THE ALIBI.

[Parky41]

I believe the knife was handed to the lawyers.

Of course you won’t believe that as it’s inconvenient to your narrative.

Absolute nonsense - Two missing knives that Ms Lean in her half truths yet again attempts to lead the reader, those who are easily led, suck in exactly as you do. Plain and simple. It only highlights how manipulative this self proclaimed 'truthseeker' is. I would myself of course swap truth for attention.

The missing knife? that she was accused of hiding was not the murder weapon, that is still missing. And contrary to what Ms Lean wishes to tout out it is one Mitchell owned and has never been found. The same type of 'skunting knife'. The replacement had a black handle, the murder weapon a brown handle. To be clear here, the replacement knife which the police knew was purchased was not in the house when searched. This is why the half truth, the application of Ms Leans 'missing and found' is contorted to what you believe above.

Evidence led and pictures by the search team, of the dogs bowls and bag. Searched and no knife found. Ms Mitchell after the search handed the replacement into Beumont, claiming that it had not been 'hidden' that it was in a bag beside the bowls, hidden only from Luke (as if!). What it showed, was yet again how easily this woman lied. That the evidence led by the search team, along with the pictures was there was no knife in any bag. Further evidence led was around Ms Mitchells distaste, the nerve! that the search team should run their fingers through the dogs food, claiming she would never put her dog in danger!  Yet, as the AD-AT stated, had no qualms of her son owning and carrying many knives, no thought for any danger this might evoke? More so of replacing any knives after the horrific death of his girlfriend, or simply buying any as those easily led, have no problem with?

Now she may have attempted to imply that this was 'thee' knife, looked for all along, again receipts shown and more lies. Now the knife that is still missing, the one that many witnesses were shown pictures of, with the brown handle, that Skunting knife, was never retrieved. The one the prosecution contended was the murder weapon. So two knives, the new one that had been hidden that was not in the house. To the murder weapon, the brown handled one, the only knife that evidence was led against as owning prior to the murder, and never retrieved.

But then, if one is going to be sucked in by this person who most definitely has no qualms of manipulating anything to suit, as we had with these 5 male profiles. That, what can only be described as disgusting, with - "ejaculation that took place just yards from -----" Or only one conclusion with the semen on the t-shirt  of ejaculation taken place at or after the time of the murder. Loss of ones moral compass indeed.

Five profile that had absolutely nothing to do with the murder - one such profile was almost half a mile away from another condom. In the extended woodland, in a cave. Got to love the part of "accidently" coming across the cave, like the "accidently" setting fire to a candle and so forth. - BS.

Every part of that book, especially the DNA speech where the author attempts to look intelligent, attempts to give advice to the reader, to explain in her infant speech what it all means - the exact opposite of the waffling and blagging she applies. Works though, they just suck it up, churn it round and spit it back out

[faithlilly]

Absolute nonsense - Two missing knives that Ms Lean in her half truths yet again attempts to lead the reader, those who are easily led, suck in exactly as you do. Plain and simple. It only highlights how manipulative this self proclaimed 'truthseeker' is. I would myself of course swap truth for attention.

The missing knife? that she was accused of hiding was not the murder weapon, that is still missing. And contrary to what Ms Lean wishes to tout out it is one Mitchell owned and has never been found. The same type of 'skunting knife'. The replacement had a black handle, the murder weapon a brown handle. To be clear here, the replacement knife which the police knew was purchased was not in the house when searched. This is why the half truth, the application of Ms Leans 'missing and found' is contorted to what you believe above.

Evidence led and pictures by the search team, of the dogs bowls and bag. Searched and no knife found. Ms Mitchell after the search handed the replacement into Beumont, claiming that it had not been 'hidden' that it was in a bag beside the bowls, hidden only from Luke (as if!). What it showed, was yet again how easily this woman lied. That the evidence led by the search team, along with the pictures was there was no knife in any bag. Further evidence led was around Ms Mitchells distaste, the nerve! that the search team should run their fingers through the dogs food, claiming she would never put her dog in danger!  Yet, as the AD-AT stated, had no qualms of her son owning and carrying many knives, no thought for any danger this might evoke? More so of replacing any knives after the horrific death of his girlfriend, or simply buying any as those easily led, have no problem with?

Now she may have attempted to imply that this was 'thee' knife, looked for all along, again receipts shown and more lies. Now the knife that is still missing, the one that many witnesses were shown pictures of, with the brown handle, that Skunting knife, was never retrieved. The one the prosecution contended was the murder weapon. So two knives, the new one that had been hidden that was not in the house. To the murder weapon, the brown handled one, the only knife that evidence was led against as owning prior to the murder, and never retrieved.

But then, if one is going to be sucked in by this person who most definitely has no qualms of manipulating anything to suit, as we had with these 5 male profiles. That, what can only be described as disgusting, with - "ejaculation that took place just yards from -----" Or only one conclusion with the semen on the t-shirt  of ejaculation taken place at or after the time of the murder. Loss of ones moral compass indeed.

Five profile that had absolutely nothing to do with the murder - one such profile was almost half a mile away from another condom. In the extended woodland, in a cave. Got to love the part of "accidently" coming across the cave, like the "accidently" setting fire to a candle and so forth. - BS.

Every part of that book, especially the DNA speech where the author attempts to look intelligent, attempts to give advice to the reader, to explain in her infant speech what it all means - the exact opposite of the waffling and blagging she applies. Works though, they just suck it up, churn it round and spit it back out

The thing is Parky old bean Dr Lean isn’t perfect and she is obviously partisan but then so are you but the one thing she does have over you is access to real witness statements, forensic reports etc, etc, etc. Now the files she has access to may not be complete, may not tell the whole story but they are the most important pieces and if there had been more important evidence in the Crown’s arsenal then they would have used it at trial. That is simply common sense.

So you will hopefully forgive me if I believe her word over yours. While it may be true that she doesn’t possess the full jigsaw, she certainly has enough to independently form the picture while you, I’m afraid, simply look at the photo on the box.

[Paranoid Android]

Luke was not a normal 14-year-old. He was advised, even as early as primary school, to seek psychological help for trying to ‘throttle’ another pupil, in high school he was advised to seek psychological help as teachers were concerned about the content of his English essays.

An excellent post from @Mr Apples.

Are there any details on the above, please?

[faithlilly]

An excellent post from @Mr Apples.

Are there any details on the above, please?

Yes I’d like to see those too.

[Parky41]

The thing is Parky old bean Dr Lean isn’t perfect and she is obviously partisan but then so are you but the one thing she does have over you is access to real witness statements, forensic reports etc, etc, etc. Now the files she has access to may not be complete, may not tell the whole story but they are the most important pieces and if there had been more important evidence in the Crown’s arsenal then they would have used it at trial. That is simply common sense.

So you will hopefully forgive me if I believe her word over yours. While it may be true that she doesn’t possess the full jigsaw, she certainly has enough to independently form the picture while you, I’m afraid, simply look at the photo on the box.

Tsk Tsk now - We know the difficulties of changing minds obsessed, heaven forbid one should imagine any attempt on my part to educate that which is lost. Simply pointing out further truths over the doctrine being put out. Which was that the evidence led against the knife, the Skunting one with the brown handle, that LM very much owned and carried, is still missing. To further add I do not believe it was simply disposed off but put somewhere that one day he may hope to retrieve it. Perhaps along with some of the hair that was cut, trophies?

But as you say, perhaps he is not the killer - Just a lad, compulsive liar who simply found his girlfriend like that and asked for help which was given to him. The knife in his pocket of a coat that had to be disposed off, simply because it was present where the murder had taken place. As Ms Lean points out, one which although not heavily bloodstained should not have been completely destroyed, the logic of doing such a thing, washes over her head, somehow? Extraordinary reasoning yet again, is it not? From the Jigsawman, where the contents of the book are simply those self born, hypothetical lines of reasoning that have been pushed out, that jigsaw formed in the days long before she had access to anything, other than the Mitchells, these truthful people and of course media sources.

