The POLICE were too STUPID to fathom this out

[Nicholas]

I’m not suggesting that at all, I’m using your argument that if there were no witnesses then how can we be sure something actually happened?

No you’re not

[Nicholas]

there were no witnesses then how can we be sure something actually happened?

I agree

A source at Scotts Caravan Park said yesterday:

"A woman has turned up demanding to speak to Corinne and has obviously been drinking.
"There has been a confrontation in the reception between the two women and then the woman who came to the park has just gone wild.
There were heated words exchanged before things got physical and blows were struck.
"The scrap was mostly hairpulling.
"Corinne tried to fight back but the woman gave her a bit of a beating.

[Nicholas]

Most of the reasoning and debate around LM not being the killer of Jodi Jones is based upon that of 'fallacy' ?

AB - The first and foremost absolute basis for her sighting, the only factual reason for her attention was that of what appeared to be 'a disagreement, argument of sorts' Her attention was drawn to the male. His actions. It was he she recalled with certainty when she stated "I'm as sure as sure can be" This person was honest to a T. She made nothing up and she did not pick LM out in court on this absolute basis. LM some 18 months later had changed dramatically. Much fuller. long hair pulled tightly back in a ponytail. There is absolutely no doubt she had seen his picture many times in the paper after that Identification. She stuck firmly to that of the youth she had seen, on the path and in the Identification.

That photo Id where LM's hair is more blonde than anything else. It is however not 'poker straight' Any other picture we see of LM is that of a youth with brown - sandy coloured hair. Exactly the colour she described. 11 other youths in those pictures, different colour of hair, shape, size. - she picked LM out, even though his hair appeared very blonde as opposed to sandy. She remembered him with clarity. She was not drawn to the white background she was drawn to him.

Every other part of her description was nothing short of - dam good. From the first until those more in-depth clarification ones were obtained. The hair appearing to be clumped at his neck - it stuck out. That Khaki green jacket, not shiny, the bulging pocket, badge. The type was of possibility. Not definite. It appeared to be drawn at the waist. Parkas have draw cords do they not? What colour were the trousers, green?

Of the girl - Dark hair which was possibly contained. It was not flowing in whatever length. She had on a dark blue top with LIGHTER coloured trousers, possibly Jeans and possibly bootcut. Upon further clarification. Very dark blue/black possibly navy. The trousers were SLIGHTLY LIGHTER in colour than that of the top. They were loose fitting. Possibly Jeans but not trousers as such. Jodi was wearing a black hoody with slightly lighter coloured dark blue cord/jeans.

The attention was on the male. His actions. Not his clothing nor that of the female. She did however get those clothes pretty dam close to what they actually were.

So it is easy is it not - with this fallacy of reasoning to ignore all of this dam good description and choose to concentrate on that emblem. This witness had LM implanted in her recall, his apparent anger. Whatever else was captured in her mind was that of brief colours and description. Not everything, which is nigh on impossible to do - it was him and she did remember that face very clearly. When AB said "I'm as sure as sure as can be"

I was watching some TV documentary series last night - based on cameras in real police work. Glasgow? Comment by one of the DI's.
'I'm glad we can now do this, it used to annoy the hell of me when people simply thought crimes should be solved almost instantly. They are more often than not, that of a long drawn out process. Whilst we may be able to eliminate most in those first days and weeks, it still takes a long time of gathering evidence to solve. Often many months.

Therefore again, this fallacy of reasoning. That if they were so sure they had got their man, why did it take months until his arrest. - It is called investigating and being thorough. Making sure they do have the right man rather than fitting up the wrong one. Yes, we are all aware it happens. But still there is nothing in the case of LM to show this to be true, quite the opposite.

I agree!

[Brietta]

I agree

A source at Scotts Caravan Park said yesterday:

"A woman has turned up demanding to speak to Corinne and has obviously been drinking.
"There has been a confrontation in the reception between the two women and then the woman who came to the park has just gone wild.
There were heated words exchanged before things got physical and blows were struck.
"The scrap was mostly hairpulling.
"Corinne tried to fight back but the woman gave her a bit of a beating.

So "A source at Scotts Caravan Park ..." is considered sufficient to blackguard a woman who from the information I have read has in all circumstances behaved with great dignity and restraint.
I think that is shameful.

[Mrs S]

So "A source at Scotts Caravan Park ..." is considered sufficient to blackguard a woman who from the information I have read has in all circumstances behaved with great dignity and restraint.
I think that is shameful.

Totally agree. Was the source Corrine Mitchell herself.?Wouldn't surprise me .

