rather reluctant prosecution witness.
Ok. Show me a cite please.
-
You knew Mark Kane, rulesapply? Interesting. Did you know any of the rest of the ‘persons of interest’ from the case? Were you his close mate or just a friend of a friend? Did you go to high school or college with him?
Btw, I too have read about people (namely, Luke’s friends, school friends and a school teacher who had just left St David’s that year) testifying at court about Luke owning a parka prior to the 30.06.03, but I can no longer trace the source.
I have read that too…it was probably on some forum.
When seen by multiple witnesses standing on the Newbattle Road Luke was wearing a light bomber jacket, which suggests rather moderate weather, not the weather it would seem for a heavy, parka. Wasn’t Jodi just wearing a t-shirt that night?
-
I have read that too…it was probably on some forum.
When seen by multiple witnesses standing on the Newbattle Road Luke was wearing a light bomber jacket, which suggests rather moderate weather, not the weather it would seem for a heavy, parka. Wasn’t Jodi just wearing a t-shirt that night?
No. Jodi was wearing a hoodie with, apparently, a Deftones logo on the back.
-
I have read that too…it was probably on some forum.
When seen by multiple witnesses standing on the Newbattle Road Luke was wearing a light bomber jacket, which suggests rather moderate weather, not the weather it would seem for a heavy, parka. Wasn’t Jodi just wearing a t-shirt that night?
Only the bike boys positively identified LM in a green bomber jacket.
-
So what? The woman doing the reconstruction for the C5 soap opera didn't get the clothes/ hair correct either. It was just further proof that the clothes may not be remembered correctly. Not MONTHS, 6 weeks. Andrina Bryson may have looked reluctant to you, (were you in court?) but I think she looked honest and brave. If you weren't in court, how could AB have struck you as anything?
So are you saying that AB was an unreliable witness?
Did you also know that in her first statement AB could not describe her sighting’s facial features, could not agree with the police on an efit and put her sighting at around 5.50?
-
No. Jodi was wearing a hoodie with, apparently, a Deftones logo on the back.
Of course she was…a Deftones label that the Crown’s star witness failed to notice. No wonder you think that she was unreliable.
-
Only the bike boys positively identified LM in a green bomber jacket.
Not true.
-
Not true.
Who else did?
-
Of course she was…a Deftones label that the Crown’s star witness failed to notice. No wonder you think that she was unreliable.
I don't think Andrina Bryson was or is unreliable. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong about Jodi only wearing a t shirt. Where did I say that AB is unreliable? That's a lie.
-
So are you saying that AB was an unreliable witness?
Did you also know that in her first statement AB could not describe her sighting’s facial features, could not agree with the police on an efit and put her sighting at around 5.50?
No. I don't know any of that because we only have the word of SL for that.
-
Not true.
What's not true? Show me a cite please where some other witness positively identifies LM in a bomber jacket
-
You knew Mark Kane, rulesapply? Interesting. Did you know any of the rest of the ‘persons of interest’ from the case? Were you his close mate or just a friend of a friend? Did you go to high school or college with him?
Btw, I too hai
LM ve read about people (namely, Luke’s friends, school friends and a school teacher who had just left St David’s that year) testifying at court about Luke owning a parka prior to the 30.06.03, but I can no longer trace the source.
If Luke Mitchell didn't own a parka prior to Jodi's murder, why all the parka fuss? As for SF, one of the other witnesses to Kane's imaginary scratches, I believe, if my memory serves me right, was a girlfriend of SF, at that time. SL, however, says there were more witnesses and if I'm being told that whilst being expected to believe it, I want proof. I want to see it. I want the same proof that has been demanded of me over time.
-
You knew Mark Kane, rulesapply? Interesting. Did you know any of the rest of the ‘persons of interest’ from the case? Were you his close mate or just a friend of a friend? Did you go to high school or college with him?
Btw, I too hai
LM ve read about people (namely, Luke’s friends, school friends and a school teacher who had just left St David’s that year) testifying at court about Luke owning a parka prior to the 30.06.03, but I can no longer trace the source.
[/quot
If Luke Mitchell didn't own a parka prior to Jodi's murder, why all the parka fuss? As for SF, one of the other witnesses to Kane's imaginary scratches, I believe, if my memory serves me right, was a girlfriend of SF, at that time. SL, however, says there were more witnesses and if I'm being told that whilst being expected to believe it, I want proof. I want to see it. I want the same proof that has been demanded of me over time.
You knew Kane? Hi.
-
You knew Kane? Hi.
The even more "parka fuss" and Kane doesn't come from LM's defence until someone else points out that a student from Newbattle also had a parka at the time of poor Jodi's murder. On the upside, it only took him the best part of 3 years to get off his lazy arse and bother about a child killer being on the loose.
-
But the prosecution were so where is the reports of the witness testimony of those who saw Luke wearing the parka before the murder?
It does strike me that it would have been rather foolish for Luke to deny that he owned a parka if he had worn it as often as we are lead to believe not least to school. Surely if he was as cunning as some believe he would have known how suspicious that that looked?
Well, I believe Corinne is not self aware for a start. Let me put this to you, if the police had searched YOUR house on the 4th, looking for a parka and didn't find a parka, connected ed to the death of a child, would you have bought your son a parka on the eighth?
-
No. In her first statement AB said the the male youth she saw was wearing a green fisherman’s style jacket with matching trousers. In court AB made it clear that of the photographs shown to her by the police some months after the sighting the parka jacket was ‘ most like’ the jacket worn by her sighting but that it was not a parka she saw. She said that she made this clear to the police at the time.
AB has always struck me as a rather reluctant prosecution witness.
But the police didn't have a pic of a parka. They didn't know they needed one. They showed AB a pic of a green bomber jacket and she said, no.
-
Well, I believe Corinne is not self aware for a start. Let me put this to you, if the police had searched YOUR house on the 4th, looking for a parka and didn't find a parka, connected ed to the death of a child, would you have bought your son a parka on the eighth?
They weren’t looking for a parka on the 4th so yes I would.
-
But the police didn't have a pic of a parka. They didn't know they needed one. They showed AB a pic of a green bomber jacket and she said, no.
Nope you’re simply wrong.
-
Nope you’re simply wrong.
I'm not wrong about LM wearing a parka prior to Jodi's murder. Then it disappeared. I believe that friends, family, teachers, all 8, swore to that and I believe all of them before I believe you unless you can provide the cites/ proof you expect of others. Would you buy your kid a replacement parka under those circumstances? I think you might. 🙂
-
I'm not wrong about LM wearing a parka prior to Jodi's murder. Then it disappeared.
Same with the knife he carried.
-
Same with the knife he carried.
I believe the knife was handed to the lawyers.
Of course you won’t believe that as it’s inconvenient to your narrative.
-
I believe the knife was handed to the lawyers.
Of course you won’t believe that as it’s inconvenient to your narrative.
Happy to believe this if you can provide proof.
Not sure why you're being narky.
-
I believe the knife was handed to the lawyers.
Of course you won’t believe that as it’s inconvenient to your narrative.
Absolute nonsense - Two missing knives that Ms Lean in her half truths yet again attempts to lead the reader, those who are easily led, suck in exactly as you do. Plain and simple. It only highlights how manipulative this self proclaimed 'truthseeker' is. I would myself of course swap truth for attention.
The missing knife? that she was accused of hiding was not the murder weapon, that is still missing. And contrary to what Ms Lean wishes to tout out it is one Mitchell owned and has never been found. The same type of 'skunting knife'. The replacement had a black handle, the murder weapon a brown handle. To be clear here, the replacement knife which the police knew was purchased was not in the house when searched. This is why the half truth, the application of Ms Leans 'missing and found' is contorted to what you believe above.
Evidence led and pictures by the search team, of the dogs bowls and bag. Searched and no knife found. Ms Mitchell after the search handed the replacement into Beumont, claiming that it had not been 'hidden' that it was in a bag beside the bowls, hidden only from Luke (as if!). What it showed, was yet again how easily this woman lied. That the evidence led by the search team, along with the pictures was there was no knife in any bag. Further evidence led was around Ms Mitchells distaste, the nerve! that the search team should run their fingers through the dogs food, claiming she would never put her dog in danger! Yet, as the AD-AT stated, had no qualms of her son owning and carrying many knives, no thought for any danger this might evoke? More so of replacing any knives after the horrific death of his girlfriend, or simply buying any as those easily led, have no problem with?
Now she may have attempted to imply that this was 'thee' knife, looked for all along, again receipts shown and more lies. Now the knife that is still missing, the one that many witnesses were shown pictures of, with the brown handle, that Skunting knife, was never retrieved. The one the prosecution contended was the murder weapon. So two knives, the new one that had been hidden that was not in the house. To the murder weapon, the brown handled one, the only knife that evidence was led against as owning prior to the murder, and never retrieved.
But then, if one is going to be sucked in by this person who most definitely has no qualms of manipulating anything to suit, as we had with these 5 male profiles. That, what can only be described as disgusting, with - "ejaculation that took place just yards from -----" Or only one conclusion with the semen on the t-shirt of ejaculation taken place at or after the time of the murder. Loss of ones moral compass indeed.