What changed? The refusal from the SCCRC, the study to gain that DR - to put onto pages, what has been the same since the beginning? The extra strength in the hope that the DR and POA give some false sense of worth, to those of course who put blind faith in it. - for the majority however, they simply realise what it is, the bias born from the convicted killer spilt over by his friend and confidante, that joining together of like minded people? Each being rewarded by self gain, not selfless acts. As you say, just my humble opinion of course, whilst looking at the picture and not attempting the puzzle within. I of course prefer something a little more adult, not set out, as Ms Lean states, that "even a five -year old could not fail to --------------" Join together?

Of late and stating these demo's which may embarrass one into action? Are not which is required, only a new review will do - again pulling towards oneself and not the efforts of those actively doing something - that clear split?

[Mr Apples]

An excellent post from @Mr Apples.

Are there any details on the above, please?

Here are the contents of an old article from The Times newspaper (quite lengthy and detailed, but offers some very interesting insights into LM and the case):

The murderous art that unmasked a cruel killer
Police investigating the murder of Jodi Jones were shocked by the dark fascinations of her boyfriend. But can the work of musicians such as Marilyn Manson be blamed for inspiring brutality or does it reflect the turmoil of a disturbed mind
Police investigating the murder of the 14-year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones had a prime suspect — her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. He was due to meet her the night she disappeared and had found her body in the darkness of a desolate Midlothian wood. But to the frustration of the police there was no forensic evidence linking him, or anybody else, to the crime.

To understand the way Mitchell’s mind worked, detectives immersed themselves in the youth cultures of goth, grunge, rap and nu-metal. For the mostly middle-aged officers it was a revelation. Given what they knew about how Jodi met her gruesome death, they became convinced that Mitchell’s musical taste betrayed the mind of a sadistic killer.

It was the suspect himself who sparked this line of inquiry. In the opening days of the investigation in the summer of 2003, as detectives went about their door-to-door inquiries in Dalkeith, Mitchell had spoken to officers in the street about music containing murderous themes. Displaying the arrogance he was to show throughout the case, he asked if the policeman knew the song Kim by the rapper Eminem.

Detectives discovered the song was about somebody murdering his wife. It was impossible to read the lyrics without a shiver of realisation that their chief suspect was a fan: “Don’t you get it bitch, no one can hear you?/Now shut the f*** up and get what’s comin’ to you./ You were supposed to love me./Now bleed, bitch, bleed!” Eminem was not Mitchell’s favourite musician. That honour went to Manson, the controversial American rock star. Mitchell was obsessive about Manson’s music, with its dark subject matter of suicide, violence, satanism and murder. When detectives dipped into the Manson repertoire it only heightened their concerns — and their suspicions. Especially songs such as King Kill 33:

“I will destroy you with one simple hole.


“The world that hates me has taken its toll but now I have finally taken control.

“You wanted so bad to make me this thing.

“And I want you now to just kill the king.

“And I am not sorry, and I am not sorry: this is what you deserve.”

SPONSORED



There was more. Detectives discovered that two days after the killing, having already been questioned and forensically examined, Mitchell wound down by buying and watching a Manson DVD, The Golden Age of Grotesque.

It had a 15 certificate, and he bought it at his local Sainsbury’s along with some family shopping.

Amid darkened scenes illuminated by flickering torchlight, the DVD shows a girl’s naked body lying on the ground. In another part, two other girls are tied up and hooded.

More police research came across Manson’s paintings of the Black Dahlia victim Elizabeth Short, a Hollywood starlet whose murder in 1947 scandalised America. These stopped them in their tracks. The paintings showed injuries disturbingly similar to those inflicted on Jodi’s body — especially the large wounds on the side of the mouth stretching towards her ear, and an injury to the breast. Had the art and music of Marilyn Manson inspired, or even provoked, the most grisly murder Scotland had seen for a generation? Manson’s CDs and those of many other performers who explore horror and darkness are piled high in the untidy bedrooms of tens of thousands of teenagers across Britain. Their parents roll their eyes at their offspring’s musical choices and fashion excesses and shrug. Are goths really any different or more dangerous than other teenage fads from previous generations? After all, parents in earlier times were once scandalised by teddy boys and mods and hippies and punks. Is this really any different? Luke Mitchell’s murder of Jodi Jones has sparked a worried re-examination of these parental assumptions. As Mitchell starts a prison sentence “without limit of time” for Jodi’s murder, the case poses some unsettling questions for parents, politicians and the music industry.

Does macabre and death- obsessed music inspire acts of violence, self-harm and murder? Or is it simply the case that vulnerable and disturbed youngsters are attracted to it? Either way, can this music continue to be made available without any age restrictions — unlike feature films and computer games? Crucial to these considerations is a more difficult question, one that last week haunted the minds of millions of Scots as they watched the closing stages of the trial: what drove Mitchell, a boy too young to shave, to the sadistic murder of his girlfriend?

JODI and Luke both favoured the uniform of the goth — baggy black clothes and facial piercings. Mitchell had a piercing just below the centre of his bottom lip, which he would worry with his tongue, making it bob up and down. Jodi had one on the right-hand side of her bottom lip.

Although just 14 years old, Mitchell was obsessed with nihilism and the occult, particularly as expressed in the music of Nirvana and Manson, as well as nu-metal acts such as Slipknot. He fostered a look similar to that of the Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, who was Jodi’s particular idol. Their favourite lyric was Cobain’s: “The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came.”

Both teenagers had a taste for the macabre. They would gather in Greyfriars Kirkyard in the centre of Edinburgh — generally regarded as one of the most eerily atmospheric graveyards in Scotland. There they would smoke cannabis — Mitchell always seemed to have a plentiful supply — among the ancient tombstones.

For some of the group that hung around Greyfriars, the surroundings whetted their appetite for horror. One of them was Sonny Devlin, from the Restalrig area of Edinburgh, who at 15 was a year older than the Dalkeith kids. By some grisly coincidence, it was June 30, 2003, the evening of Jodi’s murder, that Devlin and a younger friend chose to break into a Greyfriars tomb known as the last resting place of George “Bloody” Mackenzie, a 17th-century prosecutor of the Covenanters.

They disinterred a corpse and hacked off its head with a penknife. The boys then used the head to simulate oral sex, for the entertainment of their pals. The two boys were later arrested and became the first people in Scotland for more than a century to be convicted of “violation of a sepulchre”.

Mitchell’s friends had long been aware of his fascination for knives and the damage they could inflict.

When he was 12, Mitchell had used a knife to threaten the daughter of a family who were guests in the Mitchell house. He had climbed onto her bed, held the knife to her throat and asked for a kiss.

At an army cadet corps he attended in Bonnyrigg, a lock knife with a six-inch blade that he was carrying was confiscated by Matthew Muraska, the company leader. Mitchell would often show the other boys weapons he had improvised from blades and sticks.

A former girlfriend, Kara Van Nuil, who dated Mitchell for a few months in 2003 after meeting him at the cadets, described how he once grabbed her from behind and held a Swiss Army knife to her throat with the warning: “Don’t move, or I’ll gut you.” Just a month later, Jodi was dead.

While many fans of Manson’s music were happy simply to ally themselves with his idiosyncratic fashion sense and musical posturing, Mitchell went further. Satanic references were scrawled all over his school jotters. One read: “I offer my flesh, blood and soul to the dark lord of hell.” Another jotter had the words “Satan lives” on the front, and the sentence: “I have tasted the devil’s green blood.” On another Mitchell had written: “Evil is the way”.

Occult beliefs also emerged in Mitchell’s school work, causing alarm among teaching staff at his Catholic high school, St David’s in Dalkeith. In an essay called Pain and Suffering, prepared for a third-year English class, Mitchell wrote: “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance . . . Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life.”

After the teacher referred him to guidance staff, Mitchell wrote in another essay: “Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist? Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help.”

There were curiosities about the way he lived at the Mitchell family home, which, according to the wooden sign next to the front door, went by the name of “Bedlam”.

When his scarlet-painted bedroom was searched by police they found 20 bottles of his own urine under his bed. Mitchell’s parents, Corinne and Philip, split up in 1999, and his mother indulged him, giving him money and letting his girlfriends sleep in his room. She knew all about his cannabis use.

Mitchell often harmed himself. Once he scored the satanic number 666 into his arm “for a dare”. A former classmate, Michelle Tierney, later told police Mitchell had stubbed a cigarette out on his hand in front of her. He had then told her he had imagined getting stoned and killing someone. It would be “funny”, he said.

