Author Topic: Why is Mitchell Guilty?  (Read 2112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2019, 04:54:12 PM »
Who is the person Corinne is referring to that apparently confessed and was following Jodi?

No idea? This bloke possibly?

Quote
Some readers might not know this but another prisoner in HMP Edinburgh confessed to his cell mate that he did it.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg501240#msg501240

Who do you think it is?
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Parky41

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2019, 05:00:56 PM »
I take your point but when possible suspects were ruled out with little to no scrutiny it makes we wonder if it just took them that long to build their circumstantial case against the only suspect they had ever really concentrated on.

Who is the person Corinne is referring to that apparently confessed and was following Jodi?

Baz, what would be your thoughts on this confession? Red Herring? Why now go on a tangent of looking at different times of death IF there has been a confession which has to be kept secret as to who?, to prohibit any further problems once it comes to light, comes to light where? court? Why therefore look at other scenarios, mainly on the usual suspects IF there is a confession? Has one or more of these suspects confessed? Why still highlight the others?



Offline Baz

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2019, 05:12:10 PM »

Who do you think it is?

No idea. Never heard of a confession until that interview

Baz, what would be your thoughts on this confession? Red Herring? Why now go on a tangent of looking at different times of death IF there has been a confession which has to be kept secret as to who?, to prohibit any further problems once it comes to light, comes to light where? court? Why therefore look at other scenarios, mainly on the usual suspects IF there is a confession? Has one or more of these suspects confessed? Why still highlight the others?


I guess until the confession has been proven to be true (by the law) it makes sense to keep all avenues of interest open and being discussed.

Offline Parky41

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2019, 05:25:29 PM »
No idea. Never heard of a confession until that interview

I guess until the confession has been proven to be true (by the law) it makes sense to keep all avenues of interest open and being discussed.


Thank you Baz, I may be mistaken in thinking this confession was in 2015. Ample time to merit it's worth if this were the case. I don't know so only my opirnion, not based on facts. 


Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2019, 05:29:04 PM »
Re Corrine Mitchell interview with James English

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

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


Is the person who allegedly confessed and was allegedly positively id’d the same person alluded to re an alleged punishment killing?
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Baz

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2019, 05:40:30 PM »

Thank you Baz, I may be mistaken in thinking this confession was in 2015. Ample time to merit it's worth if this were the case. I don't know so only my opirnion, not based on facts.

I’m assuming that once the police believe the right man is behind bars it is difficult to get them to follow new leads and it’s quite hard to prove or disprove a confession without the polices powers.

Offline Parky41

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2019, 06:07:23 PM »
I’m assuming that once the police believe the right man is behind bars it is difficult to get them to follow new leads and it’s quite hard to prove or disprove a confession without the polices powers.

Not entirely convinced on that theory. I would have thought IF this confession was real and held merit behind it, regardless of police influence, Mrs Mitchell would be doing all in her powers to prove validity in it. Thus why I am left with the opinion that it is indeed a Red Herring.  It is easy to constantly put out claims of new evidence, witnesses, confessions with not one Iota of proof. To claim to have all of this YET still only repeat the same arguments within the same blame game. Nothing new being shown. Now it appears going down other tangents as the validity of other accusations has come to nothing. IMO

Offline Angelo222

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2019, 06:24:12 PM »
I’m assuming that once the police believe the right man is behind bars it is difficult to get them to follow new leads and it’s quite hard to prove or disprove a confession without the polices powers.

Agreed. Once the CO&PFS secure a conviction, the police will move on to other active investigations and will only return to the Mitchell case if substantive new and credible information comes their way.  Claiming other people were involved will not assist Mitchell's case.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 06:27:53 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2019, 08:02:27 PM »
I’ll tell you who I think the confession is from - Steven Kelly.

If you read Sandra’s book and cross reference this with other sources, such as her comments, podcasts and news reports, you can sort of join the dots.  It doesn’t explicitly say that the confession was Steven Kelly, but you can do a bit of detective work after reading the chapter on Steven Kelly in the book, and also the chapter dedicated to the Stocky Man sighting.

