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: mrswah on April 23, 2021, 11:27:20 AM
-
I note that most people posting on this thread believe Luke is guilty, so I have a question for you:
What piece (or pieces) of evidence make you so certain that Luke killed Jodi?
I don't find the evidence very convincing, to be honest, and , had I been on that jury, I certainly would not have been able to find Luke guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
So, what am I missing?
-
I've never said LM is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Had I been on the jury, I couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in court, and I was surprised by the verdict at the time.
The majority of the jury found him guilty.
SM's refusal to provide an alibi is a massive issue - some will claim that was due to intimidation, etc - I doubt that.
-
I've never said LM is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Had I been on the jury, I couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in court, and I was surprised by the verdict at the time.
The majority of the jury found him guilty.
SM's refusal to provide an alibi is a massive issue - some will claim that was due to intimidation, etc - I doubt that.
Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.
Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him. But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.
We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.
I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.
I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.
-
Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.
Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him. But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.
We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.
I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.
I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.
That's absolutely fair.
Circumstantial evidence can be used to establish guilt - the Suzanne Pilley/David Gilroy case is a good example of that, imo.
-
I note that most people posting on this thread believe Luke is guilty, so I have a question for you:
What piece (or pieces) of evidence make you so certain that Luke killed Jodi?
I don't find the evidence very convincing, to be honest, and , had I been on that jury, I certainly would not have been able to find Luke guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
So, what am I missing?
He liked Marilyn Manson.
Why isn't that enough for you?
-
He liked Marilyn Manson.
Why isn't that enough for you?
His youthful activities were all analysed by the court including his involvement in drugs, the difficulties he had in school, his privileged and some might think fairly affluent lifestyle, his well documented interest in knives, the rather strange urinating into bottles collected in his bedroom (despite his legal representatives trying to block that one but which the trial judge allowed - a decision supported by the appeal court judges).
So it is hardly surprising that his taste in music came into play. Although I rather think the prosecution were more interested in Manson's interest in portraying a horrific murder which the defilement of Jodi's body called to mind.
How much interest the jury placed on that is anyone's guess but it certainly does give an indication of just how badly Jodi was mutilated, according to the coroner both before and after death.
The jury had viewed photographs of the murder scene and had viewed photographs of Jodi's body and the injuries inflicted on her.
-
Corrine, in her interview with James English said something which, in general, I think explains rather concisely the difference between the pro and against Luke camps. She said if she went to an area where mostly broadsheets were read she was treated with respect yet if she went to an area where mostly tabloids were read she was a dead woman walking.
To me that speaks volumes.
-
Intellectual snobbery right there, folks.
-
Intellectual snobbery right there, folks.
It’s arrogance and a misplaced sense of superiority too, the view that tabloid readers have no respect for others and are uneducated, threatening s..m, while broadsheet readers are polite and respectful. Absolute arse (I read the Times and am rather uncouth myself).
-
Intellectual snobbery right there, folks.
Intellectual snobbery they cry right before they insist that they read the Guardian.
No Sun readers here...no Siree Bob.
-
Intellectual snobbery they cry right before they insist that they read the Guardian.
No Sun readers here...no Siree Bob.
yes we know you’re a Guardian reader and despise readers of the Sun, why are you going out of your way to prove PA’s point?
-
yes we know you’re a Guardian reader and despise readers of the Sun, why are you going out of your way to prove PA’s point?
Word.
The implication is that anyone who disagrees with Dr Lean is a Sun-reading mouth-breather, and those who agree with her are future Nobel Prize winners.
Makes you wonder whether folk are in it because they're interested in discerning the truth or because they want to be proved right.
-
Word.
The implication is that anyone who disagrees with Dr Lean is a Sun-reading mouth-breather, and those who agree with her are future Nobel Prize winners.
Makes you wonder whether folk are in it because they're interested in discerning the truth or because they want to be proved right.
Aren’t they the same thing...in the end?
BTW you can agree with Dr Lean and still be a Sun-reading mouth breather....it’s just less likely.
-
I'm not interested in being proved right - I'd just like to know what happened.
For the record, I never take a paper these days - I wouldn't go near The Sun or The Record for moral reasons, and I wouldn't touch The Daily Mail because I'm not a right-winger who is afraid of foreigners.
Not that it actually matters - it's an absolutely meaningless point that was introduced for no reason other than to attempt to boost the egos of Dr Lean's followers - an attempt that has backfired, btw.
I can entertain the possibility that LM could be innocent - Dr Lean and her followers can't accept the possibility that LM could be guilty - that automatically and logically means that Dr Lean and her followers are less open-minded.
Hopefully folk can move on from this pointless pissing contest, and talk about the actual case instead of trying to land sly digs.
-
I've never said LM is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Had I been on the jury, I couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in court, and I was surprised by the verdict at the time.
The majority of the jury found him guilty.
SM's refusal to provide an alibi is a massive issue - some will claim that was due to intimidation, etc - I doubt that.
The majority could have been 8-7 but they don't disclose the figures. The case is unfathomable. It should have been a Not Proven verdict.
-
Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.
Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him. But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.
We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.
I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.
I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.
Let's hope you never serve on a Jury then. The whole case against him is just a load of old cobblers. You're saying he's guilty and you would have voted guilty. Well please answer these points:
1. How did he manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path?
4. Why was it claimed Jo J never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing......to say Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was AO never cited to Court when he was in the house when Jodi left?
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt? Sorry the transference borrowed T-shirt story doesn't count as it's too ridiculous for words.
12. Why did Ja J say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same?
That's enough for now. I look forward to your explanations.
-
His youthful activities were all analysed by the court including his involvement in drugs, the difficulties he had in school, his privileged and some might think fairly affluent lifestyle, his well documented interest in knives, the rather strange urinating into bottles collected in his bedroom (despite his legal representatives trying to block that one but which the trial judge allowed - a decision supported by the appeal court judges).
So it is hardly surprising that his taste in music came into play. Although I rather think the prosecution were more interested in Manson's interest in portraying a horrific murder which the defilement of Jodi's body called to mind.
How much interest the jury placed on that is anyone's guess but it certainly does give an indication of just how badly Jodi was mutilated, according to the coroner both before and after death.
The jury had viewed photographs of the murder scene and had viewed photographs of Jodi's body and the injuries inflicted on her.
Why are you posting fake news and misleading information? You're just reciting hogwash created by the media. No evidence was ever found that Mitchell had ANY interest in Manson or had ever even heard of the Black Dahlia Murder before the murder. ZERO. There was someone else though who was a huge Manson fan and had his whole album collection. Strange that eh?
-
There was someone else though who was a huge Manson fan and had his whole album collection.
Who's that, like?
-
The majority could have been 8-7 but they don't disclose the figures.
Could it have been 13-2?
-
Aren’t they the same thing...in the end?
BTW you can agree with Dr Lean and still be a Sun-reading mouth breather....it’s just less likely.
@)(++(*. so it’s mainly the intelligentsia believe Luke Mitchell is innocent and that is why “Dr” Lean’s programme was broadcast on Channel 5 where all the other sensational serial killer and shock docs reside is it? Hilarious.
BTW if you’d read the messages of support and encouragement for Mitchell and Lean on her Facebook page you’d know that many of her supporters don’t appear to have received an education in basic grammar and spelling and seem dimmer than a ten watt bulb for the large part.
-
The lies from that very first account given until the present day. From LM, and from those who spearhead this campaign. There is only one reason for this. Using both here to tally in with each other. That kindred spirit at the core in all of this. Are lies not the best thing to cover up lies in the first place? Or extraordinary explanation. This fallacy of reasoning to excuse all and everything?
We know LM had no alibi, that he was not home any later that 4.35pm. We know this as there is absolutely nothing to put him at home, and he was seen by AB at 4.55 approx:
Of being home - SM is excluded from this alibi in its entirety. The only brow beating done of SM was by his mother when this pressure was put onto him to lie? - That first realisation for Luke and his mother, that their simple tale of a relaxed dinner was not going to be taken at face value? That dawning of further proof. So they get SM on board, which of course only added to the tale, as being more of a farce. We know this as SM then gives an account of coming downstairs just after 5pm, of speaking to his mother, of the burnt pie. Of returning back up stairs. Coming down again around 10mins later, once dinner was ready. Taking it up to his room and eating it. It was a farce, complete made up story as CM had not gotten home until 5.15pm at the earliest.
So we have no alibi - why all the lies? Why did he need to make up this story?
Then we have AB. As with the intricate checking of the story above, of timings and so forth. These guesses and estimates, went over in fine detail. AB was taken on her journey, timings established. And her sighting was before 5pm. After the call to the speaking clock. This fallacy of reasoning across the board. Does not change what it was. That LM was not home. that LM was seen by AB. Then see again by F&W -
Nothing for approx 20mins - then three sightings in the space of around 15-20mins. Then nothing for a further 80mins plus.
Every part of his story, a fabrication of void holes shored over by highly questionable reasoning. The only truthful part. That of those 15mins approx on Newbattle R'd and his 90mins approx with the boys in the woods, getting high and dirty?
Of lying of his whereabouts from 9pm, of being home until around 10.30pm - no he was not. Of all of the search party walking some distance passed this V break - no they did not. It was a lie, in total contrast to the account given by those who were with him. The story of the dog was made up, we know this as the dog was not some 20 yards passed the V. It was at the V. You can not claim a dog reacted to something, at a specific spot - parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side, when all the dog was doing was scurrying about at the V. And of LM turning immediately to his left due to this. - poppycock. The dog was at the V, at the V it was impossible for LM to make claim that he walked to his left due to this. However, Ms Lean does give reason as to why he walked to the left - he was on his own in the woods, he may have wanted to head in the direction the search party were going, feeling safe? - even this doesn't explain it, as, JaJ saw him turn to his left. That they only continued to walk this path, after he had started to walk down, on the inside of this wall. It was only then that this couple had to do any backtracking.
He lied about knowledge of both the V and the woodland.
He lied about carrying knives and possession of cannabis.
He named both the tree and the bobble/scrunchy of sight and colour.
He lied about contact of any sort with KT.
Let's not forget here that complete lack of anything. These ridiculous claims of slight change in voice are proof of what exactly? - Reason as to why there was nothing the other 99.99999% of the time?
He described what Jodi was wearing that evening - right down to those DC shoes and of borrowed clothes?
There is of course much more.
These lies continue today - anything is required to add weight to, all of the lies told in their first instance?
Of CM - none of the boys from the Abbey gave evidence in court. - lies?
Of theories discussed with Sandra - lies as Sandra firmly denies any such conversation took place, but which one was lying?
That the search trio "had to walk directly passed YW's on their way to the path" - lies?
The V break is hard to see, unless you know what you are looking for - lies?
A witness saw the bike parked at the V - lies and manipulation around this. You can not see the V from where this witness was. - yet the V break is hard to see whilst on this path - lies?
'A mystery man was seen following Jodi onto the path' - lies?
SK, GD, JF and DD were on the path at the crucial time - lies? DD was in his house, he witnessed the boys arrival home at 5.30pm. SK's full name being typed out, is not a typo.
That the search party had to come from the top of Mayfield - lies? They came from just behind Scotts Caravans.
That JF said in his statement that the search party walked passed YW's on their way to the path - lies? This was quickly removed. I remarked of my surprise that Ms Lean would take the word of JF, the liar he is portrayed to be. She said she had a mystery witness to this also (sound familiar?) However, the search trio would have had to walk backwards to do so, not what the did do as they did walk directly to this path. - lies?
That there is clear evidence in phone records that showed that LM had phoned the speaking clock whilst in the house - lies? There is phone records of calls to the speaking clock - they only verify that he had used it, not that he was in the house.
This campaign is wrought with the same type of manipulation, misinformation and lies across the board is it not? When one can not disprove the damming evidence against LM, other means are required are they not?
After all. everything LM lied about, these further lies, the manipulation is excusable when we have a call that is not inclusive in the defence records - Of AW phoning her daughter. Intelligence?
-
Why are you posting fake news and misleading information? You'er just reciting hogwash created by the media. No evidence was ever found that Mitchell had ANY interest in Manson or had ever even heard of the Black Dahlia Murder before the murder. ZERO. There was someone else though who was a huge Manson fan and had his whole album collection. Strange that eh?
Please do not accuse me of posting fake news and misleading information and do not put words into my mouth.
Where did I say that "No evidence was ever found that Mitchell had ANY interest in Manson or had ever even heard of the Black Dahlia Murder before the murder."
I require and expect two cites from this post of yours regarding- the accusation directed at me regarding fake news
- the accusation directed at me regarding Mitchell and Manson
-
I'm not interested in being proved right - I'd just like to know what happened.
For the record, I never take a paper these days - I wouldn't go near The Sun or The Record for moral reasons, and I wouldn't touch The Daily Mail because I'm not a right-winger who is afraid of foreigners.
Not that it actually matters - it's an absolutely meaningless point that was introduced for no reason other than to attempt to boost the egos of Dr Lean's followers - an attempt that has backfired, btw.
I can entertain the possibility that LM could be innocent - Dr Lean and her followers can't accept the possibility that LM could be guilty - that automatically and logically means that Dr Lean and her followers are less open-minded.
Hopefully folk can move on from this pointless pissing contest, and talk about the actual case instead of trying to land sly digs.
Nothing sly about it. It was an observation made by Corrine and it really is useless to deny that the tabloids played a massive part in stoking up feelings against Luke.
For me the question is not whether Luke is innocent or guilty but, on the evidence presented, was the case proved beyond a reasonable doubt and obviously, as it was a majority decision, it wasn’t.
We can only form opinions on the known evidence and for me that is insufficient to justify firstly the treatment of Luke, especially as he was a minor, and depriving him of his liberty for 20+ years.
-
@)(++(*. so it’s mainly the intelligentsia believe Luke Mitchell is innocent and that is why “Dr” Lean’s programme was broadcast on Channel 5 where all the other sensational serial killer and shock docs reside is it? Hilarious.
BTW if you’d read the messages of support and encouragement for Mitchell and Lean on her Facebook page you’d know that many of her supporters don’t appear to have received an education in basic grammar and spelling and seem dimmer than a ten watt bulb for the large part.
The main criteria for studying towards a doctorate these days is being able to arrange funding.
Dr Lean's supporters these days are mainly folk who watched and blindly believed the recent documentary - if it's on the telly, it must be true - much like those who blindly believed the sensationalism in The Daily Record at the time of the trial.
The members of the jury, though, sat through all of the evidence presented by experienced professionals - a jury of one's peers is selected as randomly as possible - you'll get all sorts, including people with varying degrees of education - that's the whole idea.
Reading habits don't enter into it.
-
The main criteria for studying towards a doctorate these days is being able to arrange funding.
Dr Lean's supporters these days are mainly folk who watched and blindly believed the recent documentary - if it's on the telly, it must be true - much like those who blindly believed the sensationalism in The Daily Record at the time of the trial.
The members of the jury, though, sat through all of the evidence presented by experienced professionals - a jury of one's peers is selected as randomly as possible - you'll get all sorts, including people with varying degrees of education - that's the whole idea.
Reading habits don't enter into it.
You talk to me about intellectual arrogance then tar everyone who supports Sandra Lean’s view with the stupid brush. Can you not see the hypocrisy?
As to juries, every single miscarriage of justice that’s ever been perpetrated on an innocent individual has had a misguided jury verdict at it's core. Just think about that....every single one.
And of course our understanding of events are coloured, to an extent, by what we read. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise.
-
The main criteria for studying towards a doctorate these days is being able to arrange funding.
Dr Lean's supporters these days are mainly folk who watched and blindly believed the recent documentary - if it's on the telly, it must be true - much like those who blindly believed the sensationalism in The Daily Record at the time of the trial.
The members of the jury, though, sat through all of the evidence presented by experienced professionals - a jury of one's peers is selected as randomly as possible - you'll get all sorts, including people with varying degrees of education - that's the whole idea.
Reading habits don't enter into it.
I think that having heard all the evidence presented throughout the trial the jury were convinced of Luke Mitchell's guilt.
If Mitchell's guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable the jury had access to either the NOT GUILTY verdict or the NOT PROVEN verdict of which I have heard it said "We think you did it but the prosecution haven't been able to provide enough evidence to prove you did it."
It is an option for Scottish juries and the jury at Mitchell's trial did not avail themselves of it
-
I think that having heard all the evidence presented throughout the trial the jury were convinced of Luke Mitchell's guilt.
If Mitchell's guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable the jury had access to either the NOT GUILTY verdict or the NOT PROVEN verdict of which I have heard it said "We think you did it but the prosecution haven't been able to provide enough evidence to prove you did it."
It is an option for Scottish juries and the jury at Mitchell's trial did not avail themselves of it
I believe Nicola Sturgeon, a lawyer herself, is considering scrapping the Not Proven verdict.
-
You talk to me about intellectual arrogance then tar everyone who supports Sandra Lean’s view with the stupid brush. Can you not see the hypocrisy?
As to juries, every single miscarriage of justice that’s ever been perpetrated on an innocent individual has had a misguided jury verdict at it's core. Just think about that....every single one.
And of course our understanding of events are coloured, to an extent, by what we read. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise.
But you started by doing exactly the same in reverse and you talk about hypocrisy?! Stunning. Either it’s fair game to accuse the other side of being intellectually sub par (as you did) or it isn’t. Which is it to be?
-
You talk to me about intellectual arrogance then tar everyone who supports Sandra Lean’s view with the stupid brush. Can you not see the hypocrisy?
As to juries, every single miscarriage of justice that’s ever been perpetrated on an innocent individual has had a misguided jury verdict at it's core. Just think about that....every single one.
And of course our understanding of events are coloured, to an extent, by what we read. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise.
Juries come to decisions based on evidence presented in court. Why was Mitchell’s lawyer so incompetent that he was unable to convince them (as you are apparently convinced) that the evidence he presented totally exonerated his client?
-
Juries come to decisions based on evidence presented in court. Why was Mitchell’s lawyer so incompetent that he was unable to convince them (as you are apparently convinced) that the evidence he presented totally exonerated his client?
I wouldn't be surprised if, in this case, the jury was also swayed by local feelings, and by what they had read in the papers.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if, in this case, the jury was also swayed by local feelings, and by what they had read in the papers.
Mitchell was tried in the High Court of Justiciary in the capital Edinburgh. The jury would have been chosen carefully and instructed equally as carefully on their duties by the trial judge.
I think it was the sum of the evidence which did for him.
-
Could it have been 13-2?
I take it that was a joke. Unfortunately we're never going to find out.
-
Who's that, like?
Naming them would probably get me an instant red card, so I'll put it another way.....a female member of Jodi's family that wasn't her mother.
-
Naming them would probably get me an instant red card, so I'll put it another way.....a female member of Jodi's family that wasn't her mother.
Have you amended your post to remove your erroneous comments? as per http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12064.msg649044#msg649044
-
Please do not accuse me of posting fake news and misleading information and do not put words into my mouth.
Where did I say that "No evidence was ever found that Mitchell had ANY interest in Manson or had ever even heard of the Black Dahlia Murder before the murder."
I require and expect two cites from this post of yours regarding- the accusation directed at me regarding fake news
- the accusation directed at me regarding Mitchell and Manson
I think you misunderstood me........I was saying to you.. no evidence was ever found Mitchell had any interest in Manson/Black D. That wasn't your quote.
You said..........."So it is hardly surprising that his taste in music came into play. Although I rather think the prosecution were more interested in Manson's interest in portraying a horrific murder which the defilement of Jodi's body called to mind."
Mitchell's taste in music was not Manson. That was made up by the Police and drip fed to the media. It was a fairy tale that was never proven. Same with the Black Dahlia. No offence but what you posted is "fake news" I'm afraid. It's false.
As I mentioned elsewhere, there was someone else that was very much into Manson and had his whole album collection, but it wasn't Luke Mitchell. Did the Police ever search that house for Manson material or seize their devices to check if they had ever viewed the "Black Dahlia" images? We're talking here about Police that didn't have the common sense to cordon off a murder scene for 7 hours. What level of stupidity does that rate out of 10? I would say 10 but it's above that.
I mean honestly who were these Police? We know they were local with no experience of investigating an extreme murder like this. Even so, they seemed to have just lacked the common sense of an average person in the street. What fool would fail to cordon off a murder scene, allow people to tramp all over it for 7 hours and even move the victim before forensics arrived? I think you would struggle to find anyone that stupid anywhere.
Based on the above, why would anybody believe that they were capable of solving this case? That's a major reason why there is so much doubt..........the investigation was a circus. Fairy tales about washing machine transference of DNA??? Washing machines??? Some of the DNA profiles came back as FEMALE. That really had them scratching their heads like Laurel and Hardy. So they had their theory that Mitchell was a Satanist. They then viewed the images of the Black Dahlia Murder which was not similar to the murder of [Name removed] and accused Mitchell of being a Manson fan and of knowing about the Black Dahlia. They never produced one piece of evidence that he even liked Manson or knew about the Black Dahlia. Hopeless.
-
Have you amended your post to remove your erroneous comments? as per http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12064.msg649044#msg649044
See above. They were not erroneous.
-
William Wallace - You appear to know this case inside out and upside down. We know it is not based solely on the book, that would be rather foolish. In Scots courts, it states categorically of Jodi's fathers evidence, led by the Crown. Can you tell us at which part of this trial his evidence was led? At what point did AT refer to it? Was there any reason given as to why he was unable to be present himself? - It is a bit of a puzzler granted, as he was very much crucial, where evidence was concerned as to when his daughter had left home that day. And of course the phone call from Luke. Or perhaps Faithlilly can assist here? She has after all read every statement in full. I presume you have also, you appear very well versed in these matters. Was it the SCCRC who found this statement locked away in some drawer? - Which of course is also rather puzzling? If his statement was locked away, how was the evidence led around it? Ms Lean refers to this statement often, she has done since the days of Jigsawman. However:
Failing this, what is your opinion of the dinner tale? We know Luke was not at home - can you enlighten us as to his whereabouts? We don't need to go into the multiple reasons of changing statements, to fit around a relaxed dinner that turned out to have been less than 15mins in total. Also, what do you remember of the weather that day? It is very hard to determine the intro of Ms Leans book, of this warm summers evening? Herself and Ms Mitchell appear to be the only two people to have caught the sunshine, somewhat miraculously? One was eating their dinner outside, enjoying the sunshine, whilst the other was on the patio enjoying the sunshine, when she was overcome by a dirty black cloud, soaking her almost instantly? In fact, both of these ladies were enjoying the sunshine, on the patio? Not that I'm inferring Ms Lean is prone to the odd fib or two? Or of exaggerating - it puzzles me slightly of all these people in warm outer clothing. Parka's, thick padded blouson Jackets, hoodies - these in themselves it would seem, a rarity for LM to wear, as Ms Mitchell in her podcast stated that you could not get him to wear a jacket/coat? Yet here he is, on this warm sunny evening doing exactly that?
-
Mitchell was tried in the High Court of Justiciary in the capital Edinburgh. The jury would have been chosen carefully and instructed equally as carefully on their duties by the trial judge.
I think it was the sum of the evidence which did for him.
The trial had to be stopped at one point, and re-started with a new jury. (Someone was found to be acquainted with one of the families, I believe).
-
I think you misunderstood me........I was saying to you.. no evidence was ever found Mitchell had any interest in Manson/Black D. That wasn't your quote.
You said..........."So it is hardly surprising that his taste in music came into play. Although I rather think the prosecution were more interested in Manson's interest in portraying a horrific murder which the defilement of Jodi's body called to mind."
Mitchell's taste in music was not Manson. That was made up by the Police and drip fed to the media. It was a fairy tale that was never proven. Same with the Black Dahlia. No offence but what you posted is "fake news" I'm afraid. It's false.
As I mentioned elsewhere, there was someone else that was very much into Manson and had his whole album collection, but it wasn't Luke Mitchell. Did the Police ever search that house for Manson material or seize their devices to check if they had ever viewed the "Black Dahlia" images? We're talking here about Police that didn't have the common sense to cordon off a murder scene for 7 hours. What level of stupidity does that rate out of 10? I would say 0 but it's below that.
I mean honestly who were these Police? We know they were local with no experience of investigating an extreme murder like this. Even so, they seemed to have just lacked the common sense of an average person in the street. What fool would fail to cordon off a murder scene, allow people to tramp all over it for 7 hours and even move the victim before forensics arrived? I think you would struggle to find anyone that stupid anywhere.
Based on the above, why would anybody believe that they were capable of solving this case? That's a major reason why there is so much doubt..........the investigation was a circus. Fairy tales about washing machine transference of DNA??? Washing machines??? Some of the DNA profiles came back as FEMALE. That really had them scratching their heads like Laurel and Hardy. So they had their theory that Mitchell was a Satanist. They then viewed the images of the Black Dahlia Murder which was not similar to the murder of [Name removed] and accused Mitchell of being a Manson fan and of knowing about the Black Dahlia. They never produced one piece of evidence that he even liked Manson or knew about the Black Dahlia.
I think I understood you very well.
Perhaps what you fail to understand is Luke Mitchell.
Killer Luke Mitchell demands Satanic books in jail 18/04/14 JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right. Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.
The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial….
In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”….
Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.
Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home. It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks…. http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463
Snip
Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence. One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a serious interest in the subject….
Elizabeth Rudman, a criminologist with over 20 years’ experience, said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point. “My problem is that the rituals involved in these materials are really anti-social and they elicit deeds that are against the law, such as human sacrifice.
“This person was convicted for murder. My first question would be: what is he going to plan now?
“It is possible Mitchell has given up completely. On the other hand, it can also be an indication of guilt.
“He has been in prison for so long, his hope of getting an appeal has been completely quashed, so now he may be showing his true convictions.”…. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
-
The trial had to be stopped at one point, and re-started with a new jury. (Someone was found to be acquainted with one of the families, I believe).
I have wondered why a new jury was appointed. Where does your information about acquaintanceship come from?