Five profile that had absolutely nothing to do with the murder - one such profile was almost half a mile away from another condom. In the extended woodland, in a cave. Got to love the part of "accidently" coming across the cave, like the "accidently" setting fire to a candle and so forth. - BS.
Every part of that book, especially the DNA speech where the author attempts to look intelligent, attempts to give advice to the reader, to explain in her infant speech what it all means - the exact opposite of the waffling and blagging she applies. Works though, they just suck it up, churn it round and spit it back out
-
Absolute nonsense - Two missing knives that Ms Lean in her half truths yet again attempts to lead the reader, those who are easily led, suck in exactly as you do. Plain and simple. It only highlights how manipulative this self proclaimed 'truthseeker' is. I would myself of course swap truth for attention.
The missing knife? that she was accused of hiding was not the murder weapon, that is still missing. And contrary to what Ms Lean wishes to tout out it is one Mitchell owned and has never been found. The same type of 'skunting knife'. The replacement had a black handle, the murder weapon a brown handle. To be clear here, the replacement knife which the police knew was purchased was not in the house when searched. This is why the half truth, the application of Ms Leans 'missing and found' is contorted to what you believe above.
Evidence led and pictures by the search team, of the dogs bowls and bag. Searched and no knife found. Ms Mitchell after the search handed the replacement into Beumont, claiming that it had not been 'hidden' that it was in a bag beside the bowls, hidden only from Luke (as if!). What it showed, was yet again how easily this woman lied. That the evidence led by the search team, along with the pictures was there was no knife in any bag. Further evidence led was around Ms Mitchells distaste, the nerve! that the search team should run their fingers through the dogs food, claiming she would never put her dog in danger! Yet, as the AD-AT stated, had no qualms of her son owning and carrying many knives, no thought for any danger this might evoke? More so of replacing any knives after the horrific death of his girlfriend, or simply buying any as those easily led, have no problem with?
Now she may have attempted to imply that this was 'thee' knife, looked for all along, again receipts shown and more lies. Now the knife that is still missing, the one that many witnesses were shown pictures of, with the brown handle, that Skunting knife, was never retrieved. The one the prosecution contended was the murder weapon. So two knives, the new one that had been hidden that was not in the house. To the murder weapon, the brown handled one, the only knife that evidence was led against as owning prior to the murder, and never retrieved.
But then, if one is going to be sucked in by this person who most definitely has no qualms of manipulating anything to suit, as we had with these 5 male profiles. That, what can only be described as disgusting, with - "ejaculation that took place just yards from -----" Or only one conclusion with the semen on the t-shirt of ejaculation taken place at or after the time of the murder. Loss of ones moral compass indeed.
Five profile that had absolutely nothing to do with the murder - one such profile was almost half a mile away from another condom. In the extended woodland, in a cave. Got to love the part of "accidently" coming across the cave, like the "accidently" setting fire to a candle and so forth. - BS.
Every part of that book, especially the DNA speech where the author attempts to look intelligent, attempts to give advice to the reader, to explain in her infant speech what it all means - the exact opposite of the waffling and blagging she applies. Works though, they just suck it up, churn it round and spit it back out
The thing is Parky old bean Dr Lean isn’t perfect and she is obviously partisan but then so are you but the one thing she does have over you is access to real witness statements, forensic reports etc, etc, etc. Now the files she has access to may not be complete, may not tell the whole story but they are the most important pieces and if there had been more important evidence in the Crown’s arsenal then they would have used it at trial. That is simply common sense.
So you will hopefully forgive me if I believe her word over yours. While it may be true that she doesn’t possess the full jigsaw, she certainly has enough to independently form the picture while you, I’m afraid, simply look at the photo on the box.
-
Luke was not a normal 14-year-old. He was advised, even as early as primary school, to seek psychological help for trying to ‘throttle’ another pupil, in high school he was advised to seek psychological help as teachers were concerned about the content of his English essays.
An excellent post from @Mr Apples.
Are there any details on the above, please?
-
An excellent post from @Mr Apples.
Are there any details on the above, please?
Yes I’d like to see those too.
-
The thing is Parky old bean Dr Lean isn’t perfect and she is obviously partisan but then so are you but the one thing she does have over you is access to real witness statements, forensic reports etc, etc, etc. Now the files she has access to may not be complete, may not tell the whole story but they are the most important pieces and if there had been more important evidence in the Crown’s arsenal then they would have used it at trial. That is simply common sense.
So you will hopefully forgive me if I believe her word over yours. While it may be true that she doesn’t possess the full jigsaw, she certainly has enough to independently form the picture while you, I’m afraid, simply look at the photo on the box.
Tsk Tsk now - We know the difficulties of changing minds obsessed, heaven forbid one should imagine any attempt on my part to educate that which is lost. Simply pointing out further truths over the doctrine being put out. Which was that the evidence led against the knife, the Skunting one with the brown handle, that LM very much owned and carried, is still missing. To further add I do not believe it was simply disposed off but put somewhere that one day he may hope to retrieve it. Perhaps along with some of the hair that was cut, trophies?
But as you say, perhaps he is not the killer - Just a lad, compulsive liar who simply found his girlfriend like that and asked for help which was given to him. The knife in his pocket of a coat that had to be disposed off, simply because it was present where the murder had taken place. As Ms Lean points out, one which although not heavily bloodstained should not have been completely destroyed, the logic of doing such a thing, washes over her head, somehow? Extraordinary reasoning yet again, is it not? From the Jigsawman, where the contents of the book are simply those self born, hypothetical lines of reasoning that have been pushed out, that jigsaw formed in the days long before she had access to anything, other than the Mitchells, these truthful people and of course media sources.
What changed? The refusal from the SCCRC, the study to gain that DR - to put onto pages, what has been the same since the beginning? The extra strength in the hope that the DR and POA give some false sense of worth, to those of course who put blind faith in it. - for the majority however, they simply realise what it is, the bias born from the convicted killer spilt over by his friend and confidante, that joining together of like minded people? Each being rewarded by self gain, not selfless acts. As you say, just my humble opinion of course, whilst looking at the picture and not attempting the puzzle within. I of course prefer something a little more adult, not set out, as Ms Lean states, that "even a five -year old could not fail to --------------" Join together?
Of late and stating these demo's which may embarrass one into action? Are not which is required, only a new review will do - again pulling towards oneself and not the efforts of those actively doing something - that clear split?
-
An excellent post from @Mr Apples.
Are there any details on the above, please?
Here are the contents of an old article from The Times newspaper (quite lengthy and detailed, but offers some very interesting insights into LM and the case):
The murderous art that unmasked a cruel killer
Police investigating the murder of Jodi Jones were shocked by the dark fascinations of her boyfriend. But can the work of musicians such as Marilyn Manson be blamed for inspiring brutality or does it reflect the turmoil of a disturbed mind
Police investigating the murder of the 14-year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones had a prime suspect — her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. He was due to meet her the night she disappeared and had found her body in the darkness of a desolate Midlothian wood. But to the frustration of the police there was no forensic evidence linking him, or anybody else, to the crime.
To understand the way Mitchell’s mind worked, detectives immersed themselves in the youth cultures of goth, grunge, rap and nu-metal. For the mostly middle-aged officers it was a revelation. Given what they knew about how Jodi met her gruesome death, they became convinced that Mitchell’s musical taste betrayed the mind of a sadistic killer.
It was the suspect himself who sparked this line of inquiry. In the opening days of the investigation in the summer of 2003, as detectives went about their door-to-door inquiries in Dalkeith, Mitchell had spoken to officers in the street about music containing murderous themes. Displaying the arrogance he was to show throughout the case, he asked if the policeman knew the song Kim by the rapper Eminem.
Detectives discovered the song was about somebody murdering his wife. It was impossible to read the lyrics without a shiver of realisation that their chief suspect was a fan: “Don’t you get it bitch, no one can hear you?/Now shut the f*** up and get what’s comin’ to you./ You were supposed to love me./Now bleed, bitch, bleed!” Eminem was not Mitchell’s favourite musician. That honour went to Manson, the controversial American rock star. Mitchell was obsessive about Manson’s music, with its dark subject matter of suicide, violence, satanism and murder. When detectives dipped into the Manson repertoire it only heightened their concerns — and their suspicions. Especially songs such as King Kill 33:
“I will destroy you with one simple hole.
“The world that hates me has taken its toll but now I have finally taken control.
“You wanted so bad to make me this thing.
“And I want you now to just kill the king.
“And I am not sorry, and I am not sorry: this is what you deserve.”
SPONSORED
There was more. Detectives discovered that two days after the killing, having already been questioned and forensically examined, Mitchell wound down by buying and watching a Manson DVD, The Golden Age of Grotesque.
It had a 15 certificate, and he bought it at his local Sainsbury’s along with some family shopping.
Amid darkened scenes illuminated by flickering torchlight, the DVD shows a girl’s naked body lying on the ground. In another part, two other girls are tied up and hooded.
