UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: John on February 15, 2021, 10:50:29 PM
-
A new two-part Channel 5 docuseries re-examines the case of Jodi Jones, who was killed in woods near Easthouses, Midlothian, 18 years ago.
Murder in a Small Town, which will be aired over two nights, namely 24/25th February, takes another look at the case against Luke Mitchell, convicted of brutally murdering his girlfriend in 2003, a claim he denies.
In 2003, Luke Mitchell was accused of brutally murdering 14-year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones.
He maintains his innocence to this day and now, after 17 years, two former detectives who are now private investigators are working together to re-examine the police and prosecution’s case against Mitchell.
In the new two-part series, they uncover information which could possibly cast doubt on the verdict, including new evidence which emerged from a witness who was living in the area at the time, and details of another male’s DNA found at the scene.
What happened to Jodi Jones?
Jones was found in woodland near her home in Easthouses in 2003. Her hands had been tied behind her back, her throat cut and her body repeatedly slashed.
Mitchell, now 32, insists he did not murder her. In phone calls from jail, he said: “I was the local weirdo. It was easy to put on me.”
Mitchell, who at the time was 14, tells how he found Jones while searching for her with other locals after she disappeared, and also claims two police officers tried to bully him into admitting he killed his girlfriend Jodi by telling him: “Confess you little b*****d.”
In the documentary he insists he was framed for the murder and would never admit to it - even if it meant an immediate release: “I can’t be more clear. I absolutely did not kill Jodi and I’ve been locked up for a crime I didn’t commit. I will not admit to something I’ve not done. I want to clear my name."
Mitchell was convicted of murder in 2005 following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh and was ordered to serve at least 20 years in prison.
He has had four previous attempts to overturn his conviction. Two were rejected on appeal and a bid to have his case referred to the UK Supreme Court was turned down at the High Court in Edinburgh.
What happens in the documentary?
Two former police detectives – John Sallens and Michael Neil – reopen the case in the documentary and claim to have uncovered details of other male DNA found at the crime scene, and new information about another male from a witness living in the area at the time.
They say there was only circumstantial evidence and an apparent sighting of teens by a witness who drove past at 30mph.
The team concludes there is more evidence pointing to other suspects being responsible. One of the former cops claims Mitchell “suffered a serious miscarriage of justice” and was let down by the legal system.
When can I watch it?
Murder in a Small Town began on Wednesday 24 February, airing at 9pm on Channel 5.
The second-part will be broadcast tonight (25 February) at the same time, and if you missed the first instalment, you can catch up through the channel’s on demand service, My5.
-
Excerpts from article today by Jon Hebditch for the Daily Record
‘Channel 5 bosses have been blasted for 'giving a platform' to convicted killer of Scots schoolgirl Jodi Jones as he launches a fresh bid to clear his name
‘Scottish Conservative justice spokesman Liam Kerr hit out at the decision to air the documentary.
He said: “This individual was convicted of one of the most horrific criminal acts, and several appeals on his behalf have been rejected.
“Clearly this documentary will only cause more distress to a family who’ve already suffered so much.
“The makers should be thinking twice about giving a platform to such a dangerous and twisted individual.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodie-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-23526359
Douglas Walker
@DougScottishSun
Two ex detectives, a top QC and a leading forensic scientist all cast major doubt on Luke Mitchell’s murder conviction in a new Channel 5 documentary.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DougScottishSun/status/1362507799541018624
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6704329/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-killer-channel-5-documentary/
Suspect Douglas Walker is referring to Maggie Scott and Allan Jamieson
-
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6704329/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-killer-channel-5-documentary/
‘The two-part documentary, which airs next week, follows ex-Police Scotland detectives John Sallens and Michael Neill as they re-examine the case.
‘Four detectives from elite anti-terrorist unit are facing corruption probe over claims of fraud
by Russell Findlay June 2013
‘FOUR detectives who worked for an elite unit which targets terrorists are at the centre of a
corruption probe.
Detective Sergeant John Sallens, 48, and three Major Investigation Team colleagues have been reported to Crown Office prosecutors who will decide if they should stand trial.
The others are constables Geoff Fisher, 48, Michael Neil, 43, and Lynn McConnachie, 42.
All four were based at the MIT office in Glasgow’s high-security Govan police station
Read more: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/four-detectives-elite-anti-terrorist-unit-1941239
-
Does anyone know whether or not Luke Mitchell obtained the prison governors permission regarding the channel 5 documentary ?
In Dec 2019 Sandra Lean stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10066.0.html
‘Technically, prisoners have the right to speak to journalists, etc, if the purpose is to highlight a claimed miscarriage of justice, but each case is at the discretion of the prison governor.
In Luke's case, the reason given for refusing the interview with James English was that "it would cause a public outcry"
What’s changed from then to now ?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/behind-bars-tv-cameras-show-6930248
(Shotts Prison - William Stuart - Governor (Acting) Email William.Stuart@sps.pnn.gov.uk)
On what grounds did acting Gov Stuart give Mitchell to speak with those involved in the Firecracker Films production?
Has this been established?
And is William Stuart aware of Sandra Lean’s back story ?
And what about the two ex detectives ?
-
Has Luke Mitchell’s prison governor fact checked before seemingly giving his permission to Mitchell to speak to those involved in the firecracker films production?
‘Two former detectives reopen the case in the documentary and claim to have uncovered details of other male DNA found at the crime scene, and new information about another male from a witness living in the area at the time.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/jodi-jones-murderer-luke-mitchell-claims-he-was-framed-in-new-channel-5-documentary-3140076
Is there ‘new information’ or is this ‘new information’ already public knowledge?
Sandra Lean claimed here she’d put everything she possibly could on the case into the public domain
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y
-
nessa dundon
@sallycinnamon83
Been lucky enough to work on this series with an amazing team
Librarian
@stmungo_library
Replying to
@sallycinnamon83
Cannot wait to watch this and see the rippling effects....
Tinopolis
@tinopolisgroup
This Wednesday 24th & Thursday 25th
@channel5_tv
re-examine the case against #LukeMitchell telling his story.
Was an innocent child wronged by the criminal justice system, and could this be Britain’s most shocking miscarriage of justice?
Tune in this week to find out more..
Ron Jones
@RonTinopolis
Replying to
@tinopolisgroup
and
@channel5_tv
Our team at
@FirecrackerFilm
investigates why a child was sent to jail for 20 years just on circumstantial evidence. Justice?
https://mobile.twitter.com/tinopolisgroup/status/1363920558690344965
Firecracker Films
@FirecrackerFilm
Tune in this week to the new two-part true crime murder documentary looking in to what could be one of the UK’s biggest miscarriages of justice in the case of Luke Mitchell and the killing of teenage schoolgirl Jodi Jones
Watch Weds & Thurs at 9pm on C5
#C5MurderinaSmallTown
https://mobile.twitter.com/FirecrackerFilm/status/1363919761436991492
Ron Jones is a British businessman and executive chair of Tinopolis, one of the UK's largest television production companies. Previously a partner in the accounting and consultancy firm Arthur Andersen. He was a founder of Tinopolis in 1990 and has led the company since that time. Jones took the company public in 2005 and this led to a rapid expansion by acquisition, including a hostile takeover of the largest listed production company at that time, The Television Corporation PLC. In 2008 Jones and his management team bought the company back in partnership with Vitruvian Partners, a private equity company.
Jones is a former member of the Sports Council for Wales (now Sport Wales) and the Welsh Language Board. He was Treasurer of Glamorgan County Cricket Club for nine years, and is a director and former Chairman of Llanelli Scarlets, the leading rugby union club. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Jones_(businessman)
-
Sandra Lean
‘I want to say a massive thank you to everyone who's helped get the word out about the documentary, to those who are still working away behind the scenes and to everyone who has sent messages of support or potential new information. Luke's "team" just got a whole lot bigger!!!! Thank you.’
-
Well, tomorrow is going to be a big day. So I hope you'll all indulge me in a little bit of fun tonight: "If you hear "No" - it means "yes," but just not yet, Fight the most when folks think you're absurd". All 17.5 years of absurdity about to hit High C! Thanks all!!!
this is what it's all about - 17.5 years spent desperatly trying to reach the summit of maslow's pyramid - "I AM a real criminologist!" - and to hell with the people hurt or damaged along the way
-
Lucy Briers Blue heart
@lucyjbriers
I’m proud to have narrated this new Channel 5 documentary examining the murder of Jodi Jones - here's how to watch
8:54 AM · Feb 24, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Daughter of actor Richard Briers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Briers
-
Stephen Bennett https://mobile.twitter.com/hello_bennett/with_replies
-
Stephen Bennett https://mobile.twitter.com/hello_bennett/with_replies
I suspect Stephen Bennett’s production will turn out to be another damp squid just like 'Making a Murderer' turned out to be.
-
Please can we have constructive comments on this new thread. Inappropriate comments have been removed.
Just watching part1 and see nothing new so far.
-
‘The two-part documentary, which airs next week, follows ex-Police Scotland detectives John Sallens and Michael Neill as they re-examine the case.
‘Four detectives from elite anti-terrorist unit are facing corruption probe over claims of fraud
by Russell Findlay June 2013
‘FOUR detectives who worked for an elite unit which targets terrorists are at the centre of a
corruption probe.
Detective Sergeant John Sallens, 48, and three Major Investigation Team colleagues have been reported to Crown Office prosecutors who will decide if they should stand trial.
The others are constables Geoff Fisher, 48, Michael Neil, 43, and Lynn McConnachie, 42.
All four were based at the MIT office in Glasgow’s high-security Govan police station
Read more: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/four-detectives-elite-anti-terrorist-unit-1941239
Very interesting Nicholas and a big mystery as to what then happened, a big media blackout on this one.
This stinks!
-
Please can we have constructive comments on this new thread. Inappropriate comments have been removed.
I don’t use the phase ‘damp squid’
Making a murderer turned out to be a scam - as I see it
-
I don’t use the phase ‘damp squid’
Making a murderer turned out to be a scam - as I see it
You need proof to make such a claim.
-
Very interesting Nicholas and a big mystery as to what then happened, a big media blackout on this one.
This stinks!
We’ll probably hear more on them after the documentary has aired
-
You need proof to make such a claim.
What more proof do you need than the fact Dassey & Avery remain incarcerated?
These may be of interest
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3B6Y_gW_6oo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=73-Zrit8kl0
-
We’ll probably hear more on them after the documentary has aired
Like Sandra Lean they are very good at dropping names.
Still watching Part 1, nothing new, same old bull, just characters have aged.
-
Like Sandra Lean they are very good at dropping names.
Indeed
-
Like Sandra Lean they are very good at dropping names.
Still watching Part 1, nothing new, same old bull, just characters have aged.
Did Scott Forbes ever mention an alleged 8” brown handled knife before - or is this one of his more recent fabrications ?
-
Did Scott Forbes ever mention an alleged 8” brown handled knife before - or is this one of his more recent fabrications ?
I don't recall any mention of a knife.
Corinne Mitchell looks awful I must say.
-
I don't recall any mention of a knife.
You may not have seen that part yet - it’s right towards the end of the doc. In the scene where you can tell they are all reading from a script *&^^& - or the words are scripted
-
Am already seeing through Allan Jamieson in part 2
There’s been no mention of Luke Mitchell having had the opportunity to wash himself off in a nearby stream before heading home for a shower and then heading back out to get dirt under his nails
Also - if greasy hair isn’t washed properly it can still appear greasy once dried and not all shampoos are scented
And extremely greasy hair of not washed thoroughly can still smell greasy
-
Am already seeing through Allan Jamieson in part 2
There’s been no mention of Luke Mitchell having had the opportunity to wash himself off in a nearby stream before heading home for a shower and then heading back out to get dirt under his nails
Also - if greasy hair isn’t washed properly it can still appear greasy once dried and not all shampoos are scented
A lot has been ignored in Part 1, its all 'poor me' stuff.
I notice Scott Forbes never mentioned the bit about him trying to implicate Mark Kane and sell his story to the media for £50,000?
"A MAN claiming to have evidence that could clear Luke Mitchell of the murder of Jodi Jones wanted to sell his story for £50,000, judges heard yesterday.
Mitchell's lawyers want the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh to hear from Scott Forbes.
He implicated drug addict Mark Kane, who it's alleged was in the vicinity when Jodi was killed, had unexplained injuries to his face and was acting strangely.
Mitchell's lawyer Donald Findlay QC said cannabis addict Kane "ticked all the same boxes" as Mitchell.
Forbes said Kane, a student at Newbattle Abbey College at the time of the murder, had written an essay on "killing a girl in the woods", and that a lecturer at the college could confirm this.
But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, said a statement from the lecturer "confirmed Kane wrote no such essay".
He added that Forbes had told Kane to play along "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-968845
-
Well I’m convinced there’s been a miscarriage of justice here, what hasn’t this programme told me that I should be aware of?
-
A lot has been ignored in Part 1, its all 'poor me' stuff.
I notice Scott Forbes never mentioned the bit about him trying to implicate Mark Kane and sell his story to the media for £50,000?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-968845
They will claim there is only so much that can be presented in the 2 hours (minus commercial time) but there’s no balance whatsoever
-
Well I’m convinced there’s been a miscarriage of justice here, what hasn’t this programme told me that I should be aware of?
A miscarriage of justice occurred in the Simon Hall case - didn’t however make him innocent
-
Curiously there are no lawyers in Scotland currently called Scott Forbes.
There is however a listing from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (PDF attached)
-
A miscarriage of justice occurred in the Simon Hall case - didn’t however make him innocent
Sorry you've lost me?
-
A miscarriage of justice occurred in the Simon Hall case - didn’t however make him innocent
I don’t know about that case, I just wondered what evidence there was that would make anyone certain that Luke Mitchell did the crime?
-
I don’t know about that case, I just wondered what evidence there was that would make anyone certain that Luke Mitchell did the crime?
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence Vertigo. For example, Luke Mitchell claimed to be home at the time Jodi was murdered but his older brother told the court that he (Shane Mitchell) was alone in the family home.
Mitchell had a history of threatening teenage girls with a knife.
He was seen standing at the side of the main road by the path which led to the murder scene minutes after Jodi was murdered. Mark Kane is now being accused, 17 years on, of being the boy the two witnesses saw.
-
Sorry you've lost me?
How so?
-
How so?
You say a miscarriage of justice occurred in the Simon Hall case?
-
I see that Sandra Lean is now making public the fact that Jodi was almost decapitated, something which has been kept quiet for years.
In Part 2, Sandra Lean is see driving into the park and trying to make the point that Luke would have had to walk past numerous houses after the murder. WRONG! BULLSHIT ALERT! There is another route from the end of the lane, across the main road, across the stream and up the back of the houses to the Mitchell home. Sandra Lean must think were bloody stupid.
-
You say a miscarriage of justice occurred in the Simon Hall case?
There was a breach of the carriage of justice - Simon Hall was wrongly convicted in that his motive for the murder wasn’t ‘a burglary gone wrong’
-
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence Vertigo. For example, Luke Mitchell claimed to be home at the time Jodi was murdered but his older brother told the court that he (Shane Mitchell) was alone in the family home.
Mitchell had a history of threatening teenage girls with a knife.
He was seen standing at the side of the main road by the path which led to the murder scene minutes after Jodi was murdered. Mark Kane is now being accused, 17 years on, of being the boy the two witnesses saw.
It sounds to me like far too much store was set by the witness statement, certainly of the witness in the car. Who was the other witness?
-
It sounds to me like far too much store was set by the witness statement, certainly of the witness in the car. Who was the other witness?
Both women were in the car that drove past the boy claimed to be Luke Mitchell.
-
Sandra Lean puts a lot of store in the Bryson failed identification. Little wonder given Mitchell had changed his appearance by the time the trial took place.
Part 2 is just as weak as Part 1 in my opinion. The absence of DNA on Mitchell and his clothing is easily explained. Clearly he had cleaned himself up between leaving school that day and being arrested. He was with Jodi that day at school yet NONE of her DNA was found on him as would have been expected.
-
Both women were in the car that drove past the boy claimed to be Luke Mitchell.
I personally don’t think any credibility can be given to a sighting of an individual some distance from the road from a car travelling at 30mph.
-
I personally don’t think any credibility can be given to a sighting of an individual some distance from the road from a car travelling at 30mph.
He was standing looking like a hare caught in the headlights right on the side of the road so the women passed by within feet of him. That is why they notice him.
Sandra Lean claimed for years that the boy was not standing on the opposite side of the road from the end of the path. She obviously has now been enlightened.
Corinne Mitchell was far too defensive any time I engaged with her on the forums. She did not come across as genuine.
Lie detector tests are a false science and can never be relied upon.
-
He was standing looking like a hare caught in the headlights right on the side of the road so the women passed by within feet of him. That is why they notice him.
Are you saying the reconstruction on the programme was false then? He was shown back from the edge of the road. I just don’t believe an could accurately identify a pedestrian hours after seeing them from with a car travelling at 30mph, and the programme’s experiment seems to bear that out.
-
Are you saying the reconstruction on the programme was false then? He was shown back from the edge of the road. I just don’t believe an could accurately identify a pedestrian hours after seeing them from with a car travelling at 30mph, and the programme’s experiment seems to bear that out.
They didn't do a reconstruction of Luke Mitchell standing on his own. I think you are referring to the Bryson sighting where she saw a boy and a girl standing back from the road possibly arguing?
-
They didn't do a reconstruction of Luke Mitchell standing on his own. I think you are referring to the Bryson sighting where she saw a boy and a girl standing back from the road possibly arguing?
Yes that’s the one I presume that was reconstructed on tonight’s programme.
-
I must say that I'm shocked at the way Corinne Mitchell is living. She appears to be beaten down with it all and I know from personal what that can feel like.
I think the documentary was lacking an awful lot of detail and was intentionally biased. Very poor journalism imo.
-
I must say that I'm shocked at the way Corinne Mitchell is living.
She has recently been rehoused I just read.
-
Something else I forgot to mention was that Sandra Lean had a falling out with Mrs Mitchell some time ago and Lean ceased to have any involvement with the case. I wonder why she has retraced her steps given her dismal miscarriage of justice efforts in the past when she tried unsuccessfully to have numerous guilty male murderers freed on appeal?
Night all!
-
I think the documentary was lacking an awful lot of detail and was intentionally biased. Very poor journalism imo.
I agree - although I’ve missed most of the 2nd part as I’ve had distractions
-
I didn't realise that was on last night, must have a look.
-
so what was the one incontrovertible piece of evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mitchell did it?
-
Luke Mitchell is being called the Scottish version of Damian Echols
-
I thought it was a very obviously biased documentary, although I am surprised that Mitchell was convicted after reading some posts on here after watching it.
My main question would be who was the suspect they couldn't name?
-
They didn't do a reconstruction of Luke Mitchell standing on his own
Wonder why?
-
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence Vertigo. For example, Luke Mitchell claimed to be home at the time Jodi was murdered but his older brother told the court that he (Shane Mitchell) was alone in the family home.
Mitchell had a history of threatening teenage girls with a knife.
He was seen standing at the side of the main road by the path which led to the murder scene minutes after Jodi was murdered. Mark Kane is now being accused, 17 years on, of being the boy the two witnesses saw.
Now that’s not exactly what Shane said, was it? What Shane said is that he was at home looking at pornography and wouldn’t have done that if there was anyone at home.
Was the knife incidents in the trial transcripts?
As to Mark Kane, his name was aired in connection with this case on Dateline Scotland many years ago so hardly new.
-
Luke Mitchell is being called the Scottish version of Damian Echols
They don't do plea bargains in Scotland, at least officially. @)(++(*
-
I see that Sandra Lean is now making public the fact that Jodi was almost decapitated, something which has been kept quiet for years.
In Part 2, Sandra Lean is see driving into the park and trying to make the point that Luke would have had to walk past numerous houses after the murder. WRONG! BULLSHIT ALERT! There is another route from the end of the lane, across the main road, across the stream and up the back of the houses to the Mitchell home. Sandra Lean must think were bloody stupid.
I’ve not seen this bit yet
-
Now that’s not exactly what Shane said, was it? What Shane said is that he was at home looking at pornography and wouldn’t have done that if there was anyone at home.
Was the knife incidents in the trial transcripts?
As to Mark Kane, his name was aired in connection with this case on Dateline Scotland many years ago so hardly new.
You can't change the facts because they are inconvenient.
-
Sandra Lean puts a lot of store in the Bryson failed identification. Little wonder given Mitchell had changed his appearance by the time the trial took place.
Part 2 is just as weak as Part 1 in my opinion. The absence of DNA on Mitchell and his clothing is easily explained. Clearly he had cleaned himself up between leaving school that day and being arrested. He was with Jodi that day at school yet NONE of her DNA was found on him as would have been expected.
And where was his DNA on her? You would expect the same DNA on her if your theory holds true.
-
He was standing looking like a hare caught in the headlights right on the side of the road so the women passed by within feet of him. That is why they notice him.
Sandra Lean claimed for years that the boy was not standing on the opposite side of the road from the end of the path. She obviously has now been enlightened.
Corinne Mitchell was far too defensive any time I engaged with her on the forums. She did not come across as genuine.
Lie detector tests are a false science and can never be relied upon.
Now why do you think Corrine is defensive?
As to lie detector tests, have you seen on YouTube the interview with the gentleman who did Corrine and Luke’s test ?
-
And where was his DNA on her? You would expect the same DNA on her if your theory holds true.
If I recall correctly Jodi's body was left out in the rain all night so a forensic fail.
-
Now why do you think Corrine is defensive?
As to lie detector tests, have you seen on YouTube the interview with the gentleman who did Corrine and Luke’s test ?
Terry Mullins is a chancer. The polygraph is only a gimmic for daytime TV. @)(++(*
-
You can't change the facts because they are inconvenient.
The Scottish police managed it.
-
If I recall correctly Jodi's body was left out in the rain all night so a forensic fail.
Jodi body was found the same night.
-
Terry Mullins is a chancer. The polygraph is only a gimmic for daytime TV. @)(++(*
It’s results in the Chris Watts case were certainly taken seriously.
-
Jodi body was found the same night.
You really need to learn the facts Faith. The body lay where it was found all night because the fat moo forensic woman couldn't get over the wall.
-
You really need to learn the facts Faith. The body lay where it was found all night because the fat moo forensic woman couldn't get over the wall.
That doesn’t mean that the body wasn’t protected after it was found.
-
It’s results in the Chris Watts case were certainly taken seriously.
Chris Watts confessed when he saw he was on a loser. Adrian Prout did exactly the same thing. Another killer that Lean tried to get off.
-
That doesn’t mean that the body wasn’t protected after it was found.
Oh dear me. They didn't erect a tent %56&
Do you know anything at all about this case?
-
Chris Watts confessed when he saw he was on a loser. Adrian Prout did exactly the same thing. Another killer that Lean tried to get off.
Chris Watts failed his lie detector test. I’d read up on it if I was you.
Adrian Prout, I believe, confessed before taking it after being talked into it by his girlfriend.
-
Oh dear me. They didn't erect a tent %56&
Do you know anything at all about this case?
Did I say that they did?
-
so what was the one incontrovertible piece of evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mitchell did it?
Well Angelo?
-
Does anyone know who the suspect they "couldn't name" was? I'm assuming JF or [Name removed]
-
Well Angelo?
It's a circumstantial case Vertigo. He had history with knives and teenage girls. He was a cannabis user/dealer. He was seen near the murder site by two witnesses. His brother refuted his alibi. He was two-timing Jodi. He had the opportunity, means and motive.
-
Does anyone know who the suspect they "couldn't name" was? I'm assuming JF or [Name removed]
Could be either or.
-
New members are reminded of the forum rules. All posts claiming that other named individuals murdered Jodi will be removed. Initials can be used in posts.
-
Could be either or.
Yeh could be. I'm surprised they didn't have both as suspects
-
New members are reminded of the forum rules. All posts claiming that other named individuals murdered Jodi will be removed. Initials can be used in posts.
Apologies. Both have been named on this forum previously.
-
Apologies. Both have been named on this forum previously.
It wasn't you, another new member made all out allegations against people and named them. That is not allowed.
-
New members are reminded of the forum rules. All posts claiming that other named individuals murdered Jodi will be removed. Initials can be used in posts.
I followed this case at the time and my recollection of the evidence presented in court at Mitchell's trial bears absolutely no resemblance to the case presented in the Channel 5 broadcast, despite criticism of the more than flawed police and forensic investigation raised at the time.
Snip
The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.
Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".
The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.
Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
My outstanding memories involve the totally bizarre behaviour of Luke Mitchell and his mother in the weeks prior to his arrest. It really had to be seen to be believed.
-
My outstanding memories involve the totally bizarre behaviour of Luke Mitchell and his mother in the weeks prior to his arrest. It really had to be seen to be believed.
What behaviour is that?
-
It's a circumstantial case Vertigo. He had history with knives and teenage girls. He was a cannabis user/dealer. He was seen near the murder site by two witnesses. His brother refuted his alibi. He was two-timing Jodi. He had the opportunity, means and motive.
He had a knife, as I’m sure do a lot of young lads.
He had a history with teenage girls? Explain please?
He was a cannnabis user. Wasn’t Jodi too?
He was seen near the murder site by two witnesses. When did they give their witness statements? Was it before Luke was all over the papers?
His brother did not refute his alibi but gave a reason why he thought that no one was in the house.
He was two-timing Jodi. He was 14.
Motive? What motive?
Means...well yes he had a knife but did it match the knife used to mutilate Jodi?
Opportunity? Not according to Luke or Corrine.
-
I followed this case at the time and my recollection of the evidence presented in court at Mitchell's trial bears absolutely no resemblance to the case presented in the Channel 5 broadcast, despite criticism of the more than flawed police and forensic investigation raised at the time.
Snip
The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.
Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".
The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.
Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
My outstanding memories involve the totally bizarre behaviour of Luke Mitchell and his mother in the weeks prior to his arrest. It really had to be seen to be believed.
Thank you I’ve never seen that news report before.
If DNA could be extracted from the tshirt and identified, even though the crime scene had been badly preserved, surely they would have found at least some DNA to link Luke to the scene, if indeed it was there to begin with?
-
I followed this case at the time and my recollection of the evidence presented in court at Mitchell's trial bears absolutely no resemblance to the case presented in the Channel 5 broadcast, despite criticism of the more than flawed police and forensic investigation raised at the time.
Snip
The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.
Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".
The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.
Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
My outstanding memories involve the totally bizarre behaviour of Luke Mitchell and his mother in the weeks prior to his arrest. It really had to be seen to be believed.
I just finished watching part 2 and I'm quite sure that anyone who knows anything about this case will be very disappointed. Sandra Lean has put forward nothing new, it's all the same old someone else did it so Luke is innocent.
The two failed cops who were once investigated for fraud looked more like Laurel and Hardie than professional investigators imo.
-
I just finished watching part 2 and I'm quite sure that anyone who knows anything about this case will be very disappointed. Sandra Lean has put forward nothing new, it's all the same old someone else did it so Luke is innocent.
The two failed cops who were once investigated for fraud looked more like Laurel and Hardie than professional investigators imo.
The programme didn’t put forward anything new but it’s certainly stirred up interest in the case, as the surge in visitors to this site will attest to.
-
The programme didn’t put forward anything new but it’s certainly stirred up interest in the case, as the surge in visitors to this site will attest to.
People are naturally curious.
-
What behaviour is that?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg460#msg460
-
People are naturally curious.
They are and will be rightly appalled by how this case was handled.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg460#msg460
@)(++(* What was it Corinne called James Matthews?
-
They are and will be rightly appalled by how this case was handled.
That was Lothian & Borders Police for you.
-
I just finished watching part 2 and I'm quite sure that anyone who knows anything about this case will be very disappointed. Sandra Lean has put forward nothing new, it's all the same old someone else did it so Luke is innocent.
The two failed cops who were once investigated for fraud looked more like Laurel and Hardie than professional investigators imo.
There’s no need to be rude about them. To the casual watcher they put forward a compelling case for a miscarriage of justice.
-
There’s no need to be rude about them. To the casual watcher they put forward a compelling case for a miscarriage of justice.
I totally disagree VS. I have met Luke Mitchell and spoken to him while in the High Court. If this is the best they can come up with after 17 years I fear this case might never get any further.
-
The two failed cops who were once investigated for fraud looked more like Laurel and Hardie than professional investigators imo.
There’s no need to be rude about them. To the casual watcher they put forward a compelling case for a miscarriage of justice.
Do you think the ‘two cops’ carried out their due diligence ?
-
Sandra Lean has put forward nothing new, it's all the same old someone else did it so Luke is innocent.
I agree - there was nothing new
And extremely deceptive of channel 5 and all involved in the documentary to state, ‘17 years later... Luke Mitchell’s conviction is now being questioned’
Would upload a screenshot but the attachments don’t appear to work for me
-
I totally disagree VS. I have met Luke Mitchell and spoken to him while in the High Court. If this is the best they can come up with after 17 years I fear this case might never get any further.
Someone else has pointed out,
‘The viewing experience was like being asked to be a juror, but only being told the case for the defence - therefore under these conditions you would have to say threshold for beyond reasonable doubt not met’
This for me is akin to innocence fraud
-
Someone else has pointed out,
‘The viewing experience was like being asked to be a juror, but only being told the case for the defence - therefore under these conditions you would have to say threshold for beyond reasonable doubt not met’
This for me is akin to innocence fraud
It was unbelievably biased but then they were spoon fed it by Sandra Lean. And she calls herself a criminologist @)(++(*
I still remember the night she had to go out in Edinburgh chasing Billy Middleton. Bizarre!
-
Do you think the ‘two cops’ carried out their due diligence ?
I've no idea - what I'm saying is that to the casual observer ie: the many people who watched last night and who don't know this case like the back of their hand they did not necessarily come across as Laurel & Hardy, as claimed by Angelo.
-
It was unbelievably biased but then they were spoon fed it by Sandra Lean. And she calls herself a criminologist @)(++(*
I still remember the night she had to go out in Edinburgh chasing Billy Middleton. Bizarre!
It appears this way to me
-
I've no idea - what I'm saying is that to the casual observer ie: the many people who watched last night and who don't know this case like the back of their hand they did not necessarily come across as Laurel & Hardy, as claimed by Angelo.
Do you think they’ve been duped Vertigo Swirl?
-
I totally disagree VS. I have met Luke Mitchell and spoken to him while in the High Court. If this is the best they can come up with after 17 years I fear this case might never get any further.
Again, you are completely missing the point I am making - I'm looking at the programme from the point of view not as someone who knows Luke Mitchell and all the details of his case. The key phrase was "to the casual observer", you may not agree with the programme makers but they did a good and convincing job of persuading the casual observer that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated.
-
Do you think they’ve been duped Vertigo Swirl?
I honestly don't know enough to say one way or the other, but they certainly made a persuasive case as far as the casual observer is concerned, IMO.
-
I totally disagree VS. I have met Luke Mitchell and spoken to him while in the High Court. If this is the best they can come up with after 17 years I fear this case might never get any further.
What do you believe is the clinching piece of evidence that proves without a shadow of doubt that he is guilty?
-
FWIW I felt that Corinne came across in the programme as utterly sincere and truthful. Of course she could be completely self-deluded and in denial but that's not how she came across to me.
-
Again, you are completely missing the point I am making - I'm looking at the programme from the point of view not as someone who knows Luke Mitchell and all the details of his case. The key phrase was "to the casual observer", you may not agree with the programme makers but they did a good and convincing job of persuading the casual observer that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated.
That’s what innocence fraud does to the unsuspecting ‘casual observer’
I wasn’t convinced in the slightest
-
FWIW I felt that Corinne came across in the programme as utterly sincere and truthful. Of course she could be completely self-deluded and in denial but that's not how she came across to me.
Was it staged though Vertigo Swirl?
It appeared to me Sandra Lean visited Corrine Mitchell in part 2 on the same day as she was ‘interviewed’ in part 1
-
That’s what innocence fraud does to the unsuspecting ‘casual observer’
I wasn’t convinced in the slightest
One asks was the two parter put out solely with the view of trying to convince of his innocence rather than a impartial view? if its the former then casual observers might be convinced.
-
One asks was the two parter put out solely with the view of trying to convince of his innocence rather than a impartial view? if its the former then casual observers might be convinced.
Of course it was
I think it’s totally and utterly appalling - especially after Sandra Leans involvement in the Simon Hall case
A lot of people are now accusing Jodi’s brother of murder *&^^&
And Sandra lean knows this is what people do when they don’t hear all the facts - and no one can say the documentary presented all of the facts
-
FWIW I felt that Corinne came across in the programme as utterly sincere and truthful. Of course she could be completely self-deluded and in denial but that's not how she came across to me.
Where was Shane Mitchell and why isn’t he helping to care for his mum?
Why didn’t Corrine mention him? Infact where were pictures of Shane?
-
Where was Shane Mitchell and why isn’t he helping to care for his mum?
Why didn’t Corrine mention him? Infact where were pictures of Shane?
Yes I agree that was a glaring omission.
-
That’s what innocence fraud does to the unsuspecting ‘casual observer’
I wasn’t convinced in the slightest
That's absolutely your prerogative and I have no firm opinion either way, but I've asked several times in the last few hours for what was the clinching piece or pieces of evidence in this case and so far no one has given me anything that resembles evidence "beyond all reasonable doubt".
-
FWIW I felt that Corinne came across in the programme as utterly sincere and truthful.
What about - the fact she’d sold her house and had been living in her office for the past 6 years apparently?
I’d be interested to know the details behind why there was no toilet, running water or electricity in her office.
When the business was up and running - where was the toilet, running water and electricity then ?
And what was the legislation on this 6 years ago - or whenever her business was last up and running? Doesn’t health and safety legislation cover this?
-
That's absolutely your prerogative and I have no firm opinion either way, but I've asked several times in the last few hours for what was the clinching piece or pieces of evidence in this case and so far no one has given me anything that resembles evidence "beyond all reasonable doubt".
you're right, there wasnt one smoking gun in this case, but does there have to be? thats not how a multithreaded circumstantial case works.
the dury were presented hundreds of pieces of linked evidence during 42 day trial, pointing to the guilt of luke.
it'd exceptionally hard to distill the case against him down to a 2 part documentary thats easily digestible by casual observer
it boiled down to
- witness statements supporting sighting of him at top of path just before time or murder
- guilty knowledge of location of body and garments / accessories on body not visible post-death
- alibi found to be fabricated and destroyed on cross examination of brother
- missing knife / jacket
- hundreds of other supporting items of evidence which dont contradict all this
-
Someone on Twitter has written this. I can't find any evidence for it. Has she made it up or got confused?
"Courts evidence said luke had a missing knife which could be the murder weapon. But Jodie's brother had Luke's knife and handed in to the police station after the murder"
https://twitter.com/Lianne13775100/status/1365079152911613954
-
Someone on Twitter has written this. I can't find any evidence for it. Has she made it up or got confused?
"Courts evidence said luke had a missing knife which could be the murder weapon. But Jodie's brother had Luke's knife and handed in to the police station after the murder"
https://twitter.com/Lianne13775100/status/1365079152911613954
Have you seen Sandra Lean’s Dr Truthseeker ‘interview’ on YouTube with Jane Metcalfe on murderer Robin Garbutt’s innocence fraud?
Might be worth reading up on it?
-
What about - the fact she’d sold her house and had been living in her office for the past 6 years apparently?
I’d be interested to know the details behind why there was no toilet, running water or electricity in her office.
When the business was up and running - where was the toilet, running water and electricity then ?
And what was the legislation on this 6 years ago - or whenever her business was last up and running? Doesn’t health and safety legislation cover this?
I don't see why that is relevant?
-
you're right, there wasnt one smoking gun in this case, but does there have to be? thats not how a multithreaded circumstantial case works.
the dury were presented hundreds of pieces of linked evidence during 42 day trial, pointing to the guilt of luke.
it'd exceptionally hard to distill the case against him down to a 2 part documentary thats easily digestible by casual observer
it boiled down to
- witness statements supporting sighting of him at top of path just before time or murder
- guilty knowledge of location of body and garments / accessories on body not visible post-death
- alibi found to be fabricated and destroyed on cross examination of brother
- missing knife / jacket
- hundreds of other supporting items of evidence which dont contradict all this
Hmm, all the above seemed quite shaky from the way they were presented in the programme last night, for example the changing statements of the two witnesses who were with Luke when the body was found - true or false?
-
Someone on Twitter has written this. I can't find any evidence for it. Has she made it up or got confused?
"Courts evidence said luke had a missing knife which could be the murder weapon. But Jodie's brother had Luke's knife and handed in to the police station after the murder"
https://twitter.com/Lianne13775100/status/1365079152911613954
I suspect there will be several people ‘confused’ by what was presented throughout the 2 part ‘show’ - that was the point
To create doubt using psychological manipulation tactics - as I see it - for example Sandra Lean appears to have attempted to use the ‘illusionary effect truth’ tactic for 17 years
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/illusory-truth-effect/
-
Hmm, all the above seemed quite shaky from the way they were presented in the programme last night, for example the changing statements of the two witnesses who were with Luke when the body was found - true or false?
What do Luke Mitchell’s statements say exactly regarding what he said and didn’t say and what his actions were that night?
Have you seen his witness statements ?
Might be an idea to ask for them to be published - they are his statements after all - if he has nothing to hide he won’t have a problem with this
-
Have you seen Sandra Lean’s Dr Truthseeker ‘interview’ on YouTube with Jane Metcalfe on murderer Robin Garbutt’s innocence fraud?
Might be worth reading up on it?
No, I haven't, and I don't think much of Sandra Lean the anti-vaxx oddball - but I don't think that answered my question
-
Does anyone have a PDF of Sandra Lean's Innocents Betrayed book? I'd like to read it but would rather not give her money
-
Does anyone have a PDF of Sandra Lean's Innocents Betrayed book? I'd like to read it but would rather not give her money
I recall in the past her book ‘No Smoke’ was published on the net - no idea if it’s still available
Sandra has made it clear with her 2nd book release she wants to make money from sales ⬇️ - I very much doubt she will release it as a pdf
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Luke Mitchell - fourteen, fitted up and forgotten. It's time for the truth. Profits to Long Road to Justice - a new organisation being set up to help wrongly accused and convicted.
8:29 AM · Apr 2, 2019·Twitter Web Client
Anyone know what happened to the long road to justice?
http://longroadtojustice.com/blurb/
Sandra lean
“Today, my book about the case, Innocents Betrayed, was launched. Profits from the book are being donated to help fund a new organisation, Long Road to Justice, which will be taking a radically new approach to helping the fight against injustice.
Details of the book can be found here:
www.longroadtojustice.com
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448049.html#msg448049
Link www.longroadtojustice.com bowcappears to be working btw
For anyone interested - convicted but exonerated murderer *Michael O’Briens book which Sandra Lean has on her site - alongside Michelle Diskin Bates @)(++(* and convicted killer Michelle Nicholson - it’s publication ceased some time ago apparently
And recently Andrew Green was selling off copies of his book directly for a tenner
Andrew N Green
@agreenanarchist
Nov 17, 2020
If you want a copy for £10, send me a direct message
* I remain of the firm view Michael O’Brien, Darren Hall and Ellis Sherwood murdered Philip Saunders
-
What do Luke Mitchell’s statements say exactly regarding what he said and didn’t say and what his actions were that night?
Have you seen his witness statements ?
Might be an idea to ask for them to be published - they are his statements after all - if he has nothing to hide he won’t have a problem with this
I was referring to what the two accompanying him said in their first statement re: the dog sniffing the air (apparently corroborating Mitchell's statement) versus their second statement when they make no mention of this - is this true or not?
-
I was referring to what the two accompanying him said in their first statement re: the dog sniffing the air (apparently corroborating Mitchell's statement) versus their second statement when they make no mention of this - is this true or not?
I’d like to see what Luke Mitchell’s statements say to police first - then I’ll be able to comment on the why their statements may have changed
It’s true people’s recollection of events change yes - especially after or during periods of shock/trauma
-
I’m from Edinburgh and remember the news at the time had most of us believing he was guilty way before the trial began, I’m not sure how a trial in Edinburgh could ever have been a fair one.
I went from a firm believer of his guilt to being in shock how anyone, let alone a 15 year old boy imo could be found guilty on the evidence they had.
From what I can see it all comes down to 2 possible sightings one at the top of the lane before the murder and one at the bottom of the lane.
Luke and his dog finding the body
Not believing Luke was home with his mum
His brother not being sure if Luke was home
His mum destroying his clothing but I believe there is no evidence of this other than reports of a funny smell, no forensic findings in the wood burner or the home.
His love of Manson and the black dahlia paintings but again no evidence, I think I read he had a cd he got free in a magazine?
I’m not sure what else, certainly no damning evidence. Murderer weapon not found, no blood on Luke or in his house or the wood burner, all places you would expect to find some sort off trace evidence. No motive, but he did have the means as he had a knife, as did hundreds of others. It’s the opportunity that’s strange too, the timings just don’t seem to fit for me. If Jodi was killed at 5.15 ( the time the moped was seen at the v) and If I remember correct, luke was seen at the end of his street by someone he knows before 6pm, around 5.50 I think. So that leave just over 30 mins to fight, struggle, strip, tie up Jodi, and carry out all the injuries and murder, then get home, clean up, change and be seen at the end of his street. Just doesn’t seem like much time or opportunity. To me.
Forensic testing has came on leaps and bounds in the past 20 years, hopefully they can get the independent review and see if there is anything new found.
-
I went from a firm believer of his guilt to being in shock how anyone, let alone a 15 year old boy imo could be found guilty on the evidence they had.
Did you sit through the entire trial?
-
His love of Manson and the black dahlia paintings but again no evidence, I think I read he had a cd he got free in a magazine?
Did Luke or his mother destroy anything after Jodi’s murder that could have suggested links to Marilyn Manson, satanism etc?
What about the indirect evidence?
Didn’t Corrine tell James English Jodi’s sister had everything on Manson ?
Did Luke ever go through Janine’s collection - in the 5 month lead up to the murder - and how did Corrine know about Janine’s collection?
-
FWIW I felt that Corinne came across in the programme as utterly sincere and truthful. Of course she could be completely self-deluded and in denial but that's not how she came across to me.
Do you think Corrine could have been coached before being filmed ?
The actions of those two cops and Scott Forbes most definitely appeared to have been scripted and I’m not alone on this observation
-
Did you sit through the entire trial?
No I didn’t, like I said I due to the papers I thought he was guilty, no doubt, til I started reading into in and asking question. I want him to be guilty but the more I heard the more I was in doubt. I’ve been asking for years for someone to give me something, anything that would make it beyond reasonable doubt for me but so far it’s all hear say. I’m not convinced so what harm can an independent review do, why are you do against it? Is it just down to cost? Maybe after the independent review it will be clear for all to see that it was Luke.
-
No I didn’t, like I said I due to the papers I thought he was guilty, no doubt, til I started reading into in and asking question. I want him to be guilty but the more I heard the more I was in doubt. I’ve been asking for years for someone to give me something, anything that would make it beyond reasonable doubt for me but so far it’s all hear say. I’m not convinced so what harm can an independent review do, why are you do against it? Is it just down to cost? Maybe after the independent review it will be clear for all to see that it was Luke.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10836.msg642927#msg642927
-
Did Luke or his mother destroy anything after Jodi’s murder that could have suggested links to Marilyn Manson, satanism etc?
What about the indirect evidence?
Didn’t Corrine tell James English Jodi’s sister had everything on Manson ?
Did Luke ever go through Janine’s collection - in the 5 month lead up to the murder - and how did Corrine know about Janine’s collection?
So Jodi's Sister liked Manson and Luke is responsible for that too? You really are something else. I think your problem is the people who have spoken up for Luke less the facts of the case or any new evidence that could possibly be put forward
-
The documentary makers claimed they couldn't name their prime suspect - but accidentally showed his name on the laptop. It was [Name removed]. https://twitter.com/rachael2004xx/status/1365095764075163649/photo/1
-
The documentary makers claimed they couldn't name their prime suspect - but accidentally showed his name on the laptop. It was [Name removed]. https://twitter.com/rachael2004xx/status/1365095764075163649/photo/1
I don’t think it was done by ‘accident’ Danni
-
I don’t think it was done by ‘accident’ Danni
Yeh you're probably right there
-
Did Luke or his mother destroy anything after Jodi’s murder that could have suggested links to Marilyn Manson, satanism etc?
What about the indirect evidence?
Didn’t Corrine tell James English Jodi’s sister had everything on Manson ?
Did Luke ever go through Janine’s collection - in the 5 month lead up to the murder - and how did Corrine know about Janine’s collection?
If Mitchell was fascinated by the Black Dahlia murder then what is the actual link between Jodi's injuries and that case, because I'm not really seeing the similarities...
-
Do you think Corrine could have been coached before being filmed ?
The actions of those two cops and Scott Forbes most definitely appeared to have been scripted and I’m not alone on this observation
Coached in what way? I didn't think she sounded scripted, like I say she seemed quite genuine to me.
-
Coached in what way? I didn't think she sounded scripted, like I say she seemed quite genuine to me.
In a coaching kind of way https://www.tvcoach.co.uk/
-
In a coaching kind of way https://www.tvcoach.co.uk/
Can i just ask are you an 'expert' on everything? you presume an awful lot from haircuts to music and now how someone was 'coached'
Not like you know how Corrine normally speaks is it?
Would love to read the rule book for how to react once a young girl has been killed because its very enlightening clearly
-
In a coaching kind of way https://www.tvcoach.co.uk/
So not in a "lying" kind of a way, just in a "presentation" kind of a way then? so what if she was?
-
So not in a "lying" kind of a way, just in a "presentation" kind of a way then? so what if she was?
8((()*/
-
Whenever you appear on tv your words , feeling and thoughts are edited as you tend to talk on and on so to make it fit the screen time and also to add to the detail of the true story things are edited that isn't to say it isn't true so what wrong if people are coached on how to say things in a certain way that is life .
You are making this sound like a sensible discussion
-
Where was Shane Mitchell and why isn’t he helping to care for his mum?
Why didn’t Corrine mention him? Infact where were pictures of Shane?
completely valid criticism of programme. his testimony was a crucial part of what banged his bro up and it never even got a mention
also makes me why theres now a gofundme for corinne. shane has gone on to be a bit successful and do well for himself. why does the public need to raise money (currently over £6000) for her? shameless
-
completely valid criticism of programme. his testimony was a crucial part of what banged his bro up and it never even got a mention
also makes me why theres now a gofundme for corinne. shane has gone on to be a bit successful and do well for himself. why does the public need to raise money (currently over £6000) for her? shameless
And what has this got to do with whether Luke is innocent or not?
-
And what has this got to do with whether Luke is innocent or not?
shane testimony was a key part of evidence that put him away. so has everything to do with it
the second part has nothing to do with whether or not luke guilty or not but speaks to the motives of those involved in innocence fraud
-
completely valid criticism of programme. his testimony was a crucial part of what banged his bro up and it never even got a mention
also makes me why theres now a gofundme for corinne. shane has gone on to be a bit successful and do well for himself. why does the public need to raise money (currently over £6000) for her? shameless
Shane Mitchell wasn’t involved because he’s most probably not supporting it - he may not even have been aware if was being made?
-
completely valid criticism of programme. his testimony was a crucial part of what banged his bro up and it never even got a mention
also makes me why theres now a gofundme for corinne. shane has gone on to be a bit successful and do well for himself. why does the public need to raise money (currently over £6000) for her? shameless
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10836.msg642993#msg642993
-
shane testimony was a key part of evidence that put him away. so has everything to do with it
the second part has nothing to do with whether or not luke guilty or not but speaks to the motives of those involved in innocence fraud
Corrine said that SHE was Luke's alibi, but I thought that the reason that Luke was cooking the tea (and burning the pie which his brother didn't smell when he was upstairs having a tug) was that she was working late?
Both episodes were a bit Corrine-heavy 8(8-)).
-
For me it all comes down to what Shane remembers, some say he admitted to Luke not being home that evening, others say he was flustered in court and not able to clearly put his side across. Some say he fully supports Luke behind the scenes, others say he freely admits he believes Luke is guilty. Only Shane can tell us what’s true. I’d love to hear a statement from him, if he supports his brother now would be the time.
-
For me it all comes down to what Shane remembers, some say he admitted to Luke not being home that evening, others say he was flustered in court and not able to clearly put his side across. Some say he fully supports Luke behind the scenes, others say he freely admits he believes Luke is guilty. Only Shane can tell us what’s true. I’d love to hear a statement from him, if he supports his brother now would be the time.
This case is now so toxic I don’t blame anyone who wishes to remain out of the pubic eye.
-
This case is now so toxic I don’t blame anyone who wishes to remain out of the pubic eye.
Not ‘anyone” - Shane Mitchell
Where is he?
-
im not talking about the status of their relationship. talking about him not being included or even mentioned in a documentary looking into this case, when his testimonies were some of most crucial evidence in trial. not surprising its the biggest question mark that remains for most people. the supposed private investigators could and should have easily adressed this. it might even have worked in favour of supporting luke innocence dependin on what shane say these days, right?
the money motive from sandra has been apparent since at least when the wronglyaccusedperson "charity" was set up - late 2010, arguably before with books
its no secret miscarriages of justice are money making opportunities for many
-
What are you on about ? Money ?
Read back.
-
Not ‘anyone” - Shane Mitchell
Where is he?
Who knows.
One thing I do know he should be left to get on with his life, no matter what his choices are in relation to the case.
-
im not talking about the status of their relationship. talking about him not being included or even mentioned in a documentary looking into this case, when his testimonies were some of most crucial evidence in trial. not surprising its the biggest question mark that remains for most people. the supposed private investigators could and should have easily adressed this. it might even have worked in favour of supporting luke innocence dependin on what shane say these days, right?
the money motive from sandra has been apparent since at least when the wronglyaccusedperson "charity" was set up - late 2010, arguably before with books
its no secret miscarriages of justice are money making opportunities for many
What do you think Shane not being included implies? What else could he add that he didn’t say in court?
The rest seems to be just jealous tittle tattle.
-
What do you think Shane not being included implies? What else could he add that he didn’t say in court?
The rest seems to be just jealous tittle tattle.
Explain
-
Explain
You have no real evidence that Sandra has made a bean from this case so anything you say on this subject is simply tittle tattle.
-
You have no real evidence that Sandra has made a bean from this case so anything you say on this subject is simply tittle tattle.
More delicious irony!
-
Do you think Corrine could have been coached before being filmed ?
The actions of those two cops and Scott Forbes most definitely appeared to have been scripted and I’m not alone on this observation
These documentaries take a lot of prep, some scenes might be filmed a dozen times to achieve the right affect.
-
completely valid criticism of programme. his testimony was a crucial part of what banged his bro up and it never even got a mention
also makes me why theres now a gofundme for corinne. shane has gone on to be a bit successful and do well for himself. why does the public need to raise money (currently over £6000) for her? shameless
I wondered that myself. Has there been a further estrangement in the family?
Shane Mitchell was warned by the prosecutor in court as to the repercussions of perjury which undoubtedly put the wind up him. He kept to his version of events though and that was that his younger brother was not at home when he claimed to be. Corinne Mitchell off course was at the caravan park and couldn't corroborate any of it anyway.
Question is, why did he lie?
-
Corrine said that SHE was Luke's alibi, but I thought that the reason that Luke was cooking the tea (and burning the pie which his brother didn't smell when he was upstairs having a tug) was that she was working late?
Both episodes were a bit Corrine-heavy 8(8-)).
She couldn't be his alibi because she was at the caravan office when the murder took place.
-
For me it all comes down to what Shane remembers, some say he admitted to Luke not being home that evening, others say he was flustered in court and not able to clearly put his side across. Some say he fully supports Luke behind the scenes, others say he freely admits he believes Luke is guilty. Only Shane can tell us what’s true. I’d love to hear a statement from him, if he supports his brother now would be the time.
I think Shane knew exactly what he was saying because he knew what would happen to him and his career if he was found out telling lies. He has never gone public though and by all accounts keeps a very low profile.
-
im not talking about the status of their relationship. talking about him not being included or even mentioned in a documentary looking into this case, when his testimonies were some of most crucial evidence in trial. not surprising its the biggest question mark that remains for most people. the supposed private investigators could and should have easily adressed this. it might even have worked in favour of supporting luke innocence dependin on what shane say these days, right?
the money motive from sandra has been apparent since at least when the wronglyaccusedperson "charity" was set up - late 2010, arguably before with books
its no secret miscarriages of justice are money making opportunities for many
I think it more to do with personal exposure and self promotion.
-
I think it more to do with personal exposure and self promotion.
What do you think Sandra has gained by being so closely connected to the case?
-
What do you think Sandra has gained by being so closely connected to the case?
Many grey hairs and a few wrinkles by the looks of it. She has always sought notoriety but all she has achieved is failure. She failed in the Prout murder case and also the Simon Hall murder case. Her arguments were all nonsense, I saw through them at the time. In my opinion she should find a new outlet for her ambitions because she clearly is useless at spotting a false miscarriage of justice case.
Amen. @)(++(*
-
Many grey hairs and a few wrinkles by the looks of it. She has always sought notoriety but all she has achieved is failure. She failed in the Prout murder case and also the Simon Hall murder case. Her arguments were all nonsense, I saw through them at the time. In my opinion she should find a new outlet for her ambitions because she clearly is useless at spotting a false miscarriage of justice case.
Amen. @)(++(*
I admire her tenacity. As the song goes, she gets knocked down and she gets up again....and maybe third time lucky, fingers crossed.
-
Many grey hairs and a few wrinkles by the looks of it. She has always sought notoriety but all she has achieved is failure. She failed in the Prout murder case and also the Simon Hall murder case. Her arguments were all nonsense, I saw through them at the time. In my opinion she should find a new outlet for her ambitions because she clearly is useless at spotting a false miscarriage of justice case.
Amen. @)(++(*
I see you appear to be getting younger John
& I noted what’s his name slipped up today too
-
im not talking about the status of their relationship. talking about him not being included or even mentioned in a documentary looking into this case, when his testimonies were some of most crucial evidence in trial. not surprising its the biggest question mark that remains for most people. the supposed private investigators could and should have easily adressed this. it might even have worked in favour of supporting luke innocence dependin on what shane say these days, right?
the money motive from sandra has been apparent since at least when the wronglyaccusedperson "charity" was set up - late 2010, arguably before with books
its no secret miscarriages of justice are money making opportunities for many
who we’ll be hearing more details about soon I hear 8((()*/
-
Many grey hairs and a few wrinkles by the looks of it. She has always sought notoriety but all she has achieved is failure. She failed in the Prout murder case and also the Simon Hall murder case. Her arguments were all nonsense, I saw through them at the time. In my opinion she should find a new outlet for her ambitions because she clearly is useless at spotting a false miscarriage of justice case.
Amen. @)(++(*
Where does she stand on Bamber?
-
Where does she stand on Bamber?
I vaguely recall her offering support on the blue forum.
-
I actually feel somewhat conned by this programme now, knowing how incredibly one sided it was. That’s not to say I have any firm views on Mitchell’s guilt, just that I don’t like being manipulated by documentary makers in this propagandistic way.
-
I actually feel somewhat conned by this programme now, knowing how incredibly one sided it was. That’s not to say I have any firm views on Mitchell’s guilt, just that I don’t like being manipulated by documentary makers in this propagandistic way.
Well said VS. Channel 5 should be ashamed of themselves for airing such a piece of pure propaganda. They are effectively accusing Jodi Jones' brother, the moped two and AN Other of murder.
-
Well said VS. Channel 5 should be ashamed of themselves for airing such a piece of pure propaganda. They are effectively accusing Jodi Jones' brother, the moped two and AN Other of murder.
What was the Channel 5 show based on John? From where did their story originate?
-
I actually feel somewhat conned by this programme now, knowing how incredibly one sided it was. That’s not to say I have any firm views on Mitchell’s guilt, just that I don’t like being manipulated by documentary makers in this propagandistic way.
TV standards have dropped considerably recently but this amateuristic sham by channel 5 must take the biscuit for how not to make a real crime documentary.
-
What was the Channel 5 show based on John? From where did their story originate?
I think you would need to ask Ch5 that question.
-
I thrive on stress. @)(++(*
Bloody hell, how annoying that all the Luke Mitchell stuff can't be accessed now. I wanted to know if it was ascertained that all Jodi's injuries were made by the same knife.
8()(((@# %56&
-
Bloody hell, how annoying that all the Luke Mitchell stuff can't be accessed now. I wanted to know if it was ascertained that all Jodi's injuries were made by the same knife.
8()(((@# %56&
In as much as they could determine...yes
-
A poster recently stated,
‘Whenever you appear on tv your words , feeling and thoughts are edited’
Does anyone know how TV edit’s someone’s ‘feelings and thoughts’
-
In as much as they could determine...yes
Thanks, John. I read that Luke had a "skunting" knife which was never recovered.
I won't pursue this any further, unless things calm down a bit.
-
Thanks, John. I read that Luke had a "skunting" knife which was never recovered.
I won't pursue this any further, unless things calm down a bit.
A witness was traced who claimed that Mitchell previously told him that he could imagine getting “stoned” and killing someone and a fellow pupil recalled that Mitchell had shown him a knife and said that he knew the best way to slit someone’s throat.
At the time of the murder Mitchell owned a ‘skunting’ knife which has never been found despite an extensive search of his house.
His mother bought him another knife and during a subsequent search of the family home many months later, the pouch from the knife, but not the knife itself, was recovered. A number of inscriptions had been made on the pouch: the numbers “666”; an inscription which read “[Name removed] 1989 – 2003”, these being the years of Jodi’s birth and death; and the words “The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came”, a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.
-
What about Corrine’s story of the bag of dog biscuits John
-
Luke Mitchell supporters want kitchen knife found near spot Jodi Jones was murdered to be tested
The blade was discovered buried in a drystone dyke around 300 yards from the scene of the attack.
A source told them that in 2015 a local man was digging next to a drystone dyke when they found the knife, with a dark brown wooden handle.
They added: "Stones had been moved from the dyke and put back on top of it. The man, who has no connection to the Mitchells or Joneses and is a local business owner, realised the potential significance.
"He picked it up with pliers and put it in a freezer bag to preserve it before handing it in to Dalkeith police station . He told them it should be checked out due to the Jodi Jones murder.
"The man said the knife looked like it had been there a long time.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615
-
“Ashley Coutts, 15, tells the court that she had seen Mitchell with a knife at his father's house in Livingston.
She explains that the sister of her mother's boyfriend lived with Mitchell's father and that she would sometimes visit them. Ashley is also shown a brown knife and she confirms that it is similar to the one Mitchell had.”
-
What about Corrine’s story of the bag of dog biscuits John
The police had searched the house, had even put their fingers through the dog meat inside the bowl/s?
A knife was later handed into the family lawyer with claims that it had been in a bag 'underneath' the dog bowl stand. Mrs Mitchell putting forward the claim that, there was no missing knife (assuming the one from the pouch), that it had been there all the time in the packet of dog biscuits where she had hid it.
Evidence was heard in court disputing this, prosecution putting forward that the search team, in their expertise would not have missed this. If they took the time to search the meat in the bowl, would not have failed to look underneath? This knife (black handle) missing knife (brown handle)?
-
The police had searched the house, had even put their fingers through the dog meat inside the bowl/s?
A knife was later handed into the family lawyer with claims that it had been in a bag 'underneath' the dog bowl stand. Mrs Mitchell putting forward the claim that, there was no missing knife (assuming the one from the pouch), that it had been there all the time in the packet of dog biscuits where she had hid it.
Evidence was heard in court disputing this, prosecution putting forward that the search team, in their expertise would not have missed this. If they took the time to search the meat in the bowl, would not have failed to look underneath? This knife (black handle) missing knife (brown handle)?
Thanks John
Corrine told a story about a bag of dog biscuits and another knife when she spoke to James English
Reminded me of Lynne Hall’s story during Hall’s murder trial and of her faux fur jacket *&^^&
-
The lack of any empathy/sympathy for the Jones family in this documentary - could that be because Dr Lean had claimed they were protecting someone?
-
The police had searched the house, had even put their fingers through the dog meat inside the bowl/s?
A knife was later handed into the family lawyer with claims that it had been in a bag 'underneath' the dog bowl stand. Mrs Mitchell putting forward the claim that, there was no missing knife (assuming the one from the pouch), that it had been there all the time in the packet of dog biscuits where she had hid it.
Evidence was heard in court disputing this, prosecution putting forward that the search team, in their expertise would not have missed this. If they took the time to search the meat in the bowl, would not have failed to look underneath? This knife (black handle) missing knife (brown handle)?
Jodi lost nearly all of her blood - was all of that blood at the crime scene? Were there any footprints in it? Did Luke's shoes disappear like his Parka apparently did?
-
Jodi lost nearly all of her blood - was all of that blood at the crime scene? Were there any footprints in it? Did Luke's shoes disappear like his Parka apparently did?
I believe it rained that night and the crimescene was unprotected. Consequently, crucial forensic clues were lost.
Luke Mitchell was last seen messing about in the woods on the evening following the murder.
-
Jodi lost nearly all of her blood - was all of that blood at the crime scene? Were there any footprints in it? Did Luke's shoes disappear like his Parka apparently did?
Nope and....eh....nope.
-
I believe it rained that night and the crimescene was unprotected.
Must have been a hell of a lot of rain to wash away many litres of blood, leaving nothing but some droplets on the wall?
Found an article where Sallens says they believe Jodi was murdered at a different site and moved to the location where she was found. Interesting they never mentioned such a key point in the documentary.
"We think she was murdered elsewhere and dragged there"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9287769/Luke-Mitchell-jailed-killing-girlfriend-aged-14-claims-innocence-bars.html
-
The hard facts that prove Luke Mitchell murdered Jodi Jones in cold blood
Many - including senior police officers and Jodi’s family - are angry that the TV documentary failed to point out key facts.
ByJane Hamilton
04:30, 2 MAR 2021
A Channel 5 documentary which cast doubt on the conviction of Jodi Jones killer Luke Mitchell has thrown the 2003 murder back into the spotlight.
Luke Mitchell was convicted of killing his then-girlfriend, 14, in 2005 following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.
Yet in two-part series Murder in a Small Town, which aired on 24 and 25 February, Mitchell, now 32, insists he is innocent.
But many - including senior police officers and Jodi’s family - are angry that the TV documentary failed to point out key facts.
Four attempts to overturn Mitchell’s conviction have failed.
Police say they are satisfied with the outcome - and no other suspects have been identified.
Here, the Daily Record answers the then key questions often raised by those who think Luke Mitchell should be cleared.
And we explain the key evidence that convinced a jury - beyond all reasonable doubt - that Luke Mitchell killed Jodi Jones.
Why wasn’t Luke’s DNA on Jodi?
Luke’s DNA was actually found on her bra and her DNA was found on Luke’s trousers but in an agreement between the Crown and his defence team, led by Donald Findlay QC, it was decided the issue of DNA wasn’t relevant as the pair were in an intimate relationship. The Crown weren’t going to say DNA made him the killer as it was expected his DNA would be on Jodi. DNA in this case wouldn’t prove innocence or guilt.
What was Luke’s alibi and why didn’t the jury believe him?
Luke Mitchell’s alibi was that he was at home cooking dinner when Jodi died on June 30 2003.
But his brother Shane gave crucial evidence during the trial which cast doubt on this
Mitchell lived in Newbattle, Midlothian, with his mother Corinne and his older brother, Shane.
Luke’s mother, Corinne, gave evidence that when she returned home from work at 5.15pm that he was in the kitchen. In a statement to police on 7 July 2003 Luke’s brother Shane said he recalled seeing Luke in the kitchen “mashing tatties”.
But when Shane was questioned by police on 14 April 2004, Shane said he had been looking at porn on the internet in his bedroom and this is not something he would have done if there had been anyone else in the house at the time. This contradicted what Luke Mitchell and his mother told police.
Shane later admitted on the stand he had discussed his earlier statement with his mother before telling police Mitchell had been at home. He admitted that statement was not accurate. As the alibi was not held up in court Corinne was arrested for perjury but prosecutors made a decision not to proceed with the charges.
What about the witness who said she saw Luke and Jodi at the entrance to the path as she drove past then couldn’t pick him out in court?
Andrina Bryson’s evidence was considered an important element in the Crown’s case as she came forward independently to say she saw a male and a female at the Easthouses part of Roan’s Dyke at about 1650.
She described the male as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She picked out a photograph of Mitchell although could not identify him at court.
She was unable to identify the female whom she only saw from the back, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans. Apart from the jeans, the description fitted Jodi. The appeal court judges said that while her identification evidence was open to challenge there were elements that provided the basis for a valid identification of Mitchell as the male she had seen and Jodi as the female.
They said her evidence did not stand alone - it fitted that Jodi had left to meet Mitchell and they were in their regular ‘rendezvous’ point when spotted. The timings, they said, also fit. The prosecution claimed that had Jodi left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the she would have been there at the time of this sighting, and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of Jodi and Mitchell.
Two other witnesses also identified Mitchell as the young man they had seen at the Newbattle end of the path around 50 minutes later.
What is the significance of the speaking clock phone call?
At 1654 Mitchell made a call to the speaking clock from his mobile. When asked by police why he had called the service when presumably if he was in his house as his alibi claimed there would be other ways to find out the time such as a clock on a wall he said he couldn’t answer why he made the call.
This piece of evidence backed up the prosecution case that he was on his way to meet Jodi at their prearranged time.
What was significant about Jodi’s body being discovered by Mitchell and the search party?
Mitchell discovered Jodi’s body, which was hidden behind a wall on the path, after claiming his dog led him to the scent. Family members with him said he appeared to know where the body was. They contradicted his evidence the dog had led them to the wall. He also showed no emotion at the horrifying find.
When he was later questioned he mentioned a distinctive hair clasp which was not readily visible on Jodi’s body and his description of her clothing implied he had seen her much later than just at school as he had claimed.
What about the missing knife?
At the time of the murder Mitchell owned a ‘skunting’ knife which has never been found despite an extensive search of his house. During a search of the family home many months later the pouch from the knife was found. Inscriptions on it read: “666” ‘[Name removed] 1989 – 2003” (Jodi’s birth and death).
And the missing jacket?
Luke was often seen wearing a distinctive parka style jacket and it was described by witnesses who saw him that night. When police searched his house the jacket had gone.
The prosecution sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of Mitchell’s home had been used around 6.30pm and 7.30pm and later, at around 10pm that night with an unusual smell as reported by neighbours.
The prosecution inferred the jacket had been burned to destroy evidence. The court was also told Corinne had bought her son a new jacket identical to the one that had gone missing. The prosecution said on both counts Mitchell failed to provide any kind of explanation over the missing knife and jacket when he could have done so.
What’s the connection with the Black Dahlia murder?
Two days after the murder Mitchell bought a Marilyn Manson DVD, “The Golden Age of the Grotesque”, which included images of naked women tied together and subjected to a form of abduction.
Manson had an exhibition of the same name publicised on his website, which included images depicting the death of the actress Elizabeth Short, also known as “The Black Dahlia”, who was mutilated and murdered in Los Angeles in 1947.
Professor Anthony Busuttil, the pathologist who examined Jodi’s body, gave evidence that while not identical there was some similarity between the location and the injuries inflicted on Jodi and those on the actress.
Were there any other suspects or people questioned during the police investigation?
Several people were questioned extensively by police and ruled out including most of the people mentioned in the documentary.
Mark Kane - who it was alleged was in the area at the same time as Jodi and had scratches on his face - was cleared of any involvement by police. His pal Scott Forbes said Kane, a student at Newbattle Abbey College at the time of the murder, had written an essay on “killing a girl in the woods”, and that a lecturer at the college could confirm this.
But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, said a statement from the lecturer “confirmed Kane wrote no such essay”.
He added that Forbes had told Kane to play along “and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers”. Kane later died and was totally ruled out as a suspect by police.
The whereabouts of all family members was examined to help develop a timeline of what happened. This is routine during all murder investigations and nobody else was considered a suspect.
What about the used condom found near Jodi’s body?
Jodi was NOT sexually assaulted in any way. Mitchell’s defence team claimed the DNA in the condom belonged to another man - James Falconer - but during an appeal hearing in 2008 Donald Findlay QC, who was Mitchell’s lawyer, told the judges he was dropping any further claims about James, who had already been ruled out of any involvement by detectives investigating the murder.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hard-facts-prove-luke-mitchell-23588583?utm_source=daily_record_newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter2&utm_medium=email
-
Jane Hamilton is being subjected to a great deal of abuse
I do hope she is reporting this to the police so they have a record of the patterns of behaviour
She’s doing a sterling job with the limited space available to her
-
Did Shane Mitchell give a statement prior to the ‘mashing tattles’ statement that he admitted discussing with his mother, and is this highlighted anywhere?
-
Where can I see the actual facts of prosecution and defense cases?
There's a quick summary of the prosecution's case in Section 92 of the 2008 appeal document. There's a less concise version of the defence's case in sections 27 to 31. Each claim is also dealt with in huge detail throughout the doc.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Certainly been an interesting few days, trying to keep up with everything from all sides.
Still to be convinced either way, without having all the facts, not just those reported in media or
via a documentary, and having been on 4 jurys, I don't see how anyone can form an opinion
either way, without all the facts.
He said, she said etc etc, doesn't do it for me.
Where can I see the actual facts of prosecution and defense cases?
I suggest just such a thread yesterday but it wasn’t approved.
-
The Sun did an amazing article on the Ch5 documentary or at least the 10 pieces of evidence and facts NOT mentioned in it.
Note in particular the fact that Shane Mitchell changed his statement several months after making his first one. He admitted in court that he had discussed the first statement with his mother Corinne Mitchell. In it he had claimed that he saw Luke in the kitchen of the family home mashing potatoes. In the second statement he stated that he was alone in the house.
MITCHELL'S own brother raised doubt over his alibi that he was at home cooking dinner when Jodi was murdered.
Their mother, Corinne, gave evidence that when she returned home from work at 5.15pm Luke was in the kitchen while brother Shane told police on July 7, 2003 he recalled seeing Luke in the kitchen “mashing tatties”.
But when Shane was questioned by cops again - on 14 April 2004 - he said he had been looking at porn online in his bedroom and would not have done so if there had been anyone else in the house at the time.
This contradicted what his brother and mum told police.
In court, Shane then admitted he had discussed his first statement with his mother before telling officers Mitchell had been at home and admitted the statement was not accurate.
Corinne was later arrested for perjury but the charges were eventually dropped.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
-
The Sun did an amazing article on the Ch5 documentary or at least the 10 pieces of evidence and facts NOT mentioned in it.
Note in particular the fact that Shane Mitchell changed his statement several months after making his first one. He admitted in court that he had discussed the first statement with his mother Corinne Mitchell. In it he had claimed that he saw Luke in the kitchen of the family home mashing potatoes. In the second statement he stated that he was alone in the house.
"Search
Search The Sun
Close
Luke Mitchell: 10 pieces of evidence and facts NOT mentioned in Channel 5 documentary over Jodi Jones murder
Love Island’s Laura Anderson breaks down in tears as she reveals she’s lost jobs after Dubai backlash
Travelling couple gain thousands of fans by posting NAKE.... ......ictures on Instagram
Josh Taylor v Jose Ramirez CONFIRMED for May 22 as Scot bids to become undisputed super-lightweight world champ
Ioan Gruffudd files for divorce from wife Alice Evans after 13 years following 'gaslighting' row
Pupils at Linwood additional needs school self-isolating after positive Covid case
Woman hurt in horror Greenock smash as pictures show shocking aftermath with three cars badly damaged
I’m addicted to orgasms, I have them just from looking at someone – my record is 18 & I’ve even passed out
Woman reveals the three warning signs that your man could be cheating - including silencing his DMs
Helen Flanagan shows off her 37-week baby bump as she models lingerie as she prepares to welcome her third baby
Menu
Hide the menu
Hide the menu
Share
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
Play Video
Scottish News
MURDER CASE Luke Mitchell: 10 pieces of evidence and facts NOT mentioned in Channel 5 documentary over Jodi Jones murder
Katy Pagan
18:58, 2 Mar 2021Updated: 0:07, 3 Mar 2021
A CHANNEL 5 documentary exploring the conviction of killer Luke Mitchell cast doubts over his guilt last week.
Mitchell was caged for life over the murder of his 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi Jones, who was butchered to death in Easthouses, Midlothian, in 2003.
Luke Mitchell was convicted of murdering his girlfriend Jodi Jones
5
Luke Mitchell was convicted of murdering his girlfriend Jodi JonesCredit: Andrew Barr - The Sun Glasgow
The chilling crime was featured in documentary Murder in a Small Town and sparked a petition demanding an independent inquiry into his conviction.
But Jodi's family has blasted the "biased" documentary about her murder, which also made a legal blunder incorrectly naming somebody on a suspect list.
Luke Mitchell trial witness fears new crime doc 'points finger at him' as killer
And to date, four doomed attempts to overturn Mitchell’s conviction have been rejected.
Here's the key evidence and facts cited in appeal rulings which contributed to keeping Mitchell behind bars...
Jodi Jones' body was found in woodland in 2003
5
Jodi Jones' body was found in woodland in 2003Credit: PA:Press Association
The missing knife
AT the time of Jodi's murder, Mitchell was described as having an interest in knives, and owned a 4 inch 'skunting' blade.
That knife and its pouch were not found during an extensive police search of Mitchell's home.
During another search the following year, the pouch was recovered - featuring a number of inscriptions including the numbers 666 and "[Name removed] 1989 - 2003", marking Jodi's birth and death.
A further quote also read: "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.
According to pathologist Professor Anthony Busuttil, the murder weapon which caused the injuries to Jodi's throat was a "stout, sharp-pointed, blade".
When questioned, Mitchell failed to provide an explanation over the missing knife.
Mitchell's knife was never recovered but the pouch was found
5
Mitchell's knife was never recovered but the pouch was foundCredit: PA:Press Association
The missing jacket
MITCHELL was reported to have been wearing a parka jacket on the night Jodi was killed.
Witnesses described the distinctive coat, which he was often seen wearing, on the night of the murder but it could not be found during a police search of his home.
The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of Mitchell's home was used to destroy the jacket later that night with an "unusual smell emanating from it" reported by neighbours.
The court was also told Corinne had bought her son a new jacket, identical to the one that had gone missing.
As with the knife, Mitchell failed to provide any kind of explanation over the missing jacket.
Mitchell's brother's testimony about alibi
MITCHELL'S own brother raised doubt over his alibi that he was at home cooking dinner when Jodi was murdered.
Their mother, Corinne, gave evidence that when she returned home from work at 5.15pm Luke was in the kitchen while brother Shane tol.... ......olice on July 7, 2003 he recalled seeing Luke in the kitchen “mashing tatties”.
But when Shane was questioned by cops again - on 14 April 2004 - he said he had been looking at porn online in his bedroom and would not have done so if there had been anyone else in the house at the time.
This contradicted what his brother and mum tol.... ......olice.
In court, Shane then admitted he had discussed his first statement with his mother before telling officers Mitchell had been at home and admitted the statement was not accurate.
Corinne was later arrested for perjury but the charges were eventually dropped."
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
Shall we start at the bottom....Corrine was not charged with perjury, she had not given her evidence under oath, she was charged with perverting the course of justice....and go from there?
Yes truly amazing Angelo...one fact in an it’s all gone Pete Tong.
-
You are making this sound like a sensible discussion
What was ‘sensible’ about
‘Whenever you appear on tv your words , feeling and thoughts are edited’
-
Someone has asked,
‘Why didn't he behave like someone who had just committed an extremely brutal murder?
How do murderers behave after their crimes?
Simon Hall appeared ‘fine’ according to his mother Lynn Hall
-
Someone has asked,
‘Why didn't he behave like someone who had just committed an extremely brutal murder?
How do murderers behave after their crimes?
Simon Hall appeared ‘fine’ according to his mother Lynn Hall
I imagine there are as many post murder behaviours as there are murderers!
-
Does anyone know how much Corrine Mitchell, Sandra Lean, Scott Forbes and the 2 PI’s were paid for the channel 5 show?
-
Does anyone know how much Corrine Mitchell, Sandra Lean, Scott Forbes and the 2 PI’s were paid for the channel 5 show?
I’d guess millions. I’ve heard the gorgeous Sandra has just bought herself some socks woven by rare Tibetan silkworms....the cheek of it !!!!
-
I’d guess millions. I’ve heard the gorgeous Sandra has just bought herself some socks woven by rare Tibetan silkworms....the cheek of it !!!!
Will be interesting to see if any payments were ,ade what they were paid under ie: talent costs etc
-
I’d guess millions. I’ve heard the gorgeous Sandra has just bought herself some socks woven by rare Tibetan silkworms....the cheek of it !!!!
C’mon, they’re all clearly hustlers out to make a buck.
-
C’mon, they’re all clearly hustlers out to make a buck.
Gougers
-
Will be interesting to see if any payments were ,ade what they were paid under ie: talent costs etc
I’d wager they won’t be telling you.
-
I’d wager they won’t be telling you.
A FOI may offer up some assistance
Do you think anyone should be receiving payment off the back of Luke Mitchell’s murder conviction
-
A FOI may offer up some assistance
Good luck with that but I’d wager payments made to private individuals by private companies would not be covered by the provisions of the FOI act.
-
Good luck with that but I’d wager payments made to private individuals by private companies would not be covered by the provisions of the FOI act.
What private company are you referring to?
-
What private company are you referring to?
The company that made the documentary.
-
The company that made the documentary.
Firecracker ?
-
Im totally new to this case and was introduced to it by the documentary on channel 5. I understand that some people are alleging the docu was one sided. Im going through whats available to read Im leaning towards innocence at this point for a number of reasons but will keep on reading to get a better picture of the whole case.
-
Firecracker ?
If that’s who produced it.
-
As am I, and asked similar yesterday, without reply.
Would really like to get a handle on the case and not just from a TV documentary and the ramblings online.
Be good to get the case notes if possible
(ty6e[ im busy reading the official transcripts from both the sentence and conviction appeals, not a full account but a helpful place to start.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
As am I, and asked similar yesterday, without reply.
Would really like to get a handle on the case and not just from a TV documentary and the ramblings online.
Be good to get the case notes if possible
hello,
unfortunately the full transcripts of the trial wont be available publicly anywhere - these would run to thousands of pages no doubt and contain all sorts of sensitive material, understandably
sandra lean claims to be in possesion of a great majority of the papers but obviously what she has cant be fully confirmed unless she decides to share it, which she claims she cannot under current laws
i suppose thats why people are drawn to this case, as speculation and one persons word / pet project can really take off without challenge
-
Some more links to appeal judgements and applications
2006
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8a928aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
2008
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
2010
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=874686a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
2011
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Thanks, a wee bit of reading for me to do.
Like most it's curiosity, and to try and take a balanced approach rather than a 1 sided,
whichever side that may be, look at everything that is available.
I know from what I've read so far, MOJ, seem to be common, with very little chance of success
Innocents Betrayed by Sandra Lean is also a good source of information and helps to give a balanced view of the case.
-
I wonder why his alibi was so hard to accept when its documented by evidence, at least in part?
"the deceased had texted him at 1620, asking if he was coming out. He had replied that he would do so later on, as he had to make dinner" copied from the official appeal transcript
-
I wonder why his alibi was so hard to accept when its documented by evidence, at least in part?
"the deceased had texted him at 1620, asking if he was coming out. He had replied that he would do so later on, as he had to make dinner" copied from the official appeal transcript
You don’t think that might have been a deliberate bit of pre-planning?
-
You don’t think that might have been a deliberate bit of pre-planning?
Possibly. But if he texted her saying he was cooking dinner then how would he know she would be where he wanted her to be, because he would be in the house cooking dinner? Also says in the appeal that no exact time was arranged by text for them to meet, so how would he know what time she would come down the path? For it being "pre-planned" it doesnt seem like a very good plan to me.
-
Possibly. But if he texted her saying he was cooking dinner then how would he know she would be where he wanted her to be, because he would be in the house cooking dinner? Also says in the appeal that no exact time was arranged by text for them to meet, so how would he know what time she would come down the path? For it being "pre-planned" it doesnt seem like a very good plan to me.
Further Andrina Bryson couldn’t point out Luke in court and wrongly described the clothes Jodi was wearing.
-
Im totally new to this case and was introduced to it by the documentary on channel 5. I understand that some people are alleging the docu was one sided. Im going through whats available to read Im leaning towards innocence at this point for a number of reasons but will keep on reading to get a better picture of the whole case.
Welcome to the case. There is so much info out there but also a lot of misinformation, out right lies and confusion (from both sides). I started looking into the case when he launched his first appeal sure Luke was guilty but the more I found out the more convinced I was that it was possible he could be innocent. The circumstantial evidences is too much hear say and not enough hard proof for me. I know i don’t have all the info in the case but I just haven’t seen anything that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only a couple of things that would convince me one way or the other and these are very unlikely to happen so IMO a full review is needed.
A photo or proof Luke did own a parka jacket before the murder, other that someone saying so
Dna / forensics retested and more concrete evidence found
A confession
Luke’s brother to clarify his statement and confirm if he still supports the family or not
-
Welcome to the case. There is so much info out there but also a lot of misinformation, out right lies and confusion (from both sides). I started looking into the case when he launched his first appeal sure Luke was guilty but the more I found out the more convinced I was that it was possible he could be innocent. The circumstantial evidences is too much hear say and not enough hard proof for me. I know i don’t have all the info in the case but I just haven’t seen anything that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only a couple of things that would convince me one way or the other and these are very unlikely to happen so IMO a full review is needed.
A photo or proof Luke did own a parka jacket before the murder, other that someone saying so
Dna / forensics retested and more concrete evidence found
A confession
Luke’s brother to clarify his statement and confirm if he still supports the family or not
*&(+(+ you raise some very interesting points, my mind is wide open at this point.
-
Welcome to the case. There is so much info out there but also a lot of misinformation, out right lies and confusion (from both sides). I started looking into the case when he launched his first appeal sure Luke was guilty but the more I found out the more convinced I was that it was possible he could be innocent. The circumstantial evidences is too much hear say and not enough hard proof for me. I know i don’t have all the info in the case but I just haven’t seen anything that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only a couple of things that would convince me one way or the other and these are very unlikely to happen so IMO a full review is needed.
A photo or proof Luke did own a parka jacket before the murder, other that someone saying so
Dna / forensics retested and more concrete evidence found
A confession
Luke’s brother to clarify his statement and confirm if he still supports the family or not
I absolutely agree.
What would have turned the case on its head IMO is if the first statements to the police by certain witnesses had been allowed in court namely those who searched with Luke and agreed in their first statements that Mia had altered to the v in the wall.
As to Shane’s first statement it’s obvious that that it wasn’t to the police’s liking or why would they have charged him with perverting the course of justice. The dropping of that charge just before he gave evidence wasn’t a coincidence and he may have thought that a perjury charge may follow if he didn’t give the prosecution what they wanted. His last sentence when giving evidence suggests he wasn’t comfortable with what he was saying when he said that Luke could have been in the house.
-
I absolutely agree.
What would have turned the case on its head IMO is if the first statements to the police by certain witnesses had been allowed in court namely those who searched with Luke and agreed in their first statements that Mia had altered to the v in the wall.
I agree faithlilly, the jury shouldve been shown the changes in statements. Statements can change but 3 exact changes in 3 entirely different statements is to much of a coincidence imo.
-
I agree faithlilly, the jury shouldve been shown the changes in statements. Statements can change but 3 exact changes in 3 entirely different statements is to much of a coincidence imo.
Unfortunately Scottish law prohibits it.
-
What would have turned the case on its head IMO is if the first statements to the police by certain witnesses had been allowed in court namely those who searched with Luke and agreed in their first statements that Mia had altered to the v in the wall.
I disagree
It’s possible these statements would have shored things up even more
-
Unfortunately Scottish law prohibits it.
so a witness could change their entire story to fit the evidence and the jury wouldn't even know about it, does the same apply to defence witnesses?
-
As to Shane’s first statement it’s obvious that that it wasn’t to the police’s liking or why would they have charged him with perverting the course of justice. The dropping of that charge just before he gave evidence wasn’t a coincidence and he may have thought that a perjury charge may follow if he didn’t give the prosecution what they wanted. His last sentence when giving evidence suggests he wasn’t comfortable with what he was saying when he said that Luke could have been in the house.
This could have been to do with ‘family loyalties’
-
I agree faithlilly, the jury shouldve been shown the changes in statements. Statements can change but 3 exact changes in 3 entirely different statements is to much of a coincidence imo.
My question is who said the 3 statements had been changed? Is there proof? . My 2nd question which I've asked sandra lean and never got a proper reply. Is what exactly was the dog trained to track?
-
My question is who said the 3 statements had been changed? Is there proof? . My 2nd question which I've asked sandra lean and never got a proper reply. Is what exactly was the dog trained to track?
We were told by Sandra Lean Mitchell asked for something of Jodi’s from a family member to instruct his dog to track Jodi
Excerpt from ‘No Smoke’ by Sandra Lean
‘Luke would claim that he instructed the dog, which had had some training as a tracker dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi," after asking family members if they had anything of Jodi‟s from which the dog could get a scent.)
When (on what date) and where did Luke Mitchell tell the police he’d allegedly ‘instructed the dog’
And what had the 3 family members said in their witness statements about this by this point?
The question was often asked as to why Mia (Mitchell family trained tracker Alsatian) didn't find Jodi's scent on the first pass as Luke and she walked along the dirt path to meet up with the Jones family?
Surely anyone looking for a missing girlfriend would follow any and all indications given by their tracker dog? And especially so as the V notch in the wall allowed easy access for a young person to climb over.
No, it didn't happen, he walked right past Jodi's body, just feet away and only minutes later supposedly discovered the murder scene with the Jones family in tow. In itself this might not be much but taken with everything else it is damning evidence.
Why did he need something from one of the family members and didn’t he have anything of Jodi’s in his house he could take along with him - as well as the torch
-
Another lie.
“He could have been out years ago if he had said he was guilty, but he's not going to say he did something he didn't do."
This is untrue.
Luke Mitchell who was Jodi's boyfriend was subsequently convicted of the murder and sentenced to a minimum of 20-years in prison.
He will not be released before 2025.
-
My question is who said the 3 statements had been changed? Is there proof? . My 2nd question which I've asked sandra lean and never got a proper reply. Is what exactly was the dog trained to track?
It was mentioned on the docu, cant remember who the guy was who commented on them but to make a comment I would assume he saw them, if its false then Im sure there will be law suits flying around soon.
Dont know the answer to your 2nd question.
-
I absolutely agree.
What would have turned the case on its head IMO is if the first statements to the police by certain witnesses had been allowed in court namely those who searched with Luke and agreed in their first statements that Mia had altered to the v in the wall.
As to Shane’s first statement it’s obvious that that it wasn’t to the police’s liking or why would they have charged him with perverting the course of justice. The dropping of that charge just before he gave evidence wasn’t a coincidence and he may have thought that a perjury charge may follow if he didn’t give the prosecution what they wanted. His last sentence when giving evidence suggests he wasn’t comfortable with what he was saying when he said that Luke could have been in the house.
You're like a dog with a bone. It doesn't cut any mustard with me though.
Two boys in a small house and one doesn't know the other is there. Banging around in a kitchen, playing music, making phone calls. Pull the other one Faith, it's got bells on.
Luke lied and if the conviction is sound his mother lied too. No wonder her home and business were targeted.
You do remember Mr McCafferty? The man who died from carbon monoxide poisoning after Corinne Mitchell sold his daughter a caravan with a blocked flu? She was sued by Mrs McCafferty for £¼ million. Is that why she had to sell the house and live in the office at Scott's Caravans?
-
Another lie.
“He could have been out years ago if he had said he was guilty, but he's not going to say he did something he didn't do."
This is untrue.
Luke Mitchell who was Jodi's boyfriend was subsequently convicted of the murder and sentenced to a minimum of 20-years in prison.
He will not be released before 2025.
Who’s saying this?
Lynn Hall said this on TV about her son too *&^^&
-
From info Ive read Luke wasnt looking for Jodi when he was on his way to her house. He was making his way there to help her mum phone around friends, he didnt know there was a search party until he met them at the end of the path? So might not have noticed any reaction from the dog like pulling towards the wall or what ever, he mightve wanted to get over there as quickly as possible, its been said that it was someone elses suggestion to go back down the path, someone out of the search group?
-
Possibly. But if he texted her saying he was cooking dinner then how would he know she would be where he wanted her to be, because he would be in the house cooking dinner? Also says in the appeal that no exact time was arranged by text for them to meet, so how would he know what time she would come down the path? For it being "pre-planned" it doesnt seem like a very good plan to me.
From a recent newspaper article
“At 1635 on Monday 30th June 2003 Jodi used her mother’s mobile phone to send a text message to Mitchell who responded at 1636. A further text was sent by Jodi to him at 1638 but the content of these messages was never discovered.
Jodi left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet Mitchell and would be “mucking about up here”, suggesting that the previous texts were an arrangement to meet up.
Four minutes later Mitchell’s mobile called the speaking clock inferring that he was out of his house”.
-
My question is who said the 3 statements had been changed? Is there proof? . My 2nd question which I've asked sandra lean and never got a proper reply. Is what exactly was the dog trained to track?
“Mia training was being conducted by a highly skilled ex-military dog trainer with 25 years experience. He would later describe mias natural tracking ability as exceptional. He was never called to give evidence at the trial” but doesn’t say what specifically she was being trained for.
I believe Sandra has all or most of the statements related to the case, most of the info comes from her so we only have her word for this but I don’t see why she would lie, it would cause more trouble than it’s worth. I think she did use to post copies of stuff on an old website years ago (since closed down) but I can’t remember now if she posted them or just bits from it
-
From a recent newspaper article
“At 1635 on Monday 30th June 2003 Jodi used her mother’s mobile phone to send a text message to Mitchell who responded at 1636. A further text was sent by Jodi to him at 1638 but the content of these messages was never discovered.
Jodi left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet Mitchell and would be “mucking about up here”, suggesting that the previous texts were an arrangement to meet up.
Four minutes later Mitchell’s mobile called the speaking clock inferring that he was out of his house”.
with all due respect that is out of a newspaper article, the appeal transcripts says differently
-
From info Ive read Luke wasnt looking for Jodi when he was on his way to her house. He was making his way there to help her mum phone around friends, he didnt know there was a search party until he met them at the end of the path? So might not have noticed any reaction from the dog like pulling towards the wall or what ever, he mightve wanted to get over there as quickly as possible, its been said that it was someone elses suggestion to go back down the path, someone out of the search group?
Sandra Lean stated,
‘Luke would claim that he instructed the dog, which had had some training as a tracker dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi," after asking family members if they had anything of Jodi‟s from which the dog could get a scent.
When did this happen and which family member did Mitchell ask for something of Jodi’s - when they were on the path? Would they have thought to bring something of Jodi’s along with them do you think?
-
“Mia training was being conducted by a highly skilled ex-military dog trainer with 25 years experience. He would later describe mias natural tracking ability as exceptional. He was never called to give evidence at the trial” but doesn’t say what specifically she was being trained for.
I believe Sandra has all or most of the statements related to the case, most of the info comes from her so we only have her word for this but I don’t see why she would lie, it would cause more trouble than it’s worth. I think she did use to post copies of stuff on an old website years ago (since closed down) but I can’t remember now if she posted them or just bits from it
Yes...she posted snippets on Wrongly Accused Person when it benefitted her claims.
-
Sandra Lean stated,
‘Luke would claim that he instructed the dog, which had had some training as a tracker dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi," after asking family members if they had anything of Jodi‟s from which the dog could get a scent.
When did this happen and which family member did Mitchell ask for something of Jodi’s - when they were on the path? Would they have thought to bring something of Jodi’s along with them do you think?
No. They weren't looking for a body remember. They thought she might have fallen and hurt herself and that is why the search began on the path leading to Newbattle.
-
From a recent newspaper article
“At 1635 on Monday 30th June 2003 Jodi used her mother’s mobile phone to send a text message to Mitchell who responded at 1636. A further text was sent by Jodi to him at 1638 but the content of these messages was never discovered.
Jodi left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet Mitchell and would be “mucking about up here”, suggesting that the previous texts were an arrangement to meet up.
Four minutes later Mitchell’s mobile called the speaking clock inferring that he was out of his house”.
do you know why cell analysis wasnt used? Was it available back then?
-
“Mia training was being conducted by a highly skilled ex-military dog trainer with 25 years experience. He would later describe mias natural tracking ability as exceptional. He was never called to give evidence at the trial” but doesn’t say what specifically she was being trained for.
I believe Sandra has all or most of the statements related to the case, most of the info comes from her so we only have her word for this but I don’t see why she would lie, it would cause more trouble than it’s worth. I think she did use to post copies of stuff on an old website years ago (since closed down) but I can’t remember now if she posted them or just bits from it
@)(++(*
She lied in her thesis
She lied about the exposure of Simon Halls guilt and subsequent confession
Suspect she’s still telling anyone who will listen - ‘things don’t add up’
She lied about the ‘typo’ in her book - it wasn’t a typo - it was her then misunderstanding of the facts of the case
-
Sandra Lean stated,
‘Luke would claim that he instructed the dog, which had had some training as a tracker dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi," after asking family members if they had anything of Jodi‟s from which the dog could get a scent.
When did this happen and which family member did Mitchell ask for something of Jodi’s - when they were on the path? Would they have thought to bring something of Jodi’s along with them do you think?
i dont know the answer to this I only know what ive read so far which isnt a huge amount.
-
do you know why cell analysis wasnt used? Was it available back then?
It wouldn't help.
-
My question is who said the 3 statements had been changed? Is there proof? . My 2nd question which I've asked sandra lean and never got a proper reply. Is what exactly was the dog trained to track?
On the blue forum (Jeremy bamber forum) Sandra also stated - The dog's tracker training records were in police hands and they also interviewed the trainer, who said her tracking abilities were "excellent" - he said she was a "natural". He was never asked to give evidence at trial. There would appear to be no doubt, from the records and the interview, that if the dog was in tracker mode, she would have alerted by reaching to the highest point she could find and "air-sniffing" in the direction of the thing she was alerting to.
-
No. They weren't looking for a body remember. They thought she might have fallen and hurt herself and that is why the search began on the path leading to Newbattle.
how is this known?
-
“Mia training was being conducted by a highly skilled ex-military dog trainer with 25 years experience. He would later describe mias natural tracking ability as exceptional. He was never called to give evidence at the trial” but doesn’t say what specifically she was being trained for.
I believe Sandra has all or most of the statements related to the case, most of the info comes from her so we only have her word for this but I don’t see why she would lie, it would cause more trouble than it’s worth. I think she did use to post copies of stuff on an old website years ago (since closed down) but I can’t remember now if she posted them or just bits from it
I don't doubt that the dog had exceptional tracking abilities. I have one who is exceptional in tracking. Dogs are trained to track one thing. The training takes a lot of time and effort therefor theirvtraining is in one specific thing. Interested to know what Lukes dog was trained to track. Also to dispute what was said that luke might not have known dog was reacting when he was on way up to meet family. When a tracker dog is reacting You know!
-
how is this known?
From the Jones family.
-
It wouldn't help.
why? would the same mast be used for the whole area?
-
From the Jones family.
i thought they hadnt spoke out about any of it?
-
with all due respect that is out of a newspaper article, the appeal transcripts says differently
It was also news paper articles that got us here in the first place reporting on a 14/15 year old boy. he was guilty well before the trial in the eyes of a lot of people in Edinburgh I think due to news reports.
-
I don't doubt that the dog had exceptional tracking abilities. I have one who is exceptional in tracking. Dogs are trained to track one thing. The training takes a lot of time and effort therefor theirvtraining is in one specific thing. Interested to know what Lukes dog was trained to track. Also to dispute what was said that luke might not have known dog was reacting when he was on way up to meet family. When a tracker dog is reacting You know!
The dog knew Jodi well so had no trouble finding her. It's not surprising Judy and Janine wondered why Mia hadn't found Jodi on the first pass.
-
I don't doubt that the dog had exceptional tracking abilities. I have one who is exceptional in tracking. Dogs are trained to track one thing. The training takes a lot of time and effort therefor theirvtraining is in one specific thing. Interested to know what Lukes dog was trained to track. Also to dispute what was said that luke might not have known dog was reacting when he was on way up to meet family. When a tracker dog is reacting You know!
i will take your word for that, but a working dog is instructed to work, it isnt in work mode all the time, that could be the reason it didn't react at first.
-
i thought they hadnt spoke out about any of it?
Not publicly but on justice forums. I have interacted with several family members and a few others including Mark Kane and Scott Forbes. Also Corinne Mitchell at one time before she stopped answering questions.
-
I don't doubt that the dog had exceptional tracking abilities. I have one who is exceptional in tracking. Dogs are trained to track one thing. The training takes a lot of time and effort therefor theirvtraining is in one specific thing. Interested to know what Lukes dog was trained to track. Also to dispute what was said that luke might not have known dog was reacting when he was on way up to meet family. When a tracker dog is reacting You know!
Also be good to know how long it was being trained for etc
-
with all due respect that is out of a newspaper article, the appeal transcripts says differently
So there was no text sent at 1638 from Jodi to Mitchell? Do you have a cite to the passage of the transcript you are referring to please?
-
Not publicly but on justice forums. I have interacted with several family members.
have you heard directly from those in the search group? if they thought she had fell and hurt herself then Luke would have seen her on the path lying there because there was no reason to believe she was on the other side of the wall, right? So why go back down a path that has already been walked with no sighting of her? I dont get it and if it was their suggestion and not Lukes then I cant see how he was leading the way.
im not saying they knew she was there btw, just doesnt add up.
-
i will take your word for that, but a working dog is instructed to work, it isnt in work mode all the time, that could be the reason it didn't react at first.
I disagree. I have been on casual walk a few times with my dog not working. She has on a few occasions indicated in what she's trained to track.
-
You're like a dog with a bone. It doesn't cut any mustard with me though.
Two boys in a small house and one doesn't know the other is there. Banging around in a kitchen, playing music, making phone calls. Pull the other one Faith, it's got bells on.
Luke lied and if the conviction is sound his mother lied too. No wonder her home and business were targeted.
You do remember Mr McCafferty? The man who died from carbon monoxide poisoning after Corinne Mitchell sold his daughter a caravan with a blocked flu? She was sued by Mrs McCafferty for £¼ million. Is that why she had to sell the house and live in the office at Scott's Caravans?
As far as I can see there hasn't been any jury trial in that civil case despite a judge refusing a motion by Corinne Mitchell's lawyer to refuse issues and withhold the case from a jury. Was it settled privately perhaps?
All case references below.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff85760d03e7f57ebe998
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald-1130/20110128/281934539410238
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=f70087a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
The dog knew Jodi well so had no trouble finding her. It's not surprising Judy and Janine wondered why Mia hadn't found Jodi on the first pass.
Had he asked Mia to “find her” on way up the path, I’ve only seen reports that it was after he met the search party he put the fog in “tracking mode”?
-
I disagree. I have been on casual walk a few times with my dog not working. She has on a few occasions indicated in what she's trained to track.
Luke allegedly set out to find Jodi so the dog would have been looking from the get-go imo.
-
I disagree. I have been on casual walk a few times with my dog not working. She has on a few occasions indicated in what she's trained to track.
what about police working dogs? they are trained to sniff out criminals, do they know every time a criminal walks past them? When police attend crime scenes the dogs normally pick up a scent when its told to by its handler, i know some dogs are trained for specific things but some are also trained to just pick up any scent theyre given.
-
Luke allegedly set out to find Jodi so the dog would have been looking from the get-go imo.
no proof of this then John?
-
no proof of this then John?
Not if he murdered her no. It was better that someone else find her.
-
Had he asked Mia to “find her” on way up the path, I’ve only seen reports that it was after he met the search party he put the fog in “tracking mode”?
everything I have seen says after.
-
Not if he murdered her no.
sorry?
-
Not if he murdered her no. It was better that someone else find her.
that isnt proof he set out to find her, just speculation imo he didnt even know the search party was going to be at the path?
-
sorry?
If he murdered Jodi he wouldn't want the dog to find her until he was in the company of her family. Finding the body by himself would look bad.
-
that isnt proof he set out to find her, just speculation imo he didnt even know the search party was going to be at the path?
If I recall they were going to meet him half way but that didn't happen. They had only just got to the path at the Easthouses end when he met them.
-
If he murdered Jodi he wouldn't want the dog to find her until he was in the company of her family. Finding the body by himself would look bad.
got that, see my last post. lets say they werent at the path when he got to the other end, then what? if it was his intention to lead people to the body, people he didnt know were out looking? sorry thats why it doesnt add up and even had he arranged to meet them at the path it wasnt his suggestion to back down it.
-
got that, see my last post. lets say they werent at the path when he got to the other end, then what? if it was his intention to lead people to the body, people he didnt know were out looking? sorry thats why it doesnt add up and even had he arranged to meet them at the path it wasnt his suggestion to back down it.
That's right, it was Jodi's family who wanted to go down the path because that is where Jodi stated she was going.
-
That's right, it was Jodi's family who wanted to go down the path because that is where Jodi stated she was going.
I’ve found an old timeline John
How did the error occur re the dog walk?
6.50-6.55pm Luke phones some male friends to see what they are doing, as Jodi still hasnt shown
7pm Luke phones his mother to tell her if Jodi comes to the house, he is in The Abbey, and to tell Jodi to come there.
9pm After hanging around the abbey for a couple of hours, the boys head for home. Luke goes up to his room and puts on a video of Red dwarf.
10.30pm Luke takes the dog for her last walk of the evening.
-
that isnt proof he set out to find her, just speculation imo he didnt even know the search party was going to be at the path?
A tracker dog isn't just told to "find" it doesn't work like that. My dog indicates in what she's trained to track. Working or not. A liitle bit of insight to a working dog, they're always working whether told to or not.
-
If I recall they were going to meet him half way but that didn't happen. They had only just got to the path at the Easthouses end when he met them.
sorry I take so long to type, see there is so much misinformation around it kind of stops some from forming a proper opinion on guilt or innocence. If he didnt know they would be there then ? but if he did know then ? raises the same question marks and there is no evidence being shown at this point to say either way.
-
Welcome to the case. There is so much info out there but also a lot of misinformation, out right lies and confusion (from both sides). I started looking into the case when he launched his first appeal sure Luke was guilty but the more I found out the more convinced I was that it was possible he could be innocent. The circumstantial evidences is too much hear say and not enough hard proof for me. I know i don’t have all the info in the case but I just haven’t seen anything that puts it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only a couple of things that would convince me one way or the other and these are very unlikely to happen so IMO a full review is needed.
A photo or proof Luke did own a parka jacket before the murder, other that someone saying so
Dna / forensics retested and more concrete evidence found
A confession
Luke’s brother to clarify his statement and confirm if he still supports the family or not
The Jones family knew he had a parka
-
A tracker dog isn't just told to "find" it doesn't work like that. My dog indicates in what she's trained to track. Working or not. A liitle bit of insight to a working dog, they're always working whether told to or not.
i would assume a drugs dog would indicate at what it is trained in at all times, im not talking about a trained drugs dog, what about dogs trained to pick up the scent of burglars, you cant tell me they would know every burglar they walk past? These kind of trained dogs know when theyre being put to work.
-
The Jones family knew he had a parka
hearsay
-
The Jones family knew he had a parka
As did the girl he was cheating on Jodi with, Kimberley Thomson:
(https://i.imgur.com/ISKF3qF.png)
And he absolutely was 2 timing the pair of them despite what Sandra says. This is likely what they were arguing about on the day of the murder, because Luke had plans to spend time with Kimberley Thomson 60 miles away now that school was finished. Kimberley and Luke were texting "love you" to each other just days before the murder.
As did his former high school teacher, who had reason to remember it because he joked that Luke resembled a "hooded monk" walking around school with it on. This teacher retired that summer so could only have seen Luke wearing it before the murder.
As did Luke's friends.
All these independent people, deciding to lie for no apparent reason. *%87
-
That's right, it was Jodi's family who wanted to go down the path because that is where Jodi stated she was going.
but the path had already been travelled by someone they trusted enough to go out with their daughter/sister/granddaughter on numerous occcasions and by all accounts it wasnt unusual for her to be out late at other times also and that was the reason for her being grounded?
-
hearsay
They're satisfied in the knowledge that they remember him wearing it.
-
hearsay
Some people use that claim over Simon Hall’s guilt
-
but the path had already been travelled by someone they trusted enough to go out with their daughter/sister/granddaughter on numerous occcasions and by all accounts it wasnt unusual for her to be out late at other times also and that was the reason for her being grounded?
They obviously weren't convinced.
-
From an old timeline
10.39pm Judy sends a text to Lukes phone, Right Toad, say goodnight toLuke. Thats you grounded for another week.
10.40pm Luke phones Judy to say he hasnt seen Jodi all night. Judy says she will call round Jodis friends. Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said.
10.49pm Judy calls back to say Jodi is nowhere to be found, and she is calling the police. Luke says he will go up the path to look for Jodi, and if he doesnt find her, he will make his way to Judys house to decide what to do next. (This story was later changed to claim that Luke had agreed to meet the other members of the search party at the path.)
Luke returns to the house?
-
Some people use that claim over Simon Hall’s guilt
I was just thinking about you and Simon today. It must have been very difficult for you in the end. Sorry about going off topic.
-
As did the girl he was cheating on Jodi with, Kimberley Thomson:
(https://i.imgur.com/ISKF3qF.png)
And he absolutely was 2 timing the pair of them despite what Sandra says. This is likely what they were arguing about on the day of the murder, because Luke had plans to spend time with Kimberley Thomson 60 miles away now that school was finished. Kimberley and Luke were texting "love you" to each other just days before the murder.
As did his former high school teacher, who had reason to remember it because he joked that Luke resembled a "hooded monk" walking around school with it on. This teacher retired that summer so could only have seen Luke wearing it before the murder.
As did Luke's friends.
All these independent people, deciding to lie for no apparent reason. *%87
jeez he was 14 so what if he had 10 girlfriends, nothing sinister about that, and why no pics of Luke in said parka if he always wore it? did no one have cameras back then or was he just unlucky that every photo taken didnt include the parka he allegedly always wore? ever thought these young girls couldve been scorned having found out they were being 2/3 timed? oh I forgot theyre only kids, not at all like Luke was.
-
I was just thinking about you and Simon today. It must have been very difficult for you in the end. Sorry about going off topic.
Were you - what were you thinking about Simon?
-
Much has been made of the family wanting to go back down the path Luke walked up. Why? They hadn't searched it yet. Why would the family walk to the path only to go back the way they came? I'm also unsure why Corinne says she has "no idea" how the Jones search party got there before Luke. They were closer to it. Why wouldn't they?
-
From an old timeline
10.39pm Judy sends a text to Lukes phone, Right Toad, say goodnight toLuke. Thats you grounded for another week.
10.40pm Luke phones Judy to say he hasnt seen Jodi all night. Judy says she will call round Jodis friends. Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said.
10.49pm Judy calls back to say Jodi is nowhere to be found, and she is calling the police. Luke says he will go up the path to look for Jodi, and if he doesnt find her, he will make his way to Judys house to decide what to do next. (This story was later changed to claim that Luke had agreed to meet the other members of the search party at the path.)
Luke returns to the house?
so Judy phoned around all her friends in like 9 minutes? and still Luke was supposed to go to the house not meet up with others so you kind of proved my point there thanks Nicholas.
-
jeez he was 14 so what if he had 10 girlfriends, nothing sinister about that, and why no pics of Luke in said parka if he always wore it? did no one have cameras back then or was he just unlucky that every photo taken didnt include the parka he allegedly always wore? ever thought these young girls couldve been scorned having found out they were being 2/3 timed? oh I forgot theyre only kids, not at all like Luke was.
I don't care how many girlfriends he had and I'm not saying it makes him a murderer, but they were arguing about something that day when Luke's "short fuse" took over.
-
This was interesting from Corrine
6th May 2010
‘Like all miscarriages of justice....the police make the time of death....when the suspect has no alibi.
And this
Luke was in the house between 5 and 5.30 ....eating his dinner. And here lies the problem they say we are lying.
should add to that.....I was also in the house eating my dinner as was Shane, albeit differnt rooms. Shane was in his bedroom , upstairs, I was outside and Luke was in the livingroom.
-
Much has been made of the family wanting to go back down the path Luke walked up. Why? They hadn't searched it yet. Why would the family walk to the path only to go back the way they came? I'm also unsure why Corinne says she has "no idea" how the Jones search party got there before Luke. They were closer to it. Why wouldn't they?
but Luke had, hed just walked it, he was obviously someone they had trusted with the 14 year old relative for the past 5 months or so, why would they choose to not believe him not, baring in mind this wasnt the first time she had failed go to home on time and that was the reason for being grounded in the past?
-
Were you - what were you thinking about Simon?
I was just reminiscing about everything that happened and the amount of time put into the case.
-
so Judy phoned around all her friends in like 9 minutes? and still Luke was supposed to go to the house not meet up with others so you kind of proved my point there thanks Nicholas.
She probably realised she didn't actually have Jodi's friends numbers. Did your mum have your friends phone numbers when you were 14? Jodi's phone was broken at the time. Maybe decided she'd phone them when she met with Luke and obtained potential names/numbers. Sandra will try and find something sinister when there is usually always a simple explanation.
but Luke had, hed just walked it, he was obviously someone they had trusted with the 14 year old relative for the past 5 months or so, why would they choose to not believe him not, baring in mind this wasnt the first time she had failed go to home on time and that was the reason for being grounded in the past?
Well he obviously didn't do a very good job of it considering he walked a few meters past Jodi's body and was apparently none the wiser, nor was his tracker dog lol. He wasn't searching at all, what did Corinne say about a 14 year old boy being pulled by a German Shepherd? So turns out they were right not to trust his searching skills, innocent or guilty. Where else would the search party go at that point? Back down the street they came and back home?
-
I don't care how many girlfriends he had and I'm not saying it makes him a murderer, but they were arguing about something that day when Luke's "short fuse" took over.
that is one theory
-
I wonder how hard the police looked for the parka, or proof that it existed before the murder. With all the publicity the case is getting now there is still a possibility a pic could turn up from the back of a drawer somewhere, that would be enough proof for me.
I never believed the story of his mum burning the stuff in the burner but I always thought he could have dumped it in any bin on his way home, the bins were all emptied the following morning.
-
She probably realised she didn't actually have Jodi's friends numbers. Did your mum have your friends phone numbers when you were 14? Jodi's phone was broken at the time. Maybe decided she'd phone them when she met with Luke and obtained potential names/numbers. Sandra will try and find something sinister when there is usually always a simple explanation.
wasn't that the reason why he was going to her house, to give the numbers she didn't have? im not suggesting anything sinister just pointing out that time lines dont seem to add up and Luke was never supposed to meet them at the path which Nicholas confirmed. Why has Sandras name been meantioned? I see why theyre no people supporting luke on this forum, getting ambushed for daring to question things 8)><(
-
that is one theory
It's what I believe happened. I don't believe it was planned at all. I believe Luke lost it and the argument turned bad. Jodi tried to walk away from him and got knocked over the back of the head with something and there was a fight/struggle which Luke obviously won, and ended with Jodi being strangled. Luke would have had a knife on him anyway, according to everyone who knew him. I think his morbid curiosity took over when he found himself there with a lifeless body.
-
wasn't that the reason why he was going to her house, to give the numbers she didn't have? im not suggesting anything sinister just pointing out that time lines dont seem to add up and Luke was never supposed to meet them at the path which Nicholas confirmed. Why has Sandras name been meantioned? I see why theyre no people supporting luke on this forum, getting ambushed for daring to question things 8)><(
I don't see any ambush. I'm sharing my opinion and theory as are you.
-
It's what I believe happened. I don't believe it was planned at all. I believe Luke lost it and the argument turned bad. Jodi tried to walk away from him and got knocked over the back of the head with something and there was a fight/struggle which Luke obviously won, and ended with Jodi being strangled. Luke would have had a knife on him anyway, according to everyone who knew him. I think his morbid curiosity took over when he found himself there with a lifeless body.
as i say it is theory despite what you believe, quite a bit of a detailed one at that. She fought for her life, it said so in the appeal transcript, why no marks on him, bruises, scrapes from branches, kick marks, bite marks, anything you would leave when fighting for your life?
-
so a witness could change their entire story to fit the evidence and the jury wouldn't even know about it, does the same apply to defence witnesses?
Now there’s a question. Shane was certainly asked about his first statement in court.
-
I was just reminiscing about everything that happened and the amount of time put into the case.
Reminiscing hey @)(++(*
-
I don't see any ambush. I'm sharing my opinion and theory as are you.
people are asking me questions i cant possibly answer unless i was there. As soon as someone new comes on this site supporting Luke all these same questions theyve fired at sandra are fired at them, why? Not everyone knows or is in contact with her, so kind of does feel like an ambush
-
as i say it is theory despite what you believe, quite a bit of a detailed one at that. She fought for her life, it said so in the appeal transcript, why no marks on him, bruises, scrapes from branches, kick marks, bite marks, anything you would leave when fighting for your life?
"defensive injuries" is very vague. Has it ever been reported Jodi scratched or bit her attacker? I don't recall anything being found in her mouth or under her finger nails.
Blocking your face from a knife attack with your arm, for example, would be considered a "defensive injury." Wouldn't leave a mark on the attacker.
-
Corrine Mitchell 2010
I don't know Condom man at all. He is a different generation to me and neither of my sons knew him. I only know about him from various sources and documentation on him.
Down where I live is fine, the natives are very friendly. A few minutes up the road where I work is a different story. At the beginning it was Hell.
I got 30 caravans trashed. I got a brick through my car window, while I was driving. I got shouted and sworn at on a regular basis.
It improved after the Frontline Documenary people started to change but alas ther are still some knuckle draggers who think "The Sun" is the bible and in certain parts if you are a "Luke Supporter".....you have to watch your back.....I have a German Shepherd attached to me at all times!!!!
What I have noticed over the years is quite simple really........
Areas who read the Guardian, Scotsman etc.......safe place
Areas who read the Sun, Retard and the Mail.............not safe place!!!
sorry! I used to live in the sun area myself many moons ago, I know it can be very mixed. All it can take is a few bad families and an entire street is ruined.
Where I lived was really nice until "The family from Hell" moved in a few doors up and they made everyones lives Hell.....so we moved out!
Janines first statement said everyone was in hysterics (or words to that effect) The 999 operator confirms that when she says " The laddie is in a bit of a state.
By the time Janine gets to court she has changed her statement an told the court Luke showed no emotion.
Mias reaction (my dog):
When Luke was going up the path he was making his way to Jodis house as this was the arrangement. Mia could well have reacted on the way up but Luke would have ignored it and just told her to "come on"
When going back down the path with the family Luke told Mia "seek Jodi" as the word "seek" was used in her training. (We were being tought dog tracking by a friend of mine whose job it was , in the army, to train tracker dogs)
When she approached the 'V' in the wall she jumped up and put her front paws up against the wall and started "air sniffing".
Again the families first statements confirm this and again, by the time they are in coiurt, they deny it.
Mia didn't go over the wall. It was too high for her. Luke and Stephen helped the granny get over the wall. Janine didn't go over. She held Mia.
The family, in court said Luke turned left when he went over the wall and the prosecution said it was because he knew where the body was.
The family could not see anything at all......unless they could see through stone walls.....the wall is too high to see over.
The simple explanation for Luke going left instead of right.....he was going to where Mia was sniffing and wouldn't come away. Basic common sense really.
sorry....correction to last post
Mia didn't sniff at the 'V'...it was further down. It was the 'V' luke went to as it was the only way to get over the wall as the rest was to high.
"save me some dinner" was said to Jodis mother, not Luke. Jodi didn't speak to Luke she texted him.
Judy (Jodis mum) went into great detail about that evening and one of the things were saying how Jodi had asked her to save her some dinner.
Luke vaguely remembers a "rough sketch" shown at the trial. I spoke to him yesterday on the 'phone.
It took Luke and Stephen to eventually get granny Walker over the wall. Apparantly it was quite a task!!!
-
jeez he was 14 so what if he had 10 girlfriends, nothing sinister about that, and why no pics of Luke in said parka if he always wore it? did no one have cameras back then or was he just unlucky that every photo taken didnt include the parka he allegedly always wore? ever thought these young girls couldve been scorned having found out they were being 2/3 timed? oh I forgot theyre only kids, not at all like Luke was.
Surely the things to note in Kim's statement isn't the number of girlfriends LM had, but that she mentions the parka, and that he carried knives in it?
-
"defensive injuries" is very vague. Has it ever been reported Jodi scratched or bit her attacker? I don't recall anything being found in her mouth or under her finger nails.
Blocking your face from a knife attack with your arm, for example, would be considered a "defensive injury." Wouldn't leave a mark on the attacker.
i need to read the transcripts in more detail, i havent seen anything reported about hair or nails i was just giving an example should have made that clear.
-
It's what I believe happened. I don't believe it was planned at all. I believe Luke lost it and the argument turned bad. Jodi tried to walk away from him and got knocked over the back of the head with something and there was a fight/struggle which Luke obviously won, and ended with Jodi being strangled. Luke would have had a knife on him anyway, according to everyone who knew him. I think his morbid curiosity took over when he found himself there with a lifeless body.
She was also tied up with her trousers, whoever did it I don’t think was planned else they would have something to tie her up IMO
-
Surely the things to note in Kim's statement isn't the number of girlfriends LM had, but that she mentions the parka, and that he carried knives in it?
the parka as ive said no pics? why would you want a relationship with someone who carries knives? she didn't think anything sinister about that before the murder? why? she could just be scorned that she was 2 timed, its still not evidence really is it, its hearsay.
-
the parka as ive said no pics? why would you want a relationship with someone who carries knives? she didn't think anything sinister about that before the murder? why? she could just be scorned that she was 2 timed, its still not evidence really is it, its hearsay.
With respect, I think many people are saying that the parka and knives are evidence.
-
As did the girl he was cheating on Jodi with, Kimberley Thomson:
She did indeed and she’s still saying the same thing and she has my support
I don’t trust anything coming from camp Mitchell or Lean
-
With respect, I think many people are saying that the parka and knives are evidence.
I believe it was a green bomber jacket with orange lining he had before the murder.
(https://www.military1st.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/370473b00da80d51dea07108e3e83e0d/b/r/branditma1jacketolive_1.jpg)
-
She was also tied up with her trousers, whoever did it I don’t think was planned else they would have something to tie her up IMO
So it would have to be someone in the habit of carrying knives then. Another unfortunate coincidence for Luke that she was opportunistically murdered by someone who had a knife on them, while on her way to meet her boyfriend who was known to carry knives (and still had an obsession with them even after his girlfriend was so horribly injured with one.)
the parka as ive said no pics? why would you want a relationship with someone who carries knives? she didn't think anything sinister about that before the murder? why? she could just be scorned that she was 2 timed, its still not evidence really is it, its hearsay.
These were 14 year olds going through an awkward goth phase and smoking weed. Some 14 year old girls are probably attracted to the "bad boy" thing.
Notice she isn't actually saying Luke is guilty, she is just perplexed to see Corinne denying something that she knows existed. I completely believe her.
-
people are asking me questions i cant possibly answer unless i was there. As soon as someone new comes on this site supporting Luke all these same questions theyve fired at sandra are fired at them, why? Not everyone knows or is in contact with her, so kind of does feel like an ambush
I felt the same when I started asking questions here, but there were some valid points also so went to the blue forum as Sandra answered questions direct there, i put lots of question to her as it was really the only place to discuss without contacting her direct.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.0.html
-
I believe it was a bomber jacket he had before the murder.
(https://www.military1st.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/370473b00da80d51dea07108e3e83e0d/b/r/branditma1jacketolive_1.jpg)
In the comments section of the Q&A the other night, someone kept asking about LM having a parka - the question wasn't put to SL.
Kim's statement says he had a parka.
-
You're like a dog with a bone. It doesn't cut any mustard with me though.
Two boys in a small house and one doesn't know the other is there. Banging around in a kitchen, playing music, making phone calls. Pull the other one Faith, it's got bells on.
Luke lied and if the conviction is sound his mother lied too. No wonder her home and business were targeted.
You do remember Mr McCafferty? The man who died from carbon monoxide poisoning after Corinne Mitchell sold his daughter a caravan with a blocked flu? She was sued by Mrs McCafferty for £¼ million. Is that why she had to sell the house and live in the office at Scott's Caravans?
I agree I am like a dog with a bone and there’s nothing wrong with that. What is it Voltaire said ‘ To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth.’
Shane had had a charge of perverting the course of justice hanging over his head for months, a charge that carries a sentence of several years in prison. The charge was dropped just before he gave evidence but he was warned on the stand that he may be charged with perjury, again a charge that carries a lengthy custodial sentence if the individual is convicted. Who wouldn’t testify to whatever the prosecution wanted under those circumstances?
Further who cooked dinner if it wasn’t Luke? Did Luke go out without dinner?
To be clear I think Shane’s first statement was true. That him and his mother agreed isn’t usual if it was the truth.
As to Mr McCafferty, in what way is it relevant to this discussion?
-
I was just reminiscing about everything that happened and the amount of time put into the case.
Did you think Simon Hall was innocent?
-
as i say it is theory despite what you believe, quite a bit of a detailed one at that. She fought for her life, it said so in the appeal transcript, why no marks on him, bruises, scrapes from branches, kick marks, bite marks, anything you would leave when fighting for your life?
This is also a theory
-
Surely the things to note in Kim's statement isn't the number of girlfriends LM had, but that she mentions the parka, and that he carried knives in it?
exactly this. she testified this in court, as did several of his friends. shed been at his family home boxing day to newyear a few months earlier, seen it then
the parka as ive said no pics?
not impossible there might have been a pic around, but digital cameras still pretty new tech in 2003. a few had them but not really 14 year olds. i got my first one early 2003 but i was older, had own money at this time, and way ahead of curve, most pals werent getting one until after 2005. it doesnt seem odd to me that a photo might not exist of someone wearing one of their items of clothing from that era
-
Did you think Simon Hall was innocent?
I worked on that basis initially but ultimately changed my position.
-
jeez he was 14 so what if he had 10 girlfriends, nothing sinister about that, and why no pics of Luke in said parka if he always wore it? did no one have cameras back then or was he just unlucky that every photo taken didnt include the parka he allegedly always wore? ever thought these young girls couldve been scorned having found out they were being 2/3 timed? oh I forgot theyre only kids, not at all like Luke was.
Typical misogynistic comment and telling too
You may consider it ‘normal’ for a 12 year old boy to hold a knife to throat of an 11 year old girl for a kiss- it’s not
It’s a warning sign and displays sexual aggression
-
From an old timeline
10.39pm Judy sends a text to Lukes phone, Right Toad, say goodnight toLuke. Thats you grounded for another week.
10.40pm Luke phones Judy to say he hasnt seen Jodi all night. Judy says she will call round Jodis friends. Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said.
10.49pm Judy calls back to say Jodi is nowhere to be found, and she is calling the police. Luke says he will go up the path to look for Jodi, and if he doesnt find her, he will make his way to Judys house to decide what to do next. (This story was later changed to claim that Luke had agreed to meet the other members of the search party at the path.)
Luke returns to the house?
Where did the ‘Luke returns to the house’ come from John do you recall? (source: Shirley McKie)
-
I worked on that basis initially but ultimately changed my position.
What made you change your position this time?
-
Typical misogynistic comment and telling too
You may consider it ‘normal’ for a 12 year old boy to hold a knife to throat of an 11 year old girl for a kiss- it’s not
It’s a warning sign and displays sexual aggression
It’s normal for an 11 year old girl who has had that happen to her to tell her parents who, in turn, should have called the police and had Luke questioned. Did any of that happen?
-
It’s normal for an 11 year old girl who has had that happen to her to tell her parents who, in turn, should have called the police and had Luke questioned. Did any of that happen?
They were family friends weren’t they? Bit awkward that. Probably decided as no actual physical harm was done it was just Mitchell being a (rather unpleasant) 12 year old boy and left it at that.
-
If Mitchell never had a Parka what sort of outer garment did he wear and where are the photos of him wearing it?
-
They were family friends weren’t they? Bit awkward that. Probably decided as no actual physical harm was done it was just Mitchell being a (rather unpleasant) 12 year old boy and left it at that.
not unpleasant enough to warrant a call to the police? Friends or not if that were my 11 year old daughter who was in bed and a boy climbed in and held a knife to her throat i wouldve phoned the police. The reasons for not phoning the police because it was nothing more than "unpleasant" however the act itself is quite sinister?
-
These were 14 year olds going through an awkward goth phase and smoking weed. Some 14 year old girls are probably attracted to the "bad boy" thing.
Notice she isn't actually saying Luke is guilty, she is just perplexed to see Corinne denying something that she knows existed. I completely believe her.
so everyone else were just 14 year olds going through an awkward phase, but Luke himself smoking weed and dressing like a goth is disturbing? which has been suggested time and time again by a member of this forum.
-
Typical misogynistic comment and telling too
You may consider it ‘normal’ for a 12 year old boy to hold a knife to throat of an 11 year old girl for a kiss- it’s not
It’s a warning sign and displays sexual aggression
i agree which is why it shouldve been reported to the police, would you report it if it was your child?
-
They were family friends weren’t they? Bit awkward that. Probably decided as no actual physical harm was done it was just Mitchell being a (rather unpleasant) 12 year old boy and left it at that.
Ifs and buts and maybes always acceptable when explaining his guilt
-
not unpleasant enough to warrant a call to the police? Friends or not if that were my 11 year old daughter who was in bed and a boy climbed in and held a knife to her throat i wouldve phoned the police. The reasons for not phoning the police because it was nothing more than "unpleasant" however the act itself is quite sinister?
Well either that is what happened or the girl made it up, if you’re truly open minded you will accept both explanations are possible.
-
Ifs and buts and maybes always acceptable when explaining his guilt
Are you saying that the girl who was attacked in her bed was not a member of a family group that was friendly with the Mitchells? I was putting forward an explanation for why they chose not to report it, if you find this unacceptable by all means explain why.
-
A lot to take in from court docs given to me, thanks all
Having read through quite a few of the threads, I can't help but notice that some of the older posters (forum not age) seem to have changed from not guilty to guilty, Why?
Interesting post for me was about AR alleged confession, if he knew things that weren't in the public domain about the crime, does that not suggest that this is even more of an unsafe conviction?
It's certainly one of the grounds I have been advised on that the police will use to look at an alleged confession, otherwise the confession won't be taken seriously as there are too many false confessions.
To sum up, why the change from innocent to guilty?
Does AR really have crime info not in public domain?
I am new to this case, having only vague knowledge of it from the time it was in the papers to watching the documentary which convinced me that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. I since discovered from reading threads on here how very one sided the documentary was, leaving out or glossing over relevant dertails, and that instantly put my back up. I also think SL's judgment is demonstrably questionable as evidenced by the other cases of so-called miscarriages of justice that she has doggedly supported which turned out to be the opposite. Nevertheless the lack of tangible forensic evidence is troubling IMO.
-
i agree which is why it shouldve been reported to the police, would you report it if it was your child?
By the way, if you have a daughter would you be happy to let her go out with Luke Mitchell once he's released from prison?
-
I am new to this case, having only vague knowledge of it from the time it was in the papers to watching the documentary which convinced me that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. I since discovered from reading threads on here how very one sided the documentary was, leaving out or glossing over relevant dertails, and that instantly put my back up. I also think SL's judgment is demonstrably questionable as evidenced by the other cases of so-called miscarriages of justice that she has doggedly supported which turned out to be the opposite. Nevertheless the lack of tangible forensic evidence is troubling IMO.
.
-
Going to have to disagree with you on the documentary, clearly states that it was the story from his side, so why anyone would then suggest it's one sided is beyond me.
It's up to a rational person to investigate and make their own mind up
In regards to whats on here, can you point me to the posts that produced the evidence that changed your view?
As I said, reading through it was claimed by one of the older posters that they visited AR and AR gave info on the crime not in public domain, a marker the police use to take the confession seriously, so why has the position on here changed?
If the documentary claimed from the outset that it was completely one-sided then why would you be surprised by anyone suggesting it was one sided? It was useless as a source of information if it set out to prove a pre-determined outcome and the ex-detectives who took part should be ashamed of going along with it and not exercising objectivity, if all along it was to prove that a miscarriage of justice had taken place.
I can't point to one specific post on here no, but I did repeatedly ask what evidence had convinced others of his guilt and it would seem that there is no one clinching piece of evidence but an overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence. As for your other question, I don't know the answer to that sorry.
-
Dont you think the people involved in these cases should be held accountable? We were even given names of the 'real murderers' in one of the cases Sandra is blamed for being totally responsible for
Sandra DID NOT make anyone a murderer. Others have also been responsible for misleading people loud and clear. That is overlooked now while the blame is dumped firmly at Sandras door!
I don't know what you're on about, sorry. I have not accused her of making anyone a murderer.
-
Did you actually watch the documentary? The narrator clearly states that for the first time that this is Lukes story, and goes into reasons why he's never spoken out before, I'm sure that in phone conversation with Luke, Luke explains why he hasn't spoken out before!.
Documentaries are by nature design to pique publics interest and curiosity, not to provide information.
So you have no evidence to support your "hunch"! Having served jury duty several times, I hope to god you never do, as you cannot point to a single piece of evidence convincing you of someones guilt.
you make some very good points. I am looking forward to seeing more of your posts
-
There is absolutely no point in replying to Abusive Comments as the whole lot will be removed.
Thank You.
-
This topic by its very nature tends to raise emotions so please keep calm and don't be drawn into silly arguments.
Abusive and/or condescending comments will always be removed.
-
Where did the ‘Luke returns to the house’ come from John do you recall? (source: Shirley McKie)
From Corinne herself.
-
What made you change your position this time?
The entirety of the evidence would appear to support the verdict.
-
By the way, if you have a daughter would you be happy to let her go out with Luke Mitchell once he's released from prison?
Good question VS. Maybe ask Sandra Lean the same question about her two daughters?
-
the parka as ive said no pics? why would you want a relationship with someone who carries knives? she didn't think anything sinister about that before the murder? why? she could just be scorned that she was 2 timed, its still not evidence really is it, its hearsay.
I taught teenagers for many years, and, unfortunately, there is nothing that unusual about 14 year olds carrying knives/getting drunk/using drugs/two, three and four timing! And, yes, there are always other teenagers ready to be in relationships with such people!!
-
Did you actually watch the documentary? The narrator clearly states that for the first time that this is Lukes story, and goes into reasons why he's never spoken out before, I'm sure that in phone conversation with Luke, Luke explains why he hasn't spoken out before!.
Documentaries are by nature design to pique publics interest and curiosity, not to provide information.
So you have no evidence to support your "hunch"! Having served jury duty several times, I hope to god you never do, as you cannot point to a single piece of evidence convincing you of someones guilt.
Now that most of the abuse has been removed from your post I can answer.
I did watch the documentary yes. It certainly piqued my interest and did an excellent propaganda job - both I and my partner were convinced a miscarriage of justice had been perpetrated by the time we finished watching. Most people watching won't (I would wager) bother to go that much more deeply into it and will assume Mitchell is innocent on the basis of watching this. That in itself is an injustice as far as I'm concerned. IMO, if the documentary makers were so certain that Mitchell was innocent they would have looked much more closely at the evidence against him and offered a plausible innocent explanation for it. As far as I recall Luke's brother was hardly mentioned at all for example, yet his evidence was apparently key.
I don't recall having a "hunch" about anything, nor did I realise I was sitting in a court of law when I wrote my last post, so why you feel the need to belittle my ability to serve on a jury heaven only knows.
-
The entirety of the evidence would appear to support the verdict.
So much like Sandra you supported Hall before evidence came to light that suggested he was guilty. Yet she is castigated for it and you are not. Why?
-
Good question VS. Maybe ask Sandra Lean the same question about her two daughters?
One can only assume that she would have absolutely no problem with it, as according to her he is an innocent man wrongly accused of a hideous murder that he did not commit.
-
One can only assume that she would have absolutely no problem with it, as according to her he is an innocent man wrongly accused of a hideous murder that he did not commit.
She might believe Luke is innocent of the murder of Jodi, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she approves of him , or that she would want her daughters to be involved with him!
-
She might believe Luke is innocent of the murder of Jodi, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she approves of him , or that she would want her daughters to be involved with him!
If Luke is innocent then why wouldn’t she approve of him? He’s not the 14 year old who dabbled with pseudo satanic messages or thought it was clever to carry knives. Who knows what he is like now.
-
From Corinne herself.
Isn’t that interesting John
From an old timeline
10.39pm Judy sends a text to Lukes phone, Right Toad, say goodnight toLuke. Thats you grounded for another week.
10.40pm Luke phones Judy to say he hasnt seen Jodi all night. Judy says she will call round Jodis friends. Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said.
10.49pm Judy calls back to say Jodi is nowhere to be found, and she is calling the police. Luke says he will go up the path to look for Jodi, and if he doesnt find her, he will make his way to Judys house to decide what to do next. (This story was later changed to claim that Luke had agreed to meet the other members of the search party at the path.)
10.40pm Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said.
Where has he returned to the house from exactly ?
And aren’t the public now being fooled into thinking Mitchell was in the house when he received the text message from Judy?
-
She might believe Luke is innocent of the murder of Jodi, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she approves of him , or that she would want her daughters to be involved with him!
Personally I would not devote years of my life to freeing a person from prison who I did not approve of or who I thought would be bad for me or my family to be mixed up with. She must be absolutely 100% convinced of his innocence IMO to be that devoted, and I wonder why exactly she is?
-
She must be absolutely 100% convinced of his innocence IMO to be that devoted, and I wonder why exactly she is?
I can vouch for the fact Sandra Lean most certainly appeared to falter in her belief of Mitchell’s innocence following Simon Halls death in custody - she sounded to me as though she felt she’d been duped
‘I’ve wasted ten years of my life’
How else can the above be interpreted?
She even compared the Mitchell ‘mother son relationship’ to that of Halls and his (adoptive) mother
-
The entirety of the evidence would appear to support the verdict.
Defending the conduct of the police investigation detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said of the trial, "We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
After one of the most exhaustive trials ever in held in Scotland Mitchell was found guilty of murdering Jodi; two subsequent appeals have failed and other proposed appeals did not meet the criteria to reach the courts.
There was a reason for the presiding judge to rule that Mitchell should serve twenty years before being considered for parole.
In my opinion the various campaigns over the years and the present one may very well be ensuring that Mitchell never gets the opportunity to walk free again and who is to say whether or not that might be the best option for females in the area he might move to or return to.
-
Defending the conduct of the police investigation detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said of the trial, "We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
After one of the most exhaustive trials ever in held in Scotland Mitchell was found guilty of murdering Jodi; two subsequent appeals have failed and other proposed appeals did not meet the criteria to reach the courts.
There was a reason for the presiding judge to rule that Mitchell should serve twenty years before being considered for parole.
In my opinion the various campaigns over the years and the present one may very well be ensuring that Mitchell never gets the opportunity to walk free again and who is to say whether or not that might be the best option for females in the area he might move to or return to.
Look at other miscarriages of justice. Many go through the appeal process several times before finally accepting that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated.
Interesting fact on the Hall case. One of those supporting his campaign for freedom was none other than the now Labour leader Keir Starmer.
-
I don't know what you're on about, sorry. I have not accused her of making anyone a murderer.
Jixy states
Dont you think the people involved in these cases should be held accountable?
Yes I do 8((()*/
I was naive to psychopathy and the many other personality disorders - and held my hands up to this fact
So why is it no one appears to be asking why Lynn Hall, Shaun Hall and Stephanie Bon lied about the Zenith burglary and from day dot it seems?
And why has no one - apart from me - asked why the prosecution failed to prosecute Simon Hall on the basis of the murder being sexually motivated as opposed to ‘a burglary gone wrong’?
Jixy also states
We were even given names of the 'real murderers' in one of the cases Sandra is blamed for being totally responsible for
What - like Sandra Lean and others are doing regarding Luke Mitchell now? *&^^&
Where did the names of the ‘real murderers’ originate from Jixy?
And who is it you are accusing of ‘blaming’ Sandra Lean and who is suggesting she is totally responsible for this?
Explain?
Finally for now - Jixy states,
Sandra DID NOT make anyone a murderer
Who is making claim she did?
And - what ‘makes a murderer’ - do you know Jixy ?
-
Look at other miscarriages of justice. Many go through the appeal process several times before finally accepting that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated.
Interesting fact on the Hall case. One of those supporting his campaign for freedom was none other than the now Labour leader Keir Starmer.
One good reason not to vote for him.
-
Personally I would not devote years of my life to freeing a person from prison who I did not approve of or who I thought would be bad for me or my family to be mixed up with. She must be absolutely 100% convinced of his innocence IMO to be that devoted, and I wonder why exactly she is?
I have never met Sandra Lean, but I assume she is convinced of his innocence, and is willing to put her reputation on the line because she is appalled at the thought of a young man having been wrongly convicted. I can't say whether she is right or wrong, but I admire her for what she has done.
-
Look at other miscarriages of justice. Many go through the appeal process several times before finally accepting that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated.
A ‘miscarriage of justice’ is not a finding of factual innocence or that the person or persons didn’t commit the crime they were originally convicted of
What it is said to be is ‘a breach of the carriage of justice’ (Naughton 2006)
-
Look at other miscarriages of justice. Many go through the appeal process several times before finally accepting that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated.
Interesting fact on the Hall case. One of those supporting his campaign for freedom was none other than the now Labour leader Keir Starmer.
It just goes to show how the smartest people can be sucked in and conned by propaganda.
-
A very warm welcome to all the new members who have joined up in the last few days.
When any topic receives national exposure this forum inevitably sees a sudden rise in new membership. Although welcome in the most part, it brings with it the usual disputes and aggressions.
This is an established justice forum which prides itself on being non partisan and in allowing views from all shades of opinion to be heard. The overriding requisite however in all discussions is mutual respect.
We have already removed one member today for constantly breaching the rules so please, consider carefully what you post and review your comments before pushing that post button.
Happy Posting. Admin
-
I have never met Sandra Lean, but I assume she is convinced of his innocence, and is willing to put her reputation on the line because she is appalled at the thought of a young man having been wrongly convicted. I can't say whether she is right or wrong, but I admire her for what she has done.
She wasn’t in 2014 and others were made aware of this at the time
-
She wasn’t in 2014 and others were made aware of this at the time
Any idea what changed her mind?
-
I have never met Sandra Lean, but I assume she is convinced of his innocence, and is willing to put her reputation on the line because she is appalled at the thought of a young man having been wrongly convicted. I can't say whether she is right or wrong, but I admire her for what she has done.
I didn't know much about Sandra Lean if anything; she didn't come over well to me on the Ch5 documentary and reading through posts on the forum I see that at one stage she had a parting of the ways with Mitchell's campaign.
While agreeing with the right of prisoners to challenge their convictions as and when and if new evidence emerges I have concerns about the effects of the way in which social media is used, as in this case.
Mitchell has had a lengthy trial in which he had the best legal representation possible; he was allowed two appeals, both of which failed and there has been no further evidence justifying another.
Jodi's family are living through all of this and I think it would be appropriate for a true professional to give that some consideration when traducing their lives throughout the blogosphere between failed appeal attempts.
For example with regard to another case
"After Hall's confession last summer, her family said they finally had the closure they had desperately sought since her death.
'During the last ten years the publicity surrounding the appeals has been very distressing for our family, making moving on impossible,' they said in a statement.
'We are grateful to those who have helped us throughout this difficult ordeal.' Hall backed up his initial claim that he was wrongly convicted by submitting two applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to consider his case.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2566264/Murderer-spent-ten-years-claiming-innocent-dead-cell-months-finally-admitting-killing-woman-79.html
There are many more lives affected by Sandra Lean's efforts than Mitchell's but in my opinion she doesn't appear to pay that proper regard.
-
I have never met Sandra Lean, but I assume she is convinced of his innocence, and is willing to put her reputation on the line because she is appalled at the thought of a young man having been wrongly convicted. I can't say whether she is right or wrong, but I admire her for what she has done.
You may not know this but Sandra Lean was also convinced of the innocence of two other women killers and they were Simon Hall and Adrian Prout. Both later confessed to being guilty after innocence campaigns were raised on their behalf.
So you can see that Sandra Lean has an unblemished record for picking false innocence cases.
-
I have never met Sandra Lean, but I assume she is convinced of his innocence, and is willing to put her reputation on the line because she is appalled at the thought of a young man having been wrongly convicted. I can't say whether she is right or wrong, but I admire her for what she has done.
Well said.
-
It just goes to show how the smartest people can be sucked in and conned by propaganda.
Indeed.
-
Any idea what changed her mind?
She didn’t. She temporarily stepped back from the case.
-
You may not know this but Sandra Lean was also convinced of the innocence of two other women killers and they were Simon Hall and Adrian Prout. Both later confessed to being guilty after innocence campaigns were raised on their behalf.
So you can see that Sandra Lean has an unblemished record for picking false innocence cases.
Wasn’t John also convinced of the innocence of Luke and Simon Hall at one point and worked on their behalf to free them?
-
Wasn’t John also convinced of the innocence of Luke and Simon Hall at one point and worked on their behalf to free them?
I would say convinced is a bit strong. He changed his stance apparently after doing a bit of digging which didn't sit too well with Mrs H but he was vindicated in the end.
-
I would say convinced is a bit strong. He changed his stance apparently after doing a bit of digging which didn't sit too well with Mrs H but he was vindicated in the end.
That isn’t what John says. He posted that he was giving advice to both parties and involved in both campaigns. Nothing wrong with that but please could you at least try to be fair?
-
Didn't know that
What is the actual percentage of success in such cases?
Anyone who ever takes a case to court or appeal or gets involved in an MOJ?
That is a question for which I won't pretend to have an answer. The entire miscarriage of justice world is full of both genuine and false flag cases. As I understand it this very forum was originally created in order to dispel false claims being made about the Bamber case. It has grown from there and must be one of the biggest in the UK.
Successes in overturning convictions can also be deceiving. Take the Barry George and the Simon Jenkins convictions. Both have had their convictions overturned but not found innocent and denied compensation.
Successful appeals are like hens teeth, very scarce.
-
That isn’t what John says. He posted that he was giving advice to both parties and involved in both campaigns. Nothing wrong with that but please could you at least try to be fair?
Fair in what way Faith?
-
Fair in what way Faith?
Maybe evenhanded is a better?
-
You may not know this but Sandra Lean was also convinced of the innocence of two other women killers and they were Simon Hall and Adrian Prout. Both later confessed to being guilty after innocence campaigns were raised on their behalf.
So you can see that Sandra Lean has an unblemished record for picking false innocence cases.
Yes, I was aware that she turned out to be wrong about the above cases.
However, many people could make the same mistakes, and probably did. Some of these cases are by no means clear cut. IMO.
-
Yes, I was aware that she turned out to be wrong about the above cases.
However, many people could make the same mistakes, and probably did. Some of these cases are by no means clear cut. IMO.
I think she is in the wrong business. She always was a poor judge of character imo.
-
Yes, I was aware that she turned out to be wrong about the above cases.
However, many people could make the same mistakes, and probably did. Some of these cases are by no means clear cut. IMO.
That’s why IMO unless you are 100% certain a person is innocent you shouldn’t get involved in trying to reverse the legal rulings. I really don’t see how SL can be certain LM is innocent and if she’s not then she has to consider the possibility that she is trying to help a violent murderer overturn his sentence. Imagine if she’d be successful in the other two cases!
-
I think she is in the wrong business. She always was a poor judge of character imo.
At least she has had the guts to put her self out there for a cause she believes in...right or wrong.
She’s not sitting on her backside bitching on a forum.
-
At least she has had the guts to put her self out there for a cause she believes in...right or wrong.
She’s not sitting on her backside bitching on a forum.
No one makes you do it.
-
That’s why IMO unless you are 100% certain a person is innocent you shouldn’t get involved in trying to reverse the legal rulings. I really don’t see how SL can be certain LM is innocent and if she’s not then she has to consider the possibility that she is trying to help a violent murderer overturn his sentence. Imagine if she’d be successful in the other two cases!
In one of those ‘other two cases’ - according to disclosures made - they were fantasising about committing further murders
-
https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/law/newsandevents/news/articles/databaseofmiscarriagesofju.php
Interesting research on miscarriages of justice in this country.
-
https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/law/newsandevents/news/articles/databaseofmiscarriagesofju.php
Interesting research on miscarriages of justice in this country.
The literature on ‘miscarriages of justice’ in the UK is outdated, flawed and misleading
‘Interesting’ none the less
-
https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/law/newsandevents/news/articles/databaseofmiscarriagesofju.php
Interesting research on miscarriages of justice in this country.
Thank you mrswah. The first post I have read today on this forum that isn’t spewing bile.
It seems these people are unable to debate like adults. I’d leave them to it if I was you lest you be contaminated.
-
Ofcom examines complaints over 'biased' Channel 5 show which questions Luke Mitchell’s Jodi Jones murder conviction.
The broadcast regulator is looking into complaints over a crime documentary about which questions the conviction of Luke Mitchell.
Ofcom has received 26 complaints over Channel 5's Murder in a Small Town, which aired in two parts last week.
The complaints arose after the family of murdered Jodi Jones described the documentary as "biased".
The Ofcom's involvement emerged as an online petition demanding an independent inquiry into the murder conviction has reached nearly 18000 signatures.
Murder in a Small Town, focused on two former detectives re-examining the case who suggest another five suspects could have been responsible, while claiming to have uncovered various “red flags” which cast doubt on his guilt.
It is understood one of the complaints to Ofcom has come from a witness from Mitchell's murder trial, now 34, who fears the TV documentary points the finger at him.
Channel 5 removed a second part of the documentary from its streaming platform after a man's name was shown on a document which included a list of suspects.
Jodi’s family hit out at the programme makers because it implied on the show that members of her own family were involved in a cover-up.
An unnamed family member said: “We were shocked at people on social media openly criticising the family of a murder victim, suggesting they were involved. A disgusting allegation and despicable position to put them in when their suffering continues.
“C5 and these ‘investigators’ have made the family’s suffering so amplified from all of the abuse from these armchair sleuths based on a biased and one sided programme. Why can people be so blinkered and forget the family?”
Former Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police, Tom Wood, who was second in command of the force when Jodi died said the documentary was “very poorly done” and “very one-sided.”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19133700.ofcom-examines-complaints-biased-channel-5-show-questions-luke-mitchells-jodi-jones-murder-conviction/
-
At least she has had the guts to put her self out there for a cause she believes in...right or wrong.
She’s not sitting on her backside bitching on a forum.
She's a disgrace. If she had her way killers Simon Hall and Adrian Prout would be out free. She is a deluded fool imo and a dangerous one at that.
How does she sleep at night?
-
Ofcom examines complaints over 'biased' Channel 5 show which questions Luke Mitchell’s Jodi Jones murder conviction.
The broadcast regulator is looking into complaints over a crime documentary about which questions the conviction of Luke Mitchell.
Ofcom has received 26 complaints over Channel 5's Murder in a Small Town, which aired in two parts last week.
The complaints arose after the family of murdered Jodi Jones described the documentary as "biased".
The Ofcom's involvement emerged as an online petition demanding an independent inquiry into the murder conviction has reached nearly 18000 signatures.
Murder in a Small Town, focused on two former detectives re-examining the case who suggest another five suspects could have been responsible, while claiming to have uncovered various “red flags” which cast doubt on his guilt.
It is understood one of the complaints to Ofcom has come from a witness from Mitchell's murder trial, now 34, who fears the TV documentary points the finger at him.
Channel 5 removed a second part of the documentary from its streaming platform after a man's name was shown on a document which included a list of suspects.
Jodi’s family hit out at the programme makers because it implied on the show that members of her own family were involved in a cover-up.
An unnamed family member said: “We were shocked at people on social media openly criticising the family of a murder victim, suggesting they were involved. A disgusting allegation and despicable position to put them in when their suffering continues.
“C5 and these ‘investigators’ have made the family’s suffering so amplified from all of the abuse from these armchair sleuths based on a biased and one sided programme. Why can people be so blinkered and forget the family?”
Former Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police, Tom Wood, who was second in command of the force when Jodi died said the documentary was “very poorly done” and “very one-sided.”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19133700.ofcom-examines-complaints-biased-channel-5-show-questions-luke-mitchells-jodi-jones-murder-conviction/
26 complaints, 18000 signatures on the petition. I’d call that a result for Sandra.
-
26 complaints, 18000 signatures on the petition. I’d call that a result for Sandra.
26 complaints is high by ofcom standards. Any idiot can sign an online petition from anywhere in the world.
It will come to nothing anyway, just another damp squid. The justice system doesn't capitulate to mob rule and rightly so.
Mitchell will serve his 20 years and then disappear into obscurity.
-
She's a disgrace. Is she had her way killers Simon Hall and Adrian Prout would be out free. How does she sleep at night?
I know you ignored my post earlier but John has said he played a part in Luke’s and Hall’s campaign. I look forward to your castigation of him.
-
I live in Midlothian so when out shopping the other day decided to go for a drive past the Easthouses end of the path. Now I don’t know that particular area very well but I can assure that when going through the roundabout just before the path entrance that on a sunlit day it would be very easy to see people at the entrance.
Unless you’ve got blinkered vision it’s right in front of you so the part in the “documentary” when they did three drive pasts seems pretty daft. I don’t believe that the relative didn’t know why she was driving there either.
-
26 complaints is high by ofcom standards. Any idiot can sign an online petition from anywhere in the world.
It will come to nothing anyway, just another damp squid. The justice system doesn't capitulate to mob rule and rightly so.
Mitchell will serve his 20 years and then disappear.
I was one of those idiots I’m ashamed to say. I’m sure many more were duped into signing by the programme as I was.
-
26 complaints is high by ofcom standards. Any idiot can sign an online petition from anywhere in the world.
High? Not according to this.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/audience-complaints
Any idiot can complain to ofcom.
-
I know you ignored my post earlier but John has said he played a part in Luke’s and Hall’s campaign. I look forward to your castigation of him.
He came to his senses, thank god!
-
I live in Midlothian so when out shopping the other day decided to go for a drive past the Easthouses end of the path. Now I don’t know that particular area very well but I can assure that when going through the roundabout just before the path entrance that on a sunlit day it would be very easy to see people at the entrance.
Unless you’ve got blinkered vision it’s right in front of you so the part in the “documentary” when they did three drive pasts seems pretty daft. I don’t believe that the relative didn’t know why she was driving there either.
You do realise that was a set-up? Pure fiction for the benefit of the cameras. And that is why people are complaining about the program.
-
I live in Midlothian so when out shopping the other day decided to go for a drive past the Easthouses end of the path. Now I don’t know that particular area very well but I can assure that when going through the roundabout just before the path entrance that on a sunlit day it would be very easy to see people at the entrance.
Unless you’ve got blinkered vision it’s right in front of you so the part in the “documentary” when they did three drive pasts seems pretty daft. I don’t believe that the relative didn’t know why she was driving there either.
It’s a moot point really. AB didn’t describe ‘Jodi’s’ clothes properly and couldn’t point out Luke in court.
-
High? Not according to this.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/audience-complaints
Any idiot can complain to ofcom.
Make that 27 now. 8((()*/
-
It’s a moot point really. AB didn’t describe ‘Jodi’s’ clothes properly and couldn’t point out Luke in court.
Could that be because he changed his appearance by the time the trial came round.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-police-a-of-picture-id52042857?k=6&m=52042857&s=612x612&w=0&h=_7_0vOcl50BOdYfBzQ1fIxMqSC0ICq9-rMbV-wISVZc=)
Luke Mitchell police mugshot.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42729000/jpg/_42729845_lukemitchellt203.jpg)
Luke Mitchell after the trial.
-
26 complaints, 18000 signatures on the petition. I’d call that a result for Sandra.
That could depend on the quality of the 26 complaints made
Mitchells petition appears to have more signatures than Bamber - don’t suppose he or his ‘followers’ will be pleased with that
-
26 complaints is high by ofcom standards. Any idiot can sign an online petition from anywhere in the world.
It will come to nothing anyway, just another damp squid. The justice system doesn't capitulate to mob rule and rightly so.
Mitchell will serve his 20 years and then disappear into obscurity.
I trust his supporters would be only too glad if he ended up living next door to them.
-
Make that 27 now. 8((()*/
Was that you Angelo? @)(++(*
-
Could that be because he changed his appearance by the time the trial came round.
And worn different clothes?
Comedy gold.
-
High? Not according to this.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/audience-complaints
Ofcom: ‘The number of complaints received is not an indication of how serious an issue is”
-
Could that be because he changed his appearance by the time the trial came round.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-police-a-of-picture-id52042857?k=6&m=52042857&s=612x612&w=0&h=_7_0vOcl50BOdYfBzQ1fIxMqSC0ICq9-rMbV-wISVZc=)
Luke Mitchell police mugshot.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42729000/jpg/_42729845_lukemitchellt203.jpg)
Luke Mitchell after the trial.
Luke had been all over the media, AB must have known what he looked like yet she refused to identify him. That speaks volume.
-
26 complaints is high by ofcom standards. Any idiot can sign an online petition from anywhere in the world.
Sandra Leans not happy apparently - change.org have been taking ‘donations’ for the petition - oh dear
Apparently they (Change.org) are the ‘biggest chancers’ and she’s being told by some of her ‘followers’ the money ‘donated’ to change.org goes to reaching a bigger audience
Page 270 (Hidden in Plain View by Sandra Lean)
Internet campaigns
The steady increase in internet campaigns, although creating an outlet for information which is largely ignored or dismissed by the mainstream print and broadcast media, is orchestrated by individuals who have little or no experience of creating and guiding a large media presence, or how to maintain and increase interest once a case has begun to draw attention.
You’d have thought she’d have carried out her due diligence before creating the petition
-
Ofcom: ‘The number of complaints received is not an indication of how serious an issue is”
1.5 million viewers watched and they’ve had 27 complaints...most from here now doubt @)(++(*
-
1.5 million viewers watched and they’ve had 27 complaints...most from here now doubt @)(++(*
Many from Jodi’s family and the people SL’s documentary slyly pointed the finger at. Do you think that’s funny too?
-
18000 signatures on the petition. I’d call that a result for Sandra.
That figure really needs some perspective - It is in no way an accurate reflection of ‘support’ for killer Mitchell
Marie McCourts petition for her daughter Helen - who was murdered by Ian Simms - has over 760,000 signatures and counting
https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-theresa-may-mp-introduce-helen-s-law
‘Helens law’ has already been passed by parliament and brought into law
-
18000 signatures on the petition
18000 does not mean 18000 people have watched the manufactured show and are signing the petition on the back of it
How many of the signatures are bots - anyone know?
Convicted murderer Oliver Campbell has over 87,000 https://www.change.org/p/criminal-cases-review-commission-justice-for-oliver-campbell
These petitions are riddled with bots
People are being lulled into a false sense of reality - again
Meet coco the bot https://changefoundation.org/learn/meet-coco-the-bot-boosting-campaign-engagement/
-
In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth @)(++(*
-
"A witness in Mitchell's trial has also asked for legal advice over fears the Channel 5 documentary points the finger at him.
The man, now 34, previously admitted being close to where the body of murdered Jodi was found."
Who is it?
-
"A witness in Mitchell's trial has also asked for legal advice over fears the Channel 5 documentary points the finger at him.
The man, now 34, previously admitted being close to where the body of murdered Jodi was found."
Who is it?
If he's 34 then he was 17 back in 2003. Probably one of the two moped lads. Take your pick D or F.
Thanx for that snippit DANNI.
-
Derek Edmund - who was on YouTube with Paul Capaldi claims to have gone to school with Mitchell - he reckons he was ‘very articulate, well spoken & polite’ then bizarrely the pair of them start referring to the ‘idiot’ Steven Avery
Seems Derek is being used as the stand in forensic expert by Paul
And it’s possible Derek is one of Sandra Leans right hand men
Am speculating - which Derek says people mustn’t do - but it defo looks like he’s involved in the ‘campaigning’ side of things
Yep - Dereks an Admin on the group FB page by the sounds of it
At around 1:02:49 - Derek goes on to refer to articles published by the daily record and sounds completely deluded by his comments
Even Paul seems to pick up on this but says nothing
Derek and Paul are staunch Avery & Dassey supporters
-
If he's 34 then he was 17 back in 2003. Probably one of the two moped lads. Take your pick D or F.
Thanx for that snippit DANNI.
The documentary definitely did try to suggest they were, or could have been, involved. Is it true that the moped was at the "v" in the wall at 5.15?
-
The documentary definitely did try to suggest they were, or could have been, involved. Is it true that the moped was at the "v" in the wall at 5.15?
It was witnessed there yes.
-
It was witnessed there yes.
It's quite surprising that they didn't see or hear anything of note then surely?
-
It was witnessed there yes.
I disagree. Sandra is the only source of this sighting and has never provided the witness statement. I think it has been misrepresented somewhat. It was a staff member of Basically Tool Hire who confirmed it was on the path, but demonstrably impossible for him to see if it was "propped at the V riderless" unless he walked past it. Sandra eventually admitted this didn't happen, despite letting people repeat the misinformation for years. JF also didn't "admit" it was directly at the v point at 5:15 pm. JF couldn't even confirm what time he was on the path, Donald Findlay tripped him up a bit. The cyclist who heard the strangling sound didn't see or hear any moped.
-
I disagree. Sandra is the only source of this sighting and has never provided the witness statement. I think it has been misrepresented somewhat. It was a staff member of Basically Tool Hire who confirmed it was on the path, but demonstrably impossible for him to see if it was "propped at the V riderless" unless he walked past it. Sandra eventually admitted this didn't happen, despite letting people repeat the misinformation for years. JF also didn't "admit" it was directly at the v point at 5:15 pm. JF couldn't even confirm what time he was on the path, Donald Findlay tripped him up a bit. The cyclist who heard the strangling sound didn't see or hear any moped.
If you have never seen the witness statements how do you know that they’ve been misrepresented?
-
If you have never seen the witness statements how do you know that they’ve been misrepresented?
Because I won't take one person's word for something if they don't provide their source, and when questioned on it backtracked.
If you have never seen the witness statements, how do you know they haven't?
-
Sandra eventually admitted this didn't happen, despite letting people repeat the misinformation for years.
When/where did she admit this? She's still repeating it now
-
When/where did she admit this? She's still repeating it now
Keep up Lithium. I never, ever said someone was at the v break to witness the bike there at 5.15pm. I said the bike was seen there, by a witness, at 5.15pm - the one thing I've never said is where it was seen from.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455271.html#msg455271
This makes no sense. She now says she never said where it was seen from, while in the same post saying it was seen there by a witness. A witness could only say it was parked at the v break riderless, if indeed they walked past the v-break. Go and walk the path and see for yourself.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455271.html#msg455271
This makes no sense. She now says she never said where it was seen from, while in the same post saying it was seen there by a witness. A witness could only say it was parked at the v break riderless, if indeed they walked past the v-break. Go and walk the path and see for yourself.
Thanks. I've seen the path on Google Maps and it certainly looks like it would be hard to see from any distance with all the trees
-
Thanks. I've seen the path on Google Maps and it certainly looks like it would be hard to see from any distance with all the trees
I have visited the site along with the forum owner a few years back and although you can see people moving along the path from the main road, it would be impossible to identify a moped at the V notch.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455271.html#msg455271
This makes no sense. She now says she never said where it was seen from, while in the same post saying it was seen there by a witness. A witness could only say it was parked at the v break riderless, if indeed they walked past the v-break. Go and walk the path and see for yourself.
Could have seen from a house that overlooked the path?
-
Could have seen from a house that overlooked the path?
Fair suggestion but again not possible. If no one walked past the V at 5:15pm, no one seen a bike propped there. Sandra shouldn't be stating otherwise. They said it in the documentary because she was the single source of all their information. It isn't the first time in this case misinformation spread by solely Sandra has become "fact" by being repeated by enough people.
-
Fair suggestion but again not possible. If no one walked past the V at 5:15pm, no one seen a bike propped there. Sandra shouldn't be stating otherwise. They said it in the documentary because she was the single source of all their information. It isn't the first time in this case misinformation spread by solely Sandra has become "fact" by being repeated by enough people.
Are there no houses overlooking the path?
-
Are there no houses overlooking the path?
None that could see a moped parked at the v point. Also would be looking onto the opposite side of the woodland strip. For example GD would be able to see the murder scene from his house, but from the wrong side of the wall to where the moped was claimed to have been parked. I used to live local to the area.
-
None that could see a moped parked at the v point. Also would be looking onto the opposite side of the woodland strip. For example GD would be able to see the murder scene from his house, but from the wrong side of the wall to where the moped was claimed to have been parked. I used to live local to the area.
Why didn’t [Name removed] and [Name removed] come forward sooner?
-
Why didn’t [Name removed] and [Name removed] come forward sooner?
If they weren't actually at the V this is a lot less suspicious
-
Why didn’t [Name removed] and [Name removed] come forward sooner?
God knows. They saw nothing and felt they never had anything useful to contribute so why involve themselves with the police who they already had run ins with and needlessly and get wrapped up in a murder investigation? They weren't even exact on what time they rode the path, and I'm not sure the time of death was released or public in the time they didn't come forward. Why come forward at all if they were involved? Look where it's got them and what's happening with their names even 18 years later. I would like to hear an explanation from them too but there is nothing to be gained for any of these people to speak out, especially if they all believe the correct man is in jail.
Also, Sandra Lean didn't mention the witness seeing the moped at the v at the time of death in her section on the SCCRC submission addressing the Moped Boys, yet included other, less damning circumstantial "evidence." Why do you think that is?
-
Are there no houses overlooking the path?
The path where Jodi was killed
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5g8JtADzwwREXGGg8
Luke Mitchell's home
https://maps.app.goo.gl/29zWhugspKJXst4i6
-
Right - who is it that claims to have seen the moped at the V in the wall?
There's no danger of seeing that from a local house without the aid of a telescope/binoculars, so it can only have been someone walking the path - who was that?
If the moped was propped up against the wall at the V, that suggests the moped owners were on the other side of the wall in the woods where the murder took place - if they were in the woods at that time, they most likely would have seen or heard something, or they were actually involved.
Who saw the moped?
-
Right - who is it that claims to have seen the moped at the V in the wall?
There's no danger of seeing that from a local house without the aid of a telescope/binoculars, so it can only have been someone walking the path - who was that?
If the moped was propped up against the wall at the V, that suggests the moped owners were on the other side of the wall in the woods where the murder took place - if they were in the woods at that time, they most likely would have seen or heard something, or they were actually involved.
Who saw the moped?
All very odd?
"Between about 1705 and 1720 Leonard Kelly was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. John [Name removed] and Gordon [Name removed] rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by Kelly. They did not see him, nor he them."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
All very odd?
"Between about 1705 and 1720 Leonard Kelly was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. John [Name removed] and Gordon [Name removed] rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by Kelly. They did not see him, nor he them."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Tbf, I think I read that the so-called moped boys aren't totally sure what time they were there?
-
God knows. They saw nothing and felt they never had anything useful to contribute so why involve themselves with the police who they already had run ins with and needlessly and get wrapped up in a murder investigation? They weren't even exact on what time they rode the path, and I'm not sure the time of death was released or public in the time they didn't come forward. Why come forward at all if they were involved? Look where it's got them and what's happening with their names even 18 years later. I would like to hear an explanation from them too but there is nothing to be gained for any of these people to speak out, especially if they all believe the correct man is in jail.
Also, Sandra Lean didn't mention the witness seeing the moped at the v at the time of death in her section on the SCCRC submission addressing the Moped Boys, yet included other, less damning circumstantial "evidence." Why do you think that is?
There may be nothing to be gained now but there certainly may have been then. One of the boys was Jodi’s cousin...how can you think about saving your own skin when a family member has been murdered.
Further they eventually came forward so why not sooner rather than later?
-
Tbf, I think I read that the so-called moped boys aren't totally sure what time they were there?
GD had an appointment at the job centre on the afternoon Jodi was killed and phoned JF to pick him up on the bike after at 4.20. Therefore there is no way that they could have believed that they were at the v at the same time.
-
All very odd?
"Between about 1705 and 1720 Leonard Kelly was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. John [Name removed] and Gordon [Name removed] rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by Kelly. They did not see him, nor he them."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
If that was the case they must have missed each other by minutes.
-
The path where Jodi was killed
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5g8JtADzwwREXGGg8
Luke Mitchell's home
https://maps.app.goo.gl/29zWhugspKJXst4i6
Someone said there is a path from Roan's Duke to Luke's but I don't see it
-
Is David Irvine from the Scottish sun a friend of Scott Forbes?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14162528/murder-in-a-small-twon-luke-mitchell-mum-shed/
-
God knows. They saw nothing and felt they never had anything useful to contribute so why involve themselves with the police who they already had run ins with and needlessly and get wrapped up in a murder investigation? They weren't even exact on what time they rode the path, and I'm not sure the time of death was released or public in the time they didn't come forward. Why come forward at all if they were involved? Look where it's got them and what's happening with their names even 18 years later. I would like to hear an explanation from them too but there is nothing to be gained for any of these people to speak out, especially if they all believe the correct man is in jail.
Also, Sandra Lean didn't mention the witness seeing the moped at the v at the time of death in her section on the SCCRC submission addressing the Moped Boys, yet included other, less damning circumstantial "evidence." Why do you think that is?
Do you know whether or not Luke had had any previous "run ins" with the police?
-
Do you know whether or not Luke had had any previous "run ins" with the police?
It doesn’t appear so. It seems everyone he threatened with a knife decided not to go to the police.
-
Some interesting previous discussion on the moped.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg556331#msg556331
-
Do you know whether or not Luke had had any previous "run ins" with the police?
Not yet but he was only 14, I'm sure he had all of that ahead of him with the knife carrying, violent temper, threats, assaults and drug dealing. He had come to the attention of school psychiatrists however. This was a boy totally out control and free to do what he wanted. He was the man of his house. His mum was still buying him knives even after the murder and lied about his age so he could get a tattoo at 15. Showed the manager of the tattoo parlour Shane's ID and swore it was Luke.
The previous discussion linked by John better puts in to words what I was saying about Sandra's claims and seems to be based on to the same posts on the blue forum that I was remembering. I was only active on the blue forum around that time so wasn't sure if it had been covered here. Thanks.
-
Someone said there is a path from Roan's Duke to Luke's but I don't see it
See below for path. You follow this path from Newbattle Road then veer north up into Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
(Note: You have to zoom in until path appears)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/emEg1UpmiTFnUyQ4A
-
GD had an appointment at the job centre on the afternoon Jodi was killed and phoned JF to pick him up on the bike after at 4.20. Therefore there is no way that they could have believed that they were at the v at the same time.
And Shane originally told police he was home at 3:40pm but went back and changed it to 5 o'clock after being "corrected" by his mother. Are witnesses only allowed to forget exact times if their surname is Mitchell?
-
See below for path. You follow this path from Newbattle Road then veer north up into Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
(Note: You have to zoom in until path appears)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/emEg1UpmiTFnUyQ4A
How long would it take Luke to reach his home along this path?
-
See below for path. You follow this path from Newbattle Road then veer north up into Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
(Note: You have to zoom in until path appears)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/emEg1UpmiTFnUyQ4A
Got it, cheers. So in theory Luke could have gone along that path, then gone through the stream (wash off any blood), and up into Newbattle Abbey Crescent. But he'd still have to cross the street to get to his house I think? Either way, Sandra Lean's claims in the doc about this are clearly wrong
-
And Shane originally told police he was home at 3:40pm but went back and changed it to 5 o'clock after being "corrected" by his mother. Are witnesses only allowed to forget exact times if their surname is Mitchell?
In his first statement on the 3rd of July Shane said in his statement he got home from work at 3.30pm then his friend reminded him that he had helped him work on his car.
Was there a statement from the friend ? Don’t know but there should have been, if the police were doing their job properly.
-
Got it, cheers. So in theory Luke could have gone along that path, then gone through the stream (wash off any blood), and up into Newbattle Abbey Crescent. But he'd still have to cross the street to get to his house I think? Either way, Sandra Lean's claims in the doc about this are clearly wrong
There are any number of ways to get from the murder scene to Newbattle Abbey Crescent - anyone brought up in Easthouses/Newbattlle, etc would know every inch of those woods.
In the recent documentary, SF said that the ideal escape route would be across the field and into the woods towards the college - he said you could do it in 2 minutes.
Usain Bolt would struggle to do that.
-
Quite a bit of activity involving police at Roan's Dyke at the moment, apparently.
-
Quite a bit of activity involving police at Roan's Dyke at the moment, apparently.
I’m told that it’s a suicide but not sure of it’s veracity.
-
I’m told that it’s a suicide but not sure of it’s veracity.
Please no!
-
I’m told that it’s a suicide but not sure of it’s veracity.
Someone else saying sexual assault.
Just horrible.
-
Someone else saying sexual assault.
Just horrible.
Absolutely.
-
The murderous art that unmasked a cruel killer by Kenny Farquharson for The Times - Jan 2005
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.
What exactly did Luke Mitchell say to the police and what does Sandra Lean write about this in her book?
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.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-murderous-art-that-unmasked-a-cruel-killer-r27r3dvd8bt
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/24/ukcrime.scotland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3641793.stm
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/teenager-simulated-sex-with-head-7231518.html
https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-10090653.html
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.
Dec 2004
‘‘MARILYN MANSON’s DVD ‘THE GOLDEN AGE OF GROTESQUE’ was played in court yesterday (December 23) in the trial of a teenager accused of murdering schoolgirl JODI JONES.
The DVD – which shows two girls tied together near a track and struggling as hoods were placed over their heads – was seized by police from the home of Luke Mitchell, 16, who denies murdering Jodi on June 30 last year.
He told detectives he bought the DVD two days after 14-year-old Jodi’s naked and bloodstained body was found in woods near her home in Dalkeith, near Edinburgh.
The High Court in Edinburgh was told that during the police interview on July 4 last year Mitchell also chatted about his musical interests, including Marilyn Manson.
Mitchell, who was then aged 14, told them he had bought Manson’s CD, and bonus DVD, at a supermarket.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/marilyn-manson-133-1357041
-
The murderous art that unmasked a cruel killer by Kenny Farquharson for The Times
What exactly did Luke Mitchell say to the police and what does Sandra Lean write about this in her book?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-murderous-art-that-unmasked-a-cruel-killer-r27r3dvd8bt
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/24/ukcrime.scotland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3641793.stm
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/teenager-simulated-sex-with-head-7231518.html
https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-10090653.html
Dec 2004
‘‘MARILYN MANSON’s DVD ‘THE GOLDEN AGE OF GROTESQUE’ was played in court yesterday (December 23) in the trial of a teenager accused of murdering schoolgirl JODI JONES.
The DVD – which shows two girls tied together near a track and struggling as hoods were placed over their heads – was seized by police from the home of Luke Mitchell, 16, who denies murdering Jodi on June 30 last year.
He told detectives he bought the DVD two days after 14-year-old Jodi’s naked and bloodstained body was found in woods near her home in Dalkeith, near Edinburgh.
The High Court in Edinburgh was told that during the police interview on July 4 last year Mitchell also chatted about his musical interests, including Marilyn Manson.
Mitchell, who was then aged 14, told them he had bought Manson’s CD, and bonus DVD, at a supermarket.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/marilyn-manson-133-1357041
Forgive me but what point are you trying to make?
-
Forgive me but what point are you trying to make?
I hadn’t finished but seeing as you appear interested
What did Sandra Lean say in her book on the following, if anything?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-10090653.html
’The trial is believed to be the first of its kind for more than 100 years’
‘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”
-
At Mitchell’s trial, judge Lord Nimmo Smith said:
‘I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a harmless recreational drug.
‘I believe that, in some instances at least, it can seriously damage the mental processes of those who habitually consume drugs. I think it may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality, which is essential for normal moral judgments, and that this, along with other factors I have mentioned, may have meant that when you killed Jodi you were unable to recognise what a truly wicked deed this was.”
-
Forgive me but what point are you trying to make?
Why did Philip Mitchell leave?
Corinne and Philip, split up in 1999
And what does Luke/CorrineMitchell & Sandra Lean say about this
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.
-
Dec 2004
‘‘MARILYN MANSON’s DVD ‘THE GOLDEN AGE OF GROTESQUE’ was played in court yesterday (December 23) in the trial of a teenager accused of murdering schoolgirl JODI JONES.
The DVD – which shows two girls tied together near a track and struggling as hoods were placed over their heads – was seized by police from the home of Luke Mitchell, 16, who denies murdering Jodi on June 30 last year.
He told detectives he bought the DVD two days after 14-year-old Jodi’s naked and bloodstained body was found in woods near her home in Dalkeith, near Edinburgh.
The High Court in Edinburgh was told that during the police interview on July 4 last year Mitchell also chatted about his musical interests, including Marilyn Manson.
Mitchell, who was then aged 14, told them he had bought Manson’s CD, and bonus DVD, at a supermarket.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/marilyn-manson-133-1357041
He told Detective Constable Stephen Quinn: “It is a weird sort of gothic video.”
Mitchell described the contents as “trancestyle”, with Manson “saying random words and stuff” over film of a car driving down a road in the middle of the night.
Prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC asked for the first 10 minutes of the DVD to be played.
The jury heard repetitive music and lyrics such as “stop rehearsing alcohol and start performing narcotics” and “the only thing that is immortal in this world is money”.
Mr Turnbull asked the detective if the contents did include, as Mitchell had said, a car driving down the road in the middle of the night, and DC Quinn agreed.
“The portion we watched also seemed to include a number of flash images. In some there seemed to be a young girl who is naked.”
The detective replied: “It seemed to be like that, yes.” He also agreed that in some images the girl appeared to be lying on the ground.
Mr Turnbull described how occupants got out of a car after seeing two struggling women wearing corsets, which made them seem to be naked and tied together. Hoods or bags were then put over the women’s heads as they struggled.
“The girls were to some extent molested and carried away,” said Mr Turnbull, and DC Quinn agreed.
The detective also agreed with Donald Findlay QC, defending Mitchell, that the ‘The Golden Age of Grotesque’, had been bought in Sainsbury’s and bore a 15 age restriction certificate.
-
He told Detective Constable Stephen Quinn: “It is a weird sort of gothic video.”
Mitchell described the contents as “trancestyle”, with Manson “saying random words and stuff” over film of a car driving down a road in the middle of the night.
Prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC asked for the first 10 minutes of the DVD to be played.
The jury heard repetitive music and lyrics such as “stop rehearsing alcohol and start performing narcotics” and “the only thing that is immortal in this world is money”.
Mr Turnbull asked the detective if the contents did include, as Mitchell had said, a car driving down the road in the middle of the night, and DC Quinn agreed.
“The portion we watched also seemed to include a number of flash images. In some there seemed to be a young girl who is naked.”
The detective replied: “It seemed to be like that, yes.” He also agreed that in some images the girl appeared to be lying on the ground.
Mr Turnbull described how occupants got out of a car after seeing two struggling women wearing corsets, which made them seem to be naked and tied together. Hoods or bags were then put over the women’s heads as they struggled.
“The girls were to some extent molested and carried away,” said Mr Turnbull, and DC Quinn agreed.
The detective also agreed with Donald Findlay QC, defending Mitchell, that the ‘The Golden Age of Grotesque’, had been bought in Sainsbury’s and bore a 15 age restriction certificate.
Does Sandra Lean mention anything in her book about how the above material could re-traumatise a ‘normal’ 14/15 year old?
-
I hadn’t finished but seeing as you appear interested
What did Sandra Lean say in her book on the following, if anything?
Nope I’m still confused. What has this to do with Luke’s case?
BTW if you want to know what Sandra says in her book can I suggest that you buy it? All proceeds go to a good cause.
-
Why did Philip Mitchell leave?
And what does Luke/CorrineMitchell & Sandra Lean say about this
Why did Philip leave? None of your business.
-
Does Sandra Lean mention anything in her book about how the above material could re-traumatise a ‘normal’ 14/15 year old?
Again not sure of the point that your are trying to make? Luke bought the cd after the murder so it has no relevance. Note though that this child did not own one cd, dvd or book by Marilyn Manson before the murder. You might consider that as strange for someone allegedly so obsessed with the singer.
-
Luke bought the cd after the murder so it has no relevance.
No relevance to what exactly ?
-
No relevance to what exactly ?
To the murder. Isn’t that what we’re talking about?
-
Does Sandra Lean mention anything in her book about how the above material could re-traumatise a ‘normal’ 14/15 year old?
Nope I’m still confused
Do you not think it’s relevant to the workings of a criminal mind?
-
Why did Philip leave? None of your business.
It’s relevant to the case
What did the police uncover?
-
All proceeds go to a good cause.
I see nothing good in what Luke/Corrine Mitchell & Sandra Lean are choosing to do
-
Luke bought the cd after the murder so it has no relevance
It has every relevance
Does Sandra Lean mention anything in her book about how the above material could re-traumatise a ‘normal’ 14/15 year old?
What does Sandra Lean say in her book about this ?
Or does she omit it?
-
Why did Philip leave? None of your business.
Was Luke Mitchell destabilised by his dad leaving?
-
Do you not think it’s relevant to the workings of a criminal mind?
That a teenager may have watched a free dvd or listened to a certain type of music, not in the slightest.
-
It’s relevant to the case
What did the police uncover?
Is it ? How so?
-
I see nothing good in what Luke/Corrine Mitchell & Sandra Lean are choosing to do
Then don’t donate. Simple really.
-
It has every relevance
What does Sandra Lean say in her book about this ?
Or does she omit it?
Buy the book.
-
That a teenager may have watched a free dvd or listened to a certain type of music
Free?
It wasn’t ‘free’!
It was paid for in Sainsbury’s
-
Was Luke Mitchell destabilised by his dad leaving?
Was he?
-
That a teenager may have watched a free dvd or listened to a certain type of music, not in the slightest.
What was on the DVD and referred to during Mitchell’s murder trial?
-
Is it ? How so?
Was Luke Mitchell destabilised by his dad leaving?
-
Was he?
And what was it he didn’t appear to like about his step mother ?
-
Buy the book.
Buy this book https://unherd.com/2021/03/the-book-that-could-stop-domestic-homicide/
‘Dangerous relationships and how they end in murder’
By leading criminologist Prof Jane Monckton Smith 8((()*/
Kindle edition less than £10 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1526613212/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_api_fabc_EW73SPRMWHSEQH218D25
-
I'd say it's relevant. Luke became the man of the home and his mother no longer had control or authority over him. Without a father figure there he was allowed to smoke, take drugs and pretty much do as he pleased. He could tell his mother to break the law for him when buying him knives below the legal age and also lying about his age to get a tattoo. All very relevant to the case. Corinne told Samantha Polling she "doesn't know" what she would do if Luke came home covered in blood and asked for her help, and that she'd have to be in that position to know if she could. She wouldn't deny on camera that she would help her son cover up the murder of a 14 year old girl. %56&\
Family background and the dynamics of the Mitchell household is important when trying to figure out how this could have happened.
-
What was on the DVD and referred to during Mitchell’s murder trial?
The DVD was free with a CD and the CD was bought after the murder. It has zero relevance.
-
Was he?
-
The DVD was free with a CD and the CD was bought after the murder. It has zero relevance.
Do we know if Luke regularly bought Kerrang? Did he buy it this time because of the DVD? I know I wouldn't want to view anything graphic or violent after what happened. Then again, I'd never want to see another knife either but the murder of his girlfriend using a knife did nothing to reduce his knife fascination. Writing RIP Jodi on a knife sheath in these circumstances isn't normal and you know it. And why "666" in the tribute?
-
Buy this book https://unherd.com/2021/03/the-book-that-could-stop-domestic-homicide/
‘Dangerous relationships and how they end in murder’
By leading criminologist Prof Jane Monckton Smith 8((()*/
Kindle edition less than £10 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1526613212/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_api_fabc_EW73SPRMWHSEQH218D25
I’m sorry but you don’t read a book and suddenly become a psychologist. I’m sure the book simply confirmed your bias.
-
I'd say it's relevant. Luke became the man of the home and his mother no longer had control or authority over him. Without a father figure there he was allowed to smoke, take drugs and pretty much do as he pleased. He could tell his mother to break the law for him when buying him knives below the legal age and also lying about his age to get a tattoo. All very relevant to the case. Corinne told Samantha Polling she "doesn't know" what she would do if Luke came home covered in blood and asked for her help, and that she'd have to be in that position to know if she could. She wouldn't deny on camera that she would help her son cover up the murder of a 14 year old girl. %56&\
Family background and the dynamics of the Mitchell household is important when trying to figure out how this could have happened.
Luke became the man of the house? Not Shane, who was seven years older?
-
I’m sorry but you don’t read a book and suddenly become a psychologist. I’m sure the book simply confirmed your bias.
Bias?
Not all males go onto murder their partners
Read the book 8((()*/ ⬇️
Buy this book https://unherd.com/2021/03/the-book-that-could-stop-domestic-homicide/
‘Dangerous relationships and how they end in murder’
By leading criminologist Prof Jane Monckton Smith 8((()*/
Kindle edition less than £10 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1526613212/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_api_fabc_EW73SPRMWHSEQH218D25
-
Luke became the man of the house? Not Shane, who was seven years older?
Which suggests he was already displaying control issues
-
Faithlilly, it’s quite astonishing how defensive you have become about Luke Mitchell in such a short space of time. Are you absolutely certain he is innocent, or are you simply supporting him out of loyalty to your friend?
-
I'd say it's relevant. Luke became the man of the home and his mother no longer had control or authority over him. Without a father figure there he was allowed to smoke, take drugs and pretty much do as he pleased. He could tell his mother to break the law for him when buying him knives below the legal age and also lying about his age to get a tattoo. All very relevant to the case. Corinne told Samantha Polling she "doesn't know" what she would do if Luke came home covered in blood and asked for her help, and that she'd have to be in that position to know if she could. She wouldn't deny on camera that she would help her son cover up the murder of a 14 year old girl. %56&\
Family background and the dynamics of the Mitchell household is important when trying to figure out how this could have happened.
What did the eminent psychologist who was called to the court to explain what impact the family dynamic had on Luke say?
-
What did the eminent psychologist who was called to the court to explain what impact the family dynamic had on Luke say?
Something tells me you already know the answer to this...l
-
Luke became the man of the house? Not Shane, who was seven years older?
Last Child Sydrome
-
Do we know if Luke regularly bought Kerrang? Did he buy it this time because of the DVD? I know I wouldn't want to view anything graphic or violent after what happened. Then again, I'd never want to see another knife either but the murder of his girlfriend using a knife did nothing to reduce his knife fascination. Writing RIP Jodi on a knife sheath in these circumstances isn't normal and you know it. And why "666" in the tribute?
The 666? Possibly predated the other words?
And no we don’t know if Luke bought Kerrang regularly so another dead end.
-
Bias?
Not all males go onto murder their partners
Read the book 8((()*/ ⬇️
You believe Luke perpetrated the crime so look for evidence to support that belief...it’s called confirmation bias.
-
Last Child Sydrome
What is "Last Child Syndrome" ? Do you mean Luke , in your opinion, was spoilt?
-
confirmation bias.
For ‘confirmation bias’ watch Liquid Sunshine Crime part 1 on YouTube
With Sharon, Lorna & Neil, Jerome, Cheryl & Jay Mack
-
For ‘confirmation bias’ watch Liquid Sunshine Crime part 1 on YouTube
With Sharon, Lorna & Neil, Jerome, Cheryl & Jay Mack
& Derek
Almost forgot Derek
-
Is there a reason why the TV show didn’t refer to secondary DNA transfer aka innocent transfer or contamination?
-
Someone else saying sexual assault.
Just horrible.
Seemingly not
‘No crime took place”
‘Detective Inspector Susan Balfour of CID at Dalkeith Police Station said: “I would like to thank members of the public for their assistance with our enquiries. We are continuing to engage with the complainer to ensure that, where required, she has appropriate support.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/cops-probing-sex-assault-near-23685521
-
Seemingly not
‘No crime took place”
‘Detective Inspector Susan Balfour of CID at Dalkeith Police Station said: “I would like to thank members of the public for their assistance with our enquiries. We are continuing to engage with the complainer to ensure that, where required, she has appropriate support.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/cops-probing-sex-assault-near-23685521
Aye, I saw that - hopefully everyone involved is ok.
-
Derek Edmund - who was on YouTube with Paul Capaldi claims to have gone to school with Mitchell - he reckons he was ‘very articulate, well spoken & polite’ then bizarrely the pair of them start referring to the ‘idiot’ Steven Avery
Seems Derek is being used as the stand in forensic expert by Paul
And it’s possible Derek is one of Sandra Leans right hand men
Am speculating - which Derek says people mustn’t do - but it defo looks like he’s involved in the ‘campaigning’ side of things
Yep - Dereks an Admin on the group FB page by the sounds of it
At around 1:02:49 - Derek goes on to refer to articles published by the daily record and sounds completely deluded by his comments
Even Paul seems to pick up on this but says nothing
Derek and Paul are staunch Avery & Dassey supporters
Anyone know if Sandra Lean is doing a live chat with MaM superfan Paul Capaldi later today?
-
Anyone know if Sandra Lean is doing a live chat with MaM superfan Paul Capaldi later today?
If so - someone pls tell her to publish Luke Mitchell’s police statements - or maybe Corrine Mitchell will publish them if Sandra Lean refuses to
‘Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
-
Anyone know if Sandra Lean is doing a live chat with MaM superfan Paul Capaldi later today?
Who cares, she cannot answer a straight question anyway.
-
If so - someone pls tell her to publish Luke Mitchell’s police statements - or maybe Corrine Mitchell will publish them if Sandra Lean refuses to
‘Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
The telephone operator who took Luke’s call after finding the body said something along the lines of ‘ there’s a boy on the phone in an awful state’.
Janine said in court that the police had ‘misinterpreted’ her comment. They seemed to have made a habit of it as they also seemed to have ‘ misinterpreted’ the claim in her first statement that ‘Mia lead Luke to the wall’ to ‘Luke went straight to the wall’ in court. Indeed it as if the police were the Scottish version of the Keystone Cops as they seemed to have also ‘misinterpreted’ SK and AW’s statements too in exactly the same way, from Mia alerting to the wall to Luke simply going to it.
-
The telephone operator who took Luke’s call after finding the body said something along the lines of ‘ there’s a boy on the phone in an awful state’.
Janine said in court that the police had ‘misinterpreted’ her comment. They seemed to have made a habit of it as they also seemed to have ‘ misinterpreted’ the claim in her first statement that ‘Mia lead Luke to the wall’ to ‘Luke went straight to the wall’ in court. Indeed it as if the police were the Scottish version of the Keystone Cops as they seemed to have also ‘misinterpreted’ SK and AW’s statements too in exactly the same way, from Mia alerting to the wall to Luke simply going to it.
Mia finding the body was a set-up. Mia would have scented the body on her way up the path to meet the Jones family. Mitchell needed to have witnesses with him when he found the body, the entire thing was staged by Luke Mitchell imo.
-
Mia finding the body was a set-up. Mia would have scented the body on her way up the path to meet the Jones family. Mitchell needed to have witnesses with him when he found the body, the entire thing was staged by Luke Mitchell imo.
So you are second guessing witnesses who, in their first statements, said that it was Mia who alerted to the v in the wall?
-
I disagree. Sandra is the only source of this sighting and has never provided the witness statement. I think it has been misrepresented somewhat. It was a staff member of Basically Tool Hire who confirmed it was on the path, but demonstrably impossible for him to see if it was "propped at the V riderless" unless he walked past it. Sandra eventually admitted this didn't happen, despite letting people repeat the misinformation for years. JF also didn't "admit" it was directly at the v point at 5:15 pm. JF couldn't even confirm what time he was on the path, Donald Findlay tripped him up a bit. The cyclist who heard the strangling sound didn't see or hear any moped.
‘Basically tool hire’ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wA5yn11KnoM
Note how the makers of this video don’t comment on not being able to see the ‘V’ in the wall
-
There is precedent for the unfair treatment supposedly impartial documentary makers give to Luke Mitchell and his supporters as epitomised by the recent Channel Five documentary.
Impartiality flew out the window when Frontline Scotland had a look at the case ~ "Luke Mitchell; The Devil's Own?" and reported what seems to have been an unsavoury character as seen from his adoring mother's perspective.
BBC axes 'biased' Mitchell documentary
THE BBC was forced to scrap a documentary about murderer Luke Mitchell at the last minute after bosses ruled it was "biased", it was claimed yesterday.
By The Newsroom
Sunday, 1st April 2007, 1:00 am
https://www.scotsman.com/news/bbc-axes-biased-mitchell-documentary-2510094
It was not considered fit for broadcast as it was because it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and lacked impartiality.
Nor did it give adequate consideration to the right of reply for those criticised in the programme.
The impression given that because Mitchell was appealing the court's decision he must be innocent giving no consideration to the fact that the majority of convicted murderers use the appeal system to escape the consequences of their crime.
Standards for scrutiny were obviously more stringent in 2007 for BBC broadcasts than in 2021 for those of Channel 5.
-
Correct. She has dodged my questions over this piece for almost nine months:
https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
Who cares, she cannot answer a straight question anyway.
-
Correct. She has dodged my questions over this piece for almost nine months:
https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
I don’t blame her. You do appear to be quite a menace.
-
There is precedent for the unfair treatment supposedly impartial documentary makers give to Luke Mitchell and his supporters as epitomised by the recent Channel Five documentary.
Impartiality flew out the window when Frontline Scotland had a look at the case ~ "Luke Mitchell; The Devil's Own?" and reported what seems to have been an unsavoury character as seen from his adoring mother's perspective.
BBC axes 'biased' Mitchell documentary
THE BBC was forced to scrap a documentary about murderer Luke Mitchell at the last minute after bosses ruled it was "biased", it was claimed yesterday.
By The Newsroom
Sunday, 1st April 2007, 1:00 am
https://www.scotsman.com/news/bbc-axes-biased-mitchell-documentary-2510094
It was not considered fit for broadcast as it was because it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and lacked impartiality.
Nor did it give adequate consideration to the right of reply for those criticised in the programme.
The impression given that because Mitchell was appealing the court's decision he must be innocent giving no consideration to the fact that the majority of convicted murderers use the appeal system to escape the consequences of their crime.
Standards for scrutiny were obviously more stringent in 2007 for BBC broadcasts than in 2021 for those of Channel 5.
Not considered fit for broadcast, and yet it was broadcast, in it’s entirety.
An interesting article on miscarriages of justice from the New Statesman.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/rough-justice-who-looking-out-wrongfully-convicted
-
Not considered fit for broadcast, and yet it was broadcast, in it’s entirety.
An interesting article on miscarriages of justice from the New Statesman.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/rough-justice-who-looking-out-wrongfully-convicted
Very interesting, especially this bit
Not everyone who claims to be innocent is telling the truth, especially if the crime is especially heinous. One case which received much publicity was that of Simon Hall, who was convicted in 2003 of the horrific murder of Joan Albert, aged 79. It was taken up by Rough Justice after an active campaign on Hall’s behalf but then, in 2013, he told prison officials that he was guilty. In doing so, he gravely undermined the claims of many of the genuinely innocent. He hanged himself in prison the following year. As the former armed robber Noel “Razor” Smith notes in his wry poem “The Old Lags”, prison is full of people who claim they were wrongly convicted:
Yeah, I been stitched right up
It’s funny you should ask
I’m here for what I didn’t do
I didn’t wear a mask!
-
Does anyone know whether or not the immediate furore surrounding the Channel 5 apologia for a murderer has run its course for the time being.
There doesn't seem to be much interest outwith the pages of internet boards such as this one.
I think the two money grubbing exercises both of which were closed down, may have given people pause for thought.
-
Very interesting, especially this bit
Not everyone who claims to be innocent is telling the truth, especially if the crime is especially heinous. One case which received much publicity was that of Simon Hall, who was convicted in 2003 of the horrific murder of Joan Albert, aged 79. It was taken up by Rough Justice after an active campaign on Hall’s behalf but then, in 2013, he told prison officials that he was guilty. In doing so, he gravely undermined the claims of many of the genuinely innocent. He hanged himself in prison the following year. As the former armed robber Noel “Razor” Smith notes in his wry poem “The Old Lags”, prison is full of people who claim they were wrongly convicted:
Yeah, I been stitched right up
It’s funny you should ask
I’m here for what I didn’t do
I didn’t wear a mask!
Wasn't that another of Sandra Lean's "innocents"?
Has she ever managed to be attracted to a murder case which was a bona fide miscarriage of justice?
-
Isn’t there meant to be a street protest in Scotland somewhere, sometime?
-
Wasn't that another of Sandra Lean's "innocents"?
Has she ever managed to be attracted to a murder case which was a bona fide miscarriage of justice?
I expect her spokeswoman on this forum will let us know which cases of injustice Sandra has successfully resolved.
-
Wasn't that another of Sandra Lean's "innocents"?
Has she ever managed to be attracted to a murder case which was a bona fide miscarriage of justice?
Interestingly his wife, who married Hall after his conviction for murder, posts on this very board...campaigned vigorously for his innocence too.
-
Interestingly his wife, who married Hall after his conviction for murder, posts on this very board...campaigned vigorously for his innocence too.
At least she could see the error of her ways and isn’t campaigning for the release of another convicted violent murderer.
-
Does anyone know whether or not the immediate furore surrounding the Channel 5 apologia for a murderer has run its course for the time being.
There doesn't seem to be much interest outwith the pages of internet boards such as this one.
I think the two money grubbing exercises both of which were closed down, may have given people pause for thought.
It was a two day wonder. I think a lot of people now realised they were misled but fortunately they got their money back.
One would have thought that a highly educated individual like Sandra Lean would have known better but it seems not, the GoFundMe account in particular was based on an opinion relating to the Scottish justice system. The words wise fool or sophomore come to mind.
-
Isn’t there meant to be a street protest in Scotland somewhere, sometime?
Was cancelled the minute the fund was taken down.
-
I expect her spokeswoman on this forum will let us know which cases of injustice Sandra has successfully resolved.
I wouldn't hold your breath VS *&^^&
-
Interestingly his wife, who married Hall after his conviction for murder, posts on this very board...campaigned vigorously for his innocence too.
Many people, apart from Sandra Lean, thought Simon Hall was innocent.
-
Wasn't that another of Sandra Lean's "innocents"?
Has she ever managed to be attracted to a murder case which was a bona fide miscarriage of justice?
Perhaps she has this time. After all, she has spent more time investigating the Mitchell case than any of the others.
-
Many people, apart from Sandra Lean, thought Simon Hall was innocent.
How many were as qualified as Ms Lean was to know better?
-
Many people, apart from Sandra Lean, thought Simon Hall was innocent.
Many people apart from Sandra Lean think Luke Mitchell is innocent. It doesn’t mean they are right.
-
Many people apart from Sandra Lean think Luke Mitchell is innocent. It doesn’t mean they are right.
Nor does it mean they are wrong.
-
Perhaps she has this time. After all, she has spent more time investigating the Mitchell case than any of the others.
Yes she has hasn't she. Almost to the point of obsession as far as I can see and I think perhaps for all concerned including herself, it might have been better had she not bothered.
Not forgetting the innocent people she promoted on various platforms as having committed the crime carried out against Jodi including I believe, members of Jodi's family.
All of whom have had to relive the evil ending of her life without being granted the grace of being left in peace to grieve as Sandra Lean indulges her passion for trying to have convicted murderers released into the community because she apparently knows more than judges and juries.
-
Yes she has hasn't she. Almost to the point of obsession as far as I can see and I think perhaps for all concerned including herself, it might have been better had she not bothered.
Not forgetting the innocent people she promoted on various platforms as having committed the crime carried out against Jodi including I believe, members of Jodi's family.
All of whom have had to relive the evil ending of her life without being granted the grace of being left in peace to grieve as Sandra Lean indulges her passion for trying to have convicted murderers released into the community because she apparently knows more than judges and juries.
Sometimes, judges and juries get it wrong. Remember the Guildford Four? Remember the Birmingham Six? Remember Timothy Evans?
We all feel very sad for families of victims, of course we do, but if there is any chance that there has been a MOJ, it is, IMO, right that this should be investigated.
Surely, the family would want the right person locked up for Jodi's murder.
-
It was a two day wonder. I think a lot of people now realised they were misled but fortunately they got their money back.
One would have thought that a highly educated individual like Sandra Lean would have known better but it seems not, the GoFundMe account in particular was based on an opinion relating to the Scottish justice system. The words wise fool or sophomore come to mind.
Many people wished to help Corrine back on her feet. Sandra set up a mechanism to facilitate this. To her credit Corrine wouldn't take the money and wanted it to go into a fund for Luke. This was against gofundme’s policy as Luke is a convicted prisoner.
At the time the fundraiser was set up Sandra couldn’t have known that Corrine would want the money to go to Luke.
The fund was not set up for Luke and therefore had nothing to do with the Scottish justice system.
-
Was cancelled the minute the fund was taken down.
It’s happening in May.
I’ll post details if you’d like to attend.
-
Sometimes, judges and juries get it wrong. Remember the Guildford Four? Remember the Birmingham Six? Remember Timothy Evans?
We all feel very sad for families of victims, of course we do, but if there is any chance that there has been a MOJ, it is, IMO, right that this should be investigated.
Surely, the family would want the right person locked up for Jodi's murder.
Indeed and for the safety of the public at large.
I believe Chris Mullins was subjected to the same unwarranted vitriol for his work on behalf of the Birmingham Six.
-
I wouldn't hold your breath VS *&^^&
I’m sure you can take a stab at it John having supported her at some point in most of those campaigns.
-
I’m sure you can take a stab at it John having supported her at some point in most of those campaigns.
Sorry but you are misinformed, I have never supported Sandra Lean in any moj campaigns because I found her judgement to be non subjective so open to ridicule.
-
Sorry but you are misinformed, I never ever supported Sandra Lean in any moj campaigns.
If I’m misinformed I’m afraid it’s you who has misinformed me. Several times you have admitted making suggestions to help Luke’s campaign which were rebuffed.
-
If I’m misinformed I’m afraid it’s you who has misinformed me. Several times you have admitted making suggestions to help Luke’s campaign which were rebuffed.
Any efforts I made were on behalf of Luke Mitchell, his mother and his legal representatives. I had nothing whatsoever to do with Sandra Lean or her campaign. In hindsight it was the correct approach given her false innocence involvement in so many cases.
In fact I would go further and say that her involvement in genuine miscarriage of justice cases is toxic. She has given the miscarriage of justice collective a very bad name imo. She should be ashamed of her involvement in the Prout and Hall cases to name but two.
Out of curiosity, has she ever apologised to the Wakefield or Albert families for the additional distress brought to their doorsteps?
-
Any efforts I made were on behalf of Luke Mitchell, his mother and his legal representatives. I had nothing whatsoever to do with Sandra Lean or her campaign. In hindsight it was the correct approach given her false innocence involvement in so many cases.
In fact I would go further and say that her involvement in genuine miscarriage of justice cases is toxic. She has given the miscarriage of justice collective a very bad name imo. She should be ashamed of her involvement in the Prout and Hall cases to name but two. Has she ever apologised to the Wakefield or the Albert families?
Sandra Lean was heavily involved in the case, at the invitation of Corrine, from just months after Jodi’s murder so to say you weren’t working with Sandra is simply semantics.
Weren’t you involved in the Hall campaign too along with Hall’s wife? How did that turn out?
-
Sandra Lean was heavily involved in the case, at the invitation of Corrine, from just months after Jodi’s murder so to say you weren’t working with Sandra is simply semantics.
Weren’t you involved in the Hall campaign too along with Hall’s wife? How did that turn out?
The only direct contact I have ever had with Sandra Lean was on two public discussion forums so your assumptions are wholly incorrect. Those discussions went back to a time when she alone was campaigning for him, I remember her telling me that she was thankful for the interest in the case as it had been a lonely place up until that point.
I did have contact with Mrs Hall directly in respect of her late husband's case up until the point my position changed.
Had you been around the moj scene then you would know all this.
-
The only direct contact I have ever had with Sandra Lean was on two public discussion forums so your assumptions are wholly incorrect. Those discussions went back to a time when she alone was campaigning for him, I remember her telling me that she was thankful for the interest in the case as it had been a lonely place up until that point.
I did have contact with Mrs Hall directly in respect of her late husband's case up until the point my position changed.
Had you been around the moj scene then you would know all this.
I haven’t been around the MOJ ‘scene’ as you say and glad of it when I see how toxic it has become.
From your own posts you admit that you made efforts to help Luke Mitchell who, I assume, you thought was innocent at the time. You also campaigned for Simon Hall who later admitted his guilt. So two perpetrators you admit to supporting, both who you now believe to be guilty. Surely if we are to question Sandra Lean’s judgment we must also question yours?
-
I haven’t been around the MOJ ‘scene’ as you say and glad of it when I see how toxic it has become.
From your own posts you admit that you made efforts to help Luke Mitchell who, I assume, you thought was innocent at the time. You also campaigned for Simon Hall who later admitted his guilt. So two perpetrators you admit to supporting, both who you now believe to be guilty. Surely if we are to question Sandra Lean’s judgment we must also question yours?
I'm afraid you still don't get it. Sandra has always believed Mitchell to be innocent, at least that is the public image she projects. I don't believe he is innocent and haven't done so for many years since I reviewed all the evidence. Same with the Simon Hall case, I went into it with an open mind but changed it when new information came my way. As for the Prout case, my position was always that he was guilty.
-
A couple more videos to wind-up Sandra Lean critics...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekoHFga6StE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekoHFga6StE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he3TaDrvrZQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he3TaDrvrZQ)
-
?
-
I'm afraid you still don't get it. Sandra has always believed Mitchell to be innocent, at least that is the public image she projects. I don't believe he is innocent and haven't done so for many years since I reviewed all the evidence. Same with the Simon Hall case, I went into it with an open mind but changed it when new information came my way. As for the Prout case, my position was always that he was guilty.
I do get it, unfortunately.
-
There lies the reason, the answer perhaps behind the ultimate combination of bias and prejudice to the extreme. Who was Ms Lean in September 2003? A kindred spirit, someone whom Ms Mitchel coincidently got wind of that believed her son was being treated unfairly, picked on? This was long before Luke Mitchell was arrested. Ms Lean was a 'nobody', all she really could become at this point was an ally? She had no acclaim, she wasn't publicly known.
Was it their children that brought them together? It has been mentioned before of Ms Leans daughter being in the same company as LM. Had they become friends before or after Jodi was Murdered, who was the young girl in the photo with Luke at this girls graveside? I had asked this of Ms Lean before, she became instantly Irate - why? What was unseemly that these two should be friends? We know she backs Ms Mitchell to the extreme in everything, that she saw no wrong in Ms Mitchell visiting this girls grave on the day of her funeral. That the Mitchells had a right to be there.
Whatever brought these two woman together, far earlier than that of seeking to gain Luke Mitchell freedom certainly kick started a personal vendetta towards Jodi Jones's family. That has been blatantly obvious and this 'admitted' friendship of time certainly goes a long way in explaining this. Of how LM could and can do no wrong.
As stated, I have mentioned this before and do so again, as;
Whilst sourcing material around this case, two years ago - the one area that really puzzled me, was reason as to why, Ms Leans transparent hatred towards Jodi's family had come about, almost from the moment she became entwined with Corrine Mitchell. It made no sense, that this person, claiming to be seeking 'Truth and Justice' has neither been Just nor truthful in doing so? That Jodi Jones has somehow become an object for Ms Lean to use in her consistent 'personal' war against her family. The blatant misrepresentation of the evidence has done nothing more that vilify this girls last moments on earth. Of gang rape, incest and much more. This is Ms Leans doing, no one else's. By manipulating the facts around this case, playing games with those who listen, using this 'power of suggestion' Sitting back, positively glowing and saying "make of it what you will"
There is nothing to date that can be done to free Luke Mitchell from prison, nothing legally can be proved. As such, the actual evidence around his conviction, in its entirety has been pushed to the background. There is nothing to lose it would seem. Ms Mitchell in a news article some years ago stated to the Jones family "the gloves are off" Ms Lean and Ms Mitchell at this point had been in cahoots with each other, planning and plotting their every move for a long time. That one driving mission, it would seem, to cause this girls family as much hurt and upset as is humanly possible. This is not Just my opinion but that of many. It's all there to see, should one actually have an interest as to "Why suspicion fell upon Luke Mitchell"
Perhaps Jane Hamilton was correct - The one person that has become forgotten in all of this, is Jodi Jones.
Don’t you ever get bored shooting the messenger?
This is obviously very personal to you so I’ll take that into account when considering your post.
You are right about one thing though...Jodi Jones has been forgotten, replaced instead with personal enmities of those involved. When Sandra’s name appears to cause more revulsion than Jodi’s death then there really has to be something wrong.
-
Don’t you ever get bored shooting the messenger?
This is obviously very personal to you so I’ll take that into account when considering your post.
You are right about one thing though...Jodi Jones has been forgotten, replaced instead with personal enmities of those involved. When Sandra’s name appears to cause more revulsion than Jodi’s death then there really has to be something wrong.
Absolutely.
I don't know why Sandra Lean evokes such hatred, and I don't particularly want to know.
What evidence is there that she hates the Jones family? I certainly have not picked up on that.
As far as I am aware, Sandra Lean lives in the same locality as do the Jones and Mitchell families. After Jodi's murder, she heard what local people and the media were saying about Luke, and she thought this was unfair. She was also reviled for speaking up for him. At the same time, she was worried about her own daughters, who were similar ages to Jodi. What if someone other than Luke had murdered Jodi, and this person remained at large? I believe Corrinne Mitchell approached her in the first instance, as she had heard that Sandra was viewing Luke's plight more sympathetically than were most others in the locality. As far as I know, they did not previously know each other, or if they did, they were not friends.
It's all in her book. I have no reason to suppose she is lying!
-
A couple more videos to wind-up Sandra Lean critics...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekoHFga6StE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekoHFga6StE)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he3TaDrvrZQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he3TaDrvrZQ)
Don't encourage them!!!
-
Absolutely.
I don't know why Sandra Lean evokes such hatred, and I don't particularly want to know.
What evidence is there that she hates the Jones family? I certainly have not picked up on that.
As far as I am aware, Sandra Lean lives in the same locality as do the Jones and Mitchell families. After Jodi's murder, she heard what local people and the media were saying about Luke, and she thought this was unfair. She was also reviled for speaking up for him. At the same time, she was worried about her own daughters, who were similar ages to Jodi. What if someone other than Luke had murdered Jodi, and this person remained at large? I believe Corrinne Mitchell approached her in the first instance, as she had heard that Sandra was viewing Luke's plight more sympathetically than were most others in the locality. As far as I know, they did not previously know each other, or if they did, they were not friends.
It's all in her book. I have no reason to suppose she is lying!
It would appear in the early days having an open mind was considered a crime.
-
Don’t you ever get bored shooting the messenger?
This is obviously very personal to you so I’ll take that into account when considering your post.
You are right about one thing though...Jodi Jones has been forgotten, replaced instead with personal enmities of those involved. When Sandra’s name appears to cause more revulsion than Jodi’s death then there really has to be something wrong.
Faithlilly - This line of attack, when someone questions or is critical of anything that Ms Lean does is predictive and indicative of someone who is indeed very closely involved with Ms Lean herself. Your mind is completely closed.
Take your nose out of the book for a little while - do some actual, proper research. Be openminded. Rather than consistently jumping to Ms Leans defence.
Ms Lean has put her head above the pulpit and keeps it there. - If what I found whilst researching this case, causes so much grief and upset, perhaps it is time for you step back a little. Chill.
-
Faithlilly - This line of attack, when someone questions or is critical of anything that Ms Lean does is predictive and indicative of someone who is indeed very closely involved with Ms Lean herself. Your mind is completely closed.
Take your nose out of the book for a little while - do some actual, proper research. Be openminded. Rather than consistently jumping to Ms Leans defence.
Ms Lean has put her head above the pulpit and keeps it there. - If what I found whilst researching this case, causes so much grief and upset, perhaps it is time for you step back a little. Chill.
Dear oh dear.
Can I ask, why do you continually try to mislead the forum, the very act you accuse Sandra of? The ‘laddie’ comment of the emergency operator was about SK...no it wasn’t and your comment has been independently proved to be incorrect and Luke lead the group of searchers back down the path from which he had just come...no he didn’t, it is well documented it was AW.
You’re not daft so there must be a reason why you do it.
BTW it’s head above the parapet not pulpit.
-
Faithlilly - This line of attack, when someone questions or is critical of anything that Ms Lean does is predictive and indicative of someone who is indeed very closely involved with Ms Lean herself. Your mind is completely closed.
Take your nose out of the book for a little while - do some actual, proper research. Be openminded. Rather than consistently jumping to Ms Leans defence.
Ms Lean has put her head above the pulpit and keeps it there. - If what I found whilst researching this case, causes so much grief and upset, perhaps it is time for you step back a little. Chill.
So, what do you recommend I look at for "actual, proper research" ?
I can find very little on the case other than what has been written by Sandra Lean, and what is in the newspapers and on forums. I'd love to read a book by someone who believes Luke is guilty, but I don't think there is one!
-
So, what do you recommend I look at for "actual, proper research" ?
I can find very little on the case other than what has been written by Sandra Lean, and what is in the newspapers and on forums. I'd love to read a book by someone who believes Luke is guilty, but I don't think there is one!
And there’s the rub. We know Sandra Lean has access to information we don’t and we know that the newspapers were never neutral in their treatment of Luke but where do those on the forum get their ‘other’ information from....unless of course they are personally involved and then you have to consider whether their non-cited information is agenda-driven.
-
And there’s the rub. We know Sandra Lean has access to information we don’t and we know that the newspapers were never neutral in their treatment of Luke but where do those on the forum get their ‘other’ information from....unless of course they are personally involved and then you have to consider whether their non-cited information is agenda-driven.
What information do the Jones family have access to?
-
And there’s the rub. We know Sandra Lean has access to information we don’t and we know that the newspapers were never neutral in their treatment of Luke but where do those on the forum get their ‘other’ information from....unless of course they are personally involved and then you have to consider whether their non-cited information is agenda-driven.
There’s a lot in the public domain directly from Luke & Corrine Mitchell - dating back to 2003
-
As far as I am aware, Sandra Lean lives in the same locality as do the Jones and Mitchell families. After Jodi's murder, she heard what local people and the media were saying about Luke, and she thought this was unfair. She was also reviled for speaking up for him. At the same time, she was worried about her own daughters, who were similar ages to Jodi. What if someone other than Luke had murdered Jodi, and this person remained at large? I believe Corrinne Mitchell approached her in the first instance, as she had heard that Sandra was viewing Luke's plight more sympathetically than were most others in the locality. As far as I know, they did not previously know each other, or if they did, they were not friends.
It's all in her book. I have no reason to suppose she is lying!
What does her book say about Mitchell and suicide?
If Sandra Lean’s daughters had made threats to commit suicide when they were Luke Mitchell’s age (14 years old) would she have got them professional help?
What does Luke Mitchell’s 29th October 2004 psychiatric report say in relation to his suicide idealisations ?
From Luke Mitchell’s school jotter
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/
Luke Mitchell to Roslyn Little (2018)
‘I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide’
-
Hi, new here so please forgive me if these questions have been asked/answered many times before.
During LM’s polygraph test he was asked “ were you present when Jodi was stabbed?” Also, “did you stab Jodi on 30th June?”
My question is, was Jodi stabbed?
Another question that stood out to me was “ prior to Jodi going missing, do you remember deliberately lying to a police officer?”
This particular question puzzled me, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to ask if LM had lied to police after Jodi was murdered?
Before watching LM’s polygraph test (and after watching the Channel 5 documentary), I was leaning towards LM being innocent. However, after viewing the polygraph, it seems to me some of the questions were misleading, and makes me wonder why.
https://youtu.be/boKXAggpHoQ - LM polygraph
-
hello seratonia
My question is, was Jodi stabbed?
Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.
its semantics whether this was a stabbing, but series of cuts with a bladed weapon were the cause of death, according to the pathologist, and there were extensive post-mortem cuts elsewhere.
This particular question puzzled me, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to ask if LM had lied to police after Jodi was murdered?
You are right. my guess would be that the operator mis-spoke when asking the question here, or wasnt particularly read up on the case details at the time of examination
For what its worth, there isnt really anyone taking the results of polygraphs seriously in the uk justice system and with good reason - the results are the subjective opinion of the operator, with no measurable or repeatable objective criteria. its pseudoscience.
-
Hi, new here so please forgive me if these questions have been asked/answered many times before.
During LM’s polygraph test he was asked “ were you present when Jodi was stabbed?” Also, “did you stab Jodi on 30th June?”
My question is, was Jodi stabbed?
Another question that stood out to me was “ prior to Jodi going missing, do you remember deliberately lying to a police officer?”
This particular question puzzled me, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to ask if LM had lied to police after Jodi was murdered?
Before watching LM’s polygraph test (and after watching the Channel 5 documentary), I was leaning towards LM being innocent. However, after viewing the polygraph, it seems to me some of the questions were misleading, and makes me wonder why.
https://youtu.be/boKXAggpHoQ - LM polygraph
I agree with you on the polygraph, it's only a gimmick, a false science which can be manipulated quite easily. I'm afraid it is only fit for the likes of what was the Jeremy Kyle Show and even it was axed.
The only real use the polygraph has is in scaring people into making confessions like what happened in the Adrian Prout case.
-
I agree with you on the polygraph, it's only a gimmick, a false science which can be manipulated quite easily. I'm afraid it is only fit for the likes of what was the Jeremy Kyle Show and even it was axed.
Or the government, police and probation services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/mandatory-polygraph-tests-factsheet
https://www.stoneking.co.uk/literature/e-bulletins/lie-detector-polygraph-testing-sex-offenders
‘Polygraph testing is not some bogus science. There are strict and complex codes of practice and an examiner must undergo extensive training. The research recommends that examiners do the job exclusively, such are the demands. Most best practice has been imported from America, where polygraph testing is much more established and regulated. Advocates of the polygraph claim very high accuracy, upwards of 85% and often upwards of 95%, although there is good reason the evidence remains inadmissible in criminal court trials.’
-
Or the government, police and probation services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/mandatory-polygraph-tests-factsheet
https://www.stoneking.co.uk/literature/e-bulletins/lie-detector-polygraph-testing-sex-offenders
‘Polygraph testing is not some bogus science. There are strict and complex codes of practice and an examiner must undergo extensive training. The research recommends that examiners do the job exclusively, such are the demands. Most best practice has been imported from America, where polygraph testing is much more established and regulated. Advocates of the polygraph claim very high accuracy, upwards of 85% and often upwards of 95%, although there is good reason the evidence remains inadmissible in criminal court trials.’