-
William Wallace - You appear to know this case inside out and upside down. We know it is not based solely on the book, that would be rather foolish. In Scots courts, it states categorically of Jodi's fathers evidence, led by the Crown. Can you tell us at which part of this trial his evidence was led? At what point did AT refer to it? Was there any reason given as to why he was unable to be present himself? - It is a bit of a puzzler granted, as he was very much crucial, where evidence was concerned as to when his daughter had left home that day. And of course the phone call from Luke. Or perhaps Faithlilly can assist here? She has after all read every statement in full. I presume you have also, you appear very well versed in these matters. Was it the SCCRC who found this statement locked away in some drawer? - Which of course is also rather puzzling? If his statement was locked away, how was the evidence led around it? Ms Lean refers to this statement often, she has done since the days of Jigsawman. However:
Failing this, what is your opinion of the dinner tale? We know Luke was not at home - can you enlighten us as to his whereabouts? We don't need to go into the multiple reasons of changing statements, to fit around a relaxed dinner that turned out to have been less than 15mins in total. Also, what do you remember of the weather that day? It is very hard to determine the intro of Ms Leans book, of this warm summers evening? Herself and Ms Mitchell appear to be the only two people to have caught the sunshine, somewhat miraculously? One was eating their dinner outside, enjoying the sunshine, whilst the other was on the patio enjoying the sunshine, when she was overcome by a dirty black cloud, soaking her almost instantly? In fact, both of these ladies were enjoying the sunshine, on the patio? Not that I'm inferring Ms Lean is prone to the odd fib or two? Or of exaggerating - it puzzles me slightly of all these people in warm outer clothing. Parka's, thick padded blouson Jackets, hoodies - these in themselves it would seem, a rarity for LM to wear, as Ms Mitchell in her podcast stated that you could not get him to wear a jacket/coat? Yet here he is, on this warm sunny evening doing exactly that?
Talking about finding things, have you found yet what AB was doing during those missing 45 minutes that popped up during the police’s revised timelines....no?
-
I have wondered why a new jury was appointed. Where does your information about acquaintanceship come from?
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8a928aa6-78980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Go to "search judgments" and then search "luke muir mitchell"
Paragraph 8 of the judgment is the relevant bit.
-
Corrine, in her interview with James English said something which, in general, I think explains rather concisely the difference between the pro and against Luke camps. She said if she went to an area where mostly broadsheets were read she was treated with respect yet if she went to an area where mostly tabloids were read she was a dead woman walking.
To me that speaks volumes.
You don't actually believe that nonsense do you. @)(++(*
Was this the same interview she claimed stocky man confessed?
-
Aren’t they the same thing...in the end?
BTW you can agree with Dr Lean and still be a Sun-reading mouth breather....it’s just less likely.
I'd say it's the opposite. Take look at all the chavs and single mums of Facebook on benefits currently campaigning for Luke because of a documentary. @)(++(*
Here's another intellectual follower of Sandra (note the bottle of buckfast 44 secs in) @)(++(* :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGO8UL4grxU
Not to mention the James English mob.
They all think he's innocent because they learned about polygraphs from Jeremy Kyle lol.
-
?? How does Ms Lean feel of being put in this exact same category? Smack bang it would seem in the midst of these sun readers, pretty much one herself - those claims of the stories in the media that caught her interest in this case? Those tabloids that she was reading and still reads - Her very audience is aimed at herself? These two females, claimed strangers, worlds apart in class? Ms Lean in her council scheme, reading her sun newspaper, lower/working class - Ms Mitchell in her, primarily working class area. There is however no class amongst friends. No honour amongst?
What were Ms Mitchells real feelings towards Jodi Jones - this girl? was she beneath being worthy of her sons attention? Did she class Jodi Jones and her family in this category? Those "feral little bleeps?" She certainly had the same stance against authority as her son. The head teacher? "Hitler in a skirt" Her distaste for Findlay, "in it for the" bucks only. But ever so proud now of her followers, those who head this campaign "knock knock ya beasty b******s" One of the admins it would seem, a long standing criminal, best to have kindred spirits on board?
Does Ms Mitchell and friend? - blame the Jones family with some warped sense of reasoning? That perhaps it is Jodi's fault that her son is in prison? Does she blame Jodi for this altercation that took place? These questions need to be asked and answered. There are far too many unanswered questions around Luke Mitchell, far too many lame excuses. This "half a mars bar" situ - This boy who could do no wrong, everything in life that happened to him, was fault of others, not himself nor his mother. Ms Lean is correct, there certainly is "No Smoke" - it is however directed the other way. What about Luke Mitchell?
Luke and his mother could give permission for the release of their statements in full, could they not? The evidence led around these? - Surely, a total, non airbrushed insight is what should be heading this campaign, first and foremost. Show people how this family really were - rather than brushing them over by means of distraction? By means of shoring with somewhat ludicrous reasoning?
-
I'd say it's the opposite. Take look at all the chavs and single mums of Facebook on benefits currently campaigning for Luke because of a documentary. @)(++(*
Here's another intellectual follower of Sandra (note the bottle of buckfast 44 secs in) @)(++(* :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGO8UL4grxU
Not to mention the James English mob.
They all think he's innocent because they learned about polygraphs from Jeremy Kyle lol.
You have rather, unintentionally, made my point for me....the power of the media.
Now imagine those same people that you scoff at above had been on the jury. What do you think that the verdict would have been?
That the actual jury was bombarded by negative media stories about Luke and his family before the trial is beyond debate. That some of the rather less susceptible jury members chose not to buy into it is illustrated by the majority verdict.
-
?? How does Ms Lean feel of being put in this exact same category? Smack bang it would seem in the midst of these sun readers, pretty much one herself - those claims of the stories in the media that caught her interest in this case? Those tabloids that she was reading and still reads - Her very audience is aimed at herself? These two females, claimed strangers, worlds apart in class? Ms Lean in her council scheme, reading her sun newspaper, lower/working class - Ms Mitchell in her, primarily working class area. There is however no class amongst friends. No honour amongst?
What were Ms Mitchells real feelings towards Jodi Jones - this girl? was she beneath being worthy of her sons attention? Did she class Jodi Jones and her family in this category? Those "feral little bleeps?" She certainly had the same stance against authority as her son. The head teacher? "Hitler in a skirt" Her distaste for Findlay, "in it for the" bucks only. But ever so proud now of her followers, those who head this campaign "knock knock ya beasty b******s" One of the admins it would seem, a long standing criminal, best to have kindred spirits on board?
Does Ms Mitchell and friend? - blame the Jones family with some warped sense of reasoning? That perhaps it is Jodi's fault that her son is in prison? Does she blame Jodi for this altercation that took place? These questions need to be asked and answered. There are far too many unanswered questions around Luke Mitchell, far too many lame excuses. This "half a mars bar" situ - This boy who could do no wrong, everything in life that happened to him, was fault of others, not himself nor his mother. Ms Lean is correct, there certainly is "No Smoke" - it is however directed the other way. What about Luke Mitchell?
Luke and his mother could give permission for the release of their statements in full, could they not? The evidence led around these? - Surely, a total, non airbrushed insight is what should be heading this campaign, first and foremost. Show people how this family really were - rather than brushing them over by means of distraction? By means of shoring with somewhat ludicrous reasoning?
Or we could simply debate the facts of the case?
That Miss Lean didn’t buy into the tabloid nonsense, perhaps a bit too savvy for that eh, seems to have escaped your notice.
And could Luke and his mother give permission to have their statements in released full ? You post it as fact....but is it?
-
Or we could simply debate the facts of the case?
That Miss Lean didn’t buy into the tabloid nonsense, perhaps a bit too savvy for that eh, seems to have escaped your notice.
And could Luke and his mother give permission to have their statements in released full ? You post it as fact....but is it?
The Mitchell’s don’t need permission to publish what they told police
Luke and his mother could give permission for the release of their statements in full, could they not?
When will Sandra Lean publish their statements in full - and to date - why hasn’t she ?
With Luke and Corrine Mitchell’s permission what has stopped Sandra Lean from for example typing up all of what they have stated and start with something like,
‘The following is what Corrine Mitchell told police...
-
Had I been on the jury, I would have found it difficult to vote for a guilty verdict.
There appears to be no certainty that the young men spotted by the eyewitnesses were Luke, and so, apart from the sighting by the boys who actually knew him, I would not have been able to rely on them.
I cannot be sure that Luke was not at home at the same time as Shane. Even Shane said he wasn't too sure!
There is no evidence that Corinne burned a parka that Luke had worn while murdering Jodi. A strange smell coming from the Mitchell's fire could have been anything.
There appears to be no reason why Luke would have wanted to kill his girlfriend.
Local people were certainly influenced by what was reported in newspapers, and probably, by gossip too.
I'm not fazed by Luke, either. I've taught too many boys of 14/15 who carry knives, who smoke cannabis, who have more than one girlfriend at a time, whose parents have split up, who like weird music and goth culture, etc etc, and who write worrying notes on their school books. As far as I know, although some of them were a pain in the proverbial in school, none have gone on to murder anyone.
If Luke did kill Jodi, I would imagine he was "high" on something at the time-------always possible, I suppose, but really, I can't see a boy of that age committing such a horrific murder, and managing to take most of his DNA away with him too.
I also wonder whether the murder was committed by more than one person.
-
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8a928aa6-78980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Go to "search judgments" and then search "luke muir mitchell"
Paragraph 8 of the judgment is the relevant bit.
That link only gave me ~ "Judgment was not found."
-
Had I been on the jury, I would have found it difficult to vote for a guilty verdict.
There appears to be no certainty that the young men spotted by the eyewitnesses were Luke, and so, apart from the sighting by the boys who actually knew him, I would not have been able to rely on them.
I cannot be sure that Luke was not at home at the same time as Shane. Even Shane said he wasn't too sure!
There is no evidence that Corinne burned a parka that Luke had worn while murdering Jodi. A strange smell coming from the Mitchell's fire could have been anything.
There appears to be no reason why Luke would have wanted to kill his girlfriend.
Local people were certainly influenced by what was reported in newspapers, and probably, by gossip too.
I'm not fazed by Luke, either. I've taught too many boys of 14/15 who carry knives, who smoke cannabis, who have more than one girlfriend at a time, whose parents have split up, who like weird music and goth culture, etc etc, and who write worrying notes on their school books. As far as I know, although some of them were a pain in the proverbial in school, none have gone on to murder anyone.
If Luke did kill Jodi, I would imagine he was "high" on something at the time-------always possible, I suppose, but really, I can't see a boy of that age committing such a horrific murder, and managing to take most of his DNA away with him too.
I also wonder whether the murder was committed by more than one person.
Didn't Corrine deny using her wood burner that night.
Didn't neighbours give statements to the police stating times when they noticed the wood burner was in use and burning something.
Why would neighbours in nearby properties lie to the police?
-
Faithlilly, discuss the facts of the case? - this thread was about reasonable doubt, that predictive sway away from this onto CM's far from honest podcast? - Of the stigma around tabloids and broadsheets? Which in turn brought about some very interesting points. It turned tail on you? That it is true - that the very people who were naive to take on board all that was written in the media, are the very same audience required by those spearheading this campaign, by ignoring all and everything of the Mitchells and Ms Lean, of those massive holes in the account they gave/give. Those missing hours. Everything simplified to the point of ridicule? It was a candle in the garden, it was half a mars bar, that the police picked on LM because he was a goth with an odd taste in music, that one policeman out of three MAY have noted "with the boyfriend" indeed, let's add the start of this 'left to meet "with the boyfriend" That sheer manipulation of all and everything. Two friends and one son, concocting all and everything together. - a much fairer assumption? - A book is written? What did you, yourself state about money to be had in writing about this high profile case?
And it is true is it not - that the majority of those who have jumped on board, are not interested in what is behind those claims? that these claims are nothing short of what the media did at the time. They are not interested in the truthful facts of this case - they have readily accepted every word, to the point they have already solved this murder. These people, in their admin duties, used for that very reason above are they not? for they are exactly what is needed in this campaign, that level of intellect that do not question - that word spoken in the book. It's all true. "There was four of them cotter was the lookout". One would like to say it's not their fault for being of such a gullible intellectual nature, that the fault lies at Ms Leans feet? But it is their fault - They chose to believe rubbish then around goths and so forth - they choose that very simple line of reasoning again in reverse. That there was nothing to convict LM. He was convicted on the basis of being a goth, odd taste in music, he was tried by the media - was he? Well if these people tried LM by media it is hardly surprising they are trying everyone else by Ms Leans book and documentary.
Oh, we have a knife, it is this size, we have blood on a jacket and shoes - the tests carried out showed no reportable results. Then we have that all of the DNA testing was done on the wrong basis of questions asked, of determining the wrong kind of results - this is the type of guff people believe - No reportable results are just that. It was not Jodi Jones' blood. Plain and simple. - These somewhat simple minds drawn to one factor only - of the knife and the blood, because their heads are tuned in first and foremost, to their interest in the macabre not evidence. Not everyone of course. Most have the common sense to sit back and think - Do we trust the experts, these forensic scientists, who are looking for evidence linked to the actual crime - or do we put trust in this woman, who by all accounts, touts out - that she knows better than everyone else. Those who head this campaign are the same - we are the experts, what you say is piffle, you don't know anything? This avenue has long since worn thin. There is much more known about this case than ever before. The days of Jigsawman are long gone.
What does stand, and has always stood firm - is there is nothing to show that LM could not have killed his girlfriend. There is that simple choice of disbelief in your run of the mill, 14yr old being capable. - There was nothing run of the mill in this killer. There is evidence in abundance that LM was not your average type of 14yr old. Those teaching days? How many of these pupils, could you have put in the same category of total void as LM? Whom would simply claim "I'm not that type of guy?" This was a 14yr old boy making this claim - not an adult? That shed not one tear for this girl. What he did do instead is possess and view this horrible depiction of a woman, murdered, mutilated and left naked in a woodland. That he bought a new knife identical to the one still missing. He bought this new parka, before he was asked about one by the police. They did not expect the FLO to be there waiting for the shopping and receipt. And this is only touching on all there was.
Not everything can be excused by some ridiculous fallacy of reasoning - LM showed nothing typical of a 14yr old, normal run of the mill boy before and most definitely not after this murder.
-
Didn't Corrine deny using her wood burner that night.
Didn't neighbours give statements to the police stating times when they noticed the wood burner was in use and burning something.
Why would neighbours in nearby properties lie to the police?
Luke Mitchell told police his mother and Shane were using the wood burner on the night of 30th June 2003
So it seems the police knew the burner had been used that night before they’d spoken to any of the neighbours
-
You have rather, unintentionally, made my point for me....the power of the media.
Now imagine those same people that you scoff at above had been on the jury. What do you think that the verdict would have been?
That the actual jury was bombarded by negative media stories about Luke and his family before the trial is beyond debate. That some of the rather less susceptible jury members chose not to buy into it is illustrated by the majority verdict.
I expect those were the ones that only read the Guardian. 8(0(*
-
When does Sandra Lean plan to tell her followers what a ‘miscarriage of justice’ is and what it isn’t ?
‘Pressure’ won’t get Luke Mitchell’s murder conviction back to the Court of Appeal only new evidence will do that
Luke told police his mother and brother had a fire in the garden that night
It was also Luke who told the public another ‘suspect’ was allegedly burning clothes that night
3rd September 2003
JAMES MATTHEWS: This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE: No, not that we know of.
-
That link only gave me ~ "Judgment was not found."
Thank you mrswah. I got there eventually.
It was as I thought the (belated) enactment of procedure.
Individuals called for jury service were advised that if they had personal knowledge of anyone associated with the case they were not allowed to serve.
Days after the jury was empanelled and some evidence heard it was discovered that Luke Mitchell's current girlfriend had once been the girlfriend of a juror's son and the juror had attended the same school as Jodi and Mitchell.
A new jury had to be empanelled and given the same instruction as the original one.
It would have been helpful I think had the jury member mentioned the school connection a bit sooner; I think that association of place would have been sufficient to disqualify. Maybe because Mitchell was not known personally to the juror it was disregarded as a result. I think it highly probable that the juror may not have been immediately aware of the girl/boyfriend issue until the trial had started and family members mentioned it then.
Interesting though and at least now I know
-
That link only gave me ~ "Judgment was not found."
Sorry Brietta. The link is hopeless! I got to the page, and had to mess around for a while, before I could find it. You would be better off to google "Why was there a change of jury in the Luke Mitchell trial?" That is how I first found the page.
There is a BBC news article too, but again, I couldn't get the link to work.
-
Didn't Corrine deny using her wood burner that night.
Didn't neighbours give statements to the police stating times when they noticed the wood burner was in use and burning something.
Why would neighbours in nearby properties lie to the police?
I believe Luke himself said they had used the woodburner that night.
One neighbour in particular was sure the smell was coming from the Mitchell's garden, others , further away, just mentioned an unusual smell that might have been coming from their property.
I'm sure nobody lied to the police, but some might have been mistaken re the day---who knows, and, in any case, nobody could say what the fire was being used for. When the wood burner was checked by police, they found no evidence that Corinne had been burning clothes in it.
So, it is possible that she did, but we cannot say beyond reasonable doubt-----IMO.
-
Thank you mrswah. I got there eventually.
It was as I thought the (belated) enactment of procedure.
Individuals called for jury service were advised that if they had personal knowledge of anyone associated with the case they were not allowed to serve.
Days after the jury was empanelled and some evidence heard it was discovered that Luke Mitchell's current girlfriend had once been the girlfriend of a juror's son and the juror had attended the same school as Jodi and Mitchell.
A new jury had to be empanelled and given the same instruction as the original one.
It would have been helpful I think had the jury member mentioned the school connection a bit sooner; I think that association of place would have been sufficient to disqualify. Maybe because Mitchell was not known personally to the juror it was disregarded as a result. I think it highly probable that the juror may not have been immediately aware of the girl/boyfriend issue until the trial had started and family members mentioned it then.
Interesting though and at least now I know
Glad you found it!
I found it surprising that they discharged the entire jury because of one person having a "connection". Is this usual, do you know?
-
Faithlilly, discuss the facts of the case? - this thread was about reasonable doubt, that predictive sway away from this onto CM's far from honest podcast? - Of the stigma around tabloids and broadsheets? Which in turn brought about some very interesting points. It turned tail on you? That it is true - that the very people who were naive to take on board all that was written in the media, are the very same audience required by those spearheading this campaign, by ignoring all and everything of the Mitchells and Ms Lean, of those massive holes in the account they gave/give. Those missing hours. Everything simplified to the point of ridicule? It was a candle in the garden, it was half a mars bar, that the police picked on LM because he was a goth with an odd taste in music, that one policeman out of three MAY have noted "with the boyfriend" indeed, let's add the start of this 'left to meet "with the boyfriend" That sheer manipulation of all and everything. Two friends and one son, concocting all and everything together. - a much fairer assumption? - A book is written? What did you, yourself state about money to be had in writing about this high profile case?
And it is true is it not - that the majority of those who have jumped on board, are not interested in what is behind those claims? that these claims are nothing short of what the media did at the time. They are not interested in the truthful facts of this case - they have readily accepted every word, to the point they have already solved this murder. These people, in their admin duties, used for that very reason above are they not? for they are exactly what is needed in this campaign, that level of intellect that do not question - that word spoken in the book. It's all true. "There was four of them cotter was the lookout". One would like to say it's not their fault for being of such a gullible intellectual nature, that the fault lies at Ms Leans feet? But it is their fault - They chose to believe rubbish then around goths and so forth - they choose that very simple line of reasoning again in reverse. That there was nothing to convict LM. He was convicted on the basis of being a goth, odd taste in music, he was tried by the media - was he? Well if these people tried LM by media it is hardly surprising they are trying everyone else by Ms Leans book and documentary.
Oh, we have a knife, it is this size, we have blood on a jacket and shoes - the tests carried out showed no reportable results. Then we have that all of the DNA testing was done on the wrong basis of questions asked, of determining the wrong kind of results - this is the type of guff people believe - No reportable results are just that. It was not Jodi Jones' blood. Plain and simple. - These somewhat simple minds drawn to one factor only - of the knife and the blood, because their heads are tuned in first and foremost, to their interest in the macabre not evidence. Not everyone of course. Most have the common sense to sit back and think - Do we trust the experts, these forensic scientists, who are looking for evidence linked to the actual crime - or do we put trust in this woman, who by all accounts, touts out - that she knows better than everyone else. Those who head this campaign are the same - we are the experts, what you say is piffle, you don't know anything? This avenue has long since worn thin. There is much more known about this case than ever before. The days of Jigsawman are long gone.
What does stand, and has always stood firm - is there is nothing to show that LM could not have killed his girlfriend. There is that simple choice of disbelief in your run of the mill, 14yr old being capable. - There was nothing run of the mill in this killer. There is evidence in abundance that LM was not your average type of 14yr old. Those teaching days? How many of these pupils, could you have put in the same category of total void as LM? Whom would simply claim "I'm not that type of guy?" This was a 14yr old boy making this claim - not an adult? That shed not one tear for this girl. What he did do instead is possess and view this horrible depiction of a woman, murdered, mutilated and left naked in a woodland. That he bought a new knife identical to the one still missing. He bought this new parka, before he was asked about one by the police. They did not expect the FLO to be there waiting for the shopping and receipt. And this is only touching on all there was.
Not everything can be excused by some ridiculous fallacy of reasoning - LM showed nothing typical of a 14yr old, normal run of the mill boy before and most definitely not after this murder.
For me there’s only a few questions that really matter in this case, one that I have asked you several times now without an answer. Not being someone who gives up easily I’ll try again. If Andrina Bryson’s sighting was not at the time she gave in her first two statements but at her revised timeline of 4.54, what was she doing for the 45 minutes between 4.05 and 6.17 that remain unaccounted for?
-
When does Sandra Lean plan to tell her followers what a ‘miscarriage of justice’ is and what it isn’t ?
She’s again promoted Michael O’Brien but omits to tell people, or make it clear even; he’s yet to prove his innocence
(more here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12057.msg648845#msg648845)
-
I believe Luke himself said they had used the woodburner that night.
One neighbour in particular was sure the smell was coming from the Mitchell's garden, others , further away, just mentioned an unusual smell that might have been coming from their property.
I'm sure nobody lied to the police, but some might have been mistaken re the day---who knows, and, in any case, nobody could say what the fire was being used for. When the wood burner was checked by police, they found no evidence that Corinne had been burning clothes in it.
So, it is possible that she did, but we cannot say beyond reasonable doubt-----IMO.
I think that those who testified at Mitchell's trial had no doubt whatsoever about when and where from the smoke and burning smells emanated. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+%27FIRE%27+CLAIM%3b+Neighbours+tell+of+smoke+at+accused+Mitchell%27s...-a0125857792
There was quite a window available for anyone wishing to destroy evidence.
Had I been on the jury it is definitely testimony I would have taken on board both from what the neighbours had to say and the denial of Mitchell's family that such an event as the burning ever happened.
It is also another plank in my belief in Mitchell's guilt.
-
Glad you found it!
I found it surprising that they discharged the entire jury because of one person having a "connection". Is this usual, do you know?
Me too. Perhaps it was because the original members had heard some of the evidence (which obviously would have had to be repeated for the newbee) and it was preferable to start again or maybe it was just standard practice for such an event.
I'm not sure what happens in the event of a juror falling ill (a substitute?) but I did discover that jurors might have other pressing problems too, for example - While the court is in session, the jury can't leave the courtroom. This means that you may not visit the toilet during the court session time. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/legal-system-s/taking-legal-action-s/jury-service-s/#h-illness-and-jury-service
-
Didn’t know where to put this - but well worth a listen - it’s relevant to Luke Mitchell’s campaign (And touches on hypnosis)
‘Is The Wrongful Conviction Movement Unstoppable?’
with Roberta Glass feat: Devon Tracey aka "Atheism is Unstoppable"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=laujRg3W5C4&ab_channel=RobertaGlassTrueCrimeReport
-
I think that those who testified at Mitchell's trial had no doubt whatsoever about when and where from the smoke and burning smells emanated. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+%27FIRE%27+CLAIM%3b+Neighbours+tell+of+smoke+at+accused+Mitchell%27s...-a0125857792
There was quite a window available for anyone wishing to destroy evidence.
Had I been on the jury it is definitely testimony I would have taken on board both from what the neighbours had to say and the denial of Mitchell's family that such an event as the burning ever happened.
It is also another plank in my belief in Mitchell's guilt.
Yes even though Luke Mitchell said his mother and brother had a fire that night
-
Will we ever hear about the parenting Luke Mitchell received growing up?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Lc8pylzyEnsC&pg=PA3&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&redir_esc=y
-
I think that those who testified at Mitchell's trial had no doubt whatsoever about when and where from the smoke and burning smells emanated. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+%27FIRE%27+CLAIM%3b+Neighbours+tell+of+smoke+at+accused+Mitchell%27s...-a0125857792
There was quite a window available for anyone wishing to destroy evidence.
Had I been on the jury it is definitely testimony I would have taken on board both from what the neighbours had to say and the denial of Mitchell's family that such an event as the burning ever happened.
It is also another plank in my belief in Mitchell's guilt.
Are you aware how many neighbours claimed that they didn’t smell anything that night?
The police asked neighbours about smoke or the smell of burning on the 30th of June. 32 out of 35 neighbours either said there was no smoke that evening, they couldn't say for sure if there was smoke, or they gave accounts of various places where the smell of smoke could have been emanating from (other than the Mitchell garden).
-
Will we ever hear about the parenting Luke Mitchell received growing up?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Lc8pylzyEnsC&pg=PA3&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&redir_esc=y
Or indeed Jodi.
Didn’t Jodi want to leave home and live with her gran just as her sister had done when she was 14?
-
Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.
Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him. But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.
We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.
I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.
I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.
Stefan Kizsko was represented by David Waddington who went on to become Home Sec. But neither he nor the trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, were smart enough to outwit 4 x 13 year old girls who lied about SK simply "for a laugh".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
-
Stefan Kizsko was represented by David Waddington who went on to become Home Sec. But neither he nor the trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, were smart enough to outwit 4 x 13 year old girls who lied about SK simply "for a laugh".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Weren’t the Mitchell family catholics?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/back-to-court-for-qc-in-sectarian-football-songs-row-1097592.html
-
Weren’t the Mitchell family catholics?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/back-to-court-for-qc-in-sectarian-football-songs-row-1097592.html
Luke attended a Catholic school, but I am not sure the Mitchell family are Catholics. I read that his mother sent him there, so that he would be away from classmates who had bullied him at primary school. I can't recall where I read it, and have no idea whether it's true.
The Jones family may be Catholic---not sure.
I have often wondered whether Luke writing satanist stuff on his schoolbooks was merely a reaction to receiving Catholic teaching that he didn't believe ???