More police research came across Manson’s paintings of the Black Dahlia victim Elizabeth Short, a Hollywood starlet whose murder in 1947 scandalised America. These stopped them in their tracks. The paintings showed injuries disturbingly similar to those inflicted on Jodi’s body — especially the large wounds on the side of the mouth stretching towards her ear, and an injury to the breast. Had the art and music of Marilyn Manson inspired, or even provoked, the most grisly murder Scotland had seen for a generation? Manson’s CDs and those of many other performers who explore horror and darkness are piled high in the untidy bedrooms of tens of thousands of teenagers across Britain. Their parents roll their eyes at their offspring’s musical choices and fashion excesses and shrug. Are goths really any different or more dangerous than other teenage fads from previous generations? After all, parents in earlier times were once scandalised by teddy boys and mods and hippies and punks. Is this really any different? Luke Mitchell’s murder of Jodi Jones has sparked a worried re-examination of these parental assumptions. As Mitchell starts a prison sentence “without limit of time” for Jodi’s murder, the case poses some unsettling questions for parents, politicians and the music industry.
Does macabre and death- obsessed music inspire acts of violence, self-harm and murder? Or is it simply the case that vulnerable and disturbed youngsters are attracted to it? Either way, can this music continue to be made available without any age restrictions — unlike feature films and computer games? Crucial to these considerations is a more difficult question, one that last week haunted the minds of millions of Scots as they watched the closing stages of the trial: what drove Mitchell, a boy too young to shave, to the sadistic murder of his girlfriend?
JODI and Luke both favoured the uniform of the goth — baggy black clothes and facial piercings. Mitchell had a piercing just below the centre of his bottom lip, which he would worry with his tongue, making it bob up and down. Jodi had one on the right-hand side of her bottom lip.
Although just 14 years old, Mitchell was obsessed with nihilism and the occult, particularly as expressed in the music of Nirvana and Manson, as well as nu-metal acts such as Slipknot. He fostered a look similar to that of the Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, who was Jodi’s particular idol. Their favourite lyric was Cobain’s: “The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came.”
Both teenagers had a taste for the macabre. They would gather in Greyfriars Kirkyard in the centre of Edinburgh — generally regarded as one of the most eerily atmospheric graveyards in Scotland. There they would smoke cannabis — Mitchell always seemed to have a plentiful supply — among the ancient tombstones.
For some of the group that hung around Greyfriars, the surroundings whetted their appetite for horror. One of them was Sonny Devlin, from the Restalrig area of Edinburgh, who at 15 was a year older than the Dalkeith kids. By some grisly coincidence, it was June 30, 2003, the evening of Jodi’s murder, that Devlin and a younger friend chose to break into a Greyfriars tomb known as the last resting place of George “Bloody” Mackenzie, a 17th-century prosecutor of the Covenanters.
They disinterred a corpse and hacked off its head with a penknife. The boys then used the head to simulate oral sex, for the entertainment of their pals. The two boys were later arrested and became the first people in Scotland for more than a century to be convicted of “violation of a sepulchre”.
Mitchell’s friends had long been aware of his fascination for knives and the damage they could inflict.
When he was 12, Mitchell had used a knife to threaten the daughter of a family who were guests in the Mitchell house. He had climbed onto her bed, held the knife to her throat and asked for a kiss.
At an army cadet corps he attended in Bonnyrigg, a lock knife with a six-inch blade that he was carrying was confiscated by Matthew Muraska, the company leader. Mitchell would often show the other boys weapons he had improvised from blades and sticks.
A former girlfriend, Kara Van Nuil, who dated Mitchell for a few months in 2003 after meeting him at the cadets, described how he once grabbed her from behind and held a Swiss Army knife to her throat with the warning: “Don’t move, or I’ll gut you.” Just a month later, Jodi was dead.
While many fans of Manson’s music were happy simply to ally themselves with his idiosyncratic fashion sense and musical posturing, Mitchell went further. Satanic references were scrawled all over his school jotters. One read: “I offer my flesh, blood and soul to the dark lord of hell.” Another jotter had the words “Satan lives” on the front, and the sentence: “I have tasted the devil’s green blood.” On another Mitchell had written: “Evil is the way”.
Occult beliefs also emerged in Mitchell’s school work, causing alarm among teaching staff at his Catholic high school, St David’s in Dalkeith. In an essay called Pain and Suffering, prepared for a third-year English class, Mitchell wrote: “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance . . . Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life.”
After the teacher referred him to guidance staff, Mitchell wrote in another essay: “Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist? Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help.”
There were curiosities about the way he lived at the Mitchell family home, which, according to the wooden sign next to the front door, went by the name of “Bedlam”.
When his scarlet-painted bedroom was searched by police they found 20 bottles of his own urine under his bed. Mitchell’s parents, Corinne and Philip, split up in 1999, and his mother indulged him, giving him money and letting his girlfriends sleep in his room. She knew all about his cannabis use.
Mitchell often harmed himself. Once he scored the satanic number 666 into his arm “for a dare”. A former classmate, Michelle Tierney, later told police Mitchell had stubbed a cigarette out on his hand in front of her. He had then told her he had imagined getting stoned and killing someone. It would be “funny”, he said.
Jodi and her sister Janine had also been known to self-harm. The sisters had had a troubled childhood — their father Jimmy had committed suicide, aged 39, by hanging himself from a tree in the garden, six years before the death of his daughter. In her diary, Jodi had written: “Take the knife. All your pain can be taken by one slit, slit to your wrists. Be free, be happy, just like me.”
According to specialists in the occult, Jodi’s death bore many of the hallmarks of a ritual killing. She was naked but for a pair of socks, her wrists bound by the legs of her trousers. She was strangled, then while she was still alive her neck was slashed more than 20 times. A hole had been cut in her windpipe and the main artery in her neck had been severed almost all the way through. She had multiple injuries to her head, and wounds from her mouth to her ear. Careful cuts had been made around her eyes, as well as deep cuts on her left breast and right arm. The knife had been pushed deep into her mouth.
Few professionals involved in the case had ever witnessed anything so grim. Forensic pathologists concluded that such a murder was extremely rare, and was usually associated with somebody mentally disturbed or high on drugs.
So what was the motivation? Chief superintendent Craig Dobbie, who led the investigation, believes that Mitchell and Jodi had a furious row on the day of the murder after she discovered he was planning to take another girl on holiday. During the trial it emerged that he had been conducting a relationship with Kimberley Thomson, 15, from Perthshire, behind Jodi’s back and they had arranged to spend time together during the summer break.
“I think he told her at lunchtime that day (of her death) and she wanted to see him that night to talk about it so they arranged to meet.”
According to Dobbie’s account, they ended up in the woods between their homes. “A situation developed and she suffered a blow to her face. Her lip is cut. We later found some blood on a tree trunk and the lip bleeds quite a lot when it is cut. I think at this point she turned around and headed eastwards towards home, towards safety. But then she was struck on the head with something like the limb of a tree. Then she was strangled, her head was pulled up and her throat was cut. At that point she was dead.
“After a ‘normal’ murder, the person who committed it is then going to leg it or hide the body. But in this case the body is stripped and cut. Someone is living out a fantasy at this stage. This is something someone has wanted to do. We are now trying to understand the mind of the killer. We know the difference between right and wrong. But this person is outwith that so it is very difficult to understand why. The trial has heard potential influences such as Marilyn Manson ’s depiction of the Black Dahlia.
“Jodi’s breast was cut. Her abdomen was cut, the gash on the face was identical, there was a hole in the forehead. It’s there and we can’t avoid this simulation. This was not about sex, it was about escalating violence and the opportunity to perform injuries. We are not talking about some poor wee soul who some guy has raped. This is most horrific.”
As Jodi’s body was removed by ambulance, Mitchell is said to have sat coolly texting on his mobile. “In 85% of murder cases the attacker knows the victim, the local geography and lives within a five-mile radius,” said Dobbie. “I knew I wanted to eliminate all of Jodi’s male family members and associates, all the males who used that path and all local rough sleepers. Luke Mitchell was part of that group. A teacher from his school quickly came forward and raised concerns about the alarming writings in his jotter. That was worthy of further exploration. Was he into satan or dabbling, looking for an alternative religion or just sticking it up to his teachers? We couldn’t draw huge conclusions but were already learning that he carried knives. Then there was the incredulous discovery of the body.”
By early July, Mitchell had started to emerge as the prime suspect but the investigation was thwarted by a lack of any forensic evidence and with Mitchell’s almost unnatural resilience in the face of intense police scrutiny. What fascinated and frustrated detectives in equal measure was how a 14-year-old could commit such a frenzied attack and yet cover his tracks so efficiently.
More unsettling was the casual, contemptuous way he chatted with police dog handlers about their animals and mocked officers for allowing the bins in the street to be emptied before the search for a possible murder weapon had begun.
“He was always a very resilient, defiant and lippy lad,” said Dobbie. “He was much more confident than you would have expected. He was challenging and he liked to taunt. It was almost as if he was saying, ‘You’ll never solve this’.”