[faithlilly]

So "A source at Scotts Caravan Park ..." is considered sufficient to blackguard a woman who from the information I have read has in all circumstances behaved with great dignity and restraint.
I think that is shameful.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/police-take-no-further-action-968577

A full police investigation no less.

[Nicholas]

So "A source at Scotts Caravan Park ..." is considered sufficient to blackguard a woman who from the information I have read has in all circumstances behaved with great dignity and restraint.
I think that is shameful.

And shameful still they chose to visit Jodi’s gravesite not long after the funeral and not long after they’d lied and made claim publicly they were having a private memorial for Jodi at home

They weren’t ‘had over’ by the media - their actions following the sky interview prove this

[Nicholas]

I agree

A source at Scotts Caravan Park said yesterday:

"A woman has turned up demanding to speak to Corinne and has obviously been drinking.
"There has been a confrontation in the reception between the two women and then the woman who came to the park has just gone wild.
There were heated words exchanged before things got physical and blows were struck.
"The scrap was mostly hairpulling.
"Corinne tried to fight back but the woman gave her a bit of a beating.

Luke Mitchell was the one who ‘went wild’

[faithlilly]

Most of the reasoning and debate around LM not being the killer of Jodi Jones is based upon that of 'fallacy' ?

AB - The first and foremost absolute basis for her sighting, the only factual reason for her attention was that of what appeared to be 'a disagreement, argument of sorts' Her attention was drawn to the male. His actions. It was he she recalled with certainty when she stated "I'm as sure as sure can be" This person was honest to a T. She made nothing up and she did not pick LM out in court on this absolute basis. LM some 18 months later had changed dramatically. Much fuller. long hair pulled tightly back in a ponytail. There is absolutely no doubt she had seen his picture many times in the paper after that Identification. She stuck firmly to that of the youth she had seen, on the path and in the Identification.

Cite please for AB’s attention being drawn to ‘an argument of sorts’? Nowhere have a read that AB offered that as a reason for her attention being drawn to the couple. The male’s arms were outstretched, palms up, that is all. I do however agree with you that AB was an honest witness. In her first two statements she said that she saw the couple between 5.40-5.45. That is more than likely true and probably why the police, in the first instance, dismissed her sighting. She said under cross examination in court that the jacket that the male wore was definitely not a parka, the jacket the police said categorically that Luke was wearing. ‘As sure as I can be’....it appears even she had some doubt about her identification, a doubt that seemed to still exist when she stepped into the witness box. No wonder...her original statement described the male as having on trousers that matched his jacket ( green), in his early 20s ( Luke was 14 ) and with a high collar and bulging pocket on his left arm ( certainly not a parka).

That photo Id where LM's hair is more blonde than anything else. It is however not 'poker straight' Any other picture we see of LM is that of a youth with brown - sandy coloured hair. Exactly the colour she described. 11 other youths in those pictures, different colour of hair, shape, size. - she picked LM out, even though his hair appeared very blonde as opposed to sandy. She remembered him with clarity. She was not drawn to the white background she was drawn to him.

You have no idea what influence the white background had in AB’s identification, albeit subconsciously. Further at the height of summer in June Luke’s hair would have been at its blondest. So, according to you, Luke’s hair, in his police photograph, was a different shade from the male AB had seen. His clothes were also different, he was much younger than the male she saw and she couldn’t describe his face at all....no wonder she qualified her identification by saying ‘as sure as I can be.   

Every other part of her description was nothing short of - dam good. From the first until those more in-depth clarification ones were obtained. The hair appearing to be clumped at his neck - it stuck out. That Khaki green jacket, not shiny, the bulging pocket, badge. The type was of possibility. Not definite. It appeared to be drawn at the waist. Parkas have draw cords do they not? What colour were the trousers, green?

Clumped at the back, not the neck, and thick. AB said the jacket had a high collar and she couldn’t see the length of the male’s hair....suggesting she couldn’t see the neck either and Luke didn’t have ‘ thick hair’. The jacket was waist length not drawn at the waist and no, parkas ( the very jacket AB in court categorically said it wasn’t ) don’t normally have  draw cords ( I’d suggest doing a quick google for proof)


Of the girl - Dark hair which was possibly contained. It was not flowing in whatever length. She had on a dark blue top with LIGHTER coloured trousers, possibly Jeans and possibly bootcut. Upon further clarification. Very dark blue/black possibly navy. The trousers were SLIGHTLY LIGHTER in colour than that of the top. They were loose fitting. Possibly Jeans but not trousers as such. Jodi was wearing a black hoody with slightly lighter coloured dark blue cord/jeans.