There are certain indications in the way things are worded and suggested that they are, in my opinion, hinting to this.  There are a couple of things that make sense and add up.  It’s really complicated but you can form an opinion when you join the dots.


Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2019, 11:25:57 PM »
For me Corrine Mitchell comes across in this interview as someone in denial https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

It’s time Luke Mitchell did the right thing and fess up not only to allow the Jones family et al to move forward, also for the sake of his Mum.

Corrine Mitchell stated

Quote
Yes, imagine! 2 days after the murder? we were all shocked. We were all traumatised. Remembering whether his brother made dinner or not doesn't actually spring to mind as an important thing!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=70.msg568#msg568

[27] The appellant did not give evidence. His position was outlined in a number of statements which he gave to police officers, both as a witness and subsequently under caution as a suspect in the case. His position throughout these statements was that he had been at home during the period in which the Crown case suggested the deceased was murdered. He saw the deceased at lunchtime on the day of the murder. She had taken the school bus home after school and he had walked. He had not seen her alive after that point. He had returned home at around 1600 or 1605 and the deceased had texted him at 1620, asking if he was coming out. He had replied that he would do so later on, as he had to make dinner. Arrangements were made for the deceased to come down to the Newbattle area but no time was arranged for the meeting.
[28] The last text was sent at about 1640. The appellant's position was that, thereafter, he had listened to music while cooking dinner. His mother arrived home at 1715. The witness Shane Mitchell was not in the house at this time. He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.
[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody. He had spoken to the witness Ovens around 25 minutes after he had been waiting outside, and was told that the deceased had left. David High had appeared around 25 minutes after the appellant had phoned him. After spending some time at the Abbey, the appellant went home, arriving between 2105 to 2110. He watched a video until he received the text from the deceased's mother at 2241.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.

Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

Which would now take the time Luke left home to 5.15pm


25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.
[26] The third key on which the Crown relied was the evidence of Shane Mitchell, the appellant's brother. While not unequivocal, his evidence suggested that the appellant was not at home at the times asserted in the alibi and contradicted the appellant's position in police interviews.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 12:15:49 AM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2019, 01:24:19 PM »
I take your point but when possible suspects were ruled out with little to no scrutiny it makes we wonder if it just took them that long to build their circumstantial case against the only suspect they had ever really concentrated on.

The fact is other suspects weren’t behaving the same way as Luke Mitchell who gave an interview to Sky news on the day of JJ’s funeral.

Luke Mitchell stated (3rd Sept 2003): “I feel it has been left to the media and public to decide.  It is trial by media.  They haven’t actually come out and totally accused me, apart from in interviews, the police have accused me but I feel it has been left to trial by media to see what the public decide, who’s guilty and who’s not.  The way the police are handling it, they have searched other houses and they have other suspects but I seem to be really the only person they are mentioning by name in specific detail. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg459#msg459

JAMES MATTHEWS:   So what would you say to those who would look at you and think he killed his girlfriend?

LUKE:   “I just say they are being naďve and not to believe everything you read in the papers.  As a lot of folk know from what they’ve said and what’s turned out in the papers, they do change what people have said, not the whole truth is published in papers.  It is basically what the people want to hear is what printed.


According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.

On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.

In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone.

......It was the prosecution who wanted to broadcast the interview in court - they wanted to highlight Mitchell's demeanour on the day of Jodi's funeral - his lack of emotion.

"Not a tear, not a quiver" in the words of Advocate-Depute Alan Turnbull, from the teenager he described as a cold, calculating killer..
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 01:39:39 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Baz

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2019, 03:14:52 PM »
Not entirely convinced on that theory. I would have thought IF this confession was real and held merit behind it, regardless of police influence, Mrs Mitchell would be doing all in her powers to prove validity in it. Thus why I am left with the opinion that it is indeed a Red Herring.  It is easy to constantly put out claims of new evidence, witnesses, confessions with not one Iota of proof. To claim to have all of this YET still only repeat the same arguments within the same blame game. Nothing new being shown. Now it appears going down other tangents as the validity of other accusations has come to nothing. IMO

I don't totally agree but it's hard to talk about a confession when we (I) know nothing about it.