Mitchell was first questioned by police four days after Jodi’s death, yet neither the interview nor a search of his house provided any leads to tie him to the murder. It was the first indication police had that Mitchell would be no pushover. “For his age, he turned out to be a very challenging interviewee. He liked to mock,” said Dobbie. “In the interview he was confident and very controlling. He displayed a high level of intelligence.”
A month later, having exhausted other leads, police questioned Mitchell again. They knew they could only hold him for six hours and so the interview was planned in minute detail but again he proved elusive. “He was totally in control of himself and challenged the abilities and authority of the police. He had the mental ability to sit and take control of the interview and that’s incredible from someone who’s not previously been part of the criminal process or not come from a criminal family. He was not shocked or fazed or panicking. I have never seen someone so cool and calm and who needed to control the situation.”
Despite the lack of physical evidence, the police were building a circumstantial case against him. After collecting hundreds of witness statements they were able to piece together Mitchell’s movements, minute by minute, on the day of the murder and his story didn’t add up. The police report that named the teenager as the sole suspect placed particular emphasis on the fact that it was Mitchell who “discovered” Jodi’s body. It would allow prosecutors to convincingly assert that he had specialist knowledge of the murder scene.
Many psychologists are resistant to the idea that the root cause of Mitchell’s killing of Jodi was his fascination with death and the occult, as expressed through music.
Professor Cynthia McVey, of Glasgow Caledonian University, does not accept the link.
“Certainly if you watch a violent film, you learn the behaviour,” she says. “If you see someone sticking a knife in someone else you would know how to do that and potentially where to strike to do the most damage. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it would induce violent behaviour.”
Her colleague, Professor Vince Egan, agrees, dismissing Manson as “just show business”. It would be foolish, he says, to take action against a form of music or culture because of a crime such as this.
“There were lots of things going wrong in Luke’s life that could have helped contribute to his problems. He was dealing in large amounts of cannabis, carrying knives, he was clearly very alienated,” he says.
Manson’s effect on the behaviour of young people has been examined by Dr Adrian North, a psychologist at the University of Leicester. He believes the music attracts those who are already disturbed.
“We asked people when they had started self-harming and other activities associated with this music, and the answer they give was that the self-harming or whatever came first. What our research showed was that Manson’s kind of music is attractive to people like this.”
Child psychologists such as Dr Jack Boyle agree that the problem arises when the fans are already in a vulnerable state. “If you have a very disturbed individual who may be losing contact with reality because of drugs and he listens to Manson then that is a different issue. Then the music could take on a different meaning entirely and people could misinterpret Manson’s music.”
Psychologists believe more work needs to be done to examine whether the music acts to legitimise the disturbing thoughts in vulnerable youngsters’ minds, giving them a glamorous gloss or encouraging them. Manson himself believes his critics are missing the point. Asked about his fascination with serial killers he once said: “My fascination is similar to that of people stopping to look at car accidents or wanting to go to an amusement park and get on a ride that says ‘Ride at your own risk’. People love their fear, whether they realise it or not. People are afraid of death but love to get closer to it. I think that’s why there is a need for Marilyn Manson in America.”
TO SOME politicians, however, the reality that vulnerable or disturbed youngsters are drawn to music like Manson’s is enough justification for new curbs on it being sold to children. Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem MP, yesterday called for age certification of CDs to bring them into line with computer games and films.
This weekend in Dalkeith and Midlothian there is relief that the verdict was “guilty” rather than the “not proven” some had feared. Thoughts are with Jodi’s family. Now justice has been done they must try to pick up the pieces of their lives — knowing that one piece will be missing for ever. On Friday Jodi’s mother released a poem her daughter had written.
Entitled “A Thinking Christmas”, it is a touching and childlike depiction of how some children are lucky enough to receive gifts, while others less fortunate do not. But what is likely to linger long in the family’s mind are the poem’s first two lines, which, through murder and grief, have gained an unintended resonance:
“Your fire is nice and warm, Just think — A little girl cold, wet and in the storm . . . ”
-
Here are the contents of an old article from The Times newspaper (quite lengthy and detailed, but offers some very interesting insights into LM and the case):
Of course the paragraph below is absolutely mendacious in its dishonesty.
‘ More police research came across Manson’s paintings of the Black Dahlia victim Elizabeth Short, a Hollywood starlet whose murder in 1947 scandalised America. These stopped them in their tracks. The paintings showed injuries disturbingly similar to those inflicted on Jodi’s body — especially the large wounds on the side of the mouth stretching towards her ear, and an injury to the breast. Had the art and music of Marilyn Manson inspired, or even provoked, the most grisly murder Scotland had seen for a generation? ’
The pathologist who carried out the post-mortem on Jodi’s body said there were more dissimilarities than similarities when comparing the wounds of the Black Dahlia and Jodi. You might as well claim that the murder was inspired by the killings of Jack the Ripper whose victim’s mutilations were much similar. Further there was no evidence in any of the items associated with Luke that he had a) a particular liking for Marilyn Manson, I believe the CD bought after the murder was the only one he owned and b) had any knowledge of the Black Dahlia killing.
Unfortunately I’ve only got time to scratch the surface of the above article but this really is lazy journalism at its best, supposition touted as fact, but I’m afraid much the same as the vast majority of articles written on the case.
-
Thanks for that, @Mr Apples.
-
I have read that too…it was probably on some forum.
When seen by multiple witnesses standing on the Newbattle Road Luke was wearing a light bomber jacket, which suggests rather moderate weather, not the weather it would seem for a heavy, parka. Wasn’t Jodi just wearing a t-shirt that night?
It must have been some forum you were on?
-
Here are the contents of an old article from The Times newspaper (quite lengthy and detailed, but offers some very interesting insights into LM and the case):
The murderous art that unmasked a cruel killer
Police investigating the murder of Jodi Jones were shocked by the dark fascinations of her boyfriend. But can the work of musicians such as Marilyn Manson be blamed for inspiring brutality or does it reflect the turmoil of a disturbed mind
Police investigating the murder of the 14-year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones had a prime suspect — her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. He was due to meet her the night she disappeared and had found her body in the darkness of a desolate Midlothian wood. But to the frustration of the police there was no forensic evidence linking him, or anybody else, to the crime.
To understand the way Mitchell’s mind worked, detectives immersed themselves in the youth cultures of goth, grunge, rap and nu-metal. For the mostly middle-aged officers it was a revelation. Given what they knew about how Jodi met her gruesome death, they became convinced that Mitchell’s musical taste betrayed the mind of a sadistic killer.
It was the suspect himself who sparked this line of inquiry. In the opening days of the investigation in the summer of 2003, as detectives went about their door-to-door inquiries in Dalkeith, Mitchell had spoken to officers in the street about music containing murderous themes. Displaying the arrogance he was to show throughout the case, he asked if the policeman knew the song Kim by the rapper Eminem.
Detectives discovered the song was about somebody murdering his wife. It was impossible to read the lyrics without a shiver of realisation that their chief suspect was a fan: “Don’t you get it bitch, no one can hear you?/Now shut the f*** up and get what’s comin’ to you./ You were supposed to love me./Now bleed, bitch, bleed!” Eminem was not Mitchell’s favourite musician. That honour went to Manson, the controversial American rock star. Mitchell was obsessive about Manson’s music, with its dark subject matter of suicide, violence, satanism and murder. When detectives dipped into the Manson repertoire it only heightened their concerns — and their suspicions. Especially songs such as King Kill 33:
“I will destroy you with one simple hole.
“The world that hates me has taken its toll but now I have finally taken control.
“You wanted so bad to make me this thing.
“And I want you now to just kill the king.
“And I am not sorry, and I am not sorry: this is what you deserve.”
SPONSORED
There was more. Detectives discovered that two days after the killing, having already been questioned and forensically examined, Mitchell wound down by buying and watching a Manson DVD, The Golden Age of Grotesque.
It had a 15 certificate, and he bought it at his local Sainsbury’s along with some family shopping.
Amid darkened scenes illuminated by flickering torchlight, the DVD shows a girl’s naked body lying on the ground. In another part, two other girls are tied up and hooded.
More police research came across Manson’s paintings of the Black Dahlia victim Elizabeth Short, a Hollywood starlet whose murder in 1947 scandalised America. These stopped them in their tracks. The paintings showed injuries disturbingly similar to those inflicted on Jodi’s body — especially the large wounds on the side of the mouth stretching towards her ear, and an injury to the breast. Had the art and music of Marilyn Manson inspired, or even provoked, the most grisly murder Scotland had seen for a generation? Manson’s CDs and those of many other performers who explore horror and darkness are piled high in the untidy bedrooms of tens of thousands of teenagers across Britain. Their parents roll their eyes at their offspring’s musical choices and fashion excesses and shrug. Are goths really any different or more dangerous than other teenage fads from previous generations? After all, parents in earlier times were once scandalised by teddy boys and mods and hippies and punks. Is this really any different? Luke Mitchell’s murder of Jodi Jones has sparked a worried re-examination of these parental assumptions. As Mitchell starts a prison sentence “without limit of time” for Jodi’s murder, the case poses some unsettling questions for parents, politicians and the music industry.
Does macabre and death- obsessed music inspire acts of violence, self-harm and murder? Or is it simply the case that vulnerable and disturbed youngsters are attracted to it? Either way, can this music continue to be made available without any age restrictions — unlike feature films and computer games? Crucial to these considerations is a more difficult question, one that last week haunted the minds of millions of Scots as they watched the closing stages of the trial: what drove Mitchell, a boy too young to shave, to the sadistic murder of his girlfriend?
JODI and Luke both favoured the uniform of the goth — baggy black clothes and facial piercings. Mitchell had a piercing just below the centre of his bottom lip, which he would worry with his tongue, making it bob up and down. Jodi had one on the right-hand side of her bottom lip.
Although just 14 years old, Mitchell was obsessed with nihilism and the occult, particularly as expressed in the music of Nirvana and Manson, as well as nu-metal acts such as Slipknot. He fostered a look similar to that of the Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, who was Jodi’s particular idol. Their favourite lyric was Cobain’s: “The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came.”
Both teenagers had a taste for the macabre. They would gather in Greyfriars Kirkyard in the centre of Edinburgh — generally regarded as one of the most eerily atmospheric graveyards in Scotland. There they would smoke cannabis — Mitchell always seemed to have a plentiful supply — among the ancient tombstones.
For some of the group that hung around Greyfriars, the surroundings whetted their appetite for horror. One of them was Sonny Devlin, from the Restalrig area of Edinburgh, who at 15 was a year older than the Dalkeith kids. By some grisly coincidence, it was June 30, 2003, the evening of Jodi’s murder, that Devlin and a younger friend chose to break into a Greyfriars tomb known as the last resting place of George “Bloody” Mackenzie, a 17th-century prosecutor of the Covenanters.
They disinterred a corpse and hacked off its head with a penknife. The boys then used the head to simulate oral sex, for the entertainment of their pals. The two boys were later arrested and became the first people in Scotland for more than a century to be convicted of “violation of a sepulchre”.
Mitchell’s friends had long been aware of his fascination for knives and the damage they could inflict.
When he was 12, Mitchell had used a knife to threaten the daughter of a family who were guests in the Mitchell house. He had climbed onto her bed, held the knife to her throat and asked for a kiss.
At an army cadet corps he attended in Bonnyrigg, a lock knife with a six-inch blade that he was carrying was confiscated by Matthew Muraska, the company leader. Mitchell would often show the other boys weapons he had improvised from blades and sticks.
A former girlfriend, Kara Van Nuil, who dated Mitchell for a few months in 2003 after meeting him at the cadets, described how he once grabbed her from behind and held a Swiss Army knife to her throat with the warning: “Don’t move, or I’ll gut you.” Just a month later, Jodi was dead.
While many fans of Manson’s music were happy simply to ally themselves with his idiosyncratic fashion sense and musical posturing, Mitchell went further. Satanic references were scrawled all over his school jotters. One read: “I offer my flesh, blood and soul to the dark lord of hell.” Another jotter had the words “Satan lives” on the front, and the sentence: “I have tasted the devil’s green blood.” On another Mitchell had written: “Evil is the way”.
Occult beliefs also emerged in Mitchell’s school work, causing alarm among teaching staff at his Catholic high school, St David’s in Dalkeith. In an essay called Pain and Suffering, prepared for a third-year English class, Mitchell wrote: “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance . . . Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life.”
After the teacher referred him to guidance staff, Mitchell wrote in another essay: “Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist? Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help.”
There were curiosities about the way he lived at the Mitchell family home, which, according to the wooden sign next to the front door, went by the name of “Bedlam”.
When his scarlet-painted bedroom was searched by police they found 20 bottles of his own urine under his bed. Mitchell’s parents, Corinne and Philip, split up in 1999, and his mother indulged him, giving him money and letting his girlfriends sleep in his room. She knew all about his cannabis use.
Mitchell often harmed himself. Once he scored the satanic number 666 into his arm “for a dare”. A former classmate, Michelle Tierney, later told police Mitchell had stubbed a cigarette out on his hand in front of her. He had then told her he had imagined getting stoned and killing someone. It would be “funny”, he said.
Jodi and her sister Janine had also been known to self-harm. The sisters had had a troubled childhood — their father Jimmy had committed suicide, aged 39, by hanging himself from a tree in the garden, six years before the death of his daughter. In her diary, Jodi had written: “Take the knife. All your pain can be taken by one slit, slit to your wrists. Be free, be happy, just like me.”
According to specialists in the occult, Jodi’s death bore many of the hallmarks of a ritual killing. She was naked but for a pair of socks, her wrists bound by the legs of her trousers. She was strangled, then while she was still alive her neck was slashed more than 20 times. A hole had been cut in her windpipe and the main artery in her neck had been severed almost all the way through. She had multiple injuries to her head, and wounds from her mouth to her ear. Careful cuts had been made around her eyes, as well as deep cuts on her left breast and right arm. The knife had been pushed deep into her mouth.
Few professionals involved in the case had ever witnessed anything so grim. Forensic pathologists concluded that such a murder was extremely rare, and was usually associated with somebody mentally disturbed or high on drugs.
So what was the motivation? Chief superintendent Craig Dobbie, who led the investigation, believes that Mitchell and Jodi had a furious row on the day of the murder after she discovered he was planning to take another girl on holiday. During the trial it emerged that he had been conducting a relationship with Kimberley Thomson, 15, from Perthshire, behind Jodi’s back and they had arranged to spend time together during the summer break.
“I think he told her at lunchtime that day (of her death) and she wanted to see him that night to talk about it so they arranged to meet.”
According to Dobbie’s account, they ended up in the woods between their homes. “A situation developed and she suffered a blow to her face. Her lip is cut. We later found some blood on a tree trunk and the lip bleeds quite a lot when it is cut. I think at this point she turned around and headed eastwards towards home, towards safety. But then she was struck on the head with something like the limb of a tree. Then she was strangled, her head was pulled up and her throat was cut. At that point she was dead.
“After a ‘normal’ murder, the person who committed it is then going to leg it or hide the body. But in this case the body is stripped and cut. Someone is living out a fantasy at this stage. This is something someone has wanted to do. We are now trying to understand the mind of the killer. We know the difference between right and wrong. But this person is outwith that so it is very difficult to understand why. The trial has heard potential influences such as Marilyn Manson ’s depiction of the Black Dahlia.
“Jodi’s breast was cut. Her abdomen was cut, the gash on the face was identical, there was a hole in the forehead. It’s there and we can’t avoid this simulation. This was not about sex, it was about escalating violence and the opportunity to perform injuries. We are not talking about some poor wee soul who some guy has raped. This is most horrific.”
As Jodi’s body was removed by ambulance, Mitchell is said to have sat coolly texting on his mobile. “In 85% of murder cases the attacker knows the victim, the local geography and lives within a five-mile radius,” said Dobbie. “I knew I wanted to eliminate all of Jodi’s male family members and associates, all the males who used that path and all local rough sleepers. Luke Mitchell was part of that group. A teacher from his school quickly came forward and raised concerns about the alarming writings in his jotter. That was worthy of further exploration. Was he into satan or dabbling, looking for an alternative religion or just sticking it up to his teachers? We couldn’t draw huge conclusions but were already learning that he carried knives. Then there was the incredulous discovery of the body.”
By early July, Mitchell had started to emerge as the prime suspect but the investigation was thwarted by a lack of any forensic evidence and with Mitchell’s almost unnatural resilience in the face of intense police scrutiny. What fascinated and frustrated detectives in equal measure was how a 14-year-old could commit such a frenzied attack and yet cover his tracks so efficiently.
More unsettling was the casual, contemptuous way he chatted with police dog handlers about their animals and mocked officers for allowing the bins in the street to be emptied before the search for a possible murder weapon had begun.
“He was always a very resilient, defiant and lippy lad,” said Dobbie. “He was much more confident than you would have expected. He was challenging and he liked to taunt. It was almost as if he was saying, ‘You’ll never solve this’.”
Mitchell was first questioned by police four days after Jodi’s death, yet neither the interview nor a search of his house provided any leads to tie him to the murder. It was the first indication police had that Mitchell would be no pushover. “For his age, he turned out to be a very challenging interviewee. He liked to mock,” said Dobbie. “In the interview he was confident and very controlling. He displayed a high level of intelligence.”
A month later, having exhausted other leads, police questioned Mitchell again. They knew they could only hold him for six hours and so the interview was planned in minute detail but again he proved elusive. “He was totally in control of himself and challenged the abilities and authority of the police. He had the mental ability to sit and take control of the interview and that’s incredible from someone who’s not previously been part of the criminal process or not come from a criminal family. He was not shocked or fazed or panicking. I have never seen someone so cool and calm and who needed to control the situation.”