Jodi and her sister Janine had also been known to self-harm. The sisters had had a troubled childhood — their father Jimmy had committed suicide, aged 39, by hanging himself from a tree in the garden, six years before the death of his daughter. In her diary, Jodi had written: “Take the knife. All your pain can be taken by one slit, slit to your wrists. Be free, be happy, just like me.”

According to specialists in the occult, Jodi’s death bore many of the hallmarks of a ritual killing. She was naked but for a pair of socks, her wrists bound by the legs of her trousers. She was strangled, then while she was still alive her neck was slashed more than 20 times. A hole had been cut in her windpipe and the main artery in her neck had been severed almost all the way through. She had multiple injuries to her head, and wounds from her mouth to her ear. Careful cuts had been made around her eyes, as well as deep cuts on her left breast and right arm. The knife had been pushed deep into her mouth.

Few professionals involved in the case had ever witnessed anything so grim. Forensic pathologists concluded that such a murder was extremely rare, and was usually associated with somebody mentally disturbed or high on drugs.

So what was the motivation? Chief superintendent Craig Dobbie, who led the investigation, believes that Mitchell and Jodi had a furious row on the day of the murder after she discovered he was planning to take another girl on holiday. During the trial it emerged that he had been conducting a relationship with Kimberley Thomson, 15, from Perthshire, behind Jodi’s back and they had arranged to spend time together during the summer break.

“I think he told her at lunchtime that day (of her death) and she wanted to see him that night to talk about it so they arranged to meet.”

According to Dobbie’s account, they ended up in the woods between their homes. “A situation developed and she suffered a blow to her face. Her lip is cut. We later found some blood on a tree trunk and the lip bleeds quite a lot when it is cut. I think at this point she turned around and headed eastwards towards home, towards safety. But then she was struck on the head with something like the limb of a tree. Then she was strangled, her head was pulled up and her throat was cut. At that point she was dead.

“After a ‘normal’ murder, the person who committed it is then going to leg it or hide the body. But in this case the body is stripped and cut. Someone is living out a fantasy at this stage. This is something someone has wanted to do. We are now trying to understand the mind of the killer. We know the difference between right and wrong. But this person is outwith that so it is very difficult to understand why. The trial has heard potential influences such as Marilyn Manson ’s depiction of the Black Dahlia.

“Jodi’s breast was cut. Her abdomen was cut, the gash on the face was identical, there was a hole in the forehead. It’s there and we can’t avoid this simulation. This was not about sex, it was about escalating violence and the opportunity to perform injuries. We are not talking about some poor wee soul who some guy has raped. This is most horrific.”

As Jodi’s body was removed by ambulance, Mitchell is said to have sat coolly texting on his mobile. “In 85% of murder cases the attacker knows the victim, the local geography and lives within a five-mile radius,” said Dobbie. “I knew I wanted to eliminate all of Jodi’s male family members and associates, all the males who used that path and all local rough sleepers. Luke Mitchell was part of that group. A teacher from his school quickly came forward and raised concerns about the alarming writings in his jotter. That was worthy of further exploration. Was he into satan or dabbling, looking for an alternative religion or just sticking it up to his teachers? We couldn’t draw huge conclusions but were already learning that he carried knives. Then there was the incredulous discovery of the body.”

By early July, Mitchell had started to emerge as the prime suspect but the investigation was thwarted by a lack of any forensic evidence and with Mitchell’s almost unnatural resilience in the face of intense police scrutiny. What fascinated and frustrated detectives in equal measure was how a 14-year-old could commit such a frenzied attack and yet cover his tracks so efficiently.

More unsettling was the casual, contemptuous way he chatted with police dog handlers about their animals and mocked officers for allowing the bins in the street to be emptied before the search for a possible murder weapon had begun.

“He was always a very resilient, defiant and lippy lad,” said Dobbie. “He was much more confident than you would have expected. He was challenging and he liked to taunt. It was almost as if he was saying, ‘You’ll never solve this’.”

Mitchell was first questioned by police four days after Jodi’s death, yet neither the interview nor a search of his house provided any leads to tie him to the murder. It was the first indication police had that Mitchell would be no pushover. “For his age, he turned out to be a very challenging interviewee. He liked to mock,” said Dobbie. “In the interview he was confident and very controlling. He displayed a high level of intelligence.”

A month later, having exhausted other leads, police questioned Mitchell again. They knew they could only hold him for six hours and so the interview was planned in minute detail but again he proved elusive. “He was totally in control of himself and challenged the abilities and authority of the police. He had the mental ability to sit and take control of the interview and that’s incredible from someone who’s not previously been part of the criminal process or not come from a criminal family. He was not shocked or fazed or panicking. I have never seen someone so cool and calm and who needed to control the situation.”

Despite the lack of physical evidence, the police were building a circumstantial case against him. After collecting hundreds of witness statements they were able to piece together Mitchell’s movements, minute by minute, on the day of the murder and his story didn’t add up. The police report that named the teenager as the sole suspect placed particular emphasis on the fact that it was Mitchell who “discovered” Jodi’s body. It would allow prosecutors to convincingly assert that he had specialist knowledge of the murder scene.

Many psychologists are resistant to the idea that the root cause of Mitchell’s killing of Jodi was his fascination with death and the occult, as expressed through music.

Professor Cynthia McVey, of Glasgow Caledonian University, does not accept the link.

“Certainly if you watch a violent film, you learn the behaviour,” she says. “If you see someone sticking a knife in someone else you would know how to do that and potentially where to strike to do the most damage. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it would induce violent behaviour.”

Her colleague, Professor Vince Egan, agrees, dismissing Manson as “just show business”. It would be foolish, he says, to take action against a form of music or culture because of a crime such as this.

“There were lots of things going wrong in Luke’s life that could have helped contribute to his problems. He was dealing in large amounts of cannabis, carrying knives, he was clearly very alienated,” he says.

Manson’s effect on the behaviour of young people has been examined by Dr Adrian North, a psychologist at the University of Leicester. He believes the music attracts those who are already disturbed.

“We asked people when they had started self-harming and other activities associated with this music, and the answer they give was that the self-harming or whatever came first. What our research showed was that Manson’s kind of music is attractive to people like this.”

Child psychologists such as Dr Jack Boyle agree that the problem arises when the fans are already in a vulnerable state. “If you have a very disturbed individual who may be losing contact with reality because of drugs and he listens to Manson then that is a different issue. Then the music could take on a different meaning entirely and people could misinterpret Manson’s music.”

Psychologists believe more work needs to be done to examine whether the music acts to legitimise the disturbing thoughts in vulnerable youngsters’ minds, giving them a glamorous gloss or encouraging them. Manson himself believes his critics are missing the point. Asked about his fascination with serial killers he once said: “My fascination is similar to that of people stopping to look at car accidents or wanting to go to an amusement park and get on a ride that says ‘Ride at your own risk’. People love their fear, whether they realise it or not. People are afraid of death but love to get closer to it. I think that’s why there is a need for Marilyn Manson in America.”

TO SOME politicians, however, the reality that vulnerable or disturbed youngsters are drawn to music like Manson’s is enough justification for new curbs on it being sold to children. Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem MP, yesterday called for age certification of CDs to bring them into line with computer games and films.

This weekend in Dalkeith and Midlothian there is relief that the verdict was “guilty” rather than the “not proven” some had feared. Thoughts are with Jodi’s family. Now justice has been done they must try to pick up the pieces of their lives — knowing that one piece will be missing for ever. On Friday Jodi’s mother released a poem her daughter had written.

Entitled “A Thinking Christmas”, it is a touching and childlike depiction of how some children are lucky enough to receive gifts, while others less fortunate do not. But what is likely to linger long in the family’s mind are the poem’s first two lines, which, through murder and grief, have gained an unintended resonance:

“Your fire is nice and warm, Just think — A little girl cold, wet and in the storm . . . ”

[faithlilly]

Here are the contents of an old article from The Times newspaper (quite lengthy and detailed, but offers some very interesting insights into LM and the case):

Of course the paragraph below is absolutely mendacious in its dishonesty.