-
Stefan Kizsko was represented by David Waddington who went on to become Home Sec. But neither he nor the trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, were smart enough to outwit 4 x 13 year old girls who lied about SK simply "for a laugh".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
In what could be described as one of the worst miscarriages of justice ever Stefan Kiszko was convicted at a time when if there was DNA profiling it was in its infancy. New evidence of DNA introduced at his appeal proved his innocence.
Neil Wilby writes about Stefan here https://neilwilby.com/2016/03/20/the-case-of-stefan-kiszko-and-a-police-force-enamoured-by-its-own-sense-of-invincibility/
In my opinion there is not the remotest connection between Stefan's case and Mitchell's - in particular that no new evidence has ever been produced which justifies Mitchell's failed appeals or to justify a new one.
Just another red herring being introduced to Mitchell's case to join a shoal of them.
-
Luke attended a Catholic school, but I am not sure the Mitchell family are Catholics. I read that his mother sent him there, so that he would be away from classmates who had bullied him at primary school. I can't recall where I read it, and have no idea whether it's true.
The Jones family may be Catholic---not sure.
I have often wondered whether Luke writing satanist stuff on his schoolbooks was merely a reaction to receiving Catholic teaching that he didn't believe ???
I think perhaps a more appropriate word to use might be "Christian" teaching
-
Do you no longer believe that all individuals deal differently with trauma?
It is a mute point anyway as Janine told police on that first morning after the murder that ‘everyone was in hysterics’ and the 999 operator’s ‘laddie’ comment reinforces Luke’s demeanour after he found the body.
Mute point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?" Who was vomiting? However:
Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.
The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.
Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up. Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.
LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:
Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl.
The sighting by F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.
Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm
So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic. Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.
And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours?? - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.
Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.
The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?
Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?
-
She’s again promoted Michael O’Brien but omits to tell people, or make it clear even; he’s yet to prove his innocence
(more here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12057.msg648845#msg648845)
Sandra Lean making claim to her followers on ‘statement analysis’ and saying ‘i’ll be honest’
She’s said she’s going to look into it but don’t think they’ll come up with anything useful
Did you rely on ‘police statements’ to help write your books?
she doesn’t know much about it...
@)(++(*
Publish Luke and Corrine Mitchell’s statements Sandra and let your followers decide for themselves
-
When does Sandra Lean plan to tell her followers what a ‘miscarriage of justice’ is and what it isn’t ?
Sandra Lean’s followers might want to ask Donald Findlay what he meant when he said ‘catastrophic miscarriages of justice’
She stated,
“Findlay has been expressing for several years his concerns that the internet has driven a coach and horses through old assumptions about ensuring the jury considers only admissible evidence presented in court under oath and exposed to cross examination. He says and this is the quote,
“It worries be greatly that jurors can have access to all sorts of information by surfing the internet when they go home, partly because the information they find is prejudicial and because it’s often completely wrong. The danger is that there will will a catastrophic miscarriage of justice, the accused will have been described on the internet as a beast of some sort it will then turn out some years later that the verdict was improperly influenced by such information that was not part of the trial. This is not to imply that jurors are dishonest or acting with malice but they should understand the temptation to Google or yahoo is almost irresistible. One a juror has that information it’s very difficult to ignore it even if he doesn’t tell the other jurors about it, it’s likely to influence his part in deliberations”
That’s to me basically admission that I’ve always said that I believe Donald Findlay approached the case from the old school err perspective that it’s for the crown to prove guilt and not the defence to prove innocence - which it should be but that this 2010 article demonstrates an awareness of just how prevalent that internet influence was - now add to that main stream media influence which as we know in this case was massive, absolutely enormous err what was the term he used - partly because the information they find is prejudicial and because it’s often completely wrong. We know now. We know now how much of the mainstream coverage of this case was prejudicial and wrong and Donald Findlay’s concern was ‘The danger is that there will will a catastrophic miscarriage of justice’ - yet it had already happened by 2010 it had already happened erm ‘the accused will have been described on the internet as a beast of some sort’ yeah - how was Luke Mitchell described in the media in the run up to that trial in 2004 the end of 2004....’
-
Mute point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?" Who was vomiting? However:
Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.
The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.
Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up. Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.
LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:
Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl.
The sighting by F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.
Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm
So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic. Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.
And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours?? - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.
Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.
The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?
Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?
I’ll deal with the rest of your post later as I’m a bit busy constructing a hamster at the moment but I’ll address one point while I enjoy a break. The ‘laddie’ comment has proved to have been about Luke. I myself have posted two links, both from the BBC ( one direct testimony from the trial) and which had nothing to do with Sandra Lean which prove my claim. I can provide more cites if you wish but I’m really not sure it will make any difference as you seem terminally unable to debate a point with deflection and obfuscation.
-
When does Sandra Lean plan to tell her followers what a ‘miscarriage of justice’ is and what it isn’t ?
A ‘miscarriage of justice’ is described as a ‘breach of the carriage of justice - nothing whatsoever to do with actual, factual innocence
-
Sandra Lean’s followers might want to ask Donald Findlay what he meant when he said ‘catastrophic miscarriages of justice’
She stated,
“Findlay has been expressing for several years his concerns that the internet has driven a coach and horses through old assumptions about ensuring the jury considers only admissible evidence presented in court under oath and exposed to cross examination. He says and this is the quote,
“It worries be greatly that jurors can have access to all sorts of information by surfing the internet when they go home, partly because the information they find is prejudicial and because it’s often completely wrong. The danger is that there will will a catastrophic miscarriage of justice, the accused will have been described on the internet as a beast of some sort it will then turn out some years later that the verdict was improperly influenced by such information that was not part of the trial. This is not to imply that jurors are dishonest or acting with malice but they should understand the temptation to Google or yahoo is almost irresistible. One a juror has that information it’s very difficult to ignore it even if he doesn’t tell the other jurors about it, it’s likely to influence his part in deliberations”
That’s to me basically admission that I’ve always said that I believe Donald Findlay approached the case from the old school err perspective that it’s for the crown to prove guilt and not the defence to prove innocence - which it should be but that this 2010 article demonstrates an awareness of just how prevalent that internet influence was - now add to that main stream media influence which as we know in this case was massive, absolutely enormous err what was the term he used - partly because the information they find is prejudicial and because it’s often completely wrong. We know now. We know now how much of the mainstream coverage of this case was prejudicial and wrong and Donald Findlay’s concern was ‘The danger is that there will will a catastrophic miscarriage of justice’ - yet it had already happened by 2010 it had already happened erm ‘the accused will have been described on the internet as a beast of some sort’ yeah - how was Luke Mitchell described in the media in the run up to that trial in 2004 the end of 2004....’
What did Donald Findlay say to David Wilson ⬇️ in 2019 regarding appeals Sandra Lean?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17769853.donald-findlay-qc-talks-distressing-toll-work/
“Donald Findlay QC features in a new BBC Scotland show exploring those criminal cases which continue to fascinate us.
Crimes Files sees criminologist, Professor David Wilson, conduct in-depth investigations into both historic and contemporary crime cases as he interviews professionals who combat crime – high profile lawyers, pathologists, frontline police as well as some of the nation’s most notorious criminals.
https://scottishlegal.com/article/donald-findlay-qc-features-in-new-crime-show
Maybe in one of your weekly ‘power of persuasion’ updates you’ll quote that to your followers
‘In The Power of Persuasion, renowned social psychologist Robert Levine offers an incisive, anecdotal and humorous take on the mindsets of all those who prod, praise, debate, and manipulate us into doing things we'd never thought we'd do ― and are often later sorry we did.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Persuasion-Were-Bought-Sold/dp/1851684646
-
I’ll deal with the rest of your post later as I’m a bit busy constructing a hamster at the moment but I’ll address one point while I enjoy a break. The ‘laddie’ comment has proved to have been about Luke. I myself have posted two links, both from the BBC ( one direct testimony from the trial) and which had nothing to do with Sandra Lean which prove my claim. I can provide more cites if you wish but I’m really not sure it will make any difference as you seem terminally unable to debate a point with deflection and obfuscation.
No it has not. - You can cite as much as you wish, it make absolutely no difference. does it? - This case is not yours, you are not superior in anyway to any other person. We are all on the same playing field. Because someone chooses to recite bias upon bias with or without aid of Ms Leans claimed all knowledge, it makes no difference. The documentary, as with all else is based upon this slim chance of proof that LM had showed emotion. There is of course a world of difference between tone of voice to actual feeling is there not? "I could tell by his voice he had found something bad" Let's think about that basic sentence.
This search party are out looking for Jodi. The sister, her boyfriend, granny and Luke. He goes off into the woodland for a few seconds and shouts out he has found something. Connect the two, found and Jodi and it is nothing short of being bad in this shout, as it is likely to be Jodi. When it is explained in context, it shows something completely different. Now let's think of what is actually indictive of bad. Let's be clear here, this it the body of his girlfriend, severely mutilated and you think shouting out "I've found something" as proof of emotion, are you actually for real? - This should have been screaming out, cursing, freaking, anything other than this loud "I've found something" Or complete dumfound silence whilst what he has seen actually sinks in. Then an explosion of reaction - not this few seconds. - what you are actually trying to prove screams the actual opposite. And you do an exemplary job of it. He shouted out? wow!!
So if you want to cite from "all" of this evidence that you have as proof beyond reasonable doubt that LM was effected by this murder, can you please give us multiple sound areas of evidence as proof, rather than these two repetitive rabbits? His voice was raised, there was absolutely nothing in it of the horror he claimed to have just witnessed. Calm and clear - the tree, the 'scrunchie' and it's colour.
AW was screaming in hysterics LM was not - SK was vomiting and screaming his head off at the operator. So yes, Faithlilly your proof proves only the opposite. And of everything from that moment onwards, and yes we know - "I'm not that kind of guy" - be real please? But you can't , for the reality is the proof that LM did indeed murder his girlfriend.
-
No it has not. - You can cite as much as you wish, it make absolutely no difference. does it? - This case is not yours, you are not superior in anyway to any other person. We are all on the same playing field. Because someone chooses to recite bias upon bias with or without aid of Ms Leans claimed all knowledge, it makes no difference. The documentary, as with all else is based upon this slim chance of proof that LM had showed emotion. There is of course a world of difference between tone of voice to actual feeling is there not? "I could tell by his voice he had found something bad" Let's think about that basic sentence.
This search party are out looking for Jodi. The sister, her boyfriend, granny and Luke. He goes off into the woodland for a few seconds and shouts out he has found something. Connect the two, found and Jodi and it is nothing short of being bad in this shout, as it is likely to be Jodi. When it is explained in context, it shows something completely different. Now let's think of what is actually indictive of bad. Let's be clear here, this it the body of his girlfriend, severely mutilated and you think shouting out "I've found something" as proof of emotion, are you actually for real? - This should have been screaming out, cursing, freaking, anything other than this loud "I've found something" Or complete dumfound silence whilst what he has seen actually sinks in. Then an explosion of reaction - not this few seconds. - what you are actually trying to prove screams the actual opposite. And you do an exemplary job of it. He shouted out? wow!!
So if you want to cite from "all" of this evidence that you have as proof beyond reasonable doubt that LM was effected by this murder, can you please give us multiple sound areas of evidence as proof, rather than these two repetitive rabbits? His voice was raised, there was absolutely nothing in it of the horror he claimed to have just witnessed. Calm and clear - the tree, the 'scrunchie' and it's colour.
AW was screaming in hysterics LM was not - SK was vomiting and screaming his head off at the operator. So yes, Faithlilly your proof proves only the opposite. And of everything from that moment onwards, and yes we know - "I'm not that kind of guy" - be real please? But you can't , for the reality is the proof that LM did indeed murder his girlfriend.
Telling statement isn’t it
-
I see Sandra Lean is using her old chestnut of a ‘batch of books went missing’
I don’t believe you Sandra - I’ve heard it all before and I suspect as her followers get to learn more about her (presuming they’ll be following her for much longer) some of them may come to the same realisation - They are all being lead down the garden path....
-
I see Sandra Lean is using her old chestnut of a ‘batch of books went missing’
I don’t believe you Sandra - I’ve heard it all before and I suspect as her followers get to learn more about her (presuming they’ll be following her for much longer) some of them may come to the same realisation - They are all being lead down the garden path....
Is she still begging for money & claiming it will be for expenses? Iv'e always wondered what exactly she could be doing to farther this case that requires money.
-
No it has not. - You can cite as much as you wish, it make absolutely no difference. does it? - This case is not yours, you are not superior in anyway to any other person. We are all on the same playing field. Because someone chooses to recite bias upon bias with or without aid of Ms Leans claimed all knowledge, it makes no difference. The documentary, as with all else is based upon this slim chance of proof that LM had showed emotion. There is of course a world of difference between tone of voice to actual feeling is there not? "I could tell by his voice he had found something bad" Let's think about that basic sentence.
No let’s not. The point has been made. I supplied two unbiased cites which said Luke was in a panic. Add that to Janine’s ‘everyone was in hysterics’ and it’s futile to debate with you further.
This search party are out looking for Jodi. The sister, her boyfriend, granny and Luke. He goes off into the woodland for a few seconds and shouts out he has found something. Connect the two, found and Jodi and it is nothing short of being bad in this shout, as it is likely to be Jodi. When it is explained in context, it shows something completely different. Now let's think of what is actually indictive of bad. Let's be clear here, this it the body of his girlfriend, severely mutilated and you think shouting out "I've found something" as proof of emotion, are you actually for real? - This should have been screaming out, cursing, freaking, anything other than this loud "I've found something" Or complete dumfound silence whilst what he has seen actually sinks in. Then an explosion of reaction - not this few seconds. - what you are actually trying to prove screams the actual opposite. And you do an exemplary job of it. He shouted out? wow!!
The point has been made.
So if you want to cite from "all" of this evidence that you have as proof beyond reasonable doubt that LM was effected by this murder, can you please give us multiple sound areas of evidence as proof, rather than these two repetitive rabbits? His voice was raised, there was absolutely nothing in it of the horror he claimed to have just witnessed. Calm and clear - the tree, the 'scrunchie' and it's colour.
That he could identify a tree in torchlight and if you do want a real discussion shall we discuss how the scrunchie comment came from?
AW was screaming in hysterics LM was not - SK was vomiting and screaming his head off at the operator. So yes, Faithlilly your proof proves only the opposite. And of everything from that moment onwards, and yes we know - "I'm not that kind of guy" - be real please? But you can't , for the reality is the proof that LM did indeed murder his girlfriend.
Vomiting? After seeing the body? Not really true, is it? Again from the BBC.
“ Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.
By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court.
Mr Kelly said: "I felt like I was being sick when I crossed the wall. It was like bile coming up."
Body found
Mr Kelly said he climbed over the wall to join Mr Mitchell, who pointed down the inside of the wall and said: "Down there, 5ft out from the wall."
The witness said he thought he could "see something", believing it at first to be a log.
Prosecuting advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC asked: "Did you come to realise there was a body there?"
Mr Kelly replied: "When I got a bit closer, yes."
The witness paused, before adding that he then "peered round a tree".
Trial adjourned
Mr Turnbull asked: "What did you see when you did that?"
"A body lying there," a tearful Mr Kelly replied.
Questioned by Donald Findlay QC, defending Mr Mitchell, Mr Kelly was asked how close he had been to the tree he described when he saw the body.
After a long pause, Mr Kelly replied: "I cannot remember how far I was from the tree."
Mr Findlay then asked the witness to look at a photograph and a picture of Jodi's body was shown in court.
Mr Kelly then left the witness box.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085983.stm
It’s worth pointing out that Steven Kelly wasn’t sure what Jodi’s body was at first, just like Luke.
-
Is she still begging for money & claiming it will be for expenses? Iv'e always wondered what exactly she could be doing to farther this case that requires money.
Her supporters raised several hundred pounds for her and she forgot to thank them apparently - it slipped her mind.
Wonder if she’d spent any of the money they gave her before realising she’d forgotten to thank them?
-
Her supporters raised several hundred pounds for her and she forgot to thank them apparently - it slipped her mind.
Wonder if she’d spent any of the money they gave her before realising she’d forgotten to thank them?
Wow, the first thing I would do if somebody was financially supporting me would be to thank them, in fact I would make it a priority. And i would be thanking everybody individually. Car insurance must be due.
I most certainly would not give them a half arsed apology a week? 2 weeks? Later. Huge red flag.
But aye, IMO. It has always been about milking it....
-
Mute point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?" Who was vomiting? However:
Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.
The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.
Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up. Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.
LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:
Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl.
The sighting by F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.
Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm
So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic. Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.
And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours?? - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.
Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.
The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?
Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?
Some great reading again Parky. Your on point every time 8((()*/
-
Some great reading again Parky. Your on point every time 8((()*/
Have we got a copy of Judith Jones and Allan Ovens first statements? It would be interesting to see the time estimates for Jodi leaving the house. A neighbour says that they saw her leave just after five o’clock and another witness saw her being followed by Stocky Man about 5.05 which, of course, throws Andrina Bryson’s sighting into question. It would be good to see the times they gave when their recollections were freshest.
-
Mute point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?" Who was vomiting? However:
Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.
The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.
Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up. Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.
Janine in the witness box testifying that Jodi often walked the isolated path by herself and that her mother ‘knew it fine’. Was that the reason why Alice Walker, Steven Kelly and herself went to search the path first rather than looking elsewhere in Easthouses?
LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:
A little over an hour.
Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl.
The sighting by F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Who was asked? The whole of Newbattle? When?
Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.
If that’s the case why wasn’t Judith Jones worried when Luke phoned to ask if Jodi had left...almost an hour after her daughter had allegedly left the house. This is especially strange if Judith thought, as she claimed, that Jodi was going to ‘mucking about’ in Easthouses. Not until 4 hours later did Judith show any concern for her daughter.
Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm
Luke phoned to see if Jodi had left. It would have taken her around 20 minutes to walk down the path to Newbattle and as their usual rendezvous time was 6 that would be about right. Once she had left what would be the use of calling her mother again? Jodi had no phone so her mother was as unable to reach Jodi as Luke was.
So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic. Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.
See my post to Rusty. The Jones's timings are very relevant to the credibility of various sightings, especially Andrina Bryson, the neighbour who saw Jodi leave the house just after 5 and the witness who saw a girl she identified as Jodi being followed by Stocky Man.
And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours?? - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.
If Andrina Bryson is so bad at estimating the time it took her to do her shopping etc on the day Jodi was murdered how can we be sure that the time of her sighting wasn’t out be quite a large margin too and if that’s the case there is absolutely nothing to prove Luke saw Jodi after school.
Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.
”Jodi often walked the path on her own and my mum knew that fine”. Maybe Judith Jones didn’t want to appear like a mother who would turn a blind eye to her daughter walking down an isolated path alone but she certainly knew that Jodi did.
The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?
Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?
What evidence would he have given?
-
No it has not. - You can cite as much as you wish, it make absolutely no difference. does it? - This case is not yours, you are not superior in anyway to any other person. We are all on the same playing field. Because someone chooses to recite bias upon bias with or without aid of Ms Leans claimed all knowledge, it makes no difference. The documentary, as with all else is based upon this slim chance of proof that LM had showed emotion. There is of course a world of difference between tone of voice to actual feeling is there not? "I could tell by his voice he had found something bad" Let's think about that basic sentence.
This search party are out looking for Jodi. The sister, her boyfriend, granny and Luke. He goes off into the woodland for a few seconds and shouts out he has found something. Connect the two, found and Jodi and it is nothing short of being bad in this shout, as it is likely to be Jodi. When it is explained in context, it shows something completely different. Now let's think of what is actually indictive of bad. Let's be clear here, this it the body of his girlfriend, severely mutilated and you think shouting out "I've found something" as proof of emotion, are you actually for real? - This should have been screaming out, cursing, freaking, anything other than this loud "I've found something" Or complete dumfound silence whilst what he has seen actually sinks in. Then an explosion of reaction - not this few seconds. - what you are actually trying to prove screams the actual opposite. And you do an exemplary job of it. He shouted out? wow!!
So if you want to cite from "all" of this evidence that you have as proof beyond reasonable doubt that LM was effected by this murder, can you please give us multiple sound areas of evidence as proof, rather than these two repetitive rabbits? His voice was raised, there was absolutely nothing in it of the horror he claimed to have just witnessed. Calm and clear - the tree, the 'scrunchie' and it's colour.
AW was screaming in hysterics LM was not - SK was vomiting and screaming his head off at the operator. So yes, Faithlilly your proof proves only the opposite. And of everything from that moment onwards, and yes we know - "I'm not that kind of guy" - be real please? But you can't , for the reality is the proof that LM did indeed murder his girlfriend.
The search party were out looking for Jodi? Funny why they walked right past a house she had been found in recently when she had failed to come back on time without even knocking on the door and also failed to phone around other relatives and friends, before they opted to walk up a pitch black path. NOBODY would do that. You would knock on that door first and be phoning other people, even if it was on the way to the path. There is absolutely no explanation for that because nobody would do it.
Your attack on the tone of the call is pointless. None of us heard it or witnessed it. One of the "search party" said LM looked shocked and his eyes were wide, then changed it in Court to he looked normal. There's a surprise, another changed statement.
I've asked you and others who keep saying Mitchell did it to explain numerous known facts like the one's above which don't make any sense and nobody has yet given a credible answer.
I've asked people why AO was never cited as a witness given he was a crucial one. Nobody has given a credible reason why he was not.
-
Some great reading again Parky. Your on point every time 8((()*/
Pity he's wrong and can't see the wood for the trees.
-
The search party were out looking for Jodi? Funny why they walked right past a house she had been found in recently when she had failed to come back on time without even knocking on the door and also failed to phone around other relatives and friends, before they opted to walk up a pitch black path. NOBODY would do that. You would knock on that door first and be phoning other people, even if it was on the way to the path. There is absolutely no explanation for that because nobody would do it.
Your attack on the tone of the call is pointless. None of us heard it or witnessed it. One of the "search party" said LM looked shocked and his eyes were wide, then changed it in Court to he looked normal. There's a surprise, another changed statement.
I've asked you and others who keep saying Mitchell did it to explain numerous known facts like the one's above which don't make any sense and nobody has yet given a credible answer.
I've asked people why AO was never cited as a witness given he was a crucial one. Nobody has given a credible reason why he was not. Don't you think it's rather bizarre that AO did not accompany his female partner to search up the path? She went with 2 young people while he stayed in the house and watched TV? Would you send your wife (assuming you're male) up a creepy dark path at 11pm with 2 people who were about 18 if your daughter was missing? No man would do that through choice. Why do you think AO didn't go? As I said in the other thread......"the Police were too stupid to fathom this out". I can't say any more because it would just get deleted and I'd receive another yellow card. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be working out the likely answers. It's not that difficult if you piece together all the things that just don't make any sense. I might post them all, but it would probably be deleted.
Not sure that JuJ went out looking for Jodi either. I thought the "search party" consisted of Jodi's grandmother, AW, her sister JaJ, and JaJ's boyfriend , SK. ?? They later met up with LM.
-
Not sure that JuJ went out looking for Jodi either. I thought the "search party" consisted of Jodi's grandmother, AW, her s They later met up with LM.
...who’s mother Corrine had sent him out looking for Jodi
Although she made out to James English it didn’t happen like this
-
In what could be described as one of the worst miscarriages of justice ever Stefan Kiszko was convicted at a time when if there was DNA profiling it was in its infancy. New evidence of DNA introduced at his appeal proved his innocence.
Neil Wilby writes about Stefan here https://neilwilby.com/2016/03/20/the-case-of-stefan-kiszko-and-a-police-force-enamoured-by-its-own-sense-of-invincibility/
In my opinion there is not the remotest connection between Stefan's case and Mitchell's - in particular that no new evidence has ever been produced which justifies Mitchell's failed appeals or to justify a new one.
Just another red herring being introduced to Mitchell's case to join a shoal of them.
I was responding to your comment that LM was represented by an advocate that you described as 'one of Scotland's foremost'. I responded by highlighting SK's QC had a stellar reputation and went on to become Home Sec.
SK's case was eventually overturned on evidence that was available at trial:
In fact, his innocence could have been demonstrated at the trial. The pathologist who examined Molseed's clothes found traces of sperm, whereas the sample taken from Kiszko by the police contained no sperm.
The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn LM's conviction is hardly surprising when you consider all the high profile miscarriage of justice cases go to and fro the appeal courts at least once bedore they're eventually overturned.
-
I was responding to your comment that LM was represented by an advocate that you described as 'one of Scotland's foremost'. I responded by highlighting SK's QC had a stellar reputation and went on to become Home Sec.
SK's case was eventually overturned on evidence that was available at trial:
In fact, his innocence could have been demonstrated at the trial. The pathologist who examined Molseed's clothes found traces of sperm, whereas the sample taken from Kiszko by the police contained no sperm.
The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn LM's conviction is hardly surprising when you consider all the high profile miscarriage of justice cases go to and fro the appeal courts at least once bedore they're eventually overturned.
The Birmingham Six weren’t given leave to appeal on their first attempt to have their case looked at again, lost their first full appeal after a six-week hearing (at that time the longest criminal appeal hearing ever held) and only succeeded in overturning their convictions on their second full appeal.
-
I was responding to your comment that LM was represented by an advocate that you described as 'one of Scotland's foremost'. I responded by highlighting SK's QC had a stellar reputation and went on to become Home Sec.
SK's case was eventually overturned on evidence that was available at trial:
In fact, his innocence could have been demonstrated at the trial. The pathologist who examined Molseed's clothes found traces of sperm, whereas the sample taken from Kiszko by the police contained no sperm.
The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn LM's conviction is hardly surprising when you consider all the high profile miscarriage of justice cases go to and fro the appeal courts at least once bedore they're eventually overturned.
I think the salient part of your post is "The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn Mitchell's conviction is hardly surprising ..."
Therefore no grounds for appeal.
Unfortunately that doesn't deter the denizens of social media rewriting history to suit themselves.
-
I think the salient part of your post is "The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn Mitchell's conviction is hardly surprising ..."
Therefore no grounds for appeal.
Unfortunately that doesn't deter the denizens of social media rewriting history to suit themselves.
This is discussed here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=laujRg3W5C4&feature=youtu.be
and here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLxg3zSnjA&ab_channel=Foryoureyesonly
-
I think the salient part of your post is "The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn Mitchell's conviction is hardly surprising ..."
Therefore no grounds for appeal.
Unfortunately that doesn't deter the denizens of social media rewriting history to suit themselves.