Despite the lack of physical evidence, the police were building a circumstantial case against him. After collecting hundreds of witness statements they were able to piece together Mitchell’s movements, minute by minute, on the day of the murder and his story didn’t add up. The police report that named the teenager as the sole suspect placed particular emphasis on the fact that it was Mitchell who “discovered” Jodi’s body. It would allow prosecutors to convincingly assert that he had specialist knowledge of the murder scene.
Many psychologists are resistant to the idea that the root cause of Mitchell’s killing of Jodi was his fascination with death and the occult, as expressed through music.
Professor Cynthia McVey, of Glasgow Caledonian University, does not accept the link.
“Certainly if you watch a violent film, you learn the behaviour,” she says. “If you see someone sticking a knife in someone else you would know how to do that and potentially where to strike to do the most damage. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it would induce violent behaviour.”
Her colleague, Professor Vince Egan, agrees, dismissing Manson as “just show business”. It would be foolish, he says, to take action against a form of music or culture because of a crime such as this.
“There were lots of things going wrong in Luke’s life that could have helped contribute to his problems. He was dealing in large amounts of cannabis, carrying knives, he was clearly very alienated,” he says.
Manson’s effect on the behaviour of young people has been examined by Dr Adrian North, a psychologist at the University of Leicester. He believes the music attracts those who are already disturbed.
“We asked people when they had started self-harming and other activities associated with this music, and the answer they give was that the self-harming or whatever came first. What our research showed was that Manson’s kind of music is attractive to people like this.”
Child psychologists such as Dr Jack Boyle agree that the problem arises when the fans are already in a vulnerable state. “If you have a very disturbed individual who may be losing contact with reality because of drugs and he listens to Manson then that is a different issue. Then the music could take on a different meaning entirely and people could misinterpret Manson’s music.”
Psychologists believe more work needs to be done to examine whether the music acts to legitimise the disturbing thoughts in vulnerable youngsters’ minds, giving them a glamorous gloss or encouraging them. Manson himself believes his critics are missing the point. Asked about his fascination with serial killers he once said: “My fascination is similar to that of people stopping to look at car accidents or wanting to go to an amusement park and get on a ride that says ‘Ride at your own risk’. People love their fear, whether they realise it or not. People are afraid of death but love to get closer to it. I think that’s why there is a need for Marilyn Manson in America.”
TO SOME politicians, however, the reality that vulnerable or disturbed youngsters are drawn to music like Manson’s is enough justification for new curbs on it being sold to children. Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem MP, yesterday called for age certification of CDs to bring them into line with computer games and films.
This weekend in Dalkeith and Midlothian there is relief that the verdict was “guilty” rather than the “not proven” some had feared. Thoughts are with Jodi’s family. Now justice has been done they must try to pick up the pieces of their lives — knowing that one piece will be missing for ever. On Friday Jodi’s mother released a poem her daughter had written.
Entitled “A Thinking Christmas”, it is a touching and childlike depiction of how some children are lucky enough to receive gifts, while others less fortunate do not. But what is likely to linger long in the family’s mind are the poem’s first two lines, which, through murder and grief, have gained an unintended resonance:
“Your fire is nice and warm, Just think — A little girl cold, wet and in the storm . . . ”
That was interesting. There's information in there I hadn't heard before. Thanks for that.
-
Isn't it for most everyone, It Is not easy to fathom at all is it? Of anyone carrying out such a horrendous act. Good to see, you are completely leaning towards a fully grown, adult serial killer type. That in no way do you believe in the slightest, that the 16-year old youths on the bike, the 18-year old Kelly, the 19-year old brother had any part whatsoever in this horrendous murder either, do you? That the 15 -year old you speak of is no different from those others, where age, experience and cover up and all else come into play? Unlikely, isn't it? Their parents, siblings and all else would cover up either, would they?
But the reality here is of course the false alibi. And the lies being told around this. Where it is pretty much key to understand the extent of the lies told, that gives us that clear picture, that LM was not at home. It has nothing to do with what can possibly be done in 13 mins, but everything to do with, what was in reality claimed to have happened in and around 40-45 mins. At it's very basic, If everything was in truth around Mitchell being home, then why that need to strive to make it into something else, to pull the brother into it? To extend that time out, to have him covered at home, longer? In advance, and exactly around the time needed. They were the only ones, to strive to put an alibi in place, that is what stands out. And if one is striving to give an alibi, it is because they needed one. - That is common sense and logic, is it not?
The first time SM was spoken to , was not the "first statement at the station". A brief account had already been given to the FLO, after being appointed to the Mitchell household. Within 36hrs of this girls death. A more detailed one on the Thursday, within 72hrs of this girls death, and a further brief one, still within 72hrs. When it became abundantly clear that on his arrival home, his mother had given a further account, and she put SM centre in those lies. And we know they were lies, and not memory loss - for she had her son coming out his room, downstairs on her arrival home at five past five. She had him return to his room for around 10mins while dinner was being completed. That he collected that dinner at around 5.15, ate it and she claims he left the house. She did not see him just after five, and she neither saw nor heard him leave home. So by her own claims again, she had no way of knowing what time he left, did she? And those first accounts, all included LM leaving home around 5.45pm, to go meet with Jodi for around 6pm. Her memory loss, and regaining it, already had her memory put SM somewhere he could not have been, for she was not even home. And he could not have waited to have dinner made, to then eat it and be out - for he had to be out before 5.30pm for him still not to see his brother. - Now if you feel, due to not believing a 14-year old could carry out this type of crime, that they must be telling the truth about the alibi - then it is hardly surprising one puts complete faith in Ms Leans version on the back of the Mitchells?
Memory - every single detail of that dinner, with those clear and precise descriptions of Luke, all centred around Luke, driving that point that he was home. This is from the off. The clothing, of everything he was wearing, again driving that point home, those precise details of what he had on. Those timings, again precise, driving the point home, that she seen him just after 5pm, that he stayed home until around 5.45pm. Of putting herself in the back garden, again the detail of her work and all else. Putting her outside, when most would be in? It was overcast and wet. Low temps. It stood out like a sore thumb in comparison to these others, did it not? That precision, yet forgot she had not went directly home? That she even had an imaginary discussion with her other son at a time she could not have. - So yes it was blatant, and yes it disintegrated - he was not at home.
So, she was covering for him, at a time he obviously needed cover for. And she dragged her other son into it, to get one to lie to cover for the other also. From the moment she decided to help LM, irrespective of what tale he told her, she set herself on a road of no return. Only CM or her son/s can answer why, to what story was told by Luke to them. People again under the impression that this maniac had arrived home, dripping blood and all else, the person who murdered Jodi Jones, those injuries, was not simply a murderer, where they? - And I do believe, whatever help he managed to get, he threw it back in her face. For the moment he crossed that threshold from fantasy to reality, something else was born. That change, and this was the person who needed to be at the centre of the action later that evening. There is no rational to that type of mind, no logic and common sense of distancing oneself completely, is there? The person who murdered Jodi Jones, was cold and they were calculated - exactly the traits LM displayed throughout. Every meet, every interview, through the trial and present day. - That complete "flat affect" monotone voice. Exactly how the operator described him, "not how one would expect someone to be, after finding a body" Exactly the voice the Jury heard that day, that chilling voice.
Is this the basis of what sucked Ms Lean in? For instantly upon that murder happening she had LM as being innocent, didn't she? That controversy, whilst her friends were saying I wonder, she was saying I don't. It was not him. Confirmed by that hand shake, he looked her in the eye, and she decided he was innocent. - And people have to believe her wonderful judgement of character, based on what exactly? - for it is certainly not evidence.
So, the question should be, should it not, why did she lie for him, and why did she involve her other son? Look at it this way. IF he had been home on her arrival, then she saw him for mere minutes. You can not make a mistake with seeing someone for mere minutes, can you? So why not simply say this? in the first instance. Tell the truth, as with Luke and wanting him over the wall for his DNA, as with his mother on Newbattle Road, "Jodi dead, breathing attack, is he under arrest" - She knew before having contact with her son that evening, that Jodi was dead. They had not spoken on the phone, he had been ignoring her.
So, not the fault of the police, is it? - They did not concoct the stories, lie to cover up, whatever they thought it was, they were covering for? Even that disgusting attempt to embroil SM into it, only sealed that fate more, they were digging the hole bigger. Adding more and more prior to the CCTV footage and the phone logs. And the arrest and the charges, and the future? Where we are asked to believe, that his grown up son, simply left this mother to it, by her blessing! - not much choice really, but it certainly tells it's own story, does it not?
Did Sandra Lean explain in her book about internal and external blood loss btw?
-
Did Sandra Lean explain in her book about internal and external blood loss btw?
Because Sandra Lean stated on 8th December 2018,
‘As it turns out, nugnug, she was probably moved more than once - the lack of blood at the foot of the wall and where the body was found suggest she wasn't killed in either place.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg449382.html#msg449382
-
The witness who had seen Jodi being followed by Stocky Man put the time at slightly after 5 o’clock. The police appealed for Stocky Man to come forward so must have thought the eyewitness claim credible. The eyewitness’s evidence would have put Jodi at Luke’s road at around 5.30, just the time Luke says he left the house.