‘ More police research came across Manson’s paintings of the Black Dahlia victim Elizabeth Short, a Hollywood starlet whose murder in 1947 scandalised America. These stopped them in their tracks. The paintings showed injuries disturbingly similar to those inflicted on Jodi’s body — especially the large wounds on the side of the mouth stretching towards her ear, and an injury to the breast. Had the art and music of Marilyn Manson inspired, or even provoked, the most grisly murder Scotland had seen for a generation? ’

The pathologist who carried out the post-mortem on Jodi’s body said there were more dissimilarities than similarities when comparing the wounds of the Black Dahlia and Jodi. You might as well claim that the murder was inspired by the killings of Jack the Ripper whose victim’s mutilations were much similar. Further there was no evidence in any of the items associated with Luke that he had a) a particular liking for Marilyn Manson, I believe the CD bought after the murder was the only one he owned and b) had any knowledge of the Black Dahlia killing. 

Unfortunately I’ve only got time to scratch the surface of the above article but this really is lazy journalism at its best, supposition touted as fact, but I’m afraid much the same as the vast majority of articles written on the case.

[Paranoid Android]

Thanks for that, @Mr Apples.

[rulesapply]

I have read that too…it was probably on some forum.

When seen by multiple witnesses standing on the Newbattle Road Luke was wearing a light bomber jacket, which suggests rather moderate weather, not the weather it would seem for a heavy, parka. Wasn’t Jodi just wearing a t-shirt that night?

It must have been some forum you were on?

[rulesapply]

Here are the contents of an old article from The Times newspaper (quite lengthy and detailed, but offers some very interesting insights into LM and the case):

The murderous art that unmasked a cruel killer
Police investigating the murder of Jodi Jones were shocked by the dark fascinations of her boyfriend. But can the work of musicians such as Marilyn Manson be blamed for inspiring brutality or does it reflect the turmoil of a disturbed mind
Police investigating the murder of the 14-year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones had a prime suspect — her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. He was due to meet her the night she disappeared and had found her body in the darkness of a desolate Midlothian wood. But to the frustration of the police there was no forensic evidence linking him, or anybody else, to the crime.

To understand the way Mitchell’s mind worked, detectives immersed themselves in the youth cultures of goth, grunge, rap and nu-metal. For the mostly middle-aged officers it was a revelation. Given what they knew about how Jodi met her gruesome death, they became convinced that Mitchell’s musical taste betrayed the mind of a sadistic killer.

It was the suspect himself who sparked this line of inquiry. In the opening days of the investigation in the summer of 2003, as detectives went about their door-to-door inquiries in Dalkeith, Mitchell had spoken to officers in the street about music containing murderous themes. Displaying the arrogance he was to show throughout the case, he asked if the policeman knew the song Kim by the rapper Eminem.

Detectives discovered the song was about somebody murdering his wife. It was impossible to read the lyrics without a shiver of realisation that their chief suspect was a fan: “Don’t you get it bitch, no one can hear you?/Now shut the f*** up and get what’s comin’ to you./ You were supposed to love me./Now bleed, bitch, bleed!” Eminem was not Mitchell’s favourite musician. That honour went to Manson, the controversial American rock star. Mitchell was obsessive about Manson’s music, with its dark subject matter of suicide, violence, satanism and murder. When detectives dipped into the Manson repertoire it only heightened their concerns — and their suspicions. Especially songs such as King Kill 33:

“I will destroy you with one simple hole.


“The world that hates me has taken its toll but now I have finally taken control.

“You wanted so bad to make me this thing.

“And I want you now to just kill the king.

“And I am not sorry, and I am not sorry: this is what you deserve.”

SPONSORED



There was more. Detectives discovered that two days after the killing, having already been questioned and forensically examined, Mitchell wound down by buying and watching a Manson DVD, The Golden Age of Grotesque.

It had a 15 certificate, and he bought it at his local Sainsbury’s along with some family shopping.

Amid darkened scenes illuminated by flickering torchlight, the DVD shows a girl’s naked body lying on the ground. In another part, two other girls are tied up and hooded.

More police research came across Manson’s paintings of the Black Dahlia victim Elizabeth Short, a Hollywood starlet whose murder in 1947 scandalised America. These stopped them in their tracks. The paintings showed injuries disturbingly similar to those inflicted on Jodi’s body — especially the large wounds on the side of the mouth stretching towards her ear, and an injury to the breast. Had the art and music of Marilyn Manson inspired, or even provoked, the most grisly murder Scotland had seen for a generation? Manson’s CDs and those of many other performers who explore horror and darkness are piled high in the untidy bedrooms of tens of thousands of teenagers across Britain. Their parents roll their eyes at their offspring’s musical choices and fashion excesses and shrug. Are goths really any different or more dangerous than other teenage fads from previous generations? After all, parents in earlier times were once scandalised by teddy boys and mods and hippies and punks. Is this really any different? Luke Mitchell’s murder of Jodi Jones has sparked a worried re-examination of these parental assumptions. As Mitchell starts a prison sentence “without limit of time” for Jodi’s murder, the case poses some unsettling questions for parents, politicians and the music industry.

Does macabre and death- obsessed music inspire acts of violence, self-harm and murder? Or is it simply the case that vulnerable and disturbed youngsters are attracted to it? Either way, can this music continue to be made available without any age restrictions — unlike feature films and computer games? Crucial to these considerations is a more difficult question, one that last week haunted the minds of millions of Scots as they watched the closing stages of the trial: what drove Mitchell, a boy too young to shave, to the sadistic murder of his girlfriend?

JODI and Luke both favoured the uniform of the goth — baggy black clothes and facial piercings. Mitchell had a piercing just below the centre of his bottom lip, which he would worry with his tongue, making it bob up and down. Jodi had one on the right-hand side of her bottom lip.

Although just 14 years old, Mitchell was obsessed with nihilism and the occult, particularly as expressed in the music of Nirvana and Manson, as well as nu-metal acts such as Slipknot. He fostered a look similar to that of the Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, who was Jodi’s particular idol. Their favourite lyric was Cobain’s: “The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came.”

Both teenagers had a taste for the macabre. They would gather in Greyfriars Kirkyard in the centre of Edinburgh — generally regarded as one of the most eerily atmospheric graveyards in Scotland. There they would smoke cannabis — Mitchell always seemed to have a plentiful supply — among the ancient tombstones.

For some of the group that hung around Greyfriars, the surroundings whetted their appetite for horror. One of them was Sonny Devlin, from the Restalrig area of Edinburgh, who at 15 was a year older than the Dalkeith kids. By some grisly coincidence, it was June 30, 2003, the evening of Jodi’s murder, that Devlin and a younger friend chose to break into a Greyfriars tomb known as the last resting place of George “Bloody” Mackenzie, a 17th-century prosecutor of the Covenanters.

They disinterred a corpse and hacked off its head with a penknife. The boys then used the head to simulate oral sex, for the entertainment of their pals. The two boys were later arrested and became the first people in Scotland for more than a century to be convicted of “violation of a sepulchre”.

Mitchell’s friends had long been aware of his fascination for knives and the damage they could inflict.

When he was 12, Mitchell had used a knife to threaten the daughter of a family who were guests in the Mitchell house. He had climbed onto her bed, held the knife to her throat and asked for a kiss.

At an army cadet corps he attended in Bonnyrigg, a lock knife with a six-inch blade that he was carrying was confiscated by Matthew Muraska, the company leader. Mitchell would often show the other boys weapons he had improvised from blades and sticks.

A former girlfriend, Kara Van Nuil, who dated Mitchell for a few months in 2003 after meeting him at the cadets, described how he once grabbed her from behind and held a Swiss Army knife to her throat with the warning: “Don’t move, or I’ll gut you.” Just a month later, Jodi was dead.

While many fans of Manson’s music were happy simply to ally themselves with his idiosyncratic fashion sense and musical posturing, Mitchell went further. Satanic references were scrawled all over his school jotters. One read: “I offer my flesh, blood and soul to the dark lord of hell.” Another jotter had the words “Satan lives” on the front, and the sentence: “I have tasted the devil’s green blood.” On another Mitchell had written: “Evil is the way”.

Occult beliefs also emerged in Mitchell’s school work, causing alarm among teaching staff at his Catholic high school, St David’s in Dalkeith. In an essay called Pain and Suffering, prepared for a third-year English class, Mitchell wrote: “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance . . . Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life.”