If the confession was made to the police and nothing came of it then I agree that it's probably a "red herring."

More likely though is that Corrine has heard about some one confessing, right? What power does she have to prove the validity of the confession, or even that it happened? I'm sure she has done what she can but she has no legal powers

As for repeating the same arguments, especially with regards to other potential suspects, well, I can't blame her for that. When it seems that there is circumstantial evidence about various other people who were cleared so quickly, I can only imagine that I would still be bringing these same arguments up if I were in her position.

Offline Parky41

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2019, 05:40:30 PM »
I don't totally agree but it's hard to talk about a confession when we (I) know nothing about it.

If the confession was made to the police and nothing came of it then I agree that it's probably a "red herring."

More likely though is that Corrine has heard about some one confessing, right? What power does she have to prove the validity of the confession, or even that it happened? I'm sure she has done what she can but she has no legal powers

As for repeating the same arguments, especially with regards to other potential suspects, well, I can't blame her for that. When it seems that there is circumstantial evidence about various other people who were cleared so quickly, I can only imagine that I would still be bringing these same arguments up if I were in her position.

Yes, agreed to an extent. Muddy waters come to mind. We (I) can't fully understand the reasoning behind the down cry on circumstantial evidence against one's own whilst putting merit on less circumstantial evidence against others. If I am correct in assuming the circumstantial evidence is less. So have to assume just that, I am not walking in this persons shoes and don't fully understand or know, to an extent how I would react.

POA must be held with someone regarding this laddies interests, can only assume again that this person would hold access to any evidence in relation to this.


I honestly don't pay too much attention to interviews that are lopsided, much in the same way I don't favour press articles of the same nature. They all have agendas for their own purpose.





Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2019, 07:54:40 PM »
Corrine Mitchell stated

Quote
Yes, imagine! 2 days after the murder? we were all shocked. We were all traumatised. Remembering whether his brother made dinner or not doesn't actually spring to mind as an important thing!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=70.msg568#msg568


This post is apparently from March 2005. The poster claims to be John’s cousin.


"Luke got it from John,,,Jodi got it from Luke..that's the way it worked. Luke had smoked it b4 he met Jodi I know that..John had smoked it for a while..remember he was only 16 also so not that long. John only smoked cannabis i know that much. John had short..wavy hair..Luke had long shaggy hair..John didn't cut his hair off that night..it was a couple of days later.

Johns my cousin. I know everything..that's how I know I'm right about all the facts.

Janine Steven and Alice have never lied about what happened that night, they may not have mentioned it to start with by accusing and pointing the finger..they obviously need time to deal with everything then think. but I remember from day one that they said Luke went straight to the gap in the wall..no doubt about it.

Luke walked up the path with his dog..its funny that the dog didn't react or smell anything then eh.but just so happens it did on the way down. Luke's just saying that about the dog cause it sounds better for him!

Oh come one eh..according to Luke his dog jumped in the air and sniffed and and practically dragged Luke to the wall then started scratching it...if the dog done that on the way down then he would have done it on the way up..and what???..Luke just ignored it..i don't think so!

Why would he leave that house at that precise time to go see her..would he just let her away with saying I don't know when ill be leaving. she left right away and he knew she was leaving right away".


Luke was taken to the police station that night and I presume gave his first witness statement?

When the police went to the Jones house that night/morning is this when the search parties first statements were made?

« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 08:00:21 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2019, 08:15:25 PM »
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-mitchell-i-would-rather-stay-in-jail-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodi-jones-1-4800732

“I would rather stay in jail than admit MY guilt....” 

“When the jury visited the crime scene, I was told ‘stay flat and don’t react’- which probably didn’t help in their eyes.”
When he was convicted, Mitchell claims an order was given by the judge, to not show emotion upon the verdict: “I was in shock. The only reason I didn’t fall over was because I was gripping onto the railing in the dock so tightly.


Yet didn’t Sandra Lean state in her recent interview with James English that it was his lawyer?


Either way, if emotion existed for Luke Mitchell it would have come to the fore in some way; eg a tear or two.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 08:22:47 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes