The POLICE were too STUPID to fathom this out

[Paranoid Android]

You may know the area better than me, but the trees behind the wall although dense, they're not very spread out width wise are they? Are they not very close to the field? 

It's been a while, but I think the area around where the murder happened isn't as dense as it used to be, and that strip of woods is quite narrow, and quite close to the field, as you say.

But, the closer you get to Newbattle Road, walking downhill, the more dense it gets.

I also doubt that someone who had just committed a murder would want to hang about for too long.

[mrswah]

I don't think you know a great deal about the case ~ neither do I ~ and neither does anyone who didn't sit through the evidence being presented in perhaps the longest trial of a single person ever held in Scotland.

The members of the jury did and they delivered a majority verdict which was both considered and lawful.  A verdict which has since been upheld on appeal.

Mitchell's advocate was considered as the foremost in Scotland but it seems not even he could prevail against the sum and substance of the evidence presented which convicted Mitchell; foremost of which was his false alibi.

All my knowledge of the case has been gleaned from the internet, newspapers and Sandra Lean's book, so you're right, I only know a limited amount. 

I would love to know what came out at trial, and I am very interested in hearing the views of people who live local to where the crime took place. Sometimes they know things that the rest of us haven't heard about!

I suspect, however, that what was presented at trial may not have been the whole story. I'm never going to actually know that, though!

[Rusty]

All my knowledge of the case has been gleaned from the internet, newspapers and Sandra Lean's book, so you're right, I only know a limited amount. 

I would love to know what came out at trial, and I am very interested in hearing the views of people who live local to where the crime took place. Sometimes they know things that the rest of us haven't heard about!

I suspect, however, that what was presented at trial may not have been the whole story. I'm never going to actually know that, though!

Plenty stuff that was reported on at the time of the trial, at this website. Although some on here, will claim all sorts about bias media. That may be true in some aspects, but is also used as an easy excuse to use to avoid backing up claims made. One thing is for sure, some stuff you will come across on Free Library, you won't read in any of Sandra's propaganda.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?SearchBy=0&q=luke+mitchell&Search=Search&By=0

[Paranoid Android]

I would love to know what came out at trial, and I am very interested in hearing the views of people who live local to where the crime took place. Sometimes they know things that the rest of us haven't heard about!

I suspect, however, that what was presented at trial may not have been the whole story. I'm never going to actually know that, though!

I had shared some local stories, but it was dismissed as rumour and hearsay.

I actually suspect the opposite to what you think - that the local cops had more info, but a lot of it would have been inadmissible.

[mrswah]

I had shared some local stories, but it was dismissed as rumour and hearsay.

I actually suspect the opposite to what you think - that the local cops had more info, but a lot of it would have been inadmissible.

Inadmissible for what reason?

[mrswah]

Plenty stuff that was reported on at the time of the trial, at this website. Although some on here, will claim all sorts about bias media. That may be true in some aspects, but is also used as an easy excuse to use to avoid backing up claims made. One thing is for sure, some stuff you will come across on Free Library, you won't read in any of Sandra's propaganda.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?SearchBy=0&q=luke+mitchell&Search=Search&By=0

Thanks for that, Rusty. I have read some of it, and yes, some of it is new to me.

Sometimes, the media IS biased, of course. Still interesting though, as I didn't follow the trial at all.

As for Sandra, I don't believe everything she says is propaganda: in fact, I think she has researched the case very well, even though we know whose side she is on.

[Paranoid Android]

Inadmissible for what reason?

Maybe because of how it was obtained.

[faithlilly]

Maybe because of how it was obtained.

Could you expand?

[Mr Apples]

William Wallace, do you live near Dalkeith? Are you of a similar age to Luke or Shane? I think I read a lengthy post of yours recently on here and the inference was that you thought Luke was guilty. What has made you change your mind? The lack of incriminating forensic evidence on Luke? You now think a female could be the murderer — who? Just looking to stir up some further debate. Cheers.

[Angelo222]

A reminder William Wallace that opinion should be stated as such. The use of the IMO acronym is acceptable.

[Angelo222]

Yes, imo the Police were too stupid to fathom this our. Once they had allowed the crime scene to be contaminated for 7 hours, they then failed to search the houses of anyone except Mitchell because Dobbie had already decided he must have done it. They were suffering from "confirmation bias" from the first minute of the investigation. Murders such as those carried out by Tobin and Sinclair had no real motive apart from killing their victims. Now a character like either of them did not just happen to be hiding in the trees carrying weapons, over the wall at the path at about 5pm in broad daylight with dog walkers and cyclists around.  Killers like the above 2 were smart, they abducted their victims and took them where there was no chance of other people being around.

The person who committed this murder was known to Jodi, but only Mitchell was deemed a suspect. Moped seen parked at V - explanation...."we don't remember what we were doing there, in fact we remember almost nothing about that whole day", but one of them remembered to shave all his hair off.? Next.....the moped strangely "disappears" and is never seen again or examined by the Police.

A witness statement given by A.O was "discovered" later (months, years?). A.O was not cited to give evidence despite being in the house apparently before Jodi went out. A.O told the Police something they didn't want to hear, something that pointed away from Mitchell being the only suspect. Something was going on in that house between 415pm and 445pm. About 8-10 texts were exchanged between A.O and Ju.J between 415pm and 430pm, despite the fact A.O was on his way home and would be back by about 430pm.

The "moped boys" took 5 days to tell the Police it was them on the moped the day of the murder. The Police were too thick to question the motives and statements of 2 people you wouldn't trust to keep 50p for you. These 2 were never identified by anyone whilst on the moped. The fact is, nobody knows WHO was on that moped.

To return back to motive. Mitchell had no motive to kill his girlfriend. Did the Police investigate anyone who might have had a motive? No they didn't. These Police were stupid. They had no experience of similar murders because they're rare in Scotland. When the DNA tests failed to match Mitchell they should have called in the FBI as this case was out of their league. They missed several clues and failed to identify other suspects. They also missed the most obvious clue of all.......the victim's hair was pulled out at the roots. That is a highly unusual facet of murders carried out by men. In fact I do not even know of one previous murder case where the victim sustained such an injury. Tobin and Sinclair did even worse things to their victims but pulling their hair out at the roots was not one of them. IMO the killer of Jodi Jones was not a man, it was a female. Men do not pull women's hair out, they have other sick depraved evil things in their heads. Women very rarely commit murders and almost never when there is no motive. In my opinion, a female with a motive killed Jodi. That is why there were no signs of sexual assault and why there were several female DNA profiles found.

Get your Inspector Clouseau hats on guys. Do you think the killer walked back towards Newbattle, went along the main road past traffic and people, covered in blood? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer ran across that main road risking being seen and going along the side of the small river behind the houses where Mitchell lived? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer walked back towards Easthouses onto the main road? Obviously NOT. Hiding in the woods across at the golf course and College wouldn't be a good option either with the possibility of Police swarming in once Jodi had been reported missing then found. So how did the killer get away undetected and witnessed by nobody, not even a dog walker? There was people around......the cyclist who heard noises over the wall. A man walking home from the tool hire shop who saw the moped at the V. Others would have been around walking dogs etc, but not one person saw anybody in a hurry looking agitated or with blood on them. WHY ??

The killer had plenty time to clean up any evidence of committing a murder, because only Mitchell and his house was searched. The Police were done up like kippers. They just didn't have the brains or experience to figure out the puzzle because they were obsessed with Mitchell. Mitchell did not do it. No DNA or blood at the scene or in his house makes it impossible. Some people say maybe he cleaned up in the river behind his house. So he did the murder at 515pm, got to the river across the main road at 530pm after running through the trees  and across the main road without anyone seeing him covered in blood, spent 10 minutes cleaning up, in time to be witnessed by other youths near the Abbey in Newbattle at 545-550pm? What did he do with the bloodstained clothes? He had spare clothes in a backpack and changed by the river? See how stupid this theory is? It's just not realistic at all.

Those who continually say Mitchell did it are blinded to both the impossibility of the ridiculous timelines and lack of forensic evidence ANYWHERE. Mitchell didn't do it in my view. The killer was not male also in my opinion. IMO the killer was a female with a motive. You will have to work out for yourselves who it was and how they managed to escape the murder scene undetected.

The walls are closing in on the sick evil person who did this imo. The clock is ticking.

Which completely ignores the failed alibi and all the other evidence. Maybe it was all simply a coincidence?

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think you know a great deal about the case ~ neither do I ~ and neither does anyone who didn't sit through the evidence being presented in perhaps the longest trial of a single person ever held in Scotland.

The members of the jury did and they delivered a majority verdict which was both considered and lawful.  A verdict which has since been upheld on appeal.

Mitchell's advocate was considered as the foremost in Scotland but it seems not even he could prevail against the sum and substance of the evidence presented which convicted Mitchell; foremost of which was his false alibi.

No one needs to know a great deal about the case to appreciate the judicial system isn't infallible. 

I would remind you of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice the country has ever witnessed where the appeal judges stated:

Stefan Kizsko

"We can find no grounds whatsoever to condemn the jury's verdict of murder as in any way safe or unsatisfactory.  The appeal is dismissed".  Lord Justice Bridge.

[Holly Goodhead]

No one needs to know a great deal about the case to appreciate the judicial system isn't infallible. 

I would remind you of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice the country has ever witnessed where the appeal judges stated:

Stefan Kizsko

"We can find no grounds whatsoever to condemn the jury's verdict of murder as in any way safe or unsatisfactory.  The appeal is dismissed".  Lord Justice Bridge.

And SK's advocate went on to become Home Secretary!

[Rusty]

even though we know whose side she is on.

And that is the problem. 

[faithlilly]

And that is the problem.

Such a high profile case, the longest of a single defendant in Scottish judicial history. An absolute guaranteed best seller for any author you’d have thought yet not one single book has been published which supports the Crown’s case. Why do you think that is?