After the teacher referred him to guidance staff, Mitchell wrote in another essay: “Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist? Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help.”

There were curiosities about the way he lived at the Mitchell family home, which, according to the wooden sign next to the front door, went by the name of “Bedlam”.

When his scarlet-painted bedroom was searched by police they found 20 bottles of his own urine under his bed. Mitchell’s parents, Corinne and Philip, split up in 1999, and his mother indulged him, giving him money and letting his girlfriends sleep in his room. She knew all about his cannabis use.

Mitchell often harmed himself. Once he scored the satanic number 666 into his arm “for a dare”. A former classmate, Michelle Tierney, later told police Mitchell had stubbed a cigarette out on his hand in front of her. He had then told her he had imagined getting stoned and killing someone. It would be “funny”, he said.

Jodi and her sister Janine had also been known to self-harm. The sisters had had a troubled childhood — their father Jimmy had committed suicide, aged 39, by hanging himself from a tree in the garden, six years before the death of his daughter. In her diary, Jodi had written: “Take the knife. All your pain can be taken by one slit, slit to your wrists. Be free, be happy, just like me.”

According to specialists in the occult, Jodi’s death bore many of the hallmarks of a ritual killing. She was naked but for a pair of socks, her wrists bound by the legs of her trousers. She was strangled, then while she was still alive her neck was slashed more than 20 times. A hole had been cut in her windpipe and the main artery in her neck had been severed almost all the way through. She had multiple injuries to her head, and wounds from her mouth to her ear. Careful cuts had been made around her eyes, as well as deep cuts on her left breast and right arm. The knife had been pushed deep into her mouth.

Few professionals involved in the case had ever witnessed anything so grim. Forensic pathologists concluded that such a murder was extremely rare, and was usually associated with somebody mentally disturbed or high on drugs.

So what was the motivation? Chief superintendent Craig Dobbie, who led the investigation, believes that Mitchell and Jodi had a furious row on the day of the murder after she discovered he was planning to take another girl on holiday. During the trial it emerged that he had been conducting a relationship with Kimberley Thomson, 15, from Perthshire, behind Jodi’s back and they had arranged to spend time together during the summer break.

“I think he told her at lunchtime that day (of her death) and she wanted to see him that night to talk about it so they arranged to meet.”

According to Dobbie’s account, they ended up in the woods between their homes. “A situation developed and she suffered a blow to her face. Her lip is cut. We later found some blood on a tree trunk and the lip bleeds quite a lot when it is cut. I think at this point she turned around and headed eastwards towards home, towards safety. But then she was struck on the head with something like the limb of a tree. Then she was strangled, her head was pulled up and her throat was cut. At that point she was dead.

“After a ‘normal’ murder, the person who committed it is then going to leg it or hide the body. But in this case the body is stripped and cut. Someone is living out a fantasy at this stage. This is something someone has wanted to do. We are now trying to understand the mind of the killer. We know the difference between right and wrong. But this person is outwith that so it is very difficult to understand why. The trial has heard potential influences such as Marilyn Manson ’s depiction of the Black Dahlia.

“Jodi’s breast was cut. Her abdomen was cut, the gash on the face was identical, there was a hole in the forehead. It’s there and we can’t avoid this simulation. This was not about sex, it was about escalating violence and the opportunity to perform injuries. We are not talking about some poor wee soul who some guy has raped. This is most horrific.”

As Jodi’s body was removed by ambulance, Mitchell is said to have sat coolly texting on his mobile. “In 85% of murder cases the attacker knows the victim, the local geography and lives within a five-mile radius,” said Dobbie. “I knew I wanted to eliminate all of Jodi’s male family members and associates, all the males who used that path and all local rough sleepers. Luke Mitchell was part of that group. A teacher from his school quickly came forward and raised concerns about the alarming writings in his jotter. That was worthy of further exploration. Was he into satan or dabbling, looking for an alternative religion or just sticking it up to his teachers? We couldn’t draw huge conclusions but were already learning that he carried knives. Then there was the incredulous discovery of the body.”

By early July, Mitchell had started to emerge as the prime suspect but the investigation was thwarted by a lack of any forensic evidence and with Mitchell’s almost unnatural resilience in the face of intense police scrutiny. What fascinated and frustrated detectives in equal measure was how a 14-year-old could commit such a frenzied attack and yet cover his tracks so efficiently.

More unsettling was the casual, contemptuous way he chatted with police dog handlers about their animals and mocked officers for allowing the bins in the street to be emptied before the search for a possible murder weapon had begun.

“He was always a very resilient, defiant and lippy lad,” said Dobbie. “He was much more confident than you would have expected. He was challenging and he liked to taunt. It was almost as if he was saying, ‘You’ll never solve this’.”

Mitchell was first questioned by police four days after Jodi’s death, yet neither the interview nor a search of his house provided any leads to tie him to the murder. It was the first indication police had that Mitchell would be no pushover. “For his age, he turned out to be a very challenging interviewee. He liked to mock,” said Dobbie. “In the interview he was confident and very controlling. He displayed a high level of intelligence.”

A month later, having exhausted other leads, police questioned Mitchell again. They knew they could only hold him for six hours and so the interview was planned in minute detail but again he proved elusive. “He was totally in control of himself and challenged the abilities and authority of the police. He had the mental ability to sit and take control of the interview and that’s incredible from someone who’s not previously been part of the criminal process or not come from a criminal family. He was not shocked or fazed or panicking. I have never seen someone so cool and calm and who needed to control the situation.”

Despite the lack of physical evidence, the police were building a circumstantial case against him. After collecting hundreds of witness statements they were able to piece together Mitchell’s movements, minute by minute, on the day of the murder and his story didn’t add up. The police report that named the teenager as the sole suspect placed particular emphasis on the fact that it was Mitchell who “discovered” Jodi’s body. It would allow prosecutors to convincingly assert that he had specialist knowledge of the murder scene.

Many psychologists are resistant to the idea that the root cause of Mitchell’s killing of Jodi was his fascination with death and the occult, as expressed through music.

Professor Cynthia McVey, of Glasgow Caledonian University, does not accept the link.

“Certainly if you watch a violent film, you learn the behaviour,” she says. “If you see someone sticking a knife in someone else you would know how to do that and potentially where to strike to do the most damage. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it would induce violent behaviour.”

Her colleague, Professor Vince Egan, agrees, dismissing Manson as “just show business”. It would be foolish, he says, to take action against a form of music or culture because of a crime such as this.

“There were lots of things going wrong in Luke’s life that could have helped contribute to his problems. He was dealing in large amounts of cannabis, carrying knives, he was clearly very alienated,” he says.

Manson’s effect on the behaviour of young people has been examined by Dr Adrian North, a psychologist at the University of Leicester. He believes the music attracts those who are already disturbed.

“We asked people when they had started self-harming and other activities associated with this music, and the answer they give was that the self-harming or whatever came first. What our research showed was that Manson’s kind of music is attractive to people like this.”

Child psychologists such as Dr Jack Boyle agree that the problem arises when the fans are already in a vulnerable state. “If you have a very disturbed individual who may be losing contact with reality because of drugs and he listens to Manson then that is a different issue. Then the music could take on a different meaning entirely and people could misinterpret Manson’s music.”

Psychologists believe more work needs to be done to examine whether the music acts to legitimise the disturbing thoughts in vulnerable youngsters’ minds, giving them a glamorous gloss or encouraging them. Manson himself believes his critics are missing the point. Asked about his fascination with serial killers he once said: “My fascination is similar to that of people stopping to look at car accidents or wanting to go to an amusement park and get on a ride that says ‘Ride at your own risk’. People love their fear, whether they realise it or not. People are afraid of death but love to get closer to it. I think that’s why there is a need for Marilyn Manson in America.”

TO SOME politicians, however, the reality that vulnerable or disturbed youngsters are drawn to music like Manson’s is enough justification for new curbs on it being sold to children. Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem MP, yesterday called for age certification of CDs to bring them into line with computer games and films.

This weekend in Dalkeith and Midlothian there is relief that the verdict was “guilty” rather than the “not proven” some had feared. Thoughts are with Jodi’s family. Now justice has been done they must try to pick up the pieces of their lives — knowing that one piece will be missing for ever. On Friday Jodi’s mother released a poem her daughter had written.

Entitled “A Thinking Christmas”, it is a touching and childlike depiction of how some children are lucky enough to receive gifts, while others less fortunate do not. But what is likely to linger long in the family’s mind are the poem’s first two lines, which, through murder and grief, have gained an unintended resonance:

“Your fire is nice and warm, Just think — A little girl cold, wet and in the storm . . . ”

That was interesting. There's information in there I hadn't heard before. Thanks for that.

[Nicholas]

Isn't it for most everyone, It Is not easy to fathom at all is it? Of anyone carrying out such a horrendous act. Good to see, you are completely leaning towards a fully grown, adult serial killer type. That in no way do you believe in the slightest, that the 16-year old youths on the bike, the 18-year old Kelly, the 19-year old brother had any part whatsoever in this horrendous murder either, do you? That the 15 -year old you speak of is no different from those others, where age, experience and cover up and all else come into play?  Unlikely, isn't it? Their parents, siblings and all else would cover up either, would they?

But the reality here is of course the false alibi. And the lies being told around this. Where it is pretty much key to understand the extent of the lies told, that gives us that clear picture, that LM was not at home. It has nothing to do with what can possibly be done in 13 mins, but everything to do with, what was in reality claimed to have happened in and around 40-45 mins. At it's very basic, If everything was in truth around Mitchell being home, then why that need to strive to make it into something else, to pull the brother into it? To extend that time out, to have him covered at home, longer? In advance, and exactly around the time needed. They were the only ones, to strive to put an alibi in place, that is what stands out. And if one is striving to give an alibi, it is because they needed one. - That is common sense and logic, is it not?

The first time SM was spoken to , was not the "first statement at the station". A brief account had already been given to the FLO, after being appointed to the Mitchell household. Within 36hrs of this girls death. A more detailed one on the Thursday, within 72hrs of this girls death, and a further brief one, still within 72hrs. When it became abundantly clear that on his arrival home, his mother had given a further account, and she put SM centre in those lies.  And we know they were lies, and not memory loss - for she had her son coming out his room, downstairs on her arrival home at five past five. She had him return to his room for around 10mins while dinner was being completed. That he collected that dinner at around 5.15, ate it and she claims he left the house. She did not see him just after five, and she neither saw nor heard him leave home. So by her own claims again, she had no way of knowing what time he left, did she? And those first accounts, all included LM leaving home around 5.45pm, to go meet with Jodi for around 6pm. Her memory loss, and regaining it, already had her memory put SM somewhere he could not have been, for she was not even home. And he could not have waited to have dinner made, to then eat it and be out - for he had to be out before 5.30pm for him still not to see his brother. - Now if you feel, due to not believing a 14-year old could carry out this type of crime, that they must be telling the truth about the alibi - then it is hardly surprising one puts complete faith in Ms Leans version on the back of the Mitchells?

Memory - every single detail of that dinner, with those clear and precise descriptions of Luke, all centred around Luke, driving that point that he was home. This is from the off. The clothing, of everything he was wearing, again driving that point home, those precise details of what he had on. Those timings, again precise, driving the point home, that she seen him just after 5pm, that he stayed home until around 5.45pm. Of putting herself in the back garden, again the detail of her work and all else. Putting her outside, when most would be in? It was overcast and wet. Low temps. It stood out like a sore thumb in comparison to these others, did it not? That precision, yet forgot she had not went directly home? That she even had an imaginary discussion with her other son at a time she could not have. - So yes it was blatant, and yes it disintegrated - he was not at home.

So, she was covering for him, at a time he obviously needed cover for. And she dragged her other son into it, to get one to lie to cover for the other also.  From the moment she decided to help LM, irrespective of what tale he told her, she set herself on a road of no return. Only CM or her son/s can answer why, to what story was told by Luke to them. People again under the impression that this maniac had arrived home, dripping blood and all else, the person who murdered Jodi Jones, those injuries, was not simply a murderer, where they? - And I do believe, whatever help he managed to get, he threw it back in her face. For the moment he crossed that threshold from fantasy to reality, something else was born. That change, and this was the person who needed to be at the centre of the action later that evening. There is no rational to that type of mind, no logic and common sense of distancing oneself completely, is there? The person who murdered Jodi Jones, was cold and they were calculated - exactly the traits LM displayed throughout. Every meet, every interview, through the trial and present day. - That complete "flat affect" monotone voice. Exactly how the operator described him, "not how one would expect someone to be, after finding a body" Exactly the voice the Jury heard that day, that chilling voice.

Is this the basis of what sucked Ms Lean in? For instantly upon that murder happening she had LM as being innocent, didn't she? That controversy, whilst her friends were saying I wonder, she was saying I don't. It was not him. Confirmed by that hand shake, he looked her in the eye, and she decided he was innocent. - And people have to believe her wonderful judgement of character, based on what exactly? - for it is certainly not evidence.

So, the question should be, should it not, why did she lie for him, and why did she involve her other son? Look at it this way. IF he had been home on her arrival, then she saw him for mere minutes. You can not make a mistake with seeing someone for mere minutes, can you? So why not simply say this? in the first instance. Tell the truth, as with Luke and wanting him over the wall for his DNA, as with his mother on Newbattle Road, "Jodi dead, breathing attack, is he under arrest" - She knew before having contact with her son that evening, that Jodi was dead. They had not spoken on the phone, he had been ignoring her.

So, not the fault of the police, is it? - They did not concoct the stories, lie to cover up, whatever they thought it was, they were covering for? Even that disgusting attempt to embroil SM into it, only sealed that fate more, they were digging the hole bigger. Adding more and more prior to the CCTV footage and the phone logs. And the arrest and the charges, and the future? Where we are asked to believe, that his grown up son, simply left this mother to it, by her blessing! - not much choice really, but it certainly tells it's own story, does it not?

Did Sandra Lean explain in her book about internal and external blood loss btw?

[Nicholas]

Did Sandra Lean explain in her book about internal and external blood loss btw?

Because Sandra Lean stated on 8th December 2018,

‘As it turns out, nugnug, she was probably moved more than once - the lack of blood at the foot of the wall and where the body was found suggest she wasn't killed in either place.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg449382.html#msg449382

[Gummybear]

The witness who had seen Jodi being followed by Stocky Man put the time at slightly after 5 o’clock. The police appealed for Stocky Man to come forward so must have thought the eyewitness claim credible. The eyewitness’s evidence would have put Jodi at Luke’s road at around 5.30, just the time Luke says he left the house.

There was no appeal for the couple seen by AB, at this time they could have been just another innocent couple. There was no appeal because Bryson’s first and second statements put the time of her sighting at 5.45.

An excellent summary of the sighting from elsewhere by a poster called Rolfe.

A woman called Andrina Bryson stated that she saw two people, male and female, at the eastern end of the path early that evening. There's a lot in the book about Mrs Bryson not being the complete stranger to the Jones family that she claimed to be, and about the possibility that by the mediation of her brother-in-law (who was very close to the Jones family) her description of the couple might have been contaminated. I think that's all a bit of a red herring, and in fact the testimony doesn't stand on its own terms.

The prosecution claimed that the two people were Luke and Jodi, and this proved that Luke had walked along the path from his own house (which was some little way from the western end of the path) and met Jodi at the eastern end. Thus giving the lie to his story that he hadn't seen her at all, and placing him with her, close to where her body was found, about 20 minutes before the time the police had decided was the time of death.

There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.

Luke hadn't necesarily been expecting Jodi to "come out to play" that evening, because she was in her mother's bad books because of having played truant some time the previous week and originally she wasn't going to be allowed out until six, but around 4.30, after Jodi had come home from school and changed out of her school clothes, Judith had said, well OK, on you go. Jodi texted Luke (using her mother's phone as hers was broken) between 4.34 and 4.38, probably saying that she was coming over (the actual texts were deleted from both phones).