There was no appeal for the couple seen by AB, at this time they could have been just another innocent couple. There was no appeal because Bryson’s first and second statements put the time of her sighting at 5.45.
An excellent summary of the sighting from elsewhere by a poster called Rolfe.
A woman called Andrina Bryson stated that she saw two people, male and female, at the eastern end of the path early that evening. There's a lot in the book about Mrs Bryson not being the complete stranger to the Jones family that she claimed to be, and about the possibility that by the mediation of her brother-in-law (who was very close to the Jones family) her description of the couple might have been contaminated. I think that's all a bit of a red herring, and in fact the testimony doesn't stand on its own terms.
The prosecution claimed that the two people were Luke and Jodi, and this proved that Luke had walked along the path from his own house (which was some little way from the western end of the path) and met Jodi at the eastern end. Thus giving the lie to his story that he hadn't seen her at all, and placing him with her, close to where her body was found, about 20 minutes before the time the police had decided was the time of death.
There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.
Luke hadn't necesarily been expecting Jodi to "come out to play" that evening, because she was in her mother's bad books because of having played truant some time the previous week and originally she wasn't going to be allowed out until six, but around 4.30, after Jodi had come home from school and changed out of her school clothes, Judith had said, well OK, on you go. Jodi texted Luke (using her mother's phone as hers was broken) between 4.34 and 4.38, probably saying that she was coming over (the actual texts were deleted from both phones).
The implication is therefore that Luke was still at home when these texts were exchanged, because that was his first intimation that Jodi was free. You might think that if she was coming over to his neck of the woods, as seems to have been the arrangement, he would simply have waited for her. However her mother insisted that Jodi wasn't allowed to walk down Roan's Dyke path alone and that Luke was expected to come and meet her. This wasn't actually true, Janine confirmed that Jodi often walked the path on her own and Judith knew that, but the rendezvous at the eastern end was insisted on by Judith.
So if Luke immediately dropped everything as soon as he got those texts and walked briskly to the eastern end of the path to meet Jodi, what time could he have got there? In the end the time of that sighting was determined in court to be between 4.49 and 4.54, to fit with the (revised) time that Jodi was believed to have left the house, which was 4.50. If she had left at 4.50 she would have been at the eastern end of the path at 4.53, assuming she went straight there.
But hang on, if Luke was still in his own house texting at 4.38, could he have got to the eastern end of the path by 4.53, only 15 minutes later? The distance is about a mile, so yes, but he would have been hurrying. So that was the prosecution story. Luke had left his house the minute the texting exchange ended (or he was already on his way at that time, even though he didn't know Jodi was coming out unti he got the texts) and walked very fast and got to the spot by 4.53, just in time to meet Jodi, who had left her house at 4.50. And that's what Andrina Bryson saw.
It's not that simple. Andrina Bryson originally timed that sighting at about 5.40 to 5.45. According to the police theory Jodi was already dead by then. That time didn't work for the police at all, because there was a definite confirmed sighting of Luke sitting on a wall at the end of his own street in Newbattle at six o'clock. He said he hadn't left Newbattle at all and he was still waiting for Jodi to show up at that point, and no there was no arrangement that he was supposed to go and meet her at the eastern end of the path and walk her to Newbattle. (There was an arrangement that he would walk her home along the path, but not that he would go to meet her.) He was seen sitting on the wall waiting for her at 6.00 by friends who actually knew him, so there was no getting out of that one. Working back from that time the police figured that 5.15 was the latest he could possibly have committed the murder and still got back to Newbattle to be seen sitting on a wall as if he hadn't a care in the world. Therefore Jodi had to have left as early as 4.50 to get her to the spot where she was murdered in time for Luke to be the murderer and the whole mad-slasher thing to have happened.
So the Bryson sighting, if it was to remain part of the evidence (and it had to be, because nobody else claimed to have seen Luke at the eastern end of the path at that time, to give the lie to his story that he'd spent the entire evening west of the path), had to be earlier, and indeed had to be pretty much at 4.53 precisely.
Andrina Bryson's original story was that she got into her car with her two children (one a toddler) at 4.05, pretty much as soon as her daughter got home from school, to go to the supermarket. It took five to ten minutes to get to the supermarket and then about 35 to 45 minutes to do her weekly shopping. The police got her till receipt which said 4.45, so that more or less checks with the shorter of the time estimates. 4.05 leave the house, 4.10 arrive at the supermarket, 4.45 at the checkout. She wanted to look at a house for sale in Easthouses (the village where Jodi lived, at the eastern end of the path) so she drove there, getting a bit lost, looked at the house from the street, and then drove home. It was on the way home she saw the couple.
It was agreed she would have taken five minutes to get the messages and the kids into the car and drive away, so leaving the supermarket at 4.50. The minimum time to get to Easthouses from the supermarket was 12 minutes, or 17 minutes if she'd gone a longer way, so 5.02 to 5.07 arrival in the village. Then she had to find the house for sale, stop in the street to look at it, then turn the car in the cul-de-sac to head off home. Originally she gave herself more than half an hour for that, estimating that she'd seen the couple at the end of the path at 5.40 to 5.45. Another time point was that she'd received a phone call "about half an hour after she got back home". That call was logged at 6.17 (she originally guessed 6.20 before the time was checked), meaning she got home about 5.50.
I'm not quite sure how long it was supposed to take to drive from the western end of Roan's Dyke path back to Andrina Bryson's house, but possibly this sequence of events puts her sighting of the couple a little bit earlier than 5.45, perhaps 5.40 or a few minutes before that. Certainly not 4.53. So how did that happen? You'd think the till receipt timed at 4.45 would knock the whole thing on the head from the start.
Here's how it was done. The police got Mrs Bryson's bank statement, and for some reason the transaction was timed on the bank statement at 4.32 (and 45 seconds), 13 minutes earlier. They decided that had to be the correct time and the till receipt was wrong. Well OK, but that would have meant that Mrs Bryson managed to do her weekly shop (with a kid and a toddler in tow) in about 15 minutes, compared to her original estimate of 35 to 45 minutes. Given the 4.32 time, add 5 minutes to get kids and groceries into the car, then the 12 minutes minimum time to drive to Easthouses from the supermarket and you have 4.49, or 4.54 if you take the longer route. Hey presto, this is just right to have seen Luke and Jodi meet at the eastern end of the path exactly as the police timings needed them to have met.
But what about the drive to look at the house for sale? Mrs Bryson always put the sighting of the couple after she looked at the house, on her way home. They seem just to have forgotten about that, unless there's another altered statement that hasn't been mentioned.
So who did Andrina Bryson say she saw? Originally she described a male in his early 20s, white, average height and build, thick sandy brown hair standing up in a clump at the back. He was wearing a green fishing-style jacket with a lot of pockets and trousers to match. She didn't see his face at all. The girl had very dark shoulder-length hair, with a plain navy-blue hoodie and light blue boot-cut jeans. Again she didn't see the face and couldn't guess an age.
Luke Mitchell, on 30th June 2003, was a skinny 14-year-old kid with dead straight blond hair. The prosecution were adamant that he had been wearing a parka jacket (which he didn't actually possess at that time, but which in any case didn't match the fishing-jacket description). Jodi had mid-brown or auburn hair. She was wearing a baggy black top with a prominent logo on the back, and very baggy black trousers.
It's blindingly obvious that Andrina Bryson saw two completely different people, not Luke and Jodi, at maybe twenty to six. But it was vital for the prosecution that it had to be Luke and Jodi at 4.53. There's more, including a photospread which seems to have been about as fair as the one Tony Gauci was shown on 15th September 1991 (that is, anyone could probably have figured out which photo was the suspect) from which Mrs Bryson (who didn't see the man's face) obligingly picked out Luke - of course Luke was already the prime suspect by then and it's pretty unlikely she didn't know what he looked like even if her brother-in-law hadn't been as thick as thieves with the Joneses. And a parka which she said wasn't what the man had been wearing, but she picked it out because she'd been asked to pick the garment most like the one she'd seen the man wearing. (Again shades of Tony Gauci - well if I have to pick someone then the one that looks most like is the number eight - not the man I saw in my shop but the man who looks a little bit like is...)
I don't think the people Mrs Bryson saw have actually been identified. Of course if they weren't there till 5.40 and the police were concentrating on the period between 4.50 and 5.15, they might not have pinged anyone's radar. But since it seems likely Jodi was murdered later than 5.15 they might have been important witnesses.’
In all of this there is something being swept under the carpet time and time again. You never acknowledge how likely it is that Stocky Man could be the killer. Stocky man was seen following J on or just after 5pm (your words). Within 30 mins of this sighting J is dead. If what you say is accurate then I think Stocky man has no alibi either and was seen ‘following’ J just before she was killed. In my opinion Stocky man is more likely her killer than anyone else iv read. May I add Stocky man’s clothes etc were never tested or do they even know who he is? 🧐 A probable killer lost, so we chase the wee boy to keep the firm happy. No Blood DNA on Luke either, would indicate the evidence was lost when Stocky man got away scott free. In all that’s said about alibi's and time lines, the bottom line is. Its highly unlikely that Luke could have committed this crime in the time frame (even yours) suggested and be Blood free. It’s as simple as that for me. I have yet to see anyone argue this part believably. Where was the blood?
-
From the Jigsawman, where the contents of the book are simply those self born, hypothetical lines of reasoning that have been pushed out, that jigsaw formed in the days long before she had access to anything, other than the Mitchells, these truthful people and of course media sources.
Did Andrew Green post on Internet forums?
Jigsawman aka Sandra Lean
“Yes, I agree. But what you must understand is the local prejudice and the intransigence of the "investigating" team.
Firstly, the climate of fear cannot be understated. Small town mentality, every finger pointed at Luke Mitchell from day one, and an absolute stonewalling of anything, anywhere, which deviated from the official line.
There were political reasons for the college where this person was resident not wanting to become attached to the investigation in any way. When the cops failed to come calling, they most likely breathed a huge and collective sigh of relief.
You pointed out in a previous post that someone who witnessed an assault on a child failed to intervene because their fear was that they might become a suspect. In a similar vein, individuals like this tutor could easily (and perhaps understandably) make a conscious decision not to "stick his/her neck out" - why bother? Not their problem, not their murder.
With the whole area shrieking hysterically for the immediate arrest of Luke Mitchell, the rumour machine in full swing by the second day, the complete disinterest of the police in considering any other possibilty than Luke as the suspect, and the sheer menace ready to pounce on anyone, anywhere who dared to suggest that maybe it wasn't Luke, you can see why, even with concerns, many people would simply justify to themselves not getting involved.
When this same tutor was questioned three years later, as always, the questions were worded very specifically, and the person questioned allowed the justification of later saying, "I answered their questions honestly. They didn't ask about X, Y and Z; if they had, I'd have told them."
It's the classic "closing down" tactic so beloved of manipulators of information, from playground bullies, through every rank of authority, to high court judges.
There is an excellent book on this by Dr Andrew Green entitled "Power, Resistance, Knowledge" - it's available on Amazon (is probably available elsewhere, but Amazon is a definite) - I would highly recommend it.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s280.html
Jigsawman - 7th of April 2010
Apologies for not respondig to individual posts - due to time constraints, I'm responding to the various recent posts in the one go.
Foolsgold: I just want to know if there were any known visits or phone calls between the "Search Party Organizers" and the "Fluid Donating Males".
Kelly was in the Gran's house on the day in question, along with [Name removed] and Jodi's brother, Joseph. Other fluid donor was never checked for contact with the family (was, in fact, never even asked, nor they about him), due to the fact that he wasn't traced until 3 years later, by which time, as far as L&B were concerned, the case was "closed."
It was also their excuse for not following up on the other potential suspect, who has dropped out of the discussion of late, because apparently none of his DNA was found at the scene. We do not know this for sure, though, because (a) there appears to be no reference DNA sample for this male in the files!! and (b) the forensic reports are such a mess that many of the samples collected were never properly tested anyway.
Deadhead: I find the idea that Jodi's whole family would be involved in her death a bit hard to swallow
Indeed, it does seem like a stretch too far. But what if, having taken certain decisions and steps, family members found themselves inextricably implicated, so that telling "the truth" would have been virtually impossible.
Let me run a hypothetical line of reasoning here. A male member of Jodi's extended family has had a run in with Jodi earlier in the day. He also has a history of violence and unpredictable behaviour. (This scenario, in fact, can be applied to various male members of the extended family.)
Mother/Granny later get wind that something has happened between Jodi and this male, as a result of the earlier run in, but at this stage, they are not quite sure what, and don't, even in their wildest nightmares, imagine the worst. The concern here would be to find Jodi, and "sort it all out" without the involvement of the authorities, since that involvement would mean family male would be in deep trouble.
By the time Jodi has been found, horribly murdered, several members of the family have already been in contact with each other, in order to "sort out" whatever it was they thought had happened - how to now explain that to the authorities?
Then the cops take over, and, almost instantly, set their sights on Luke.
In their shock and disbelief over what has happened to Jodi, the family members can justify their earlier actions to themselves - they were just afraid that one of their own family members had possibly hurt Jodi, but their fears were unfounded, since it was Luke who had done this terrible thing to her.
Kl: can anyone confirm that jodis phone was brocke
Foolsgold: I would imagine that ping results from cell towers or actual use of the phone would have alerted the police however if Jodi's phone was actually either used or working
Jodi's phone was very definitely broken. She had thrown it, in temper, against a wall a few weeks earlier, and it was rendered "deid" by that action. There would be no ping results from Jodi's phone for about 2 weeks before the murder.
Foolsgold: What about the initiator of the search, who I believe was Jodi's mother. There have been allegations that the "grounded" phone call was excessive and excessively prompt. Is this misperception? I don't know
I think the opposite was actually true. Jodi had just been "ungrounded" that evening (please read the explanantion of what constituted grounding and ungrounding in this family - it's very complicated!) yet step father receives a call 50 minutes after Jodi has left the house, saying, in essence, she is not where she was supposed to be, and is, to all intents and purposes "missing" for that length of time.
Yet later that evening, when she is supposed, for the first time in 6 weeks, to be home for 10pm, mother leaves it another 40 minutes to text and re-ground her, armed with the knowledge that 5 hours earlier, Jodi had been unaccounted for (and not where she was supposed to be) for almost an hour.
Deadhead: the guy who left his blood and matching semen..i know he cannot be named for legal reasons.
No, he can be, and was. Stephen Kelly, Janine's boyfriend, is that person. What we cannot say, or even suggest, of course, is that Stephen Kelly, the fiance of Jodi's sister, was in any way involved in the murder of Jodi.
Even police officers must caution individuals that they are being arrested or interviewed on the "suspicion" of some wrongdoing. The dangers of making public allegations against people who have not been officially suspected of any wrongdoing are clear and obvious.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s280.html
Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton were in London in March 2010, was she back in Scotland by April?
Sandra Lean - 10th of April 2010
’NOTICE TO ALL POSTERS.
I have tried for several weeks now to ignore the dishonest, misleading and malicious posts which have appeared on this site with monotonous regularity. The following FACTS are all provable with documented evidence, a route I will not hesitate to take if these posts do not stop immediately.
________________________________________
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 19:57:31 +0000
From:
Subject: Re: no smoke
To: sandra.lean@live.co.uk
Hi
Thank you so much for your response. That would be great thanks. We are in the process of an Appeal and it was CCRC that told me your book could be of real help to us,
(2) Qualifications and Experience These are a matter of public record Honours degree in Social Science (Psychology and Sociology, with electives in Criminology), 7 years voluntary work with families enduring injustice, 2 years into a PhD at the University of Stirling within the Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
I have never claimed to be doing a PhD elsewhere, nor at any other time than from June 2008.
(3) Books I have all of the original correspondence from the people whose cases were featured in No Smoke. This makes clear that no-one was ever misled in any way, that I had full permission to publish these stories, and that the families and prisoners concerned were fully informed participants.
Interviews for the PhD must be kept anonymous, and are a completely separate issue from any books. This is made absolutely clear to anyone who is participating in the research. Furthermore, cases which have been featured in the book cannot be used for the PhD. Again, documented evidence is available.
(4) Teasing the Animals This phrase was lightheartedly used by me twice in private emails, one referring to tabloid journalists, one referring to a poster who claimed to be a fiscal, but was prone to somewhat exaggerated posts. I have never, ever used this phrase in relation to anyone suffering miscarriage of justice or injustice of any sort. The entire history of the private conversations in which this phrase was used is on record. I will not, for now, make this public, even though the other party has allowed other people to do so selectively and maliciously.
(5) Aliases: I have posted on this site as Angeline and Sandra Lean. That is all. I have no idea who nugnug, reg126, shenna, foolsgold, con, guest1 or any of the other posters who appear on this site are. My communications records will show that there has never been any contact between myself and these people.
This site was started in support of Shirley McKie who was falsely accused. It is something of an irony, then, that it has become a platform for certain people to make false and malicious allegations against someone else.
Please note, I am no longer prepared to ignore dishonest, false, misleading and defamatory comments on this site. I have documented proof that the many claims and accusations made here are untrue. Sadly, on a site purporting to support the wrongly accused, we have come to the stage where I am being forced to prove that the allegations made against me are false innocent until proven guilty? I think not.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s290.html
Yet verbally Sandra confirmed Reg126was Billy Middleton
Am guessing Steffie was Stephanie Bon
👇
Apr 11, 2010#315
Anyone interested in MOJ and good reading should look up
http://www.writesite.org.uk/index.htm
L Naylor did a lot of research and she worked with some of the most amazing people around, great woman.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s310.html
-
From The Times article above, "As Jodi’s body was removed by ambulance, Mitchell is said to have sat coolly texting on his mobile."
This is so obviously wrong that it calls the whole article into serious question.