Look at the reconstruction. Jodi’s trousers were not jeans, bootcut or otherwise and nowhere is ‘slightly lighter’ mentioned in AB’s statement. The ‘possibly jeans’ does seem to suggest a much lighter, denim blue. No mention though of the really stand out part oh her clothing...the bright orange Deftones logo.

The attention was on the male. His actions. Not his clothing nor that of the female. She did however get those clothes pretty dam close to what they actually were.

See above.

So it is easy is it not - with this fallacy of reasoning to ignore all of this dam good description and choose to concentrate on that emblem. This witness had LM implanted in her recall, his apparent anger. Whatever else was captured in her mind was that of brief colours and description. Not everything, which is nigh on impossible to do - it was him and she did remember that face very clearly. When AB said "I'm as sure as sure as can be"

There is no evidence that AB described the male she saw as angry.

I was watching some TV documentary series last night - based on cameras in real police work. Glasgow? Comment by one of the DI's.
'I'm glad we can now do this, it used to annoy the hell of me when people simply thought crimes should be solved almost instantly. They are more often than not, that of a long drawn out process. Whilst we may be able to eliminate most in those first days and weeks, it still takes a long time of gathering evidence to solve. Often many months.

Therefore again, this fallacy of reasoning. That if they were so sure they had got their man, why did it take months until his arrest. - It is called investigating and being thorough. Making sure they do have the right man rather than fitting up the wrong one. Yes, we are all aware it happens. But still there is nothing in the case of LM to show this to be true, quite the opposite.

From the body laying uncovered for 8 hours to Luke’s fascination with Marilyn Manson, which there was not one scrap of evidence for, this case, along with the convictions of Steele and Campbell,  will remain as indelible stains on the Scottish judicial system. 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415

“But today as Mitchell was found guilty, Lothian and Borders Police’s hunch was proved right, although there was severe criticism of their handling of the investigation during the case.

There was no murder weapon, no blood covered clothes - despite the gruesome nature of the murder - and no damning DNA find.

There was not even convincing eye-witness testimony.


The trial heard that Jodi’s body was left uncovered and exposed to the elements for eight hours after it was first discovered, possibly risking the destruction of vital DNA evidence.

The schoolgirl’s body and items around it had been moved before the forensic team started work.

Even though the knife used to murder Jodi had not been found, the bins in the area were allowed to be emptied before a thorough search could be carried out.

The way police carried out a virtual identity parade, presenting photographs of Luke and other youths to one witness, was also criticised during the trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.


A string of incidents were highlighted by Mitchell’s defence lawyer Donald Findlay, QC, during the 42-day trial.

In one blistering courtroom attack, Mr Findlay described the behaviour of detectives as "a disgrace".

The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.

Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".


The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.

Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.

The jury also heard that a pioneering lab using the most sensitive DNA test in Britain failed to identify Mitchell as the

It also emerged that detectives probing the murder broke normal guidelines by not putting Mitchell on an ID parade.


Mr Findlay claimed "a tactical decision" had been taken not to treat the boy fairly.”

[William Wallace]

Luke Mitchell was the one who ‘went wild’

I'm afraid you are wrong. It was not Mitchell who did it. You may not agree with me that it may have been a female and you won't agree with me that Mitchell didn't do it. We all know about the absent DNA, but think about this for as long as it takes.............the search party went straight from the house up the Roan's Dyke Path and walked right past a house Jodi had been in 2 months previously smoking hash on another night she had not come back when she was supposed to. They walked within yards of it, but didn't knock on the door to see if she was there before going up a pitch black path with torches? They also didn't phone round other likely houses she could have been in before they went up the path. So they went to all the trouble of walking up that dark path when Jodi could have been in someone else's house just as she was the last time. Nobody would do that. They would phone friends and relatives first.

When they met Mitchell on the path he told them he hadn't seen anything on the way, but they insisted on going back down the path the way Mitchell came taking them back towards the V in the wall. So they were wanting to walk back down a path Mitchell had just walked up. Why would anyone do that?

We also know they said Mitchell's dog alerted him near the V, but changed what they said in those statements later. Three people changed their statements....all to say the exact same thing. The chances of that happening by coincidence are less than nil.

JF and GD managed to make the moped disappear. Why? JF shaved all his hair off, why?

[Mr Apples]

He wasn't on it when it was seen at the tool hire shop and he wasn't on it when it went up the Roan's Dyke Path.[/i][/b] The moped was driven by GD, but JF wasn't the person on the back of it.