The implication is therefore that Luke was still at home when these texts were exchanged, because that was his first intimation that Jodi was free. You might think that if she was coming over to his neck of the woods, as seems to have been the arrangement, he would simply have waited for her. However her mother insisted that Jodi wasn't allowed to walk down Roan's Dyke path alone and that Luke was expected to come and meet her. This wasn't actually true, Janine confirmed that Jodi often walked the path on her own and Judith knew that, but the rendezvous at the eastern end was insisted on by Judith.

So if Luke immediately dropped everything as soon as he got those texts and walked briskly to the eastern end of the path to meet Jodi, what time could he have got there? In the end the time of that sighting was determined in court to be between 4.49 and 4.54, to fit with the (revised) time that Jodi was believed to have left the house, which was 4.50. If she had left at 4.50 she would have been at the eastern end of the path at 4.53, assuming she went straight there.

But hang on, if Luke was still in his own house texting at 4.38, could he have got to the eastern end of the path by 4.53, only 15 minutes later? The distance is about a mile, so yes, but he would have been hurrying. So that was the prosecution story. Luke had left his house the minute the texting exchange ended (or he was already on his way at that time, even though he didn't know Jodi was coming out unti he got the texts) and walked very fast and got to the spot by 4.53, just in time to meet Jodi, who had left her house at 4.50. And that's what Andrina Bryson saw.

It's not that simple. Andrina Bryson originally timed that sighting at about 5.40 to 5.45. According to the police theory Jodi was already dead by then. That time didn't work for the police at all, because there was a definite confirmed sighting of Luke sitting on a wall at the end of his own street in Newbattle at six o'clock. He said he hadn't left Newbattle at all and he was still waiting for Jodi to show up at that point, and no there was no arrangement that he was supposed to go and meet her at the eastern end of the path and walk her to Newbattle. (There was an arrangement that he would walk her home along the path, but not that he would go to meet her.) He was seen sitting on the wall waiting for her at 6.00 by friends who actually knew him, so there was no getting out of that one. Working back from that time the police figured that 5.15 was the latest he could possibly have committed the murder and still got back to Newbattle to be seen sitting on a wall as if he hadn't a care in the world. Therefore Jodi had to have left as early as 4.50 to get her to the spot where she was murdered in time for Luke to be the murderer and the whole mad-slasher thing to have happened.

So the Bryson sighting, if it was to remain part of the evidence (and it had to be, because nobody else claimed to have seen Luke at the eastern end of the path at that time, to give the lie to his story that he'd spent the entire evening west of the path), had to be earlier, and indeed had to be pretty much at 4.53 precisely.

Andrina Bryson's original story was that she got into her car with her two children (one a toddler) at 4.05, pretty much as soon as her daughter got home from school, to go to the supermarket. It took five to ten minutes to get to the supermarket and then about 35 to 45 minutes to do her weekly shopping. The police got her till receipt which said 4.45, so that more or less checks with the shorter of the time estimates. 4.05 leave the house, 4.10 arrive at the supermarket, 4.45 at the checkout. She wanted to look at a house for sale in Easthouses (the village where Jodi lived, at the eastern end of the path) so she drove there, getting a bit lost, looked at the house from the street, and then drove home. It was on the way home she saw the couple.

It was agreed she would have taken five minutes to get the messages and the kids into the car and drive away, so leaving the supermarket at 4.50. The minimum time to get to Easthouses from the supermarket was 12 minutes, or 17 minutes if she'd gone a longer way, so 5.02 to 5.07 arrival in the village. Then she had to find the house for sale, stop in the street to look at it, then turn the car in the cul-de-sac to head off home. Originally she gave herself more than half an hour for that, estimating that she'd seen the couple at the end of the path at 5.40 to 5.45. Another time point was that she'd received a phone call "about half an hour after she got back home". That call was logged at 6.17 (she originally guessed 6.20 before the time was checked), meaning she got home about 5.50.

I'm not quite sure how long it was supposed to take to drive from the western end of Roan's Dyke path back to Andrina Bryson's house, but possibly this sequence of events puts her sighting of the couple a little bit earlier than 5.45, perhaps 5.40 or a few minutes before that. Certainly not 4.53. So how did that happen? You'd think the till receipt timed at 4.45 would knock the whole thing on the head from the start.

Here's how it was done. The police got Mrs Bryson's bank statement, and for some reason the transaction was timed on the bank statement at 4.32 (and 45 seconds), 13 minutes earlier. They decided that had to be the correct time and the till receipt was wrong. Well OK, but that would have meant that Mrs Bryson managed to do her weekly shop (with a kid and a toddler in tow) in about 15 minutes, compared to her original estimate of 35 to 45 minutes. Given the 4.32 time, add 5 minutes to get kids and groceries into the car, then the 12 minutes minimum time to drive to Easthouses from the supermarket and you have 4.49, or 4.54 if you take the longer route. Hey presto, this is just right to have seen Luke and Jodi meet at the eastern end of the path exactly as the police timings needed them to have met.

But what about the drive to look at the house for sale? Mrs Bryson always put the sighting of the couple after she looked at the house, on her way home. They seem just to have forgotten about that, unless there's another altered statement that hasn't been mentioned.

So who did Andrina Bryson say she saw? Originally she described a male in his early 20s, white, average height and build, thick sandy brown hair standing up in a clump at the back. He was wearing a green fishing-style jacket with a lot of pockets and trousers to match. She didn't see his face at all. The girl had very dark shoulder-length hair, with a plain navy-blue hoodie and light blue boot-cut jeans. Again she didn't see the face and couldn't guess an age.

Luke Mitchell, on 30th June 2003, was a skinny 14-year-old kid with dead straight blond hair. The prosecution were adamant that he had been wearing a parka jacket (which he didn't actually possess at that time, but which in any case didn't match the fishing-jacket description). Jodi had mid-brown or auburn hair. She was wearing a baggy black top with a prominent logo on the back, and very baggy black trousers.

It's blindingly obvious that Andrina Bryson saw two completely different people, not Luke and Jodi, at maybe twenty to six. But it was vital for the prosecution that it had to be Luke and Jodi at 4.53. There's more, including a photospread which seems to have been about as fair as the one Tony Gauci was shown on 15th September 1991 (that is, anyone could probably have figured out which photo was the suspect) from which Mrs Bryson (who didn't see the man's face) obligingly picked out Luke - of course Luke was already the prime suspect by then and it's pretty unlikely she didn't know what he looked like even if her brother-in-law hadn't been as thick as thieves with the Joneses. And a parka which she said wasn't what the man had been wearing, but she picked it out because she'd been asked to pick the garment most like the one she'd seen the man wearing. (Again shades of Tony Gauci - well if I have to pick someone then the one that looks most like is the number eight - not the man I saw in my shop but the man who looks a little bit like is...)

I don't think the people Mrs Bryson saw have actually been identified. Of course if they weren't there till 5.40 and the police were concentrating on the period between 4.50 and 5.15, they might not have pinged anyone's radar. But since it seems likely Jodi was murdered later than 5.15 they might have been important witnesses.’

In all of this there is something being swept under the carpet time and time again. You never acknowledge how likely it is that Stocky Man could be the killer.   Stocky man was seen following J on or just after 5pm (your words). Within 30 mins of this sighting J is dead. If what you say is accurate then I think Stocky man has no alibi either and was seen ‘following’ J just before she was killed. In my opinion Stocky man is more likely her killer than anyone else iv read. May I add Stocky man’s clothes etc were never tested or do they even know who he is? 🧐  A probable killer lost, so we chase the wee boy to keep the firm happy. No Blood DNA on Luke either, would indicate the evidence was lost when Stocky man got away scott free.   In all that’s said about alibi's and time lines, the bottom line is. Its highly unlikely that Luke could have committed this crime in the time frame (even yours) suggested and be Blood free. It’s as simple as that for me. I have yet to see anyone argue this part believably. Where was the blood?

[Nicholas]

From the Jigsawman, where the contents of the book are simply those self born, hypothetical lines of reasoning that have been pushed out, that jigsaw formed in the days long before she had access to anything, other than the Mitchells, these truthful people and of course media sources.

Did Andrew Green post on Internet forums?

Jigsawman aka Sandra Lean
“Yes, I agree. But what you must understand is the local prejudice and the intransigence of the "investigating" team.

Firstly, the climate of fear cannot be understated. Small town mentality, every finger pointed at Luke Mitchell from day one, and an absolute stonewalling of anything, anywhere, which deviated from the official line.