On the other hand, if it was left to those who believe that the justice system should never be questioned no miscarriages of justice would ever be uncovered.
I remember the hoha you and your fellow supporters made when the forensic officer failed to wear gloves in Portugal yet when a young woman’s body is rolled onto a plastic sheet before any forensics are taken then left to lie there, uncovered, in the rain for ten hours you seem not to have a problem with that.
It really is a conundrum.
Mistaken reference removed
-
Sandra Lean
‘Sunday 25th April, during the live, I specifically invited anyone from mainstream media to come and speak to us directly, since the facts are more sensational than anything they could make up. Monday April 26th - their response? An article about the protest on May 3rd, claiming "The family of murdered teenager Jodi Jones have slammed a planned demo in support of Luke Mitchell as “despicable and delusional”. (A family member who doesn't want to be named, no less).
Make of that as you will!!!
What was it Sandra said about JaF allegedly stepping over Jodi’s body twice? Is this what she means by ‘more sensational than anything you could make up’?
-
Mute point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?" Who was vomiting? However:
Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.
The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.
Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up. Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.
LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:
Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl.
The sighting by F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.
Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm
So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic. Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.
And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours?? - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.
Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.
The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?
Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?
Don’t forget Luke Mitchell also said he thought Jodi had ‘dumped’ him
-
Sandra Lean making claim to her followers on ‘statement analysis’ and saying ‘i’ll be honest’
She’s said she’s going to look into it but don’t think they’ll come up with anything useful
Did you rely on ‘police statements’ to help write your books?
she doesn’t know much about it...
@)(++(*
Publish Luke and Corrine Mitchell’s statements Sandra and let your followers decide for themselves
The thing is all we have are Sandra Leans interpretation of the statements; they are her version of events.
Sandra Lean continues...
-
Didn’t know where to put this - but well worth a listen - it’s relevant to Luke Mitchell’s campaign (And touches on hypnosis)
‘Is The Wrongful Conviction Movement Unstoppable?’
with Roberta Glass feat: Devon Tracey aka "Atheism is Unstoppable"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=laujRg3W5C4&ab_channel=RobertaGlassTrueCrimeReport
Meant to add - Some of Devon Tracey’s old videos can be watched https://www.bitchute.com/video/oEEer1m6ZvHK/
-
Time to clear up this obtuse line of reasoning of the search party. Why there was no mother, father, brother or police out searching for Jodi Jones. - the simple answer is that of time, of the search trio being led to Jodi by Luke Mitchell and not his dog. I think it's important to highlight here, that power of suggestion/persuasion used by Ms Lean: How easily one can be led away from this very important area of the evidence against LM. By means of distraction on completely irrelevant thoughts. Mainly that of why the search trio were not searching Mayfield when Jodi had told her mother that they (LM and Jodi) would be "mucking around up here" This knowledge is completely irrelevant to the events that took place from 10.49pm onwards, as is that of Jodi's mother banning Jodi from walking this path alone.
It is irrelevant as Jodi had not met with LM by his claims, that these very same claims were that the meet was to be in Newbattle. What is however relevant and extremely so is that of time, there was barely time for this girls mother to gather any thoughts on anything. We know this, as she had barely found out her daughter was missing before discovering that her daughter was dead. She had found out she was missing at 10.42pm, reported her missing at 10.59pm and she was found dead at 11.30pm. That is the stark reality here. Not only was her daughter found dead, but she was found dead in an isolated area of woodland, in the dark, in record breaking time, by no other than LM himself. - the boy she had left home to meet with that day. The only person this girls mother thought her to be with. He had been that first person she contacted, she had given her daughter around 40mins of leniency passed her curfew. She had become somewhat upset at this lateness. She contacted LM, she did not ask if Jodi was with him, she texted 'right toad say goodbye to Luke your grounded again'
Why did the four people meet on this path?, again in record breaking time - the simple answer yet again is LM. This is what I meant by means of prompt by him. LM was on/at Roansdyke path at 10.59pm. (claims) He was definitely on the phone with JuJ at this time.The search party, from the very bottom of Mayfield had left just after 11pm. Far from being some ancient arthritic granny (CM and SL) AW was 66 yrs old and the former village post lady. They were heading in one direction only, that of Easthouse's. Remember here this is just after 11pm around 20-25mins since it is known Jodi was missing and only around 15mins after the call to the police. So we have the search party leaving and LM already being on this path around the same time. There is of course communication and the search trio become aware of LM's presence on this path and they head there instead of JuJ's. The plan of a meet to organise a search is diverted directly to this path, diverted by the very person who is on it, LM
We know this search party met around 11.20pm and we also know that JaJ spoke to LM around 11.18pm when heading out the complex ( next to the High school) Again we know the times of these calls from evidence and Ms Lean. And the search party of 4 meet. No-one got time to go to JuJ's, it simply was not possible for any extensive organisation of a search by others, the police inclusive to have even gotten off the ground.
What is again, highly relevant are reasons as to why AW wanted to search this path properly and again that of time. AW stated 'I was worried Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself' They had not long since left Mayfield and arrived at this path. They knew LM could not and by his own admission have actually searched in any detail. AW wanted it done properly. Also what is extremely relevant here, is If this search party of four, had gotten the chance to meet at JuJ's, the search would still have ended up on Roansdyke Path. We still know the search would have been led there by LM, as he had been claiming that Jodi was going to Newbattle, that she had failed to turn up, that the connecting area she would have walked to do so, would be this path. And If and only then, they had managed to meet at JuJ's, would there have been time for thought and discussion, of the "mucking around up here" and of this ban on the path. It simply did not happen though, there was not time. Again though, the search would still have ended up on this very path.
This constant talk of the search party arriving at the path too quickly - indeed, too quickly for LM who had obviously taken more time than required. He did not get the opportunity to get the dog story straight, did he? as he could not access something of Jodi's to scent with. Perhaps he is kicking himself somewhat here, but interestingly do these claims of the search party arriving too quick stem from him - Has he repeatedly being saying to his mother and SL that they arrived too quick?? By asking if they had anything of Jodi's to scent with? did he hope that the search could be delayed a little until they did? That by this very question it may once again have led the search party to JuJ's to access something of Jodi's - We will never know as AW had the sense to want to search this path thoroughly, to perhaps cancel this path out, whilst they were there and before yet again heading to her daughters house.
But they did meet around 11.20pm and LM did attempt to put his original plan into place, that of the dog. That he did introduce the notion of the woodland at the 'Gino' spot. His dog was doing nothing here. That the search party did not walk passed this V break in the wall-------- will continue this in detail and of Ms Leans fallacy of reasoning, the long route taken to avoid the stark contrast in the search parties statements.
But as above - Those clear precise reasons as to why it was only the four searching, and of why they were on Roansdyke path.
-
Will anyone from this forum be taking part in James English’ live ‘debate’ ?
"Part four of the Luke Mitchell case will be coming in June and will be shown live.
"A panel of people will be presenting all the evidence and facts before, during and after this court case." (The Sun)
-
Time to clear up this obtuse line of reasoning of the search party. Why there was no mother, father, brother or police out searching for Jodi Jones. - the simple answer is that of time, of the search trio being led to Jodi by Luke Mitchell and not his dog. I think it's important to highlight here, that power of suggestion/persuasion used by Ms Lean: How easily one can be led away from this very important area of the evidence against LM. By means of distraction on completely irrelevant thoughts. Mainly that of why the search trio were not searching Mayfield when Jodi had told her mother that they (LM and Jodi) would be "mucking around up here" This knowledge is completely irrelevant to the events that took place from 10.49pm onwards, as is that of Jodi's mother banning Jodi from walking this path alone.
It is irrelevant as Jodi had not met with LM by his claims, that these very same claims were that the meet was to be in Newbattle. What is however relevant and extremely so is that of time, there was barely time for this girls mother to gather any thoughts on anything. We know this, as she had barely found out her daughter was missing before discovering that her daughter was dead. She had found out she was missing at 10.42pm, reported her missing at 10.59pm and she was found dead at 11.30pm. That is the stark reality here. Not only was her daughter found dead, but she was found dead in an isolated area of woodland, in the dark, in record breaking time, by no other than LM himself. - the boy she had left home to meet with that day. The only person this girls mother thought her to be with. He had been that first person she contacted, she had given her daughter around 40mins of leniency passed her curfew. She had become somewhat upset at this lateness. She contacted LM, she did not ask if Jodi was with him, she texted 'right toad say goodbye to Luke your grounded again'
Why did the four people meet on this path?, again in record breaking time - the simple answer yet again is LM. This is what I meant by means of prompt by him. LM was on/at Roansdyke path at 10.59pm. (claims) He was definitely on the phone with JuJ at this time.The search party, from the very bottom of Mayfield had left just after 11pm. Far from being some ancient arthritic granny (CM and SL) AW was 66 yrs old and the former village post lady. They were heading in one direction only, that of Easthouse's. Remember here this is just after 11pm around 20-25mins since it is known Jodi was missing and only around 15mins after the call to the police. So we have the search party leaving and LM already being on this path around the same time. There is of course communication and the search trio become aware of LM's presence on this path and they head there instead of JuJ's. The plan of a meet to organise a search is diverted directly to this path, diverted by the very person who is on it, LM
We know this search party met around 11.20pm and we also know that JaJ spoke to LM around 11.18pm when heading out the complex ( next to the High school) Again we know the times of these calls from evidence and Ms Lean. And the search party of 4 meet. No-one got time to go to JuJ's, it simply was not possible for any extensive organisation of a search by others, the police inclusive to have even gotten off the ground.
What is again, highly relevant are reasons as to why AW wanted to search this path properly and again that of time. AW stated 'I was worried Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself' They had not long since left Mayfield and arrived at this path. They knew LM could not and by his own admission have actually searched in any detail. AW wanted it done properly. Also what is extremely relevant here, is If this search party of four, had gotten the chance to meet at JuJ's, the search would still have ended up on Roansdyke Path. We still know the search would have been led there by LM, as he had been claiming that Jodi was going to Newbattle, that she had failed to turn up, that the connecting area she would have walked to do so, would be this path. And If and only then, they had managed to meet at JuJ's, would there have been time for thought and discussion, of the "mucking around up here" and of this ban on the path. It simply did not happen though, there was not time. Again though, the search would still have ended up on this very path.
This constant talk of the search party arriving at the path too quickly - indeed, too quickly for LM who had obviously taken more time than required. He did not get the opportunity to get the dog story straight, did he? as he could not access something of Jodi's to scent with. Perhaps he is kicking himself somewhat here, but interestingly do these claims of the search party arriving too quick stem from him - Has he repeatedly being saying to his mother and SL that they arrived too quick?? By asking if they had anything of Jodi's to scent with? did he hope that the search could be delayed a little until they did? That by this very question it may once again have led the search party to JuJ's to access something of Jodi's - We will never know as AW had the sense to want to search this path thoroughly, to perhaps cancel this path out, whilst they were there and before yet again heading to her daughters house.
But they did meet around 11.20pm and LM did attempt to put his original plan into place, that of the dog. That he did introduce the notion of the woodland at the 'Gino' spot. His dog was doing nothing here. That the search party did not walk passed this V break in the wall-------- will continue this in detail and of Ms Leans fallacy of reasoning, the long route taken to avoid the stark contrast in the search parties statements.
But as above - Those clear precise reasons as to why it was only the four searching, and of why they were on Roansdyke path.
Again and again you attempt to negate understandable questions over the behaviour of Jodi’s family on the evening Jodi was murdered and again and again all you succeed in doing is drawing more attention to it.
-
I think I understood you very well.
Perhaps what you fail to understand is Luke Mitchell.
Killer Luke Mitchell demands Satanic books in jail 18/04/14 JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right. Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.
The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial….
In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”….
Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.
Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home. It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks…. http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463
Snip
Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence. One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a serious interest in the subject….
Elizabeth Rudman, a criminologist with over 20 years’ experience, said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point. “My problem is that the rituals involved in these materials are really anti-social and they elicit deeds that are against the law, such as human sacrifice.
“This person was convicted for murder. My first question would be: what is he going to plan now?
“It is possible Mitchell has given up completely. On the other hand, it can also be an indication of guilt.
“He has been in prison for so long, his hope of getting an appeal has been completely quashed, so now he may be showing his true convictions.”…. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
I've got a copy of the the Devil's Notebook right here written by Anton Lavey. It hasn't made me kill anyone. It's actually very interesting. Do you know of any murder cases where reading such books was proved to have led the reader to carry out a murder? I don't, do you? I'm afraid Mitchell reading these books proves nothing,
-
Can't help but notice a degree of antipathy towards the Jones family from LM's supporters, which is a bit much given the tragedy.
Must be maddening not to be able to say what they guess happened.
CM used to say the killer was being protected - is she still saying this? If so, who does she think is protecting the killer, and why?
Where was the antipathy towards the Jones family when the finger was being pointed at MK and RG? Does that just happen when it suits?
If LM hadn't been told to join the search, would he have just gone to bed?
If LM and his dog had discovered Jodi on the way up to Easthouses with no-one else there, how would that have looked?
Did the recent documentary mention SM's refusal to provide an alibi?
*RG is most definitely a wrong 'un for sure*
-
Had I been on the jury, I would have found it difficult to vote for a guilty verdict.
There appears to be no certainty that the young men spotted by the eyewitnesses were Luke, and so, apart from the sighting by the boys who actually knew him, I would not have been able to rely on them.
I cannot be sure that Luke was not at home at the same time as Shane. Even Shane said he wasn't too sure!
There is no evidence that Corinne burned a parka that Luke had worn while murdering Jodi. A strange smell coming from the Mitchell's fire could have been anything.
There appears to be no reason why Luke would have wanted to kill his girlfriend.
Local people were certainly influenced by what was reported in newspapers, and probably, by gossip too.
I'm not fazed by Luke, either. I've taught too many boys of 14/15 who carry knives, who smoke cannabis, who have more than one girlfriend at a time, whose parents have split up, who like weird music and goth culture, etc etc, and who write worrying notes on their school books. As far as I know, although some of them were a pain in the proverbial in school, none have gone on to murder anyone.
If Luke did kill Jodi, I would imagine he was "high" on something at the time-------always possible, I suppose, but really, I can't see a boy of that age committing such a horrific murder, and managing to take most of his DNA away with him too.
I also wonder whether the murder was committed by more than one person.
Very good summary.....the lack of motive is a major factor. The Police didn't look for anyone who may have had a motive because of confirmation bias with regard to Mitchell.
-
Not sure that JuJ went out looking for Jodi either. I thought the "search party" consisted of Jodi's grandmother, AW, her sister JaJ, and JaJ's boyfriend , SK. ?? They later met up with LM.
You're right, apologies. I've removed that part. It's still very suspect AO was not cited to give evidence, very.
-
the lack of motive is a major factor.
No it isn't - it's entirely possible that the killer committed murder and post-mortem mutilation for no other reason than the fact that they liked doing it - it happens - for a crime of this nature, we need look for no further motive than that. Whoever did this is a warp.
-
I've got a copy of the the Devil's Notebook right here written by Anton Lavey. It hasn't made me kill anyone. It's actually very interesting. Do you know of any murder cases where reading such books was proved to have led the reader to carry out a murder? I don't, do you? I'm afraid Mitchell reading these books proves nothing,
Killer Luke Mitchell demands Satanic books in jail 18/04/14 JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463
Rather undercuts the notion that Mitchell had no interest in ritual or Satanism don't you think.
-
I think the salient part of your post is "The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn Mitchell's conviction is hardly surprising ..."
Therefore no grounds for appeal.
Unfortunately that doesn't deter the denizens of social media rewriting history to suit themselves.
As I said in a previous post, all long running miscarriages of justice go to and fro the appeal courts before wrongful convictions are eventually overturned.
Stefan Kizsko
"We can find no grounds whatsoever to condemn the jury's verdict of murder as in any way safe or unsatisfactory. The appeal is dismissed". Lord Justice Bridge.
Stephen Downing
"The court felt that her evidence was not credible and secure enough to allow an appeal against the conviction".
Sally Clarke
"Despite recognition of the flaws in Meadow's statistical evidence, the convictions were upheld at appeal in October 2000."
Guildford Four
"Both the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal their convictions immediately".
"The Guildford Four tried to obtain from the Home Secretary a reference to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (later repeled) but were unsuccessful.
Birmingham 6 8()(((@#
"In March 1976 their first application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, presided over by Lord Widgery CJ".
"In January 1988 after a six week hearing (at that time the longest criminal hearing ever held), the convictions were ruled to be safe and satisfactory. The Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane dismissed the appeals".
-
I think that those who testified at Mitchell's trial had no doubt whatsoever about when and where from the smoke and burning smells emanated. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+%27FIRE%27+CLAIM%3b+Neighbours+tell+of+smoke+at+accused+Mitchell%27s...-a0125857792
There was quite a window available for anyone wishing to destroy evidence.
Had I been on the jury it is definitely testimony I would have taken on board both from what the neighbours had to say and the denial of Mitchell's family that such an event as the burning ever happened.
It is also another plank in my belief in Mitchell's guilt.
Some sort of random fire pit in the garden might be relevant but the family possessed a wood burner which was in use the night J J was murdered. How does this support L M being involved in the murder of J J?
-
Talking about finding things, have you found yet what AB was doing during those missing 45 minutes that popped up during the police’s revised timelines....no?
It seems to be that no matter what I say I receive warnings, even when I don't mention names. The latest warning came because I disproved someone's comment, because what they said was false. I will probably leave soon before I'm banned. People in here make frequent false statements. I've been trying to provide a clear narrative of what is fact and what is not, but when those who say Mitchell was a Satanist, a Manson fan and had an interest in the Black Dahlia are challenged to provide evidence they report me and a warning is issued to me. There is an unpleasant agenda in here which seems to encourage and propagate the "he did it" crusade, which runs over known facts like a steamroller to distort the truth.
AB's original timings had her passing the path much later than 450pm. Even if the bank receipt was correct and the till receipt was wrong, you won't be loading your car with bags, strapping 2 children in, driving from Tesco to Easthouses in tea time traffic, detouring to view a house in an area you don't really know then passing the path at 450pm. This all happened in 18-20 minutes according to the "revised timelines". Ridiculous.
-
No it isn't - it's entirely possible that the killer committed murder and post-mortem mutilation for no other reason than the fact that they liked doing it - it happens - for a crime of this nature, we need look for no further motive than that. Whoever did this is a warp.
The problem with your theory is that "this" doesn't happen. By that I mean a murder similar to this. Take a look if you can stomach it at murders committed by Tobin, Sinclair, Frances Auld, Marek Harkar, Gavin Maguire, Alexander Pacteau. That's about a dozen cases, all of them total psychopaths. None pulled the victim's hair out by the roots. All sexually assaulted their victims. The chances that someone like those 6 were hiding in the woods with a weapon at about 5pm in broad daylight hoping someone would turn up alone so they could attack and kill them are what? Probably close to nil.
This murder was carried out by someone with a motive.
-
The problem with your theory is that "this" doesn't happen. By that I mean a murder similar to this. Take a look if you can stomach it at murders committed by Tobin, Sinclair, Frances Auld, Marek Harkar, Gavin Maguire, Alexander Pacteau. That's about a dozen cases, all of them total psychopaths. None pulled the victim's hair out by the roots. All sexually assaulted their victims. The chances that someone like those 6 were hiding in the woods with a weapon at about 5pm in broad daylight hoping someone would turn up alone so they could attack and kill them are what? Probably close to nil.
This murder was carried out by someone with a motive.
Please tell us what the motivation is for post mortem mutilation.
-
It seems to be that no matter what I say I receive warnings, even when I don't mention names. The latest warning came because I disproved someone's comment, because what they said was false. I will probably leave soon before I'm banned. People in here make frequent false statements. I've been trying to provide a clear narrative of what is fact and what is not, but when those who say Mitchell was a Satanist, a Manson fan and had an interest in the Black Dahlia are challenged to provide evidence they report me and a warning is issued to me. There is an unpleasant agenda in here which seems to encourage and propagate the "he did it" crusade, which runs over known facts like a steamroller to distort the truth.
AB's original timings had her passing the path much later than 450pm. Even if the bank receipt was correct and the till receipt was wrong, you won't be loading your car with bags, strapping 2 children in, driving from Tesco to Easthouses in tea time traffic, detouring to view a house in an area you don't really know then passing the path at 450pm. This all happened in 18-20 minutes according to the "revised timelines". Ridiculous.
You leave and there will be one less member to dissemble the disinformation. Surely that’s what they want?
Mods give out warnings, many of which have been overturned. If you feel you are being unfairly targeted contact John. There’s absolutely no need for you to leave.
-
It seems to be that no matter what I say I receive warnings, even when I don't mention names. The latest warning came because I disproved someone's comment, because what they said was false. I will probably leave soon before I'm banned. People in here make frequent false statements. I've been trying to provide a clear narrative of what is fact and what is not, but when those who say Mitchell was a Satanist, a Manson fan and had an interest in the Black Dahlia are challenged to provide evidence they report me and a warning is issued to me. There is an unpleasant agenda in here which seems to encourage and propagate the "he did it" crusade, which runs over known facts like a steamroller to distort the truth.
AB's original timings had her passing the path much later than 450pm. Even if the bank receipt was correct and the till receipt was wrong, you won't be loading your car with bags, strapping 2 children in, driving from Tesco to Easthouses in tea time traffic, detouring to view a house in an area you don't really know then passing the path at 450pm. This all happened in 18-20 minutes according to the "revised timelines". Ridiculous.
Please take note of the rules and there shouldn't be an issue. This forum is open to all views and opinions but the rules must be followed by everyone.
-
You leave and there will be one less member to dissemble the disinformation. Surely that’s what they want?
Mods give out warnings, many of which have been overturned. If you feel you are being unfairly targeted contact John. There’s absolutely no need for you to leave.
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word dissemble, unless this is actually what you meant?!
-
Time to clear up this obtuse line of reasoning of the search party. Why there was no mother, father, brother or police out searching for Jodi Jones. - the simple answer is that of time, of the search trio being led to Jodi by Luke Mitchell and not his dog. I think it's important to highlight here, that power of suggestion/persuasion used by Ms Lean: How easily one can be led away from this very important area of the evidence against LM. By means of distraction on completely irrelevant thoughts. Mainly that of why the search trio were not searching Mayfield when Jodi had told her mother that they (LM and Jodi) would be "mucking around up here" This knowledge is completely irrelevant to the events that took place from 10.49pm onwards, as is that of Jodi's mother banning Jodi from walking this path alone.
It is irrelevant as Jodi had not met with LM by his claims, that these very same claims were that the meet was to be in Newbattle. What is however relevant and extremely so is that of time, there was barely time for this girls mother to gather any thoughts on anything. We know this, as she had barely found out her daughter was missing before discovering that her daughter was dead. She had found out she was missing at 10.42pm, reported her missing at 10.59pm and she was found dead at 11.30pm. That is the stark reality here. Not only was her daughter found dead, but she was found dead in an isolated area of woodland, in the dark, in record breaking time, by no other than LM himself. - the boy she had left home to meet with that day. The only person this girls mother thought her to be with. He had been that first person she contacted, she had given her daughter around 40mins of leniency passed her curfew. She had become somewhat upset at this lateness. She contacted LM, she did not ask if Jodi was with him, she texted 'right toad say goodbye to Luke your grounded again'
Why did the four people meet on this path?, again in record breaking time - the simple answer yet again is LM. This is what I meant by means of prompt by him. LM was on/at Roansdyke path at 10.59pm. (claims) He was definitely on the phone with JuJ at this time.The search party, from the very bottom of Mayfield had left just after 11pm. Far from being some ancient arthritic granny (CM and SL) AW was 66 yrs old and the former village post lady. They were heading in one direction only, that of Easthouse's. Remember here this is just after 11pm around 20-25mins since it is known Jodi was missing and only around 15mins after the call to the police. So we have the search party leaving and LM already being on this path around the same time. There is of course communication and the search trio become aware of LM's presence on this path and they head there instead of JuJ's. The plan of a meet to organise a search is diverted directly to this path, diverted by the very person who is on it, LM
We know this search party met around 11.20pm and we also know that JaJ spoke to LM around 11.18pm when heading out the complex ( next to the High school) Again we know the times of these calls from evidence and Ms Lean. And the search party of 4 meet. No-one got time to go to JuJ's, it simply was not possible for any extensive organisation of a search by others, the police inclusive to have even gotten off the ground.
What is again, highly relevant are reasons as to why AW wanted to search this path properly and again that of time. AW stated 'I was worried Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself' They had not long since left Mayfield and arrived at this path. They knew LM could not and by his own admission have actually searched in any detail. AW wanted it done properly. Also what is extremely relevant here, is If this search party of four, had gotten the chance to meet at JuJ's, the search would still have ended up on Roansdyke Path. We still know the search would have been led there by LM, as he had been claiming that Jodi was going to Newbattle, that she had failed to turn up, that the connecting area she would have walked to do so, would be this path. And If and only then, they had managed to meet at JuJ's, would there have been time for thought and discussion, of the "mucking around up here" and of this ban on the path. It simply did not happen though, there was not time. Again though, the search would still have ended up on this very path.
This constant talk of the search party arriving at the path too quickly - indeed, too quickly for LM who had obviously taken more time than required. He did not get the opportunity to get the dog story straight, did he? as he could not access something of Jodi's to scent with. Perhaps he is kicking himself somewhat here, but interestingly do these claims of the search party arriving too quick stem from him - Has he repeatedly being saying to his mother and SL that they arrived too quick?? By asking if they had anything of Jodi's to scent with? did he hope that the search could be delayed a little until they did? That by this very question it may once again have led the search party to JuJ's to access something of Jodi's - We will never know as AW had the sense to want to search this path thoroughly, to perhaps cancel this path out, whilst they were there and before yet again heading to her daughters house.
But they did meet around 11.20pm and LM did attempt to put his original plan into place, that of the dog. That he did introduce the notion of the woodland at the 'Gino' spot. His dog was doing nothing here. That the search party did not walk passed this V break in the wall-------- will continue this in detail and of Ms Leans fallacy of reasoning, the long route taken to avoid the stark contrast in the search parties statements.
But as above - Those clear precise reasons as to why it was only the four searching, and of why they were on Roansdyke path.
So, there we have it in black and white - That remarkable time frame. What is important I think to take on board before this part, is of what Ms Lean may have at hand, the defence case/papers and so forth. That of this massive collection of case notes, statements and so forth - what we actually get to see as way of proof for the varies points that are discussed, is actually around 5% - We are all aware of data protection, of Scottish law and restrictions this brings. What we are also aware of, is there are no restrictions when it suits, in releasing full sentences and so forth. The search party of 4:
A refresher of that remarkable time frame - Of Jodi being reported missing at 10.49pm and of Jodi being found dead by 11.30pm. Not only was she found dead, but she was found in an isolated area of woodland, hidden to an extent behind a large Oak tree. It was the height of summertime when growth was at it's fullest. It was overcast and it was dark, this along with the shelter of trees and overgrowth would have reduced visibility extensively. What we do know with certainty before we move onto the next part, is that LM had been in this woodland mere seconds before he had shouted out he had found something. To highlight that very important factor yet again. That this search party were not in the woodland. There was no dog running free picking up any scent. The dog was not in the woodland, and the dog was on a lead. What we also know with certainty is that there is absolutely no proof of this dog being trained, nothing was produced in court - very good reason for that IMO, as:
The evidence led was mainly around where the search party were when LM went into the woodland. Remember here yet again, as it is extremely relevant to all that happened and of suspicion upon LM - That time factor, reported missing at 10.49pm and found dead by 11.30pm. That after the call to the police, LM offered to search for Jodi, that he would look on this path on his way to her mothers house. This call was at 10.51pm and LM was on/at Roansdyke path by 10.59pm. We have already made it clear why the search party of 4 met on this path and of why there was no time for an extensive search to have gotten off the ground. And we know the search trio from Mayfield headed to the path as LM was on it. And they did meet - and in approx 10mins of this meet - Jodi is found. She is lying in an isolated part of this woodland as above.: Where was everyone?
Let's think first of all, of those areas verbatim from statements - those chosen selective points which amounts to around 5% of their total? Of a trial, and that even playing field when this is done? And of Ms Leans solo defence case. And of those sentences given when it suits? And of those extraordinary lengths of explanation given to make up some futile points? That of the search party - of the change in statements - and of this dog.
LM claimed that - 'we had walked some distance passed a V break in the wall, not even 20yds when Mia alerted me' 'she was on her hind legs air sniffing, I went back to the V to gain access to the woodland'
The search trio - nothing outwith multiple areas to show that they must have walked passed this V - why the long road? We know they walked passed the V, but they walked passed this V after LM went into the woods. We know they used words such as "backtracked to the V" But they did not use those words until after LM had went into the woodland. And after they had continued down this path. Where are the sentences of - We had walked some distance passed this V when the dog reacted? We know the search party used words such as the "the dogs head was level with the V" "the dog was pulling to the V" We also know the following:
That JaJ gave an account of of LM going over the V and of him turning to his left.
That AW gave an account of LM handing her the lead, of him going over and turning to his left.
That AW stayed at the V, that after LM turned left JaJ and SK continued to walk down this path.
That they had barely walked 10ft or more when LM shouted he had found something.
That they then hasted back to this V, that when they got to this V LM was on the other side.
That SK and AW went over the V - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, they were shown exactly where Jodi was.
And those God awful screams we here of - of those hysterics, AW is screaming, JaJ is screaming and SK is retching and being sick.
LM phoned the emergency services at 11.34pm.
So the dog is actually irrelevant - as the dog was not where LM claimed the dog and the search party were.
Outwith those clear contrasts in those first statements there is that time factor, as with the dinner tale and all else - There was never the time for the events to have taken place. LM did not walk some 20yrds not even 60ft passed this V then backtracked to it. There was no time. Sk, and JaJ could not have continued down a further 10ft or more, there was no time. They were at the V as they stated in that first initial account. - The only account that was completely off, from the Off was LM's. It was in total contrast to that of the other three people present.
And there, yet again is that clear line of extremely valid suspicion. That this girl was found dead within minutes of the missing person report being filled in. That she was found by LM in the dark, in an isolated spot of this woodland. Every single part of these irrelevant accounts of "mucking around up here" of walking this path alone, of the search party arriving too quick - are diversion and distraction - They had nothing to do with those minutes of when Jodi was found. No one else put LM on Roansdyke Path. And it was LM who put the search party on this path, by the mere fact he was on it, those claims of searching en-route.
And this is why DF did not go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts - This is why the Jury were taken to the locus, why the replica wall was built in court. So they could see first hand, how impossible this was in the timescale given. And they were taken in the daytime, the growth was not the same, some branches and so forth cut back - but they did see the pictures taken before this had happened.
-
So, there we have it in black and white - That remarkable time frame. What is important I think to take on board before this part, is of what Ms Lean may have at hand, the defence case/papers and so forth. That of this massive collection of case notes, statements and so forth - what we actually get to see as way of proof for the varies points that are discussed, is actually around 5% - We are all aware of data protection, of Scottish law and restrictions this brings. What we are also aware of, is there are no restrictions when it suits, in releasing full sentences and so forth.
Luke and Corrine Mitchell could release in full what they told police
-
So, there we have it in black and white - That remarkable time frame. What is important I think to take on board before this part, is of what Ms Lean may have at hand, the defence case/papers and so forth. That of this massive collection of case notes, statements and so forth - what we actually get to see as way of proof for the varies points that are discussed, is actually around 5% - We are all aware of data protection, of Scottish law and restrictions this brings. What we are also aware of, is there are no restrictions when it suits, in releasing full sentences and so forth. The search party of 4:
A refresher of that remarkable time frame - Of Jodi being reported missing at 10.49pm and of Jodi being found dead by 11.30pm. Not only was she found dead, but she was found in an isolated area of woodland, hidden to an extent behind a large Oak tree. It was the height of summertime when growth was at it's fullest. It was overcast and it was dark, this along with the shelter of trees and overgrowth would have reduced visibility extensively. What we do know with certainty before we move onto the next part, is that LM had been in this woodland mere seconds before he had shouted out he had found something. To highlight that very important factor yet again. That this search party were not in the woodland. There was no dog running free picking up any scent. The dog was not in the woodland, and the dog was on a lead. What we also know with certainty is that there is absolutely no proof of this dog being trained, nothing was produced in court - very good reason for that IMO, as:
The evidence led was mainly around where the search party were when LM went into the woodland. Remember here yet again, as it is extremely relevant to all that happened and of suspicion upon LM - That time factor, reported missing at 10.49pm and found dead by 11.30pm. That after the call to the police, LM offered to search for Jodi, that he would look on this path on his way to her mothers house. This call was at 10.51pm and LM was on/at Roansdyke path by 10.59pm. We have already made it clear why the search party of 4 met on this path and of why there was no time for an extensive search to have gotten off the ground. And we know the search trio from Mayfield headed to the path as LM was on it. And they did meet - and in approx 10mins of this meet - Jodi is found. She is lying in an isolated part of this woodland as above.: Where was everyone?
Let's think first of all, of those areas verbatim from statements - those chosen selective points which amounts to around 5% of their total? Of a trial, and that even playing field when this is done? And of Ms Leans solo defence case. And of those sentences given when it suits? And of those extraordinary lengths of explanation given to make up some futile points? That of the search party - of the change in statements - and of this dog.
LM claimed that - 'we had walked some distance passed a V break in the wall, not even 20yds when Mia alerted me' 'she was on her hind legs air sniffing, I went back to the V to gain access to the woodland'
The search trio - nothing outwith multiple areas to show that they must have walked passed this V - why the long road? We know they walked passed the V, but they walked passed this V after LM went into the woods. We know they used words such as "backtracked to the V" But they did not use those words until after LM had went into the woodland. And after they had continued down this path. Where are the sentences of - We had walked some distance passed this V when the dog reacted? We know the search party used words such as the "the dogs head was level with the V" "the dog was pulling to the V" We also know the following:
That JaJ gave an account of of LM going over the V and of him turning to his left.
That AW gave an account of LM handing her the lead, of him going over and turning to his left.
That AW stayed at the V, that after LM turned left JaJ and SK continued to walk down this path.
That they had barely walked 10ft or more when LM shouted he had found something.
That they then hasted back to this V, that when they got to this V LM was on the other side.
That SK and AW went over the V - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, they were shown exactly where Jodi was.
And those God awful screams we here of - of those hysterics, AW is screaming, JaJ is screaming and SK is retching and being sick.
LM phoned the emergency services at 11.34pm.
So the dog is actually irrelevant - as the dog was not where LM claimed the dog and the search party were.
Outwith those clear contrasts in those first statements there is that time factor, as with the dinner tale and all else - There was never the time for the events to have taken place. LM did not walk some 20yrds not even 60ft passed this V then backtracked to it. There was no time. Sk, and JaJ could not have continued down a further 10ft or more, there was no time. They were at the V as they stated in that first initial account. - The only account that was completely off, from the Off was LM's. It was in total contrast to that of the other three people present.
And there, yet again is that clear line of extremely valid suspicion. That this girl was found dead within minutes of the missing person report being filled in. That she was found by LM in the dark, in an isolated spot of this woodland. Every single part of these irrelevant accounts of "mucking around up here" of walking this path alone, of the search party arriving too quick - are diversion and distraction - They had nothing to do with those minutes of when Jodi was found. No one else put LM on Roansdyke Path. And it was LM who put the search party on this path, by the mere fact he was on it, those claims of searching en-route.
And this is why DF did not go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts - This is why the Jury were taken to the locus, why the replica wall was built in court. So they could see first hand, how impossible this was in the timescale given. And they were taken in the daytime, the growth was not the same, some branches and so forth cut back - but they did see the pictures taken before this had happened.
How do you know?
Were you in court?
Did you see Luke kill Jodi?
Why should I believe you rather than Sandra Lean?
-
So, there we have it in black and white - That remarkable time frame. What is important I think to take on board before this part, is of what Ms Lean may have at hand, the defence case/papers and so forth. That of this massive collection of case notes, statements and so forth - what we actually get to see as way of proof for the varies points that are discussed, is actually around 5% - We are all aware of data protection, of Scottish law and restrictions this brings. What we are also aware of, is there are no restrictions when it suits, in releasing full sentences and so forth. The search party of 4:
A refresher of that remarkable time frame - Of Jodi being reported missing at 10.49pm and of Jodi being found dead by 11.30pm. Not only was she found dead, but she was found in an isolated area of woodland, hidden to an extent behind a large Oak tree. It was the height of summertime when growth was at it's fullest. It was overcast and it was dark, this along with the shelter of trees and overgrowth would have reduced visibility extensively. What we do know with certainty before we move onto the next part, is that LM had been in this woodland mere seconds before he had shouted out he had found something. To highlight that very important factor yet again. That this search party were not in the woodland. There was no dog running free picking up any scent. The dog was not in the woodland, and the dog was on a lead. What we also know with certainty is that there is absolutely no proof of this dog being trained, nothing was produced in court - very good reason for that IMO, as:
The evidence led was mainly around where the search party were when LM went into the woodland. Remember here yet again, as it is extremely relevant to all that happened and of suspicion upon LM - That time factor, reported missing at 10.49pm and found dead by 11.30pm. That after the call to the police, LM offered to search for Jodi, that he would look on this path on his way to her mothers house. This call was at 10.51pm and LM was on/at Roansdyke path by 10.59pm. We have already made it clear why the search party of 4 met on this path and of why there was no time for an extensive search to have gotten off the ground. And we know the search trio from Mayfield headed to the path as LM was on it. And they did meet - and in approx 10mins of this meet - Jodi is found. She is lying in an isolated part of this woodland as above.: Where was everyone?
When Luke set out with Mia for Roan’s Dyke path he had no idea he would meet the other searchers, if he didn’t find Jodi on the way he was going to head for Judith’s house. He could also not have known that Alice Walker would want to double check the path he had just walked up. Do you see how the narrative changes with the truth?
Let's think first of all, of those areas verbatim from statements - those chosen selective points which amounts to around 5% of their total? Of a trial, and that even playing field when this is done? And of Ms Leans solo defence case. And of those sentences given when it suits? And of those extraordinary lengths of explanation given to make up some futile points? That of the search party - of the change in statements - and of this dog.
LM claimed that - 'we had walked some distance passed a V break in the wall, not even 20yds when Mia alerted me' 'she was on her hind legs air sniffing, I went back to the V to gain access to the woodland'
The search trio - nothing outwith multiple areas to show that they must have walked passed this V - why the long road? We know they walked passed the V, but they walked passed this V after LM went into the woods. We know they used words such as "backtracked to the V" But they did not use those words until after LM had went into the woodland. And after they had continued down this path. Where are the sentences of - We had walked some distance passed this V when the dog reacted? We know the search party used words such as the "the dogs head was level with the V" "the dog was pulling to the V" We also know the following:
I think as there is unchallengeable evidence the Alice Walker, Janine Jones and Steven Kelly all changed their statements over time, to know any of the above is true you’d have to have sight of their first statements. Do you have that?
That JaJ gave an account of of LM going over the V and of him turning to his left.
That AW gave an account of LM handing her the lead, of him going over and turning to his left.
That AW stayed at the V, that after LM turned left JaJ and SK continued to walk down this path.
That they had barely walked 10ft or more when LM shouted he had found something.
That they then hasted back to this V, that when they got to this V LM was on the other side.
That SK and AW went over the V - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, they were shown exactly where Jodi was.
I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make. The dog alerted, all four people in their first statements agreed. Mia was indicating that what she was smelling was from the left of the v so that’s the direction Luke took. Not sure what you mean with your last sentence. Luke had seen something and he pointed out to AW and SK where, unfamiliarity and trepidation didn’t come into it.
And those God awful screams we here of - of those hysterics, AW is screaming, JaJ is screaming and SK is retching and being sick.
Nope, that didn’t happen and SK verified as much in court.
LM phoned the emergency services at 11.34pm.
So the dog is actually irrelevant - as the dog was not where LM claimed the dog and the search party were.
??
Outwith those clear contrasts in those first statements there is that time factor, as with the dinner tale and all else - There was never the time for the events to have taken place. LM did not walk some 20yrds not even 60ft passed this V then backtracked to it. There was no time. Sk, and JaJ could not have continued down a further 10ft or more, there was no time. They were at the V as they stated in that first initial account. - The only account that was completely off, from the Off was LM's. It was in total contrast to that of the other three people present.
No it wasn’t. The other three searchers first statements mirrored Luke’s completely. Janine Jones was questioned about the changes in the witness box by Donald Findlay.
And there, yet again is that clear line of extremely valid suspicion. That this girl was found dead within minutes of the missing person report being filled in. That she was found by LM in the dark, in an isolated spot of this woodland. Every single part of these irrelevant accounts of "mucking around up here" of walking this path alone, of the search party arriving too quick - are diversion and distraction - They had nothing to do with those minutes of when Jodi was found. No one else put LM on Roansdyke Path. And it was LM who put the search party on this path, by the mere fact he was on it, those claims of searching en-route.
Luke had a torch, does that really need to be pointed out t you and why would the other searchers need to search the part of the path Luke had already walked. It would have been a complete waste of time. If they thought that Jodi was ‘mucking around up here’ surely it would have been better to search around Easthouses? Unless they all knew already that Jodi used the path to meet Luke...even then it made no sense for AW to suggest waking part of it again.
And this is why DF did not go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts - This is why the Jury were taken to the locus, why the replica wall was built in court. So they could see first hand, how impossible this was in the timescale given. And they were taken in the daytime, the growth was not the same, some branches and so forth cut back - but they did see the pictures taken before this had happened.
Jodi texted Luke to say her grounding had been lifted and that, according to Luke, she was coming to Newbattle. Those texts were never recovered. Why? It was Judith’s phone so perhaps she deleted them before Jodi was found, I can’t imagine her doing it afterwards, but could it be that Jodi deleted them herself to stop her mum finding out that she was going to Newbattle? Talking about phones, as there was doubt about where witnesses were at specific times did the police do a cell site analysis to verify their locations and if not, why not? I believe the defence had an expert lined up but were told by legal aid that they were too expensive.
-
How do you know?
Were you in court?
Did you see Luke kill Jodi?
Why should I believe you rather than Sandra Lean?
Good questions.
-
A really good watch for anyone interested in miscarriages of justice.
https://youtu.be/x3adUcILOvM
-
How do you know?
Were you in court?
Did you see Luke kill Jodi?
Why should I believe you rather than Sandra Lean?
He's been getting beaten at Cluedo for years.
-
The lies from that very first account given until the present day. From LM, and from those who spearhead this campaign. There is only one reason for this. Using both here to tally in with each other. That kindred spirit at the core in all of this. Are lies not the best thing to cover up lies in the first place? Or extraordinary explanation. This fallacy of reasoning to excuse all and everything?
We know LM had no alibi, that he was not home any later that 4.35pm. We know this as there is absolutely nothing to put him at home, and he was seen by AB at 4.55 approx:
Of being home - SM is excluded from this alibi in its entirety. The only brow beating done of SM was by his mother when this pressure was put onto him to lie? - That first realisation for Luke and his mother, that their simple tale of a relaxed dinner was not going to be taken at face value? That dawning of further proof. So they get SM on board, which of course only added to the tale, as being more of a farce. We know this as SM then gives an account of coming downstairs just after 5pm, of speaking to his mother, of the burnt pie. Of returning back up stairs. Coming down again around 10mins later, once dinner was ready. Taking it up to his room and eating it. It was a farce, complete made up story as CM had not gotten home until 5.15pm at the earliest.
So we have no alibi - why all the lies? Why did he need to make up this story?
Then we have AB. As with the intricate checking of the story above, of timings and so forth. These guesses and estimates, went over in fine detail. AB was taken on her journey, timings established. And her sighting was before 5pm. After the call to the speaking clock. This fallacy of reasoning across the board. Does not change what it was. That LM was not home. that LM was seen by AB. Then see again by F&W -
Nothing for approx 20mins - then three sightings in the space of around 15-20mins. Then nothing for a further 80mins plus.
Every part of his story, a fabrication of void holes shored over by highly questionable reasoning. The only truthful part. That of those 15mins approx on Newbattle R'd and his 90mins approx with the boys in the woods, getting high and dirty?
Of lying of his whereabouts from 9pm, of being home until around 10.30pm - no he was not. Of all of the search party walking some distance passed this V break - no they did not. It was a lie, in total contrast to the account given by those who were with him. The story of the dog was made up, we know this as the dog was not some 20 yards passed the V. It was at the V. You can not claim a dog reacted to something, at a specific spot - parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side, when all the dog was doing was scurrying about at the V. And of LM turning immediately to his left due to this. - poppycock. The dog was at the V, at the V it was impossible for LM to make claim that he walked to his left due to this. However, Ms Lean does give reason as to why he walked to the left - he was on his own in the woods, he may have wanted to head in the direction the search party were going, feeling safe? - even this doesn't explain it, as, JaJ saw him turn to his left. That they only continued to walk this path, after he had started to walk down, on the inside of this wall. It was only then that this couple had to do any backtracking.
He lied about knowledge of both the V and the woodland.
He lied about carrying knives and possession of cannabis.
He named both the tree and the bobble/scrunchy of sight and colour.
He lied about contact of any sort with KT.
Let's not forget here that complete lack of anything. These ridiculous claims of slight change in voice are proof of what exactly? - Reason as to why there was nothing the other 99.99999% of the time?
He described what Jodi was wearing that evening - right down to those DC shoes and of borrowed clothes?
There is of course much more.
These lies continue today - anything is required to add weight to, all of the lies told in their first instance?
Of CM - none of the boys from the Abbey gave evidence in court. - lies?
Of theories discussed with Sandra - lies as Sandra firmly denies any such conversation took place, but which one was lying?
That the search trio "had to walk directly passed YW's on their way to the path" - lies?
The V break is hard to see, unless you know what you are looking for - lies?
A witness saw the bike parked at the V - lies and manipulation around this. You can not see the V from where this witness was. - yet the V break is hard to see whilst on this path - lies?
'A mystery man was seen following Jodi onto the path' - lies?
SK, GD, JF and DD were on the path at the crucial time - lies? DD was in his house, he witnessed the boys arrival home at 5.30pm. SK's full name being typed out, is not a typo.
That the search party had to come from the top of Mayfield - lies? They came from just behind Scotts Caravans.
That JF said in his statement that the search party walked passed YW's on their way to the path - lies? This was quickly removed. I remarked of my surprise that Ms Lean would take the word of JF, the liar he is portrayed to be. She said she had a mystery witness to this also (sound familiar?) However, the search trio would have had to walk backwards to do so, not what the did do as they did walk directly to this path. - lies?
That there is clear evidence in phone records that showed that LM had phoned the speaking clock whilst in the house - lies? There is phone records of calls to the speaking clock - they only verify that he had used it, not that he was in the house.
This campaign is wrought with the same type of manipulation, misinformation and lies across the board is it not? When one can not disprove the damming evidence against LM, other means are required are they not?
After all. everything LM lied about, these further lies, the manipulation is excusable when we have a call that is not inclusive in the defence records - Of AW phoning her daughter. Intelligence?
There is so much wrong with all of that I genuinely don't have the time to respond. I will mention one thing. You seem to believe this "search party" were credible witnesses but there is as usual nothing to suggest they were. One basic fact explains a lot...........they walked right past the door of a house Jodi had been found in the last time she had failed to come home on time. They failed to phone around friends and relatives before going up a horrible dark creepy path in pitch darkness. I mean honestly, there is not one normal person on the planet who wouldn't have knocked on that door and phoned around before going up that path, WHY WOULD YOU GO STRAIGHT UP THAT PATH? Oh and one of this "search party" was a huge Manson fan and had all of his album collection but it wasn't Mitchell. Strange that eh?
-
Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.
Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him. But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.
We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.
I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.
I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.
I see that you didn't offer any explanation for any of the points below?
1. How did he manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path?
4. Why was it claimed ****** never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing......to say Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was AO never cited to Court when he was in the house when Jodi left?
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt? Sorry the transference borrowed T-shirt story doesn't count as it's too ridiculous for words.
12. Why did ****** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same?
You see this is the problem with the "Mitchell did it" brigade. They can't answer any of the above with credible explanations. I would like someone to try but I know they won't because they can't.
-
I think we have three choices, William!
We either believe Sandra Lean, or we believe those who, for some reason that I can't fathom, don't like Sandra Lean, or we read as much as we can and come to our own conclusions.
I do wish someone had written a book from the point of view of Luke being guilty, but nobody has. At least Sandra has researched the case for years, and I can't see any reason why she would lie, although she may well be mistaken about some things.
I would like answers to all your questions too.
-
I think we have three choices, William!
We either believe Sandra Lean, or we believe those who, for some reason that I can't fathom, don't like Sandra Lean, or we read as much as we can and come to our own conclusions.
It is all very personalised is it not? - Is it not two choices? Of the defence and the Crown? Of LM V HMA? That because someone may show around 5% of statements those who counteract this with the actual evidence do not need to cite every area of statements to show what Ms Lean claims to be false. An example of this is the search party?
You asked me if I had attended court, if I had seen Luke kill Jodi and why you should believe me?? over Ms Lean.
It is not me, is it? It is the Crowns case - one does not have to have attended court. One does not have to provide cites everywhere to disprove 5%, as this 5% is actually nothing on it's own. It is completely empty of context.
The search party - We know that the search party had not walked some distance passed this V break in the wall. From those very first statements, we know this, for if they had, and if they had said this, it would be shown from their statements. There is no long road required. LM stated clearly 'We had walked some distance passed a V in the wall, not even 20yrds when Mia alerted me' The search trio - 'when We got to a V in the wall' and 'the dogs head was level with the V' and 'the dog was pulling at the V' No one is disputing the mention of the dog and neither did the Crown - the dispute was where everyone was.
They go hand in hand, as LM had went over and he had turned immediately to his left. And he did not turn left due to the dog, as the dog had not been anywhere near to where Jodi lay, which was some 40ft down from the V on the inside of the wall. And even if the dog had been standing up directly to the left of this V as SK stated - it went a long way to explaining why LM, who claimed to know nothing of this woodland would turn immediately to his left. No deliberation, no trepidation. He did not go over the wall, shine his torch around to see for any pathways, to quite literally find his feet. He turned immediately to his left. To what was at the time - a very narrow access along the inside of the wall. He did not even stand around, shining his torch for a few seconds before making his way along it - he did all with complete ease, with complete familiarity. And there is absolutely nothing to disprove this. There was not the slightest bit apprehension - upon entering this dark woodland, torch or not - he did not shine his torch around. And he had absolutely no way of knowing what his dog may have been scurrying at the wall, at the V for - this is a woodland , a rabbit, fox - anything. LM knew exactly where he was going. The evidence is yet again in abundance to prove this - We know there was absolutely no time for LM's claims and we know with certainty that his actions upon entering this woodland were that of familiarity. He knew them intimately.
And we know they were questioned as to how they saw him turn immediately to his left - it was by torchlight. And because they were right there to see it.
And he did lie - he did claim never to have been in the woodland before that night, in those first statements, and when he was confronted by the initials on the tree he still lied. Then claiming to have only been in the top end of this woodland strip. And yet again the evidence is in abundance to show this to be false - those friends, of walking down to where this V is along this narrow passage.
And that time factor - You may find it completely believable, that is of course your choice. That this search party had been on this path less that 10mins - it takes approx 6-7 mins to get to the V by police timings at an even pace. Time pretty much correct. That initial discussion. 4 people looking in different areas but all walking down the way. LM did look into the woodland at the 'Gino' spot, why? The notion of the woods did not enter the search trio's minds, why would it? It was completely cut off from this path by this wall which was 8-10ft in places. The search trio met near to the junction of the paths. Near the top. Both saw the other approaching by torchlight. Why did LM, look into the woodland? Why did he lie about walking some 40-60ft passed this V break in the wall? Why was LM still on the path? Why was LM already set to search? That call to the police at 10.49pm and of speaking to Juj at 10.51pm his offer to search and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm
You find none of the above strange - as you choose to believe that the search party changed their mind? Ignore every piece of evidence against LM on the basis of Ms Lean stating that they all said it was the dog and changed their mind. When it is proven beyond reasonable doubt - that LM could not have found Jodi Jones, under the above circumstance, in that time frame without prior knowledge? When there is absolutely no proof in the first place that any of this search trio had stated they walked some distance passed this V at all, until those steps of 10ft or more after LM entered the woodland.
And none of the search party knew at first they were going to meet on this path, they did end up on the path as LM was on it. It happened and no amount of theories or otherwise can change this. No one put LM on the path, LM did put the search trio on the path. His hesitation it would seem thwarted the meet at Jodi's house. There was no opportunity to get something of Jodi's to scent with. And we know clearly and precisely why AW wanted to look thoroughly, she tells us why. "I thought Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself" What else did she say? One things for sure - she knew LM had, had no time to look thoroughly on his own.
-
It is all very personalised is it not? - Is it not two choices? Of the defence and the Crown? Of LM V HMA? That because someone may show around 5% of statements those who counteract this with the actual evidence do not need to cite every area of statements to show what Ms Lean claims to be false. An example of this is the search party?
You asked me if I had attended court, if I had seen Luke kill Jodi and why you should believe me?? over Ms Lean.
It is not me, is it? It is the Crowns case - one does not have to have attended court. One does not have to provide cites everywhere to disprove 5%, as this 5% is actually nothing on it's own. It is completely empty of context.
The search party - We know that the search party had not walked some distance passed this V break in the wall. From those very first statements, we know this, for if they had, and if they had said this, it would be shown from their statements. There is no long road required. LM stated clearly 'We had walked some distance passed a V in the wall, not even 20yrds when Mia alerted me' The search trio - 'when We got to a V in the wall' and 'the dogs head was level with the V' and 'the dog was pulling at the V' No one is disputing the mention of the dog and neither did the Crown - the dispute was where everyone was.
They go hand in hand, as LM had went over and he had turned immediately to his left. And he did not turn left due to the dog, as the dog had not been anywhere near to where Jodi lay, which was some 40ft down from the V on the inside of the wall. And even if the dog had been standing up directly to the left of this V as SK stated - it went a long way to explaining why LM, who claimed to know nothing of this woodland would turn immediately to his left. No deliberation, no trepidation. He did not go over the wall, shine his torch around to see for any pathways, to quite literally find his feet. He turned immediately to his left. To what was at the time - a very narrow access along the inside of the wall. He did not even stand around, shining his torch for a few seconds before making his way along it - he did all with complete ease, with complete familiarity. And there is absolutely nothing to disprove this. There was not the slightest bit apprehension - upon entering this dark woodland, torch or not - he did not shine his torch around. And he had absolutely no way of knowing what his dog may have been scurrying at the wall, at the V for - this is a woodland , a rabbit, fox - anything. LM knew exactly where he was going. The evidence is yet again in abundance to prove this - We know there was absolutely no time for LM's claims and we know with certainty that his actions upon entering this woodland were that of familiarity. He knew them intimately.
And we know they were questioned as to how they saw him turn immediately to his left - it was by torchlight. And because they were right there to see it.
And he did lie - he did claim never to have been in the woodland before that night, in those first statements, and when he was confronted by the initials on the tree he still lied. Then claiming to have only been in the top end of this woodland strip. And yet again the evidence is in abundance to show this to be false - those friends, of walking down to where this V is along this narrow passage.
And that time factor - You may find it completely believable, that is of course your choice. That this search party had been on this path less that 10mins - it takes approx 6-7 mins to get to the V by police timings at an even pace. Time pretty much correct. That initial discussion. 4 people looking in different areas but all walking down the way. LM did look into the woodland at the 'Gino' spot, why? The notion of the woods did not enter the search trio's minds, why would it? It was completely cut off from this path by this wall which was 8-10ft in places. The search trio met near to the junction of the paths. Near the top. Both saw the other approaching by torchlight. Why did LM, look into the woodland? Why did he lie about walking some 40-60ft passed this V break in the wall? Why was LM still on the path? Why was LM already set to search? That call to the police at 10.49pm and of speaking to Juj at 10.51pm his offer to search and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm
You find none of the above strange - as you choose to believe that the search party changed their mind? Ignore every piece of evidence against LM on the basis of Ms Lean stating that they all said it was the dog and changed their mind. When it is proven beyond reasonable doubt - that LM could not have found Jodi Jones, under the above circumstance, in that time frame without prior knowledge? When there is absolutely no proof in the first place that any of this search trio had stated they walked some distance passed this V at all, until those steps of 10ft or more after LM entered the woodland.
And none of the search party knew at first they were going to meet on this path, they did end up on the path as LM was on it. It happened and no amount of theories or otherwise can change this. No one put LM on the path, LM did put the search trio on the path. His hesitation it would seem thwarted the meet at Jodi's house. There was no opportunity to get something of Jodi's to scent with. And we know clearly and precisely why AW wanted to look thoroughly, she tells us why. "I thought Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself" What else did she say? One things for sure - she knew LM had, had no time to look thoroughly on his own.
And fearless 14 year old Luke Mitchell didn’t for example ask SK to accompany him over the wall either
-
And fearless 14 year old Luke Mitchel didn’t for example ask SK to accompany him over the wall either
Excellent point!
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12057.msg648845#msg648845)
Sandra Lean making claim to her followers on ‘statement analysis’ and saying ‘i’ll be honest’
She’s said she’s going to look into it but don’t think they’ll come up with anything useful
*&^^&
-
Excellent point!
Really? Did he know what was over the wall? What did he have to fear?
-
Please tell us what the motivation is for post mortem mutilation.
De-sexualisation because the killer was an enraged female.
-
Killer Luke Mitchell demands Satanic books in jail 18/04/14 JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463
Rather undercuts the notion that Mitchell had no interest in ritual or Satanism don't you think.
We don't tend to agree on much, but in this instance we do.... him requesting these books is rather concerning. Some of these books have sold over a million copies though. It's not as if only 1000 people have read them, but why he would want to read them does set some alarm bells off. Although as usual with this case, it's "circumstantial". Sandra Lean said he wanted to read them to find out what it was all about, because he had been accused of being interested in the subject of such books at the time of the murder. That explanation didn't exactly sound very convincing to be blunt.
-
We don't tend to agree on much, but in this instance we do.... him requesting these books is rather concerning. Some of these books have sold over a million copies though. It's not as if only 1000 people have read them, but why he would want to read them does set some alarm bells off. Although as usual with this case, it's "circumstantial". Sandra Lean said he wanted to read them to find out what it was all about, because he had been accused of being interested in the subject of such books at the time of the murder. That explanation didn't exactly sound very convincing.
One of two things I think- either sheer stupidity and arrogance bearing in mind that accusations of Satanism had featured at his trial which he was now confirming. Not well thought out at all.
Prosecutors revealed his school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242 - it actually was a genuine request to exercise his religious freedom and conscience. I'm not quite sure what to make of that one
Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.
____________________________________________________________________
Three of the requested texts are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the American founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.
In The Satanic Bible, he promotes human sacrifice and discusses the conditions in which someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice.
LaVey states: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”
____________________________________________________________________
One of the other titles, Satan Speaks!, has a foreword by goth rocker Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of Jodi. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
What Sandra Lean says is at variance with Mitchell's own words and actions and with at least one other criminologist who is not so close to the case and who has no personal axe to grind concerning Mitchell about whom she says...
Elizabeth Rudman, a criminologist with over 20 years’ experience, said:
“This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence.
I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point.
“My problem is that the rituals involved in these materials are really anti-social and they elicit deeds that are against the law, such as human sacrifice.
“This person was convicted for murder. My first question would be: what is he going to plan now?
“It is possible Mitchell has given up completely. On the other hand, it can also be an indication of guilt.
“He has been in prison for so long, his hope of getting an appeal has been completely quashed, so now he may be showing his true convictions.”
-
One of two things I think- either sheer stupidity and arrogance bearing in mind that accusations of Satanism had featured at his trial which he was now confirming. Not well thought out at all.
Prosecutors revealed his school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242 - it actually was a genuine request to exercise his religious freedom and conscience. I'm not quite sure what to make of that one
Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.
____________________________________________________________________
Three of the requested texts are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the American founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.
In The Satanic Bible, he promotes human sacrifice and discusses the conditions in which someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice.
LaVey states: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”
____________________________________________________________________
One of the other titles, Satan Speaks!, has a foreword by goth rocker Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of Jodi. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
What Sandra Lean says is at variance with Mitchell's own words and actions and with at least one other criminologist who is not so close to the case and who has no personal axe to grind concerning Mitchell about whom she says...
Elizabeth Rudman, a criminologist with over 20 years’ experience, said:
“This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence.
I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point.
“My problem is that the rituals involved in these materials are really anti-social and they elicit deeds that are against the law, such as human sacrifice.
“This person was convicted for murder. My first question would be: what is he going to plan now?
“It is possible Mitchell has given up completely. On the other hand, it can also be an indication of guilt.
“He has been in prison for so long, his hope of getting an appeal has been completely quashed, so now he may be showing his true convictions.”
Does anyone here actually know what the books mentioned above are about?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Satanic-Bible-Anton-LaVey/dp/0380015390/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3RQXQ1G68V41&dchild=1&keywords=the+satanic+bible&qid=1621644246&sprefix=The+sata%2Caps%2C174&sr=8-1
Amazon Review
One might expect The Satanic Bible at least to offer a few prancing demons or a virgin sacrifice, but if you're looking for a tour of the house of horrors, this is the wrong book. Far from a manual for conquering the realms of earth, air, fire and water, The Satanic Bible is Anton LaVey's manifesto of a new religion separate from the "traditional" Judeo-Christian definitions of Satanism. While LaVey rails against the deceit of the Christian church and white magicians, he busily weaves his own deceptions.
The Satanic Bible claims the heritage of a horde of evil deities--Bile', Dagon, Moloch, and Yao Tzin to name a few--but these ancient gods have no coherent connection between each other or to Satanism, except that all have been categorised by Christianity as "evil". Calling on these ancient names like a magician shouting, "Abracadabra", LaVey attempts to shatter the classical depiction of Satanism as a cult of black mass and child sacrifice. As the smoke clears, he leads us through a surprisingly logical argument in favour of a life focused on self-indulgence. The Satanic Bible is less bible and more philosophy (with a few rituals thrown in to keep us entertained), but this philosophy is the backbone of a religion that, until LaVey entered the scene, was merely a myth of the Christian church. It took LaVey, and The Satanic Bible, to turn this myth into a legitimate public religion.--Brian Patterson, Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Satan-Speaks-Anton-Szandor-Lavey/dp/0922915660/ref=sr_1_1?crid=26GDRXG4FFOIZ&dchild=1&keywords=satan+speaks&qid=1621645200&sprefix=Satan+speaks+%2Caps%2C182&sr=8-1
Amazon Review.
5.0 out of 5 stars The last book Dr LaVey wrote. A great read
Reviewed in the United States on 5 May 2019
Verified Purchase
I recommend starting with the devils notebook and finishing with satan speaks . It gives solid insight of what LaVey was all about and his genius way of looking at life . For non satanists and satanists alike . All around humorous , informative and mysterious .
Perhaps people need to research more and assume less.
-
De-sexualisation because the killer was an enraged female.
Really?
-
Does anyone here actually know what the books mentioned above are about?
Perhaps people need to research more and assume less.
Aye, this is absolutely fine, and nothing at all to be concerned about, even though WW of all people is concerned...
You can argue all you like that an interest in the occult can be purely academic, as the likes of Alastair Crowley et al might...
But LM's interest is highly suspect in the light of his conviction.
Do any of LM's defenders deny his interest in the occult/satanism, etc?
-
LM must have had rocks in his head if he thought demanding books on satanism on grounds of exercising his religious freedom was going to sit well with any forthcoming parole board.
-
LM must have had rocks in his head if he thought demanding books on satanism on grounds of exercising his religious freedom was going to sit well with any forthcoming parole board.
I think there is an argument to be made for Mitchell keeping a low profile with an eye to looking forward rather than back.
I wonder if he actually wants to get out.
I think the documentary so late in the day of his twenty years - which is a long time by any standards - stirring up old memories of his horrific crime has done little to recommend either him or his release into society.
Incidents such as the request for books promoting Satanism and human sacrifice also late in the day will have done nothing to promote his chance of parole either.
Apparently his supporters have done their best to explain this away by saying he just wanted to find out what it had all been about as far as his trial was concerned. Aye - Right!
-
Aye, this is absolutely fine, and nothing at all to be concerned about, even though WW of all people is concerned...
You can argue all you like that an interest in the occult can be purely academic, as the likes of Alastair Crowley et al might...
But LM's interest is highly suspect in the light of his conviction.
Do any of LM's defenders deny his interest in the occult/satanism, etc?
Firstly did Luke have any real interest in Satanism before the murder or was it simply a rebellious teenager’s F you to the adults around him? For example was there any satanic literature found in Luke’s home? Any research on the internet? Or was it simply a few stupid scribbled quotes and stories from a teenage boy who was desperate to be seen as edgy?
And no, LM’s interest is only suspect if you believe the nonsense printed in the newspapers and used by the prosecution at the time.
Remember this https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/orkney-child-sex-abuse-scandal-1099361.
Secondly was there any proven Satanic or ritualistic element to the murder?
So no, there is nothing suspect in Luke’s request for these widely read and totally innocuous books. Ill- advised maybe but certainly not suspect.
-
I was wondering how Luke got into Satanism in the first place. Did any of his friends have a similar interest?
I was interested to read (Wikipedia) that Anton Le Vey was a friend of Marilyn Manson.
-
I was wondering how Luke got into Satanism in the first place. Did any of his friends have a similar interest?
I was interested to read (Wikipedia) that Anton Le Vey was a friend of Marilyn Manson.
Do you think he was ever really into Satanism or was it just a form of teenage rebellion?
-
Do you think he was ever really into Satanism or was it just a form of teenage rebellion?
I guess a form of rebellion, probably against the Christian teaching he was getting at his Catholic school.
I very much doubt he was really a "goth" either: probably just liked the fashion and music connected with goth culture. Same with Jodi and their friends.
Just my opinion, though.
-
I guess a form of rebellion, probably against the Christian teaching he was getting at his Catholic school.
I very much doubt he was really a "goth" either: probably just liked the fashion and music connected with goth culture. Same with Jodi and their friends.
Just my opinion, though.
It is probably well against the ethos involved in Catholic education and I think the art work on his jotters might have been seen as putting two fingers up to moral standards.
I think probably of more concern was the content of his writings contained within his jotters.
-
Whether LM's interest in Satanism was teenage rebellion or something more, why is he demanding books on Satanism these days?
It suggests a genuine interest in the occult, and it also suggests that there's something up with LM's thought process.
LM's alleged interest in Satanism at the time of the trial was arguable, but it's now been confirmed.
Was cheating on Jodi with two other lasses, smoked copious amounts of weed, was actually involved in dealing weed at the age of 14, kept bottles of piss in his bedroom, wrote iffy notes in his notebooks, was handy with knives, carried knives regularly, carved questionable carvings on trees, and has now been proved to be into Satanism, which was alleged at the time of the trial.
Highly suspect.
If anyone is advising LM, they're not doing a great job.
Order satanic books - aye, that will help your case!
Deary me!
-
Whether LM's interest in Satanism was teenage rebellion or something more, why is he demanding books on Satanism these days?
It suggests a genuine interest in the occult, and it also suggests that there's something up with LM's thought process.
LM's alleged interest in Satanism at the time of the trial was arguable, but it's now been confirmed.
Was cheating on Jodi with two other lasses, smoked copious amounts of weed, was actually involved in dealing weed at the age of 14, kept bottles of piss in his bedroom, wrote iffy notes in his notebooks, was handy with knives, carried knives regularly, carved questionable carvings on trees, and has now been proved to be into Satanism, which was alleged at the time of the trial.
Highly suspect.
If anyone is advising LM, they're not doing a great job.
Order satanic books - aye, that will help your case!
Deary me!
It certainly confirms that the prosecution had followed the correct pointers to his thought patterns and interests.
-
Whether LM's interest in Satanism was teenage rebellion or something more, why is he demanding books on Satanism these days?
It suggests a genuine interest in the occult, and it also suggests that there's something up with LM's thought process.
LM's alleged interest in Satanism at the time of the trial was arguable, but it's now been confirmed.
Was cheating on Jodi with two other lasses, smoked copious amounts of weed, was actually involved in dealing weed at the age of 14, kept bottles of piss in his bedroom, wrote iffy notes in his notebooks, was handy with knives, carried knives regularly, carved questionable carvings on trees, and has now been proved to be into Satanism, which was alleged at the time of the trial.
Highly suspect.
If anyone is advising LM, they're not doing a great job.
Order satanic books - aye, that will help your case!
Deary me!
The story of Luke Mitchell ordering books on satanism was published after Sandra Lean abandoned his cause
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg540348#msg540348
&
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg173265#msg173265
April 2014
‘JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
July 2014
“Mrs Mitchell blames Dr Lean for the SCCRC appeal failing, which is completely wrong. Dr Lean has dedicated ten years of her life to the cause and has done a really good job.
“It’s appalling for her to be treated this way and it’s left the campaign in disarray.”
Sandra Lean appeared to me to have already abandoned Luke Mitchell’s cause prior the April 2014 news article - no longer believing Mitchell to be innocent
She indicated to me following Killer Simon Hall’s guilt she had wasted 10 years of her life - which ties in with comments made by the the July 2014 ‘source’
-
Do you think he was ever really into Satanism or was it just a form of teenage rebellion?
He wasn't a teenager when he claimed to be a Satanist in need of books for religious purposes.
-
Whether LM's interest in Satanism was teenage rebellion or something more, why is he demanding books on Satanism these days?
It suggests a genuine interest in the occult, and it also suggests that there's something up with LM's thought process.
LM's alleged interest in Satanism at the time of the trial was arguable, but it's now been confirmed.
Was cheating on Jodi with two other lasses, smoked copious amounts of weed, was actually involved in dealing weed at the age of 14, kept bottles of piss in his bedroom, wrote iffy notes in his notebooks, was handy with knives, carried knives regularly, carved questionable carvings on trees, and has now been proved to be into Satanism, which was alleged at the time of the trial.
Highly suspect.
If anyone is advising LM, they're not doing a great job.
Order satanic books - aye, that will help your case!
Deary me!
It makes me laugh how his supporters are able to find an excuse for all of these many sinister foibles of Mitchell's. Don't they ever get tired of defending the indefensible I wonder...?
-
Whether LM's interest in Satanism was teenage rebellion or something more, why is he demanding books on Satanism these days?
It suggests a genuine interest in the occult, and it also suggests that there's something up with LM's thought process.
LM's alleged interest in Satanism at the time of the trial was arguable, but it's now been confirmed.
Was cheating on Jodi with two other lasses, smoked copious amounts of weed, was actually involved in dealing weed at the age of 14, kept bottles of piss in his bedroom, wrote iffy notes in his notebooks, was handy with knives, carried knives regularly, carved questionable carvings on trees, and has now been proved to be into Satanism, which was alleged at the time of the trial.
Highly suspect.
If anyone is advising LM, they're not doing a great job.
Order satanic books - aye, that will help your case!
Deary me!
Waiting eleven years to request books on Satanism doesn’t sound as if Luke has a particularly keen interest in Satanism. Does it you?
-
The story of Luke Mitchell ordering books on satanism was published after Sandra Lean abandoned his cause
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg540348#msg540348
&
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg173265#msg173265
April 2014
‘JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
July 2014
“Mrs Mitchell blames Dr Lean for the SCCRC appeal failing, which is completely wrong. Dr Lean has dedicated ten years of her life to the cause and has done a really good job.
“It’s appalling for her to be treated this way and it’s left the campaign in disarray.”
Sandra Lean appeared to me to have already abandoned Luke Mitchell’s cause prior the April 2014 news article - no longer believing Mitchell to be innocent
She indicated to me following Killer Simon Hall’s guilt she had wasted 10 years of her life - which ties in with comments made by the the July 2014 ‘source’
When will people realise that this is all about Sandra Lean and promoting her wares. Problem is that she had consistently backed dead ducks so rightly attracts nothing but derision and criticism. Having Sandra Lean on your side is somewhat akin to being on the Titanic without a lifebelt.
-
When will people realise that this is all about Sandra Lean and promoting her wares.
‘When will people realise’ it’s all a con ?
-
November 2010
‘Incident’ between Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton - Middleton moved back to Shetland
⬇️
23rd November 2010
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383377.html?PHPSESSID=dvneetci1lddlqb21ie9g1l694#msg383377
8th Feb 2011
Sandra Leans youngest daughter
‘I have been keeping an eye on whats going on on forums, and my mum's facebook page. I would like to speak to you, person to person’
9th Feb 2011
Sandra Lean
‘Your partnership with John is as transparent as it is dangerous for you, but you will be unable to see that what I am saying is out of concern. I have worked very hard, for a very long time, to be able to do what I do, and I will not stand by and let you trash that.’
-
Waiting eleven years to request books on Satanism doesn’t sound as if Luke has a particularly keen interest in Satanism. Does it you?
If he wasn't particularly interested in Satanism why did he ask for books on the subject at all?
-
OK, so is this all made up by the media then?
"It may never be known if it was his obsession with Satanism which motivated him to murder Jodi, but her gruesome death bore the hallmarks of a ritual killing.
Mitchell's jotters from Dalkeith's St David's High School were daubed with Satanic slogans and he wrote a school essay with worrying references to the devil.
His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.
"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.
Several other jotters were shown which contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way", "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f*** off and stay out my mind" and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from late Nirvana singer Cobain.
The handwritten essay, questioning the existence of God, had been submitted in January 2003 in place of a short story, which had been requested.
The essay contained passages such as: "If you ask me, god is just a futile excuse at most for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with him.
"Are these people insane?"
It also read "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance" and "Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life".
It was also claimed he said he could imagine himself getting "stoned" and killing someone.
And the trial heard that Mitchell had been in possession of several knives, one of which he used for cutting up blocks of cannabis.
A knife pouch with the initials "[Name removed]" - apparently a reference to Jodi Jones - and the numerals "666" written on it was found in his bedroom".
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/troubled-mitchell-claimed-to-be-a-satanist-7172219.html
-
When will people realise that this is all about Sandra Lean and promoting her wares. Problem is that she had consistently backed dead ducks so rightly attracts nothing but derision and criticism. Having Sandra Lean on your side is somewhat akin to being on the Titanic without a lifebelt.
What ‘wares’ ?
-
OK, so is this all made up by the media then?
"It may never be known if it was his obsession with Satanism which motivated him to murder Jodi, but her gruesome death bore the hallmarks of a ritual killing.
Mitchell's jotters from Dalkeith's St David's High School were daubed with Satanic slogans and he wrote a school essay with worrying references to the devil.
His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.
"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.
Several other jotters were shown which contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way", "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f*** off and stay out my mind" and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from late Nirvana singer Cobain.
The handwritten essay, questioning the existence of God, had been submitted in January 2003 in place of a short story, which had been requested.
The essay contained passages such as: "If you ask me, god is just a futile excuse at most for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with him.
"Are these people insane?"
It also read "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance" and "Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life".
It was also claimed he said he could imagine himself getting "stoned" and killing someone.
And the trial heard that Mitchell had been in possession of several knives, one of which he used for cutting up blocks of cannabis.
A knife pouch with the initials "[Name removed]" - apparently a reference to Jodi Jones - and the numerals "666" written on it was found in his bedroom".
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/troubled-mitchell-claimed-to-be-a-satanist-7172219.html
I was incredulous when I wandered onto another forum and saw the actual amount of cannabis Mitchell used himself and distributed to others.
Information backed up by all the drug dealing paraphernalia and drugs the police found in his room.
This was no ordinary fourteen year old.
-
I was incredulous when I wandered onto another forum and saw the actual amount of cannabis Mitchell used himself and distributed to others.
Information backed up by all the drug dealing paraphernalia and drugs the police found in his room.
This was no ordinary fourteen year old.
What drug paraphernalia was found through out the rest of the Mitchell home?
-
Good to see that none of LM's supporters deny ha has an interest in Satanism.
Tiny bit of progress.
-
Tiny bit of progress.
Still a way to go ⬇️
SR: I posted something yesterday but seems to have been deleted.. Rafael Rowe is on board ✌️
PN: Just wondering who is this person ??
SR: he's now a famous reporter, but he was jailed for a murder he didn't commit originally
Raphael Rowe has yet to prove he was/is innocent
’M25 Three' gang free but not innocent, say judges
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/m25-three-gang-free-but-not-innocent-say-judges-1.293858
‘In resisting the appeals Mr Bevan has reminded the court of the strength of the prosecution case particularly as against Rowe. He suggests that it is essential to begin with an appreciation of the evidence which connects Rowe to the Napier and Spicer/Almond incidents. He points to the fact that property from both robberies had come into his possession by the early hours of 16 December. There is no explanation offered save for a fanciful suggestion that there had been a conspiracy between the police, the "Jobbins Group" and Kate Williamson. Whilst a ready motive might be found for the "Jobbins Group" on the assumption that they themselves were responsible for these crimes and Kate Williamson was said to have acted out of jealousy, there seems to have been little reason for the police to go against Rowe, Davis and Johnson rather than the easier target of Jobbins, Duncan and Griffin. Further, Mr Bevan asks rhetorically, how did it come about that Kate Williamson and the "Jobbins Group" were able to put their heads together when she and they were barely acquainted. And why, would a frightened 16-year-old girl make up such a story anyway. It is absurd to suggest that she would run the risk of offending Rowe and laying herself open to criminal charges if what she said was not the truth. Then she is supported by the scratch on the window and the finding of the brooch in Rowe's waste paper basket. Although Mr Bevan cannot and does not pray in aid any of the material researched by the Greater Manchester Police which might positively assist his case he does point to the fact that nothing has been turned up to support the conspiracy theory for which Rowe contends. He submits that if it is accepted that the fact that Rowe was involved in the second and third incidents is overwhelming then, given the general acceptance that the same trio was involved in all three, it must follow that Rowe was also involved in the Hurburgh/Eley incident. We interpose the comment that by the same reasoning if there is doubt that Rowe was involved in the first incident then there must be doubt about him having been involved in the second and third. However Mr Bevan continues; if Rowe was properly convicted the conspiracy theory falls apart. The three robbers were not Griffin, Jobbins and Duncan. That has implications for the other two appellants. Davis' case is closely intertwined with that of Rowe. There is the evidence of the "Jobbins Group", Joanne Cassar and the Amaryllis plant and the fingerprints on the porcelain figures. On his own admission Johnson was at 25 Laurie Park Road on the evening of the 15 December; he had a revolver in his possession; he was concerned to know how to start the Triumph Spitfire; he made admissions to Todd; he gave a false alibi; he did not give evidence.
In our view the case against all three appellants was formidable. The evidence against Rowe on counts 9, 10 and 11 was overwhelming. However we are bound to follow the approach set out earlier in this judgment, namely assuming the irregularities which we have identified had not occurred would a reasonable jury have been bound to return verdicts of guilty? In all conscience we cannot say that it would. At this distance we simply cannot assess the impact which the undisclosed material might have had on the case for and against Johnson. Nor can we be certain that the results of the juror's private investigations, whether or not communicated to the others, might have played a part in resolving the timing mystery in favour of the prosecution. Accordingly we cannot say that any of these convictions is safe. They must be quashed and the appeals allowed. Ten years on it is not appropriate to order a retrial. For the better understanding of those who have listened to this judgment and of those who may report it hereafter this is not a finding of innocence, far from it.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/109.html
-
I was thinking about David High’s evidence.
From the appeal judgement.
“he told David High that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear”
Could it have been that Luke was suffering the embarrassment of a 14 year old who had been stood up and didn’t want to admit it to his friend so made an excuse? I’ve read that he thought Jodi had ‘dumped’ him. Could this be why?
Another thing that puzzles me. We are told that Luke said that he was ‘ not even 20 yards’ beyond the v when the dog alerted, although it said in the appeal court judgement that other distances were suggested. As a young boy of 14 in 2003 would he immediately use yards as his measurement of choice or indeed understand it? The use of yards is especially peculiar as in the rest of his interviews he used feet to measure distances.
-
I was thinking about David High’s evidence.
From the appeal judgement.
“he told David High that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear”
Could it have been that Luke was suffering the embarrassment of a 14 year old who had been stood up and didn’t want to admit it to his friend so made an excuse? I’ve read that he thought Jodi had ‘dumped’ him. Could this be why?
No
He was telling different people different things
‘Detective Sergeant George Thomson told the court Luke Mitchell had told them that he thought Jodi had met somebody else and had gone off with them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm
-
No
He was telling different people different things
‘Detective Sergeant George Thomson told the court Luke Mitchell had told them that he thought Jodi had met somebody else and had gone off with them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm
Of course he was. He wouldn’t be embarrassed telling a police officer what he would be embarrassed telling a friend.
I also found this in the article.
“ But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."
So it wasn’t unknown for Jodi to let Luke down when they’d arranged to meet. Why did Jodi fail to keep their date and how did Luke react then?
-
Of course he was. He wouldn’t be embarrassed telling a police officer what he would be embarrassed telling a friend.
I also found this in the article.
“ But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."
So it wasn’t unknown for Jodi to let Luke down when they’d arranged to meet. Why did Jodi fail to keep their date and how did Luke react then?
‘only once before’
-
‘only once before’
Yes, only once therefore ‘it was not unknown.
Why did Jodi let Luke down?
-
Of course he was. He wouldn’t be embarrassed telling a police officer what he would be embarrassed telling a friend.
I also found this in the article.
“ But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."
So it wasn’t unknown for Jodi to let Luke down when they’d arranged to meet. Why did Jodi fail to keep their date and how did Luke react then?
‘only once before’
I suspect Luke Mitchell fantasised about committing murder before making his fantasy a reality
-
Yes, only once therefore ‘it was not unknown.
Why did Jodi let Luke down?
Where has it been stated ‘Jodi let Luke down’?
Alan Turnbull is quoted as saying ‘failed to keep an arrangement’
“ But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."
-
Rather than being embarrassed, LM would be more likely to boast about having another two birds on the go.
-
Rather than being embarrassed, LM would be more likely to boast about having another two birds on the go.
It seems he did
How many of his friends did he show the photo of KT to?
-
Rather than being embarrassed, LM would be more likely to boast about having another two birds on the go.
If Luke was as arrogant and cocksure as some believe then a girl standing him up would have been a severe knock to his ego. That’s definitely not something he’d have wanted his friends to know.
Any rumours in the locale why Jodi failed to turn up once ?
-
Any ‘rumours’ in the locale why Jodi failed to turn up once ?
?
-
If Luke was as arrogant and cocksure as some believe then a girl standing him up would have been a severe knock to his ego. That’s definitely not something he’d have wanted his friends to know.
Are you referring to Luke Mitchell’s rejection issues ?
-
Are you referring to Luke Mitchell’s rejection issues ?
I think any 14 year old boy will have ‘issues’ with rejection. I don’t think Luke will have been any different in that.
-
A lot easier to deal with any alleged rejection if you have another two birds on the go.
How sure are we that LM had just been dumped by Jodi?
Not very?
There are a few ways in which LM differed from your average 14 year old.
-
A lot easier to deal with any alleged rejection if you have another two birds on the go.
How sure are we that LM had just been dumped by Jodi?
Not very?
There are a few ways in which LM differed from your average 14 year old.
Birds? Is it the 1970’s?
It’s unlikely that Luke had been dumped by Jodi but he didn’t know that at the time. It was one reason for her not turning up.
You’re a local, aren’t you? Any intel on why Jodi failed to turn up once when she and Luke had arranged to meet?
-
A lot easier to deal with any alleged rejection if you have another two birds on the go.
How sure are we that LM had just been dumped by Jodi?
Not very?
There are a few ways in which LM differed from your average 14 year old.
That was another of his excuses apparently
-
There are a few ways in which LM differed from your average 14 year old.
I concur and he appears to have had many of the traits for sociopathy/psychopathy
He most certainly didn’t ‘love’ [Name removed]’s as he’s suggested he did
-
Birds? Is it the 1970’s?
It’s unlikely that Luke had been dumped by Jodi but he didn’t know that at the time. It was one reason for her not turning up.
[Name removed] didn’t turn up because Luke Mitchell had murdered her
-
You’re a local, aren’t you? Any intel on why Jodi failed to turn up once when she and Luke had arranged to meet?
How could anyone possibly know that?
-
How could anyone possibly know that?
This was a huge clue, posted earlier.
“But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."
-
This once that showed the exact opposite of habit? Thus why the AD was highlighting it. As with one other occasion where Jodi was somewhere she was not supposed to be and she was with LM.
Luke Mitchell had no alibi - he was not at home. His girlfriend left to meet with him shortly after exchanging texts. LM met with her at a local rendezvous. The meeting was witnessed by AB. Unless that was another female with LM then one can as the judge stated, take this female to have been Jodi Jones. He was not meeting with anyone else and neither was she. Jodi was therefore last seen with LM just shortly before 5pm. LM was seen on Newbattle R'd around 17.40pm. He was, as one would expect seen several times over a period of approx 20mins. From just prior to 6pm. When he put himself in full view. He was not seen again until he was in the company of DH until around 7.30pm He left the boys around 9pm. He did not arrive home until 10pm. He claimed to remain at home until the text came through from Jodi's mother at 10.42pm. He claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm and was only then on RDP by 10.59pm when he stated to Jodi's mother, this was where he was.
There was burning going on in the Mitchell garden. LM told one lie after the other in his attempt to explain what he had been doing from around 4.30pm until just short of 6pm and again from around 6.20pm until 7.30pm. And again from 9pm until in the company of Jodi's family around 11.20pm. For every lie he told, he only incriminated himself more.
There has been a fairy tale book written as a follow up to a short story - everything other than the truth of the death of Jodi Jones. The author has completely failed to do as one suggests, to crumble the evidence that led to LM's conviction. She uses completely irrelevant material to disperse doubt upon the honestly of crucial witnesses. Desperately attempts to shore over the gaping holes in every part of LM's evidence. To the point that she gives evidence for him rather than from him. As with one suggestion after the other. 'Perhaps he had popped into the Abbey to get stoned then popped back out to phone his mother,' thus reason as to why he may have missed Jodi walking down Newbattle Road. LM was not on Newbattle R'd and there is absolutely nothing that can be shown, to put him there. These ridiculous claims that no appeal was put out for him?
This author?? has used irrelevant, missing phone logs - to make claim to witnesses being dishonest. Of phoning friends, of the aunt and of communication between Judith and her mother - Everything is clear in those statements, precognitions done and every relevant part that Findlay deemed necessary used. Findlay did not let LM down, did he let Tobin? down also? - He was faced with an extremely difficult task. He could not show the Jury that the evidence was wrong - most of which came from LM himself. Findlay was wise not to put Luke on the stand, he only had a ball hair of chance as it was - He did not need to seal the deal completely.
The police did no fit LM up, they did not shoe horn evidence together.- there is no major conspiracy theory of aunts having friends in high places - everything is done on the basis to divert away from LM - from the liar he was,and the extraordinary story he told. Of these claims just recently yet again - That Jodi's aunts had arrived at the path too quickly? That they should have been at Judith's consoling her (SL) - rather than being at the path? How quick is quick for Ms Lean? Does she mean? Consoling a mother who did not even know at this point her daughter was dead - did she?
The speed in which LM was prepped and ready and out his door (claimed) like a shot. And on RDP just minutes after the call to the police. How quick does she have him up this path now, it is hard to keep track - one minute he is searching, then he is not - then he is at neck break speed to get up it - No he was not, and every single piece of evidence shows the complete opposite. This search trio where only heading out this complex at 11.18pm. Of this nonsense talk of being with their sister rather than their mother to console her? Dear oh dear - which part of being reported missing at 10.50 does not sink in? of the search party being in each others company less than 10mins before LM is shouting out? What part of 99% of those statements must she continue to ignore - on the basis that DF kept not the phone log of AW's call to her daughter. The friends including YW.
Where is their evidence around this? Of Judith trying desperately to phone them, of AW not wanting to speak with her daughter, to tell her she had just seen her daughter dead? Of Judith's sister having to break the news to her? - of Judith, AO and son rushing to RDP as soon as the sister told her - a body has been found! Where are this mothers screams when she arrived at this path? She was in hysterics.. Why is she not mentioning that Jodi's brother was in the company of the police? Quick to mention that when the officers attended they only noted one male in the room that she did not know who though? with that familiar "make of that what you will" shite. - that slippery method of trying to imply that he was not at home, that the family said he was but the policeman who attended did not say? Where is all this? Where is the time for everything she states this girls family should have been doing? Less than 50min from that text to a body being found -
When it is blatantly clear, it could not be any clearer - That in this family state of worry, their minds were fed with one thing only. That LM was on RDP. That he claimed Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. That AW makes it abundantly clear they were heading to Easthouses and heading to meet with him - as he was on this very path. And bang she is found dead - And that is why all of this irrelevant nonsense is pushed out - to divert away from LM. From the speed in which he was on this path, to still being on this path. And yet again this state of worry - fed with using his dog, wanting something of Jodi's to scent with - and the lies of not being in this woodland before, yet introduces this very woodland to this family - at the Gino spot.
Where is AW's account of the hairs standing up on the back of her neck, of that clear feeling of sensing evil beside her. when she turned round LM was standing directly behind her. - unbeknown until later that he was the evil she was sensing. - Once that fog had lifted.
Scrape scrape scrape - and of just recently telling her followers to be patient - to look at around 5-10yrs at least until? Until what exactly.? These people have read her book, they believe there is this amazing new evidence that will have LM out in no time - Unbeknown to most of them, that it is the exact same stuff that has been getting touted out for years. There is nothing in the slightest new - except more bad light being shed on others - to where one's attention needs to be - away from the Mitchells.
And the never ending slight on this Jury - this nonsense that LM was tried by media only, to them yes who tried him. They don't know a fraction of the evidence that warranted LM being prime suspect and why he could not be eliminated. They only believe the one who makes claim to having all of the evidence - tsk tsk. Trying each and every other person from it.- Truth and Justice? - not on your life it isn't. As stated - truth is everything, not claims to having everything when one clearly does not.
And one must be careful - for one can not continue to make claim to what the jury did not get to hear, without including each and every single thing in respect of LM, his brother and mother also.
SL "It is clear by what people are saying that they know far more than they are letting on" - definitely. The major missing parts have never been silent - Lies may spread faster, truth however does not change. And only lies need shoring over with more.
-
This once that showed the exact opposite of habit? Thus why the AD was highlighting it. As with one other occasion where Jodi was somewhere she was not supposed to be and she was with LM.
Maybe not habitual but definitely not unheard of and if Jodi had failed to turn up for one arrangement they’d made before there’s no reason for Luke not to believe it had happened again.
The rest will have to wait until morning.
Luke Mitchell had no alibi - he was not at home. His girlfriend left to meet with him shortly after exchanging texts. LM met with her at a local rendezvous. The meeting was witnessed by AB. Unless that was another female with LM then one can as the judge stated, take this female to have been Jodi Jones. He was not meeting with anyone else and neither was she. Jodi was therefore last seen with LM just shortly before 5pm. LM was seen on Newbattle R'd around 17.40pm. He was, as one would expect seen several times over a period of approx 20mins. From just prior to 6pm. When he put himself in full view. He was not seen again until he was in the company of DH until around 7.30pm He left the boys around 9pm. He did not arrive home until 10pm. He claimed to remain at home until the text came through from Jodi's mother at 10.42pm. He claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm and was only then on RDP by 10.59pm when he stated to Jodi's mother, this was where he was.
There was burning going on in the Mitchell garden. LM told one lie after the other in his attempt to explain what he had been doing from around 4.30pm until just short of 6pm and again from around 6.20pm until 7.30pm. And again from 9pm until in the company of Jodi's family around 11.20pm. For every lie he told, he only incriminated himself more.
There has been a fairy tale book written as a follow up to a short story - everything other than the truth of the death of Jodi Jones. The author has completely failed to do as one suggests, to crumble the evidence that led to LM's conviction. She uses completely irrelevant material to disperse doubt upon the honestly of crucial witnesses. Desperately attempts to shore over the gaping holes in every part of LM's evidence. To the point that she gives evidence for him rather than from him. As with one suggestion after the other. 'Perhaps he had popped into the Abbey to get stoned then popped back out to phone his mother,' thus reason as to why he may have missed Jodi walking down Newbattle Road. LM was not on Newbattle R'd and there is absolutely nothing that can be shown, to put him there. These ridiculous claims that no appeal was put out for him?
This author?? has used irrelevant, missing phone logs - to make claim to witnesses being dishonest. Of phoning friends, of the aunt and of communication between Judith and her mother - Everything is clear in those statements, precognitions done and every relevant part that Findlay deemed necessary used. Findlay did not let LM down, did he let Tobin? down also? - He was faced with an extremely difficult task. He could not show the Jury that the evidence was wrong - most of which came from LM himself. Findlay was wise not to put Luke on the stand, he only had a ball hair of chance as it was - He did not need to seal the deal completely.
The police did no fit LM up, they did not shoe horn evidence together.- there is no major conspiracy theory of aunts having friends in high places - everything is done on the basis to divert away from LM - from the liar he was,and the extraordinary story he told. Of these claims just recently yet again - That Jodi's aunts had arrived at the path too quickly? That they should have been at Judith's consoling her (SL) - rather than being at the path? How quick is quick for Ms Lean? Does she mean? Consoling a mother who did not even know at this point her daughter was dead - did she?
The speed in which LM was prepped and ready and out his door (claimed) like a shot. And on RDP just minutes after the call to the police. How quick does she have him up this path now, it is hard to keep track - one minute he is searching, then he is not - then he is at neck break speed to get up it - No he was not, and every single piece of evidence shows the complete opposite. This search trio where only heading out this complex at 11.18pm. Of this nonsense talk of being with their sister rather than their mother to console her? Dear oh dear - which part of being reported missing at 10.50 does not sink in? of the search party being in each others company less than 10mins before LM is shouting out? What part of 99% of those statements must she continue to ignore - on the basis that DF kept not the phone log of AW's call to her daughter. The friends including YW.
Where is their evidence around this? Of Judith trying desperately to phone them, of AW not wanting to speak with her daughter, to tell her she had just seen her daughter dead? Of Judith's sister having to break the news to her? - of Judith, AO and son rushing to RDP as soon as the sister told her - a body has been found! Where are this mothers screams when she arrived at this path? She was in hysterics.. Why is she not mentioning that Jodi's brother was in the company of the police? Quick to mention that when the officers attended they only noted one male in the room that she did not know who though? with that familiar "make of that what you will" shite. - that slippery method of trying to imply that he was not at home, that the family said he was but the policeman who attended did not say? Where is all this? Where is the time for everything she states this girls family should have been doing? Less than 50min from that text to a body being found -
When it is blatantly clear, it could not be any clearer - That in this family state of worry, their minds were fed with one thing only. That LM was on RDP. That he claimed Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. That AW makes it abundantly clear they were heading to Easthouses and heading to meet with him - as he was on this very path. And bang she is found dead - And that is why all of this irrelevant nonsense is pushed out - to divert away from LM. From the speed in which he was on this path, to still being on this path. And yet again this state of worry - fed with using his dog, wanting something of Jodi's to scent with - and the lies of not being in this woodland before, yet introduces this very woodland to this family - at the Gino spot.
Where is AW's account of the hairs standing up on the back of her neck, of that clear feeling of sensing evil beside her. when she turned round LM was standing directly behind her. - unbeknown until later that he was the evil she was sensing. - Once that fog had lifted.
Scrape scrape scrape - and of just recently telling her followers to be patient - to look at around 5-10yrs at least until? Until what exactly.? These people have read her book, they believe there is this amazing new evidence that will have LM out in no time - Unbeknown to most of them, that it is the exact same stuff that has been getting touted out for years. There is nothing in the slightest new - except more bad light being shed on others - to where one's attention needs to be - away from the Mitchells.
And the never ending slight on this Jury - this nonsense that LM was tried by media only, to them yes who tried him. They don't know a fraction of the evidence that warranted LM being prime suspect and why he could not be eliminated. They only believe the one who makes claim to having all of the evidence - tsk tsk. Trying each and every other person from it.- Truth and Justice? - not on your life it isn't. As stated - truth is everything, not claims to having everything when one clearly does not.
And one must be careful - for one can not continue to make claim to what the jury did not get to hear, without including each and every single thing in respect of LM, his brother and mother also.
SL "It is clear by what people are saying that they know far more than they are letting on" - definitely. The major missing parts have never been silent - Lies may spread faster, truth however does not change. And only lies need shoring over with more.
-
This was a huge clue, posted earlier.
“But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."
So what?
If you think you know the answer, just post it.
If you don't know the answer, ask Dr Lean.
-
The V in the wall - why do they refer to it as 'the Gino spot'?
-
The V in the wall - why do they refer to it as 'the Gino spot'?
Two separate spots PA. Prior to the V. The V was when LM went into the woodland. After claiming his dog had reacted some 40ft passed it. The Gino spot is where there is Graffiti on the wall. Whilst the V is closer to the Newbattle end of the path the Gino is closer to the Easthouses end. He climbed the wall here first and shone his torch around the woodland. No claimed reaction from his dog - he just took the notion to do so, thus introducing the woodland as a possible place Jodi would be. Then when they came to the V he actually entered the woodland.
So twice with the woodland, first the Gino spot then the V break in the wall where it was easier to gain access. LM with the search party, had definitely not walked some distance passed this V break. I believe the path is really sheltered here with the wall and trees on one side and trees on the field side. Thus the distinct differences in the account they gave. SK, JaJ and AW could not have given reference at all, to what LM and the dog were doing at this V if they had been some 40ft down from it. They were beside them and it was at the V. Which they stated in that first account given. When clarification was sought - LM drew a diagram where X marked the spot, exactly parallel to where Jodi lay, whilst the search trio then clarified it was LM leading his dog to the V and not the dog leading him.
-
Two separate spots PA. Prior to the V. The V was when LM went into the woodland. After claiming his dog had reacted some 40ft passed it. The Gino spot is where there is Graffiti on the wall. Whilst the V is closer to the Newbattle end of the path the Gino is closer to the Easthouses end. He climbed the wall here first and shone his torch around the woodland. No claimed reaction from his dog - he just took the notion to do so, thus introducing the woodland as a possible place Jodi would be. Then when they came to the V he actually entered the woodland.
So twice with the woodland, first the Gino spot then the V break in the wall where it was easier to gain access. LM with the search party, had definitely not walked some distance passed this V break. I believe the path is really sheltered here with the wall and trees on one side and trees on the field side. Thus the distinct differences in the account they gave. SK, JaJ and AW could not have given reference at all, to what LM and the dog were doing at this V if they had been some 40ft down from it. They were beside them and it was at the V. Which they stated in that first account given. When clarification was sought - LM drew a diagram where X marked the spot, exactly parallel to where Jodi lay, whilst the search trio then clarified it was LM leading his dog to the V and not the dog leading him.
You really do like flogging a dead horse...even when it goes against the evidence from the main protagonists. 20 yards ( or other estimates were given ) ?’ ‘Yards’ from a young boy who had constantly used feet in all his interviews to describe distances. 20 yards or 20 feet....a small mistake in the interview record but a very big difference.
Clarified? What wasn’t clear about their first statements? They exactly matched what Luke was telling police miles away. How was that possible if their recollections were wrong? Of the dog reacting and pulling Luke to the wall? How could three people remember the same thing in their first statements then two ‘unremember’ those very vivid recollections by the trial. Does any rational person really think that’s possible?
-
Two separate spots PA. Prior to the V. The V was when LM went into the woodland. After claiming his dog had reacted some 40ft passed it. The Gino spot is where there is Graffiti on the wall. Whilst the V is closer to the Newbattle end of the path the Gino is closer to the Easthouses end. He climbed the wall here first and shone his torch around the woodland. No claimed reaction from his dog - he just took the notion to do so, thus introducing the woodland as a possible place Jodi would be. Then when they came to the V he actually entered the woodland.
Cheers.
I'm sure I read the other day that LM claims he'd never noticed the V before.
When walking that path, which is a fairly long walk, especially if walking uphill towards Easthouses, I tend to look for landmarks so as to gauge how far I have to walk - the V is one of those landmarks - when I were a lad, me and my mates would often climb up and peer through the V - we'd sometimes even climb over.
What I'm saying is that it's hard to believe someone who regularly walked that path wouldn't have noticed the V before.
And he's already been checking in the woodland at the Gino spot, but he only checks the V because the dog has reacted there?
-
Cheers.
I'm sure I read the other day that LM claims he'd never noticed the V before.
When walking that path, which is a fairly long walk, especially if walking uphill towards Easthouses, I tend to look for landmarks so as to gauge how far I have to walk - the V is one of those landmarks - when I were a lad, me and my mates would often climb up and peer through the V - we'd sometimes even climb over.
What I'm saying is that it's hard to believe someone who regularly walked that path wouldn't have noticed the V before.
And he's already been checking in the woodland at the Gino spot, but he only checks the V because the dog has reacted there?
Hadn’t you noticed the Gino spot before?
-
Hadn’t you noticed the Gino spot before?
Maybe - I'll check next time I walk the path.
I/we certainly never called it the Gino spot or whatever, but we belonged to different social groups and eras.
Why would they even have a name for that spot? Was it a place to meet? i.e. - 'Meet you at the Gino spot'?
-
Maybe - I'll check next time I walk the path.
I/we certainly never called it the Gino spot or whatever, but we belonged to different social groups and eras.
Why would they even have a name for that spot? Was it a place to meet? i.e. - 'Meet you at the Gino spot'?
No idea but it does prove that you can walk Roan’s Dyke path again and again and still fail to notice parts of the wall.
-
No idea but it does prove that you can walk Roan’s Dyke path again and again and still fail to notice parts of the wall.
No it doesn't.
If you're asking if I've seen graffiti on the wall, I've seen graffiti on the wall - we just never thought to give a name to a part of a wall with graffiti on it. Why would you? Unless it was a place to meet.
-
You really do like flogging a dead horse...even when it goes against the evidence from the main protagonists. 20 yards ( or other estimates were given ) ?’ ‘Yards’ from a young boy who had constantly used feet in all his interviews to describe distances. 20 yards or 20 feet....a small mistake in the interview record but a very big difference.
Clarified? What wasn’t clear about their first statements? They exactly matched what Luke was telling police miles away. How was that possible if their recollections were wrong? Of the dog reacting and pulling Luke to the wall? How could three people remember the same thing in their first statements then two ‘unremember’ those very vivid recollections by the trial. Does any rational person really think that’s possible?
No, I don't think it's possible. Nor do I think trauma and shock would, somehow make all three witnesses invent the behaviour of a dog. My only problem with this is, who has actually seen the statements?
-
No, I don't think it's possible. Nor do I think trauma and shock would, somehow make all three witnesses invent the behaviour of a dog. My only problem with this is, who has actually seen the statements?
The BBC certainly have as they quoted from them on the Frontline Scotland programme on the case.
-
The BBC certainly have as they quoted them on the Frontline Scotland programme on the case.
Thanks, Faithlilly. I haven't seen the Frontline programme.
-
Thanks, Faithlilly. I haven't seen the Frontline programme.
It’s very interesting.
Here’s the link.
https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0
-
No, I don't think it's possible. Nor do I think trauma and shock would, somehow make all three witnesses invent the behaviour of a dog. My only problem with this is, who has actually seen the statements?
The ‘behaviour of the dog’ was invented by Luke Mitchell
‘Shock and trauma’ most probably played a part in LM’s manipulation of the unsuspecting 3 witnesses
-
The ‘behaviour of the dog’ was invented by Luke Mitchell
‘Shock and trauma’ most probably played a part in LM’s manipulation of the unsuspecting 3 witnesses
What is your evidence for these assumptions?
-
What is your evidence for these assumptions?
A verdict of guilty is a good indicator
-
A verdict of guilty is a good indicator
Every miscarriage of justice begins with a guilty verdict.
-
A verdict of guilty is a good indicator
Not necessarily.
-
Every miscarriage of justice begins with a guilty verdict.
Luke Mitchell’s campaign is one of innocence fraud
There hasn’t been a miscarriage of justice
-
Luke Mitchell’s campaign is one of innocence fraud
There hasn’t been a miscarriage of justice
That’s a matter of opinion.
-
What is your evidence for these assumptions?
The testimony of the search trio are witness to this. Of that very manipulation. Of being led on to this path by him. Of asking for something for his dog to scent with. Of introducing the woodland at the Gino spot. Of the turmoil in thought upon minutes later being faced with Jodi being dead. - Of the shock, of trying to relate what had happened. Of coming to this V, of a dog up at a wall here and so forth - they were not using words the same at LM, of being led to Jodi, of his dog alerting to Jodi. One minute they are at this V and in seconds he is shouting out he has found something - bang. And we can see once that fog lifted a little, when that serious of events were clarified. That there was absolutely nothing that showed that it was LM's dog who led him to this V - it was him. And we know that he only clarified his lies more - of being 40ft down passed this V break. So yes, there is every evidence of manipulation - from that very moment, LM lied, when he said Jodi had failed to meet with him - in Newbattle. Of offering to search and be on the very path, next to where he had murdered her. - clear manipulation.
-
Luke Mitchell’s campaign is one of innocence fraud
There hasn’t been a miscarriage of justice
How can you be so sure?
-
How can you be so sure?
There are numerous reasons
Sandra Leans malicious tactics are a big give away
-
⬇️ *&^^&
MR: ‘I know we are all doing our best with letters and e-mails etc to try for an independent enquiry, has anyone actually put forward complaints against the serving force that dealt with the case? ie...Cheif executive of Police Scotland?
MR: ‘Just write to your local MP, or Nicola Sturgeon stating all your concerns about the way the case was so badly handled by Lothian and Borders police (now police Scotland), the detectives, the pathologist, the jurors, the judge, Donald Findlay, state everything you can think about, how the whole search party were not taken away, just Luke, how Mia acted at the V point which alerted Luke to the V, how the other 3 members changed statements, clothes not taken, didn’t know where they were when the moped was leaning against the wall, how the moped was crushed the next day. No DNA of Luke’s, the way the officers interviewed a 14yr old boy under section 14, they way they questioned him about sexual activity, when they said Jodi wasn’t sexually assaulted, the way he was tried by media, the way he was main suspect from day one but evidence of DNA on the deceased body of 5 other people. There is actually loads you could right, it takes time to write all the wrong doings down, but just think, it might just be enough to make them think, moving the body onto a plastic sheet, no tent erected to save evidence, the scene being bleached before the sniffer dogs were taken up from England, but only the Easthouse side of the scene so that the dogs would go in the Newbattle direction. Loads to write about in your letter, that’s just a few pointers for you to start with.. NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO CONVICT LUKE..hope this helps.X
-
3rd September 2003
JAMES MATTHEWS: This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE: No, not that we know of.
Interesting. Who was this supposed female relative of the suspect burning clothes??
-
3rd September 2003
JAMES MATTHEWS: This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE: No, not that we know of.
Interesting. Who was this supposed female relative of the suspect burning clothes??
His mother Corinne
Luke Mitchell: ‘They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes’
‘They’ could mean the police - who wouldn’t have stated anything and certainly not to the Mitchell’s
These are the words of a killer attempting to divert attention away from himself and place blame elsewhere
-
His mother Corinne
Luke Mitchell: ‘They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes’
‘They’ could mean the police - who wouldn’t have stated anything and certainly not to the Mitchell’s
These are the words of a killer attempting to divert attention away from himself and place blame elsewhere
Or he could have meant the press in relation to himself ( suspect) and Corrine ( female relative ).
‘They just said’ meaning the press were making things up.
-
Or he could have meant the press in relation to himself ( suspect) and Corrine ( female relative ).
‘They just said’ meaning the press were making things up.
On what date did Luke Mitchell tell police his mother and brother were having a fire in the garden?
And who else did he tell?
-
How could this poor child ever have got a fair trial? This is from September 2003 before a single charge had been laid.
‘ It's midday, but the blue
curtains in the home of
Luke Mitchell are closed. The 15-year-old hasn't been to his school, St David's RC High School in Dalkeith, Midlothian, for nearly four days. He was suspended by his head teacher on Monday.
Yesterday, though, nobody was at school. The streets are empty and the stream in Newbattle, where children and teenagers usually gather to catch fish and splash about, is deserted.
''It's like a shadow is hanging over everything,'' says Colin Cassidy, who runs a tool-hire business in Newbattle, near Luke's home. Cassidy's
15-year-old son also attends St David's. It is a school struggling to get on with business as usual after the murder of Jodi in June. There can be no closure for the community, Cassidy says, until her murder is solved.
The news that Luke was returning to school last Friday added to the uneasiness among parents. Although he has only been questioned, not charged, by police in connection with his girlfriend's murder, the local gossip machine has been in overdrive, and was quickened by the boy's appearance on Sky TV on the day of Jodi's funeral. After the interview, one tabloid hired a psychologist who claimed he showed no real sign of grief and may even have rehearsed what he was going to say in public.
''After that amount of police interest in him, which parent wouldn't be worried?'' says Cassidy. ''He had attracted so much attention, you can understand why the school was watching its own back and why the head teacher would choose to isolate Luke. The police have not made any arrests, so, of course, emotions are still running high.''
But not only is the community still feeling raw, it is starved of answers. Cassidy speaks of a town that is theorising incessantly. The many whispers might, or might not, have led to an incident involving Luke and other pupils at St David's. All the same, they decided to keep him apart from other pupils. But did the school make the right decision? Has it correctly balanced Luke's interests and those of other pupils? And, ultimately, has Luke been unduly robbed of his right to an education?
Whether it is legitimate or not, several parents of pupils at St David's admit privately to having been concerned about Luke's return to school. One parent claims he saw the teenager turning up to school with his mother on his first day, smoking, wearing a bandana, and out of uniform. He says: ''I was upset that he had shown up like that so I complained to the deputy head. She told me that several other parents had already got in there before me.''
Cassidy warned his own son not to get into trouble with teachers over his treatment of Luke. ''I'd heard from other people that other pupils were taking it into their own hands, following him around, giving him a hard time.''
Luke's solicitor, Nigel Beaumont, does not understand why, on Monday, Luke was sent to the deputy head's study to have his lessons in isolation. He strongly disputes that there was unrest among parents over Luke's presence, or that there had been any aggression towards him on the previous Friday.
''There was no threat to internal order of the school. He had not been attacked or bothered. That's all urban myth. There had been no threats, nothing. When Luke told his mother, both their patience ran out. Luke felt he had been deceived,'' he says. Within hours of arriving at school on Monday, Luke had been suspended. Midlothian Council said it had become clear he was not prepared to accept the authority of the school.
It wasn't the first time Luke had had a disagreement with Marion Docherty, the school's head teacher, whom Beaumont claims has not been helpful. ''He had a difficult
relationship with Ms Docherty before Jodi's murder, and they had disagreed several times over uniform and behaviour,'' says Beaumont.
The community is not entirely unsympathetic to Luke. Luke's father left the family some time ago, leaving his mother, Corrine, to run a business to provide for Luke and his brother, Shane. ''People have said how scandalous it is that he went to Jodi's grave with a cigarette,'' says a mother who did not wish to be named and whose son used to socialise with Luke at The Mission, a club night.
She adds: ''It's ridiculous and hypocritical. So he smokes: so do lots of people. People are so quick to condemn a boy who has not even been charged with anything. If he is
innocent, he's gone through a traumatic time. If he's guilty, he's going through a terrible time, too. He's
just a child. It makes me uneasy that so many people are focusing on
this one young boy, when there is a murderer, who could be anyone, on the loose.''
Nor are all parents against Luke's return to school. Jean Watson, whose son is also at St David's although not in the same year, says that the worry of parents is probably greater among those whose children are in the
same year. ''If I had a daughter, it might be different. But my son's path never crosses Luke's. He could go
to school, come back, and never
see him, and it's not like my son is looking round the corner for him all the time.''
On the day after his suspension, Luke's mother made an official request for a school transfer. This has worried some parents of pupils at Dalkeith High and Newbattle High, such as Cassidy, whose daughter attends the latter. Like Watson, he is only worried for his daughter. He says: ''I'm not worried about my son being in the same school as Luke. If my daughter was, I would be.''
The head teacher of Newbattle has the right to refuse Luke a place in the school, which is visible from Jodi's parents' home, if it is believed it would be detrimental to the delivery of education for all. Luke has since refused the offer of home tuition. ''He wants to go to school,'' says Beaumont. ''He has the right to an education, and he should have had access to normal schooling.''
While Luke's rights to education are undisputed, and even backed by the Education Act of 2000, it is not an absolute right, says Judith Gillespie, development manager of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council.
''Everyone has the right to an education, that's the start and stop of it. But nobody has rights that can override the rights of others,'' she says. ''There is also more than one way of providing the education that someone has a right to. If the pupil does not want to comply with the way the school is going about providing education, they have a right to exclude that person.''
In other words, the school chose what they thought was the best way to educate Luke, given the concerns of parents, heightened emotions, and the fact that Luke had already been so widely identified.
Gillespie suggests that, in a situation as intense and sensitive as that at St David's, there is often no clear path for head teachers. ''They have to manage the needs of all groups. It is not a case of bending to what parents want, but doing what benefits everyone. People can't stop feeling how they feel, whether they have reason to or not.''
Somehow, in the haze of gossip and fact, concern and panic, Marion Docherty had to make a decision that would promote the safety, comfort, and rights of all. All this, while the community she serves looks over its shoulder for an unknown killer. Mike Doig, president of Headteachers' Association Scotland, says Ms Docherty had to do the best she could in exceptional circumstances. ''It can be the hardest thing for a headteacher to balance one youngster's needs with those of the other 29 in the class and the teacher,'' he says.
''When a pupil is lost, the whole school is affected. It makes this situation all the more difficult that time lapsed between the murder and funeral, and that there is still a culprit out there. Unfortunately, there is no script for a head teacher.''
There are as few clear solutions for Ms Docherty as there are certainties for Luke, whose school life shows no signs of normalising. As his peers troop past his window to school next week, he may well decide to keep his curtains shut, and the whispers out.’
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12532615.isolated-vilified-and-left-with-nowhere-to-go-luke-mitchell-the-15-year-old-boyfriend-of-jodi-jones-is-suspended-from-school-amid-a-whispering-campaign-over-her-murder-abigail-wild-assesses-the-mood-in-his-midlothian-community/
-
How could this poor child ever have got a fair trial? This is from September 2003 before a single charge had been laid.
‘ It's midday, but the blue
curtains in the home of
Luke Mitchell are closed. The 15-year-old hasn't been to his school, St David's RC High School in Dalkeith, Midlothian, for nearly four days. He was suspended by his head teacher on Monday.
Yesterday, though, nobody was at school. The streets are empty and the stream in Newbattle, where children and teenagers usually gather to catch fish and splash about, is deserted.
''It's like a shadow is hanging over everything,'' says Colin Cassidy, who runs a tool-hire business in Newbattle, near Luke's home. Cassidy's
15-year-old son also attends St David's. It is a school struggling to get on with business as usual after the murder of Jodi in June. There can be no closure for the community, Cassidy says, until her murder is solved.
The news that Luke was returning to school last Friday added to the uneasiness among parents. Although he has only been questioned, not charged, by police in connection with his girlfriend's murder, the local gossip machine has been in overdrive, and was quickened by the boy's appearance on Sky TV on the day of Jodi's funeral. After the interview, one tabloid hired a psychologist who claimed he showed no real sign of grief and may even have rehearsed what he was going to say in public.
''After that amount of police interest in him, which parent wouldn't be worried?'' says Cassidy. ''He had attracted so much attention, you can understand why the school was watching its own back and why the head teacher would choose to isolate Luke. The police have not made any arrests, so, of course, emotions are still running high.''
But not only is the community still feeling raw, it is starved of answers. Cassidy speaks of a town that is theorising incessantly. The many whispers might, or might not, have led to an incident involving Luke and other pupils at St David's. All the same, they decided to keep him apart from other pupils. But did the school make the right decision? Has it correctly balanced Luke's interests and those of other pupils? And, ultimately, has Luke been unduly robbed of his right to an education?
Whether it is legitimate or not, several parents of pupils at St David's admit privately to having been concerned about Luke's return to school. One parent claims he saw the teenager turning up to school with his mother on his first day, smoking, wearing a bandana, and out of uniform. He says: ''I was upset that he had shown up like that so I complained to the deputy head. She told me that several other parents had already got in there before me.''
Cassidy warned his own son not to get into trouble with teachers over his treatment of Luke. ''I'd heard from other people that other pupils were taking it into their own hands, following him around, giving him a hard time.''
Luke's solicitor, Nigel Beaumont, does not understand why, on Monday, Luke was sent to the deputy head's study to have his lessons in isolation. He strongly disputes that there was unrest among parents over Luke's presence, or that there had been any aggression towards him on the previous Friday.
''There was no threat to internal order of the school. He had not been attacked or bothered. That's all urban myth. There had been no threats, nothing. When Luke told his mother, both their patience ran out. Luke felt he had been deceived,'' he says. Within hours of arriving at school on Monday, Luke had been suspended. Midlothian Council said it had become clear he was not prepared to accept the authority of the school.
It wasn't the first time Luke had had a disagreement with Marion Docherty, the school's head teacher, whom Beaumont claims has not been helpful. ''He had a difficult
relationship with Ms Docherty before Jodi's murder, and they had disagreed several times over uniform and behaviour,'' says Beaumont.
The community is not entirely unsympathetic to Luke. Luke's father left the family some time ago, leaving his mother, Corrine, to run a business to provide for Luke and his brother, Shane. ''People have said how scandalous it is that he went to Jodi's grave with a cigarette,'' says a mother who did not wish to be named and whose son used to socialise with Luke at The Mission, a club night.
She adds: ''It's ridiculous and hypocritical. So he smokes: so do lots of people. People are so quick to condemn a boy who has not even been charged with anything. If he is
innocent, he's gone through a traumatic time. If he's guilty, he's going through a terrible time, too. He's
just a child. It makes me uneasy that so many people are focusing on
this one young boy, when there is a murderer, who could be anyone, on the loose.''
Nor are all parents against Luke's return to school. Jean Watson, whose son is also at St David's although not in the same year, says that the worry of parents is probably greater among those whose children are in the
same year. ''If I had a daughter, it might be different. But my son's path never crosses Luke's. He could go
to school, come back, and never
see him, and it's not like my son is looking round the corner for him all the time.''
On the day after his suspension, Luke's mother made an official request for a school transfer. This has worried some parents of pupils at Dalkeith High and Newbattle High, such as Cassidy, whose daughter attends the latter. Like Watson, he is only worried for his daughter. He says: ''I'm not worried about my son being in the same school as Luke. If my daughter was, I would be.''
The head teacher of Newbattle has the right to refuse Luke a place in the school, which is visible from Jodi's parents' home, if it is believed it would be detrimental to the delivery of education for all. Luke has since refused the offer of home tuition. ''He wants to go to school,'' says Beaumont. ''He has the right to an education, and he should have had access to normal schooling.''
While Luke's rights to education are undisputed, and even backed by the Education Act of 2000, it is not an absolute right, says Judith Gillespie, development manager of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council.
''Everyone has the right to an education, that's the start and stop of it. But nobody has rights that can override the rights of others,'' she says. ''There is also more than one way of providing the education that someone has a right to. If the pupil does not want to comply with the way the school is going about providing education, they have a right to exclude that person.''
In other words, the school chose what they thought was the best way to educate Luke, given the concerns of parents, heightened emotions, and the fact that Luke had already been so widely identified.
Gillespie suggests that, in a situation as intense and sensitive as that at St David's, there is often no clear path for head teachers. ''They have to manage the needs of all groups. It is not a case of bending to what parents want, but doing what benefits everyone. People can't stop feeling how they feel, whether they have reason to or not.''
Somehow, in the haze of gossip and fact, concern and panic, Marion Docherty had to make a decision that would promote the safety, comfort, and rights of all. All this, while the community she serves looks over its shoulder for an unknown killer. Mike Doig, president of Headteachers' Association Scotland, says Ms Docherty had to do the best she could in exceptional circumstances. ''It can be the hardest thing for a headteacher to balance one youngster's needs with those of the other 29 in the class and the teacher,'' he says.
''When a pupil is lost, the whole school is affected. It makes this situation all the more difficult that time lapsed between the murder and funeral, and that there is still a culprit out there. Unfortunately, there is no script for a head teacher.''
There are as few clear solutions for Ms Docherty as there are certainties for Luke, whose school life shows no signs of normalising. As his peers troop past his window to school next week, he may well decide to keep his curtains shut, and the whispers out.’
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12532615.isolated-vilified-and-left-with-nowhere-to-go-luke-mitchell-the-15-year-old-boyfriend-of-jodi-jones-is-suspended-from-school-amid-a-whispering-campaign-over-her-murder-abigail-wild-assesses-the-mood-in-his-midlothian-community/
Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell go to the press or was it done via Nigel Beaumont?
-
Am more convinced that he did it than he didn’t, but still not enough to categorically say guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But, beyond reasonable doubt is quite a vague term, so presents a problem in itself, and everyone’s interpretation of what it constitutes will be different. I suspect all concerned in this case at the time of the trial — in both the defence & prosecution camps — had reasonable doubt. However, because it was such a high profile case involving an utterly heinous and brutal crime, they had to convict Luke. I think that, as with myself, all concerned likely had an element of doubt as regards to his guilt, but were more convinced he did it than he didn’t. Emotions were high, it was a local case, Luke was, unfairly, disproportionately focused on, some of the evidence used against him was stretched to the maximum so as to seem plausible and further incriminate him (the prosecution clutching at straws in some instances), but they had to get a conviction, and I suspect all concerned, bar the defence team, were swayed to a large degree by the pressure of the case and the hysteria that accompanied it — to the point that any modicum of doubt that was present in their mind regarding Luke’s guilt, was eliminated by it. I personally think Luke suffered a miscarriage of justice on the evidence used, but I still think he did it, which is extremely problematic given the enormity of the crime. And, I would also suggest that I am not really surprised that Luke was convicted. In spite of my own personal doubts, the prosecution did, imo, still have a strong circumstantial case against him.
-
Am more convinced that he did it than he didn’t, but still not enough to categorically say guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But, beyond reasonable doubt is quite a vague term, so presents a problem in itself, and everyone’s interpretation of what it constitutes will be different. I suspect all concerned in this case at the time of the trial — in both the defence & prosecution camps — had reasonable doubt. However, because it was such a high profile case involving an utterly heinous and brutal crime, they had to convict Luke. I think that, as with myself, all concerned likely had an element of doubt as regards to his guilt, but were more convinced he did it than he didn’t. Emotions were high, it was a local case, Luke was, unfairly, disproportionately focused on, some of the evidence used against him was stretched to the maximum so as to seem plausible and further incriminate him (the prosecution clutching at straws in some instances), but they had to get a conviction, and I suspect all concerned, bar the defence team, were swayed to a large degree by the pressure of the case and the hysteria that accompanied it — to the point that any modicum of doubt that was present in their mind regarding Luke’s guilt, was eliminated by it. I personally think Luke suffered a miscarriage of justice on the evidence used, but I still think he did it, which is extremely problematic given the enormity of the crime. And, I would also suggest that I am not really surprised that Luke was convicted. In spite of my own personal doubts, the prosecution did, imo, still have a strong circumstantial case against him.
Can I ask if you believe that Luke suffered a miscarriage of justice on the evidence presented in court what evidence sways you to probable guilt now?
-
Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell go to the press or was it done via Nigel Beaumont?
I once heard or read from SL that Sky had phoned the Mitchell home to arrange the interview.
-
Can I ask if you believe that Luke suffered a miscarriage of justice on the evidence presented in court what evidence sways you to probable guilt now?
I’ve clearly delineated in previous posts why I think LM did it, and as I no longer have a PC, laptop, etc, and am merely typing and posting from an iPhone (which I have done for several years now), I can’t be bothered going over it all again and typing it out. Sorry. There isn’t one single piece of evidence per se that proves Luke was the killer. Taking all the circumstantial evidence together, however, and it provides a very strong circumstantial case against Luke, imo, and it’s no surprise at all to me that he was convicted because of it. The weak alibi that his own brother Shane couldn’t corroborate, all the sightings between 1654 - 1830 and those who testified in court that Luke owned a parka prior to 30.06.03 are the three main bastions of circumstantial evidence that sway me in the direction of guilty. Also, I think it is very telling and extremely noteworthy that Rosemary Walsh, after Luke’s picture was first shown in the newspapers in August 2003, exclaimed: “Oh my god, it’s him!” She was unequivocal that it was the youth that she and her sister-in-law saw that day on the N’battle Rd. The same youth these two women also said was on his own, staring at the ground, avoiding eye contact with passers-by in cars, looking cheesed off and looking up to no good (that brooding, angsty look that many pics of Luke from 2003-2005 had clearly shown he expressed; that temper and short fuse inherited from mum Corrine and Gran Ruby). All these eyewitnesses did identify him and it was accepted by the courts; not 100% a perfect process, but still enough to convict him. All eyewitnesses never saw another male on the roads they saw him, not on Easthouses or N’battle. Telling. Makes me feel uneasy.
Having said all that, there are areas of this case I’d still like clarification on, such as: who it was that said Mark Kane was running on the N’battle rd in the early evening and if the police thoroughly investigated this and eliminated accordingly. The moped boys and their bike being riderless at 1715 at the v break; an article I posted a few weeks back clearly stated these boys had admitted that their bike was propped there & unmanned at this time. I’d like an in-depth analysis of their movements from 1650-1740 that day, and what eyewitnesses said about them and their movements that day, alibis, etc. I’d also like to educate myself on the entire dna evidence in this case. Oh, also, I think all the clothing from the search trio should have been taken that morning (as they did with Luke’s on 01.07.03) and not days later when they had been washed & laundered. I still find it very odd that Steven Kelly’s first words to police when they arrived at the locus that night, was: “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?” Very strange comment to make, imo. Same with the moped boys. Their clothing should have been taken when they eventually did come forward.Their bike, too. Why wasn’t it seized and forensically analysed? More to the point, why did they have it crushed and destroyed?
So, yes, while I’m more convinced that Luke was responsible for Jodi’s horrific murder than not, there are still areas of this case that I’d like further clarification on before I could commit myself to saying Luke categorically did it beyond reasonable doubt.
-
I’ve clearly delineated in previous posts why I think LM did it, and as I no longer have a PC, laptop, etc, and am merely typing and posting from an iPhone (which I have done for several years now), I can’t be bothered going over it all again and typing it out. Sorry. There isn’t one single piece of evidence per se that proves Luke was the killer. Taking all the circumstantial evidence together, however, and it provides a very strong circumstantial case against Luke, imo, and it’s no surprise at all to me that he was convicted because of it. The weak alibi that his own brother Shane couldn’t corroborate, all the sightings between 1654 - 1830 and those who testified in court that Luke owned a parka prior to 30.06.03 are the three main bastions of circumstantial evidence that sway me in the direction of guilty. Also, I think it is very telling and extremely noteworthy that Rosemary Walsh, after Luke’s picture was first shown in the newspapers in August 2003, exclaimed: “Oh my god, it’s him!” She was unequivocal that it was the youth that she and her sister-in-law saw that day on the N’battle Rd. The same youth these two women also said was on his own, staring at the ground, avoiding eye contact with passers-by in cars, looking cheesed off and looking up to no good (that brooding, angsty look that many pics of Luke from 2003-2005 had clearly shown he expressed; that temper and short fuse inherited from mum Corrine and Gran Ruby). All these eyewitnesses did identify him and it was accepted by the courts; not 100% a perfect process, but still enough to convict him. All eyewitnesses never saw another male on the roads they saw him, not on Easthouses or N’battle. Telling. Makes me feel uneasy.
Having said all that, there are areas of this case I’d still like clarification on, such as: who it was that said Mark Kane was running on the N’battle rd in the early evening and if the police thoroughly investigated this and eliminated accordingly. The moped boys and their bike being riderless at 1715 at the v break; an article I posted a few weeks back clearly stated these boys had admitted that their bike was propped there & unmanned at this time. I’d like an in-depth analysis of their movements from 1650-1740 that day, and what eyewitnesses said about them and their movements that day, alibis, etc. I’d also like to educate myself on the entire dna evidence in this case. Oh, also, I think all the clothing from the search trio should have been taken that morning (as they did with Luke’s on 01.07.03) and not days later when they had been washed & laundered. I still find it very odd that Steven Kelly’s first words to police when they arrived at the locus that night, was: “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?” Very strange comment to make, imo. Same with the moped boys. Their clothing should have been taken when they eventually did come forward.Their bike, too. Why wasn’t it seized and forensically analysed? More to the point, why did they have it crushed and destroyed?
So, yes, while I’m more convinced that Luke was responsible for Jodi’s horrific murder than not, there are still areas of this case that I’d like further clarification on before I could commit myself to saying Luke categorically did it beyond reasonable doubt.
Why do you chose to believe that AB’s timings in her first two statements regarding her sighting were wrong and how do you account for the 45 lost minutes if you believe the timings used in court?
As to Rosemary Walsh’s sighting, doesn’t her evidence in court give you pause for thought?
‘
She agreed with Donald Findlay QC, defending, that Mitchell hadn't done anything to try to hide himself.
Miss Fleming broke down in tears as he quizzed her about newspaper photos she claimed to have remembered.
She told police that the Record's August 15 picture last year 'showed more of his face and eyes' than a photo she had seen earlier and had reminded her of the youth on Newbattle Road.
Findlay then said a search of Scottish newspapers had revealed no published picture of Mitchell before August 15.
She sobbed: 'You are just confusing me. All I can do is tell you what I saw and that is what I am doing.'
Mr Findlay continued: 'What it does demonstrate is that people, however genuine, however honest, can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences.'
Miss Fleming replied: 'Yes.’
-
His mother Corinne
Luke Mitchell: ‘They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes’
‘They’ could mean the police - who wouldn’t have stated anything and certainly not to the Mitchell’s
These are the words of a killer attempting to divert attention away from himself and place blame elsewhere
Who introduced ‘they just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes’? Was this the police’s attempts earlier, to try and trick Luke into thinking they had obtained a confession from Corrine regarding her burning clothes? Was there anyone else in the investigation who admitted to burning clothes on the night of 30.06.03? For example, Luke’s neighbours, Luke’s friends’ parents? People not necessarily from Newbattle, but from the nearby villages and settlements? It’s definitely quite a strange thing for Luke to say, but there could be an innocent explanation for it.
-
Stefan Kizsko was represented by David Waddington who went on to become Home Sec. But neither he nor the trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, were smart enough to outwit 4 x 13 year old girls who lied about SK simply "for a laugh".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Holly, what happened to the fibre evidence linking Stefan Kiszko to Lesley Molseed?
-
Stefan Kizsko was represented by David Waddington who went on to become Home Sec. But neither he nor the trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, were smart enough to outwit 4 x 13 year old girls who lied about SK simply "for a laugh".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Holly what exactly did the girls say originally and who spoke to them years later and what did they say then?