Who do you think was on the moped with GD? JOSJ? Or another one of his buddies who was never called as a witness? Anyway, the crux of your post is that, in your opinion, JF was Jodi’s killer? He wasn’t on the moped with GD, because he was in the woodland strip behind the V-break in the wall murdering Jodi (with, possibly, a female accomplice such as his girlfriend)?

Btw, why was JF ostracised by Jodi’s family shortly after the murder? On the night of Jodi’s murder, JF was originally meant to go and visit JOSJ at his house, but decided against it. Why did he change his mind? Also, on that same night or a few days later, JUDJ told JF that he wasn’t welcome at the house anymore and that JOSJ was going to batter him. Does anyone know why? It’s was a very interesting development, given the context of everything.

[Mr Apples]

Just reading Sandra’s book for the first time right now. Here’s a rather interesting paragraph that I’ve just read:

”Given that a knife, sharp enough to cut a piece from a 9oz bar of cannabis, was present in Judith’s house that day, another account from the case papers raises some significant questions. Prior to June 30th, Joseph tried to attack a youth in Judith’s house with a knife, injuring his mother, who intervened to prevent the attack. The youth was told not to tell anyone what had happened. This information was never before the jury.”

Sandra goes on to explain that she isn’t suggesting JOSJ was in any way responsible for what happened to Jodi, but to highlight the enormous failings of the police investigation. L&B police failed to properly track the movements of JOSJ that day and believed every word of Judith’s regarding JOSJ’s whereabouts and provided him with an alibi which was believed without question; this is in stark contrast to Luke’s movements and Corinne’s alibi for him that day.

[Parky41]

 The heading of this thread, is it the police who were too stupid? Or simply that continuous fallacy of reasoning.

The duo on the moped.

The information given, from an employee from Basically Tool Hire and others was used to put the appeal out for these boys. Around a certain time frame. These boys, were very much "persons of interest" They were not only in the locality of where Jodi met her death, one of the boys, was also a cousin of Jodi. Both boys were friends with Luke Mitchell, the common link Jodi and cannabis. From here we shall tell a different story, more accurate, in context, of all information/evidence as opposed to that of this continuing suspicion.

Firstly, most of what is put out comes from JF's (Jodi's cousin) statements, and here I put a question out on this. There are continuous claims that this lad may not be the brightest spark, not the most intelligent. Is he therefore the one primarily chosen to keep that flame of doubt from snuffing out for this very reason - choose quite literally the simplest target?  A compulsive liar it is claimed  What do we actually know however about this boy, prior to the appeal going out:

What we know is this lad did not attempt to hide the fact he had been on this path, by the very next morning he had told his gran he had been on it. That he had been in that vicinity. This may very well have been due to knowing they had been seen, not only by getting chased from Basically Tool hire, but of arriving back to GD's, parents, neighbours, others who gave an account of the boys time home, of this duo and their noisy bike. Of JF telling his gran he had gotten back to GD's around 4.30pm. (the clock was out by one hour, it had not been moved forward) Remember here, that his gran would have been aware at this point that Jodi had not left home until around 5pm or after. (prior to verification of times) Believing at this point it would seem, that there would be no relevance in her grandson being in the vicinity as Jodi would still have been at home.

However, there are two of them, they would obviously know without a doubt the time they were on this path, but did they know what time Jodi had left home? Why would they?  All we are really told is JF 'hacked off' his hair' He gave no reason for this other than that is was a mess.  Perhaps he was trying to distance himself from this murder, rather a silly action of course? Especially since he had already told his gran, and of course those 'many' witness's who had saw him, people he knew, not just strangers. And those 'gloves'  in his relatives house, wet with a condom inside them (still in wrapper, hidden he claimed from his niece) And we have to ask ourselves again. That very rational question, our common sense - That these gloves had absolutely nothing to do with Jodi's murder. Irrespective of these wild claims of intelligence, would they not have been carted off with this claimed disappearance of the bike.

Next, the appeal: The police are asking for the boys to come forward and they do so. Evasive we are told and evasive is the information given out on this? as;

What we do know for absolute certainty is the following. The boys did not enter this path until around 5.10pm as opposed to those claims of it being 5pm - 5.05pm, we know this for several reasons. Firstly these boys were still in Basically Tool Hire between those 5mins. We know this as the employee finished work at 5pm. It was after coming out of work, to go home that he had to chase the boys from here. These boys had a heavy bike, that they had great difficulty in getting started. They were pushing it and trying to start it uphill to the entrance to this path. We know they could not have entered this path until after 5.10pm as the cyclist was on the path at this time. He did not see the boys. The approx: time LK heard 'noises' was around 5.15pm. The account the boys gave was approximation of how long they thought they had been on the path. 20-30mins. We know however it is closer to the 20mins: mark as they did arrive home at 5.30pm. Witnessed. It is all very well swerving away from the witness's on the other side of this path, of the boys arrival home, knowing however the only reason for doing so. As it does not serve purpose for the following.

So we have, this approx time of 20mins of these boys getting the bike started and riding up and down the path "a couple" of times, then home. Their 'truthful account' was verified. One mention here also of LK, of worrying that suspicion may have fallen upon him, for that very simple reason, of being in the locality of where this girl was murdered. Perhaps the most simplest reason, also, as to why these boys did not instantly come forward. 'What if they think it was us' . They were right, the police very much interested at first, until eliminated - but to this very day, they have no peace. Consistently put forward and discussed by that very person at the fore front of this 'Justice' campaign. For being on this bike for some 20mins on both Roansdyke  and Lady path before arriving home. That window of opportunity to kill Jodi. of two boys, no DNA found at the actual locus, nothing from the V - zilch. Of multiple witness's from 5.30pm onwards. 

The claimed sighting of this bike at 5.15pm against this V riderless - Sounds the part? Firstly note what is missing from below - there is no verbatim used. There is very good reason for this is there not? Perhaps due to there being a  world of difference between someone saying the bike was "close" to where there is a V break in the wall as opposed to being at it? How do we know this sighting at the V did not take place. You simply can not see the V in this wall from 'The Beeches' or 'Newbattle R'd' and we know the witness was not driving a tractor, as you would have to be in the actual field, close to the path to see this V. It is of course unsurprising that this type of claimed sighting would hold substantial weight from across an expansive field, yet AB's sighting, description of clothing, almost 80% and that positive ID of LM is dismissed due to the logo.  Both were travelling in a car, one close the other some distance away. That fallacy of reasoning? It is also unsurprising that this employee may have thought the bike was at a standstill and riderless. They were driving, moving much faster than a bike the boys were attempting to start.

SL:

"After the boys on the moped passed through the tool hire place, an employee there told police that s/he spotted the bike parked against the V break (with no people in sight) on the witness's drive home."

[/b]

Below is a link to 'The Beeches' Look immediately to your right. Across that expansive field. Not for the V, you simply can not see it but of the reliability on what this employee could have made out? Therefore, not only was the approximation of time 5.15pm incorrect, there was no sighting of this bike, riderless at the V break in the wall.

Before you continue to Google Maps

[Nicholas]

I'm afraid you are wrong. It was not Mitchell who did it. You may not agree with me that it may have been a female and you won't agree with me that Mitchell didn't do it. We all know about the absent DNA, but think about this for as long as it takes.............the search party went straight from the house up the Roan's Dyke Path and walked right past a house Jodi had been in 2 months previously smoking hash on another night she had not come back when she was supposed to. They walked within yards of it, but didn't knock on the door to see if she was there before going up a pitch black path with torches? They also didn't phone round other likely houses she could have been in before they went up the path. So they went to all the trouble of walking up that dark path when Jodi could have been in someone else's house just as she was the last time. Nobody would do that. They would phone friends and relatives first.

When they met Mitchell on the path he told them he hadn't seen anything on the way, but they insisted on going back down the path the way Mitchell came taking them back towards the V in the wall. So they were wanting to walk back down a path Mitchell had just walked up. Why would anyone do that?

We also know they said Mitchell's dog alerted him near the V, but changed what they said in those statements later. Three people changed their statements....all to say the exact same thing. The chances of that happening by coincidence are less than nil.

JF and GD managed to make the moped disappear. Why? JF shaved all his hair off, why?

I'm surprised people have not figured this whole thing out by now. None of the behaviour or actions mentioned above generate anything other than an extremely high level of suspicion. Why do you think Alan Ovens was not asked to give evidence in Court when he was in the house supposedly when Jodi left?

Why do you think JF couldn't remember what he was doing when the moped was parked at the V or anything else from that day?  I'll tell you why.........because JF was never on that moped. He wasn't on it when it was seen at the tool hire shop and he wasn't on it when it went up the Roan's Dyke Path.The moped was driven by GD, but JF wasn't the person on the back of it.

I’m not interested in the varying narratives being added to and changed at will

Ask Luke Mitchell to publish his pre trial assessment report

[Nicholas]

Just reading Sandra’s book for the first time right now. Here’s a rather interesting paragraph that I’ve just read:

”Given that a knife, sharp enough to cut a piece from a 9oz bar of cannabis

Sandra Lean is not to be trusted , IMO.