There were political reasons for the college where this person was resident not wanting to become attached to the investigation in any way. When the cops failed to come calling, they most likely breathed a huge and collective sigh of relief.

You pointed out in a previous post that someone who witnessed an assault on a child failed to intervene because their fear was that they might become a suspect. In a similar vein, individuals like this tutor could easily (and perhaps understandably) make a conscious decision not to "stick his/her neck out" - why bother? Not their problem, not their murder.

With the whole area shrieking hysterically for the immediate arrest of Luke Mitchell, the rumour machine in full swing by the second day, the complete disinterest of the police in considering any other possibilty than Luke as the suspect, and the sheer menace ready to pounce on anyone, anywhere who dared to suggest that maybe it wasn't Luke, you can see why, even with concerns, many people would simply justify to themselves not getting involved.

When this same tutor was questioned three years later, as always, the questions were worded very specifically, and the person questioned allowed the justification of later saying, "I answered their questions honestly. They didn't ask about X, Y and Z; if they had, I'd have told them."

It's the classic "closing down" tactic so beloved of manipulators of information, from playground bullies, through every rank of authority, to high court judges.

There is an excellent book on this by Dr Andrew Green entitled "Power, Resistance, Knowledge" - it's available on Amazon (is probably available elsewhere, but Amazon is a definite) - I would highly recommend it.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s280.html


Jigsawman - 7th of April 2010
Apologies for not respondig to individual posts - due to time constraints, I'm responding to the various recent posts in the one go.

Foolsgold: I just want to know if there were any known visits or phone calls between the "Search Party Organizers" and the "Fluid Donating Males".

Kelly was in the Gran's house on the day in question, along with [Name removed] and Jodi's brother, Joseph. Other fluid donor was never checked for contact with the family (was, in fact, never even asked, nor they about him), due to the fact that he wasn't traced until 3 years later, by which time, as far as L&B were concerned, the case was "closed."

It was also their excuse for not following up on the other potential suspect, who has dropped out of the discussion of late, because apparently none of his DNA was found at the scene. We do not know this for sure, though, because (a) there appears to be no reference DNA sample for this male in the files!! and (b) the forensic reports are such a mess that many of the samples collected were never properly tested anyway.

Deadhead: I find the idea that Jodi's whole family would be involved in her death a bit hard to swallow

Indeed, it does seem like a stretch too far. But what if, having taken certain decisions and steps, family members found themselves inextricably implicated, so that telling "the truth" would have been virtually impossible.

Let me run a hypothetical line of reasoning here. A male member of Jodi's extended family has had a run in with Jodi earlier in the day. He also has a history of violence and unpredictable behaviour. (This scenario, in fact, can be applied to various male members of the extended family.)

Mother/Granny later get wind that something has happened between Jodi and this male, as a result of the earlier run in, but at this stage, they are not quite sure what, and don't, even in their wildest nightmares, imagine the worst. The concern here would be to find Jodi, and "sort it all out" without the involvement of the authorities, since that involvement would mean family male would be in deep trouble.

By the time Jodi has been found, horribly murdered, several members of the family have already been in contact with each other, in order to "sort out" whatever it was they thought had happened - how to now explain that to the authorities?

Then the cops take over, and, almost instantly, set their sights on Luke.

In their shock and disbelief over what has happened to Jodi, the family members can justify their earlier actions to themselves - they were just afraid that one of their own family members had possibly hurt Jodi, but their fears were unfounded, since it was Luke who had done this terrible thing to her.

Kl: can anyone confirm that jodis phone was brocke
Foolsgold: I would imagine that ping results from cell towers or actual use of the phone would have alerted the police however if Jodi's phone was actually either used or working

Jodi's phone was very definitely broken. She had thrown it, in temper, against a wall a few weeks earlier, and it was rendered "deid" by that action. There would be no ping results from Jodi's phone for about 2 weeks before the murder.

Foolsgold: What about the initiator of the search, who I believe was Jodi's mother. There have been allegations that the "grounded" phone call was excessive and excessively prompt. Is this misperception? I don't know

I think the opposite was actually true. Jodi had just been "ungrounded" that evening (please read the explanantion of what constituted grounding and ungrounding in this family - it's very complicated!) yet step father receives a call 50 minutes after Jodi has left the house, saying, in essence, she is not where she was supposed to be, and is, to all intents and purposes "missing" for that length of time.

Yet later that evening, when she is supposed, for the first time in 6 weeks, to be home for 10pm, mother leaves it another 40 minutes to text and re-ground her, armed with the knowledge that 5 hours earlier, Jodi had been unaccounted for (and not where she was supposed to be) for almost an hour.

Deadhead: the guy who left his blood and matching semen..i know he cannot be named for legal reasons.

No, he can be, and was. Stephen Kelly, Janine's boyfriend, is that person. What we cannot say, or even suggest, of course, is that Stephen Kelly, the fiance of Jodi's sister, was in any way involved in the murder of Jodi.
Even police officers must caution individuals that they are being arrested or interviewed on the "suspicion" of some wrongdoing. The dangers of making public allegations against people who have not been officially suspected of any wrongdoing are clear and obvious.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s280.html

Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton were in London in March 2010, was she back in Scotland by April?

Sandra Lean - 10th of April 2010
’NOTICE TO ALL POSTERS.
I have tried for several weeks now to ignore the dishonest, misleading and malicious posts which have appeared on this site with monotonous regularity. The following FACTS are all provable with documented evidence, a route I will not hesitate to take if these posts do not stop immediately.

________________________________________
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 19:57:31 +0000
From:
Subject: Re: no smoke
To: sandra.lean@live.co.uk
Hi
Thank you so much for your response.  That would be great thanks.  We are in the process of an Appeal and it was CCRC that told me your book could be of real help to us,

(2) Qualifications and Experience These are a matter of public record Honours degree in Social Science (Psychology and Sociology, with electives in Criminology), 7 years voluntary work with families enduring injustice, 2 years into a PhD at the University of Stirling within the Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
I have never claimed to be doing a PhD elsewhere, nor at any other time than from June 2008.

(3) Books I have all of the original correspondence from the people whose cases were featured in No Smoke. This makes clear that no-one was ever misled in any way, that I had full permission to publish these stories, and that the families and prisoners concerned were fully informed participants.

Interviews for the PhD must be kept anonymous, and are a completely separate issue from any books. This is made absolutely clear to anyone who is participating in the research. Furthermore, cases which have been featured in the book cannot be used for the PhD. Again, documented evidence is available.

(4) Teasing the Animals This phrase was lightheartedly used by me twice in private emails, one referring to tabloid journalists, one referring to a poster who claimed to be a fiscal, but was prone to somewhat exaggerated posts. I have never, ever used this phrase in relation to anyone suffering miscarriage of justice or injustice of any sort. The entire history of the private conversations in which this phrase was used is on record. I will not, for now, make this public, even though the other party has allowed other people to do so selectively and maliciously.

(5) Aliases: I have posted on this site as Angeline and Sandra Lean. That is all. I have no idea who nugnug, reg126, shenna, foolsgold, con, guest1 or any of the other posters who appear on this site are. My communications records will show that there has never been any contact between myself and these people.

This site was started in support of Shirley McKie who was falsely accused. It is something of an irony, then, that it has become a platform for certain people to make false and malicious allegations against someone else.

Please note, I am no longer prepared to ignore dishonest, false, misleading and defamatory comments on this site. I have documented proof that the many claims and accusations made here are untrue. Sadly, on a site purporting to support the wrongly accused, we have come to the stage where I am being forced to prove that the allegations made against me are false innocent until proven guilty? I think not.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s290.html


Yet verbally Sandra confirmed Reg126was Billy Middleton

Am guessing Steffie was Stephanie Bon
👇
Apr 11, 2010#315
Anyone interested in MOJ and good reading should look up

http://www.writesite.org.uk/index.htm

L Naylor did a lot of research and she worked with some of the most amazing people around, great woman.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s310.html

[Chris_Halkides]

From The Times article above, "As Jodi’s body was removed by ambulance, Mitchell is said to have sat coolly texting on his mobile."

This is so obviously wrong that it calls the whole article into serious question.