Yes it's an American folly. The polygraph is a joke. I once challenged Terry Mullins to prove his polygraph works, needless to say I'm still waiting.
-
Yes it's an American folly. The polygraph is a joke. I once challenged Terry Mullins to prove his polygraph works, needless to say I'm still waiting.
I’d hazard a guess that you’re still waiting because those you challenge, as well as most of the world outside this particular forum, aren’t too fussed what you think.
-
I’d hazard a guess that you’re still waiting because those you challenge, as well as most of the world outside this particular forum, aren’t too fussed what you think.
Everyone knows polygraphs are junk science apart from some credulous Americans (and you it seems).
-
Yes it's an American folly. The polygraph is a joke. I once challenged Terry Mullins to prove his polygraph works, needless to say I'm still waiting.
And yet, Glyn Razzell , when he refused to take one on the "inside Justice" programme a couple of years back, was somewhat reviled for his decision, and it was taken as an indication that he must be guilty!
-
I’d hazard a guess that you’re still waiting because those you challenge, as well as most of the world outside this particular forum, aren’t too fussed what you think.
The truth is they're scared to take me on. The polygraph at £500 a pop must be the most stupid waste of money ever for those silly enough to pay for one and a money spinner for the so-called expert. No wonder the justice system in the UK won't accept is as anything else but a folly.
-
The truth is they're scared to take me on. The polygraph at £500 a pop must be the most stupid waste of money ever for those silly enough to pay for one and a money spinner for the so-called expert. No wonder the justice system in the UK won't accept is as anything else but a folly.
Why would anyone be "scared to take you on."?
As a matter of fact, I agree with you that polygraphs are not particularly reliable as evidence. If they were, they would be used in court.
-
although there is good reason the evidence remains inadmissible in criminal court trials
.
Rightly so. The Mitchell case is proof of how these tests are nowhere near to being Infallible.
CM being asked if she had lied for Luke? - NO.
Let's picks something simple - the evidence from the Tattoo parlour.
Much ado is made around this, of this evidence being ridiculous. Why? Because the ID was that of a 54? year old male? - Pretty far out? Definitely, but this was fake ID. It had been altered. Would be pretty ridiculous to use a fake ID of that of a 54yr old man would it not - The claim therefore has been that the employee from the parlour was making this up.
Why would they make it up? - let's look at this in a little more detail. The name on the certificate was that of a family friend/relative?, the employee in the parlour had taken note of the name, and of age verification. The DOB had obviously been altered? Shoddy work by the employee letting an altered ID be used(pretty normal perhaps), the name however they could not have made up. They did not know the Mitchells, they did not know they had a family friend with this name.
Why was this relevant? why was the evidence used, It was sprung on the defence - therefore why much ado was made of this evidence. - It was only one area used to show the character of CM? Not that she had helped her son in getting a tattoo by producing fake ID, but that she was prepared to lie on oath for him.
-
The truth is they're scared to take me on. The polygraph at £500 a pop must be the most stupid waste of money ever for those silly enough to pay for one and a money spinner for the so-called expert. No wonder the justice system in the UK won't accept is as anything else but a folly.
I’m afraid outside your own little corner of the internet no one cares about your opinion any more than they do mine.
-
.
Rightly so. The Mitchell case is proof of how these tests are nowhere near to being Infallible.
CM being asked if she had lied for Luke? - NO.
Let's picks something simple - the evidence from the Tattoo parlour.
Much ado is made around this, of this evidence being ridiculous. Why? Because the ID was that of a 54? year old male? - Pretty far out? Definitely, but this was fake ID. It had been altered. Would be pretty ridiculous to use a fake ID of that of a 54yr old man would it not - The claim therefore has been that the employee from the parlour was making this up.
Why would they make it up? - let's look at this in a little more detail. The name on the certificate was that of a family friend/relative?, the employee in the parlour had taken note of the name, and of age verification. The DOB had obviously been altered? Shoddy work by the employee letting an altered ID be used(pretty normal perhaps), the name however they could not have made up. They did not know the Mitchells, they did not know they had a family friend with this name.
Why was this relevant? why was the evidence used, It was sprung on the defence - therefore why much ado was made of this evidence. - It was only one area used to show the character of CM? Not that she had helped her son in getting a tattoo by producing fake ID, but that she was prepared to lie on oath for him.
As the documents allegedly presented weren’t copied, as they should have been by the tattoo parlour, it’s hard to say what was presented by Corrine and Luke.
It is not and never has been illegal to get a tattoo while you are underage so it just shows how near the bottom of the barrel the prosecution had to scrape to try and secure a conviction.
That Corrine and Luke were willing to take the test and have the results published whether they passed or not speaks volumes.
-
As the documents allegedly presented weren’t copied, as they should have been by the tattoo parlour, it’s hard to say what was presented by Corrine and Luke.
It is not and never has been illegal to get a tattoo while you are underage so it just shows how near the bottom of the barrel the prosecution had to scrape to try and secure a conviction.
That Corrine and Luke were willing to take the test and have the results published whether they passed or not speaks volumes.
Tattooing of minors act 1969 was the legislation brought in to prohibit tattooing of under 18s.
-
As the documents allegedly presented weren’t copied, as they should have been by the tattoo parlour, it’s hard to say what was presented by Corrine and Luke.
It is not and never has been illegal to get a tattoo while you are underage so it just shows how near the bottom of the barrel the prosecution had to scrape to try and secure a conviction.
That Corrine and Luke were willing to take the test and have the results published whether they passed or not speaks volumes.
If it’s not illegal why did he have to show proof of his age? Sometimes logical thinking escapes you doesn’t it?
-
Tattooing of minors act 1969 was the legislation brought in to prohibit tattooing of under 18s.
Did Whiplash Trash keep the ID presented because any tattoo artist found to have tattooed someone under 18 will be prosecuted and fined, so they should always ask for proof of age and include a copy in a consent form? Did the shop avoid prosecution if they testified?
-
Did Whiplash Trash keep the ID presented because any tattoo artist found to have tattooed someone under 18 will be prosecuted and fined, so they should always ask for proof of age and include a copy in a consent form? Did the shop avoid prosecution if they testified?
I have no idea! I was merely pointing out that you stating "that it isnt and never has been illegal for a minor to get a tattoo" as incorrect.
-
I have no idea! I was merely pointing out that you stating "that it isnt and never has been illegal for a minor to get a tattoo" as incorrect.
Let me clarify my comment.
“ https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Resident/Health-Social-Care/Adults/fit-and-well/tattoo-advice.aspx”
“ It is against the law to tattoo a person under the age of 18 even with parental consent.”
The legal obligation is on the tattooist not the minor.
-
So, what do you recommend I look at for "actual, proper research" ?
I can find very little on the case other than what has been written by Sandra Lean, and what is in the newspapers and on forums. I'd love to read a book by someone who believes Luke is guilty, but I don't think there is one!
Forums. There is an abundance of information available that give much deeper insight into the intensive investigation that went into this case. That's were I sourced much of mine, quite a lot from Ms lean herself. Two years back, along with my personal study I chose to ask the opposite question. Rather than "Why were these others" eliminated from this investigation, I chose "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell" No stance on guilt over innocence at that point. Do I wish to declare LM guilty, that is not my place and I do not have to. He was found guilty. I have however, in this research, found nothing that could prove that he did not kill Jodi Jones. Nothing to disprove any of the evidence either.
One area that really hit a cord with me, were those timings, that is why I mention them most.
I have mentioned this before and I will do so again. - The alibi. We all know the basics which is mainly centered around that of the changing statements of SM. But why were the police suspicious of this alibi? The information given.
Let's think about the dinner that was 'claimed to have been made' There is actually nothing to prove that there even was a dinner, is there? That would be silly of course. However SM certainly had no recollection of it. The family would have eaten at some point, but it was not altogether in that intricate time frame.
The information around this:
CM claimed that she had come home from work around 5.05pm. The dinner was not ready, that she helped Luke complete this process. The heating of the beans, the cooking of the prawns serving up and Luke leaving around 5.30pm.
That is fine, nothing wrong. Fits well together.
Move onto SM's 2nd statement after his mother reminding him of the above. That his mother had come home, that he came downstairs to see her (5.05pm approx:) Of Luke mashing tatties, how her day was, not wanting to upset Luke of the burnt pies. That he had returned back upstairs, Came down again once the dinner was ready, took it up to his room, ate it and left sometime just shortly after 5.30pm.
The police are of course going to check this out - they discover the following. One simple thing here that changed the whole of this story, that of the time.
CM had in fact not gotten home, any earlier than 5.15pm Therefore everything of the dinner story did not fit together. So what?, we can just move those times forward a little, SM and LM could simply have been mistaken about the times they left.
Quite so -
However - LM had phoned the Jones landline at 17.32pm. He stated that this had happened whilst he was sitting on the wall at the entrance to his housing estate. So he would have had to have left his house no later than 5.30pm
Let's move onto the Jones household, these claims that they were somehow treated differently, were they? All we are really told is that their statements were all over the place, which in itself tells us something, does it not?
However, those timings. What did they use to determine the timings of this family - CTV footage, just the same as the Mitchells, where is this different treatment? Mr Ovens had to give an account it would seem, much like anybody else The stepfather, how often to we hear of misgivings around these males. What were his movements that afternoon?
That he had finished work at X time, that he had went for petrol, drove home, went to the loo and that he had heard the door close whilst in there. We really don't know much around this, Just those basics - Not a "person of interest" then?
However - are we to accept that he was merely checked out to configure when Jodi left home, of course not - they would have been checking his movements, everyone at this point would have been a suspect. And his movements did check out, did they not? Mr Ovens had left work at the time stated, he had been to Tesco for fuel, the timing on the CTV matched his account.
That call to the Jones landline at 5.32pm - the call Luke had to make to set this alibi in motion. In turn, turned out to be one of the key areas against his alibi, did it not?
So, it's not quite as simple as debating around whether SM should perhaps jump out of the woodwork and say anything - there is so much more to it than that
These boys that left home one before the other - SM did not see LM at the entrance to the estate either, anywhere.
-
Forums. There is an abundance of information available that give much deeper insight into the intensive investigation that went into this case. That's were I sourced much of mine, quite a lot from Ms lean herself. Two years back, along with my personal study I chose to ask the opposite question. Rather than "Why were these others" eliminated from this investigation, I chose "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell" No stance on guilt over innocence at that point. Do I wish to declare LM guilty, that is not my place and I do not have to. He was found guilty. I have however, in this research, found nothing that could prove that he did not kill Jodi Jones. Nothing to disprove any of the evidence either.
One area that really hit a cord with me, were those timings, that is why I mention them most.
I have mentioned this before and I will do so again. - The alibi. We all know the basics which is mainly centered around that of the changing statements of SM. But why were the police suspicious of this alibi? The information given.
Let's think about the dinner that was 'claimed to have been made' There is actually nothing to prove that there even was a dinner, is there? That would be silly of course. However SM certainly had no recollection of it. The family would have eaten at some point, but it was not altogether in that intricate time frame.
The information around this:
CM claimed that she had come home from work around 5.05pm. The dinner was not ready, that she helped Luke complete this process. The heating of the beans, the cooking of the prawns serving up and Luke leaving around 5.30pm.
That is fine, nothing wrong. Fits well together.
Move onto SM's 2nd statement after his mother reminding him of the above. That his mother had come home, that he came downstairs to see her (5.05pm approx:) Of Luke mashing tatties, how her day was, not wanting to upset Luke of the burnt pies. That he had returned back upstairs, Came down again once the dinner was ready, took it up to his room, ate it and left sometime just shortly after 5.30pm.
The police are of course going to check this out - they discover the following. One simple thing here that changed the whole of this story, that of the time.
CM had in fact not gotten home, any earlier than 5.15pm Therefore everything of the dinner story did not fit together. So what?, we can just move those times forward a little, SM and LM could simply have been mistaken about the times they left.
Quite so -
However - LM had phoned the Jones landline at 17.32pm. He stated that this had happened whilst he was sitting on the wall at the entrance to his housing estate. So he would have had to have left his house no later than 5.30pm
Let's move onto the Jones household, these claims that they were somehow treated differently, were they? All we are really told is that their statements were all over the place, which in itself tells us something, does it not?
However, those timings. What did they use to determine the timings of this family - CTV footage, just the same as the Mitchells, where is this different treatment? Mr Ovens had to give an account it would seem, much like anybody else The stepfather, how often to we hear of misgivings around these males. What were his movements that afternoon?
That he had finished work at X time, that he had went for petrol, drove home, went to the loo and that he had heard the door close whilst in there. We really don't know much around this, Just those basics - Not a "person of interest" then?
However - are we to accept that he was merely checked out to configure when Jodi left home, of course not - they would have been checking his movements, everyone at this point would have been a suspect. And his movements did check out, did they not? Mr Ovens had left work at the time stated, he had been to Tesco for fuel, the timing on the CTV matched his account.
That call to the Jones landline at 5.32pm - the call Luke had to make to set this alibi in motion. In turn, turned out to be one of the key areas against his alibi, did it not?
So, it's not quite as simple as debating around whether SM should perhaps jump out of the woodwork and say anything - there is so much more to it than that
These boys that left home one before the other - SM did not see LM at the entrance to the estate either, anywhere.
There is an abundance of information available on forums, much of it absolute nonsense. Is that where you gleaned that SK had, in court, been revealed as the ‘laddie’ the 999 responder spoke about?
Interesting you mention CCTV. AB visited a large supermarket as we know, a supermarket that would have been able to supply CCTV of that visit. Why was it not presented in court? We know that there was a time difference between the receipt for the shopping AB received and the bank statement used by the prosecution so why wasn’t CCTV used to prove the time categorically?
-
Forums. There is an abundance of information available that give much deeper insight into the intensive investigation that went into this case. That's were I sourced much of mine, quite a lot from Ms lean herself. Two years back, along with my personal study I chose to ask the opposite question. Rather than "Why were these others" eliminated from this investigation, I chose "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell" No stance on guilt over innocence at that point. Do I wish to declare LM guilty, that is not my place and I do not have to. He was found guilty. I have however, in this research, found nothing that could prove that he did not kill Jodi Jones. Nothing to disprove any of the evidence either.
One area that really hit a cord with me, were those timings, that is why I mention them most.
I have mentioned this before and I will do so again. - The alibi. We all know the basics which is mainly centered around that of the changing statements of SM. But why were the police suspicious of this alibi? The information given.
Let's think about the dinner that was 'claimed to have been made' There is actually nothing to prove that there even was a dinner, is there? That would be silly of course. However SM certainly had no recollection of it. The family would have eaten at some point, but it was not altogether in that intricate time frame.
The information around this:
CM claimed that she had come home from work around 5.05pm. The dinner was not ready, that she helped Luke complete this process. The heating of the beans, the cooking of the prawns serving up and Luke leaving around 5.30pm.
That is fine, nothing wrong. Fits well together.
Move onto SM's 2nd statement after his mother reminding him of the above. That his mother had come home, that he came downstairs to see her (5.05pm approx:) Of Luke mashing tatties, how her day was, not wanting to upset Luke of the burnt pies. That he had returned back upstairs, Came down again once the dinner was ready, took it up to his room, ate it and left sometime just shortly after 5.30pm.
The police are of course going to check this out - they discover the following. One simple thing here that changed the whole of this story, that of the time.
CM had in fact not gotten home, any earlier than 5.15pm Therefore everything of the dinner story did not fit together. So what?, we can just move those times forward a little, SM and LM could simply have been mistaken about the times they left.
Quite so -
However - LM had phoned the Jones landline at 17.32pm. He stated that this had happened whilst he was sitting on the wall at the entrance to his housing estate. So he would have had to have left his house no later than 5.30pm
Let's move onto the Jones household, these claims that they were somehow treated differently, were they? All we are really told is that their statements were all over the place, which in itself tells us something, does it not?
However, those timings. What did they use to determine the timings of this family - CTV footage, just the same as the Mitchells, where is this different treatment? Mr Ovens had to give an account it would seem, much like anybody else The stepfather, how often to we hear of misgivings around these males. What were his movements that afternoon?
That he had finished work at X time, that he had went for petrol, drove home, went to the loo and that he had heard the door close whilst in there. We really don't know much around this, Just those basics - Not a "person of interest" then?
However - are we to accept that he was merely checked out to configure when Jodi left home, of course not - they would have been checking his movements, everyone at this point would have been a suspect. And his movements did check out, did they not? Mr Ovens had left work at the time stated, he had been to Tesco for fuel, the timing on the CTV matched his account.
That call to the Jones landline at 5.32pm - the call Luke had to make to set this alibi in motion. In turn, turned out to be one of the key areas against his alibi, did it not?
So, it's not quite as simple as debating around whether SM should perhaps jump out of the woodwork and say anything - there is so much more to it than that
These boys that left home one before the other - SM did not see LM at the entrance to the estate either, anywhere.
Thank you for answering my question, Parky.
I do look at other forums. I find them interesting, as I do this one, but I suspect that some people on them have an agenda of their own: either they are "pro Luke campaigners", or they are locals who are on the side of the Jones family. One never knows. Some might even be family members from one side or the other, with their own biased views.
It's hard to believe a 14 year old carried out such a brutal murder on his girlfriend----------.
-
There is an abundance of information available on forums, much of it absolute nonsense. Is that where you gleaned that SK had, in court, been revealed as the ‘laddie’ the 999 responder spoke about?
Interesting you mention CCTV. AB visited a large supermarket as we know, a supermarket that would have been able to supply CCTV of that visit. Why was it not presented in court? We know that there was a time difference between the receipt for the shopping AB received and the bank statement used by the prosecution so why wasn’t CCTV used to prove the time categorically?
We know that the till receipt was only showing to be out due to the ATM receipt.
If they had CCTV? - so many factors to consider here, however;
One thing that we can be certain of, is that If there was actually anything, CCTV or otherwise that could have been used, that proved these timings to be wrong - they would have been used by the defence. Therefore, why did the defence not pull up this CCTV, if there was any?, It's a rather empty point is it not?
SK and the recordings - where are these recordings? Where are the court transcripts of the full hearing around this evidence? Did Frontline Scotland play these, did they mention all of the evidence around these - No. Why do you suppose that was?
I will say three things here, you can take your pick.
1) Someone does not have in their possession all they claim to have, that of "all" of the evidence, court transcripts and tapes?
2) Someone is copying that of DF, of the defence he used - cleverly missing out the evidence of the Crown?
3) The reason why the recordings were played? Rather than that of what the operator (2) noted. Why were these recordings played and who played them - Was it the defence or the Crown?
Failing that, let's leave aside those recordings - which laddie is screaming down the phone? Where actually in those notes by the operator, does it say "not what one would expect from someone who had just found a body" Who found Jodi Jones? It was LM.
Two examples put forward to show that LM had been affected by what he had claimed to have only discovered. One was proven to be wrong. The other was counteracted by far more evidence to show that he was not affected, no trauma.
Those tapes were played in court, can I prove it, I don't have to. Can it be proven to be wrong - No. Bias is empty, it proves nothing.
As with the evidence around the search party - The "dogs head being level with the V" proves only the size of the dog.
Evidence however, from those very first statements, of LM not walking some distance past this V - proves that the dog did not find Jodi. Coupled of course with climbing the wall at the 'Gino' break. And don't forget those times/timing.
Does LM having dirty hair prove he could not have killed Jodi - No, It backs up his 90mins approx of being out and about in the woods with his pals. -The ones he phoned back to see where they were?
Does LM in the absence of not having a blood test taking, any test for having cannabis in his system prove he had not had a 'smoke?', of course it doesn't - Leave you with a Q? Was LM smoking with his pals in the woods?
You can't flippantly discard those multiple areas of DNA that matched LM's (law of averages) as proof of innocence - yet include every other male other than SM? When their DNA was most definitely not there.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of all of this outwith it being 'morally wrong' Is these constant claims for 'truth and Justice for LM' Whilst hanging every other male out to dry? On that note, Why is SM not included in this list of 'others?'
The one person - with whom it is blatantly clear, claims to have no memory of anything at all? Serious history of multiple drug abuse and no alibi for the entire evening. CM stated in her podcast a joint theory of hers and Ms Leans;
'of taking a bike, a knife and clothing, chucking it into the back of a van in a scrapyard and hey presto it is gone'
'Gordo' spoke of this theory, of the convenience of having a scrapyard to hand? I have asked this question before, what profession does SM have - mechanic?! Is this what happened to some of the evidence in the LM case?, was it taken to a scrapyard? and disposed of. I thought it rather odd that CM and Ms Lean should come up with such a theory, perhaps it is based on truth closer to home?
Does it matter - No, as these males were eliminated from being a suspect in this case. Not at the drop of a hat which is both senseless and desperate to claim they were. That is all of them, including SM.
-
We know that the till receipt was only showing to be out due to the ATM receipt.
If they had CCTV? - so many factors to consider here, however;
One thing that we can be certain of, is that If there was actually anything, CCTV or otherwise that could have been used, that proved these timings to be wrong - they would have been used by the defence. Therefore, why did the defence not pull up this CCTV, if there was any?, It's a rather empty point is it not?
SK and the recordings - where are these recordings? Where are the court transcripts of the full hearing around this evidence? Did Frontline Scotland play these, did they mention all of the evidence around these - No. Why do you suppose that was?
I will say three things here, you can take your pick.
1) Someone does not have in their possession all they claim to have, that of "all" of the evidence, court transcripts and tapes?
2) Someone is copying that of DF, of the defence he used - cleverly missing out the evidence of the Crown?
3) The reason why the recordings were played? Rather than that of what the operator (2) noted. Why were these recordings played and who played them - Was it the defence or the Crown?
Failing that, let's leave aside those recordings - which laddie is screaming down the phone? Where actually in those notes by the operator, does it say "not what one would expect from someone who had just found a body" Who found Jodi Jones? It was LM.
Two examples put forward to show that LM had been affected by what he had claimed to have only discovered. One was proven to be wrong. The other was counteracted by far more evidence to show that he was not affected, no trauma.
Those tapes were played in court, can I prove it, I don't have to. Can it be proven to be wrong - No. Bias is empty, it proves nothing.
As with the evidence around the search party - The "dogs head being level with the V" proves only the size of the dog.
Evidence however, from those very first statements, of LM not walking some distance past this V - proves that the dog did not find Jodi. Coupled of course with climbing the wall at the 'Gino' break. And don't forget those times/timing.
Does LM having dirty hair prove he could not have killed Jodi - No, It backs up his 90mins approx of being out and about in the woods with his pals. -The ones he phoned back to see where they were?
Does LM in the absence of not having a blood test taking, any test for having cannabis in his system prove he had not had a 'smoke?', of course it doesn't - Leave you with a Q? Was LM smoking with his pals in the woods?
You can't flippantly discard those multiple areas of DNA that matched LM's (law of averages) as proof of innocence - yet include every other male other than SM? When their DNA was most definitely not there.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of all of this outwith it being 'morally wrong' Is these constant claims for 'truth and Justice for LM' Whilst hanging every other male out to dry? On that note, Why is SM not included in this list of 'others?'
The one person - with whom it is blatantly clear, claims to have no memory of anything at all? Serious history of multiple drug abuse and no alibi for the entire evening. CM stated in her podcast a joint theory of hers and Ms Leans;
'of taking a bike, a knife and clothing, chucking it into the back of a van in a scrapyard and hey presto it is gone'
'Gordo' spoke of this theory, of the convenience of having a scrapyard to hand? I have asked this question before, what profession does SM have - mechanic?! Is this what happened to some of the evidence in the LM case?, was it taken to a scrapyard? and disposed of. I thought it rather odd that CM and Ms Lean should come up with such a theory, perhaps it is based on truth closer to home?
Does it matter - No, as these males were eliminated from being a suspect in this case. Not at the drop of a hat which is both senseless and desperate to claim they were. That is all of them, including SM.
8((()*/
-
We know that the till receipt was only showing to be out due to the ATM receipt.
If they had CCTV? - so many factors to consider here, however;
One thing that we can be certain of, is that If there was actually anything, CCTV or otherwise that could have been used, that proved these timings to be wrong - they would have been used by the defence. Therefore, why did the defence not pull up this CCTV, if there was any?, It's a rather empty point is it not?
They would have been used by the defence? If the police hadn’t accessed the footage from the CCTV cameras at Scotmid at the time how were the defence supposed to use them at trial? Luke’s defence team was only brought on board after Luke was arrested, 10 months after the murder and long after the CCTV footage would have been erased. The police sought out CCTV footage of the journeys of both Allan Ovens and Corrine Mitchell so why not Andrina Bryson, if her sighting was so crucial? It would certainly have put the sighting timing to bed....or is it that Bryson’s sighting, because of her initial timings and descriptions, wasn’t thought to be important and only latterly, and after the footage had been erased, did the police grasp at the particular straw Miss Bryson was holding out ?
SK and the recordings - where are these recordings? Where are the court transcripts of the full hearing around this evidence? Did Frontline Scotland play these, did they mention all of the evidence around these - No. Why do you suppose that was?
From the BBC news website :
“During the evidence of Detective Chief Inspector Ronald Millar, Mr Findlay read the transcript.
In it, the accused told police twice: "Come down as fast as possible."
The telephone operator told her police colleague: "The laddie's in a bit of a panic. He's saying can we come as fast as possible."
I will say three things here, you can take your pick.
1) Someone does not have in their possession all they claim to have, that of "all" of the evidence, court transcripts and tapes?
2) Someone is copying that of DF, of the defence he used - cleverly missing out the evidence of the Crown?
3) The reason why the recordings were played? Rather than that of what the operator (2) noted. Why were these recordings played and who played them - Was it the defence or the Crown?
Failing that, let's leave aside those recordings - which laddie is screaming down the phone? Where actually in those notes by the operator, does it say "not what one would expect from someone who had just found a body" Who found Jodi Jones? It was LM.
I’m sure you’d like to leave aside your attempt to mislead the forum. You have absolutely no evidence that the ‘laddie’ comment by the operator was about SK and the belief it was Luke was debunked at court. I, however, have provided conclusive proof that it was about Luke.
Two examples put forward to show that LM had been affected by what he had claimed to have only discovered. One was proven to be wrong. The other was counteracted by far more evidence to show that he was not affected, no trauma.
I have proven that Luke was the ‘laddie’ the 999 operator was talking about and the fact that Janine said in her first statement that she knew Luke had found something bad by his voice and Steven Kelly’s claim that ‘everyone was in hysterics’ points to Luke’s demeanour at the time.
Those tapes were played in court, can I prove it, I don't have to. Can it be proven to be wrong - No. Bias is empty, it proves nothing.
No need to prove anything, we know what the operator said.
As with the evidence around the search party - The "dogs head being level with the V" proves only the size of the dog.
Evidence however, from those very first statements, of LM not walking some distance past this V - proves that the dog did not find Jodi. Coupled of course with climbing the wall at the 'Gino' break. And don't forget those times/timing.
Glad to see that you’re relying on what Steven Kelly and Janine said in their first statements and not what they said in court. Both of course said in their first statement that Mia reacted at the wall.
Does LM having dirty hair prove he could not have killed Jodi - No, It backs up his 90mins approx of being out and about in the woods with his pals. -The ones he phoned back to see where they were?
And the dirt on various other parts of his body? You’re now simply grasping at straws.
Does LM in the absence of not having a blood test taking, any test for having cannabis in his system prove he had not had a 'smoke?', of course it doesn't - Leave you with a Q? Was LM smoking with his pals in the woods?
No idea and I’m sure neither do you. I’ll leave you with a Q. Why was there evidence in the blood taken from Jodi that she’d smoked cannabis only hours before her death?
You can't flippantly discard those multiple areas of DNA that matched LM's (law of averages) as proof of innocence - yet include every other male other than SM? When their DNA was most definitely not there.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of all of this outwith it being 'morally wrong' Is these constant claims for 'truth and Justice for LM' Whilst hanging every other male out to dry? On that note, Why is SM not included in this list of 'others?'
The one person - with whom it is blatantly clear, claims to have no memory of anything at all? Serious history of multiple drug abuse and no alibi for the entire evening. CM stated in her podcast a joint theory of hers and Ms Leans;
'of taking a bike, a knife and clothing, chucking it into the back of a van in a scrapyard and hey presto it is gone'
'Gordo' spoke of this theory, of the convenience of having a scrapyard to hand? I have asked this question before, what profession does SM have - mechanic?! Is this what happened to some of the evidence in the LM case?, was it taken to a scrapyard? and disposed of. I thought it rather odd that CM and Ms Lean should come up with such a theory, perhaps it is based on truth closer to home?
Does it matter - No, as these males were eliminated from being a suspect in this case. Not at the drop of a hat which is both senseless and desperate to claim they were. That is all of them, including SM.
I’m not interested in other possible suspects, merely the alleged evidence that convicted Luke. What Sandra Lean or Corinne Mitchell theorise is unimportant and in fact merely deflects from the real questions
-
I know very little about this case but based on the docu I'm struggling to understand how the prosecution secured a conviction?
The docu referred to a few other suspects. Were any of them required to supply a DNA sample?
The condom containing "fresh" semen is interesting!
Is it possible that J J interrupted a drug deal and/or a couple having sex (hetro or gay) that didn't want to be found out? But this wouldn't seem to explain the frenzied and vicious nature of the murder.
-
I know very little about this case but based on the docu I'm struggling to understand how the prosecution secured a conviction?
The docu referred to a few other suspects. Were any of them required to supply a DNA sample?
The condom containing "fresh" semen is interesting!
Is it possible that J J interrupted a drug deal and/or a couple having sex (hetro or gay) that didn't want to be found out? But this wouldn't seem to explain the frenzied and vicious nature of the murder.
I think you may be "struggling to understand" Luke Mitchell's conviction if you are basing your opinion on the Channel5 documentary.
Mitchell's case at trial was led by one of the foremost barristers in the land but even he could do little in the face of the sum of the prosecution evidence except to ensure that Mitchell received a fair trial and his voice was heard (well it would have been had he taken the stand).
-
I know very little about this case but based on the docu I'm struggling to understand how the prosecution secured a conviction?
The docu referred to a few other suspects. Were any of them required to supply a DNA sample?
The condom containing "fresh" semen is interesting!
Is it possible that J J interrupted a drug deal and/or a couple having sex (hetro or gay) that didn't want to be found out? But this wouldn't seem to explain the frenzied and vicious nature of the murder.
I’ve been struggling to understand it as well. Started looking into it over 10 years ago and I’m still no further forward. Problem is there is no hard evidence, dna, motive etc it’s all circumstantial and that can be open to interpretation.
For me it was not beyond reasonable doubt, the police handling of the scene etc was shocking and think the only way we can be sure is an independent review. It would put it to rest once and for all.
I’ve wondered the same, if she interrupted someone behind the wall and she was killed, a lot of the injuries and removing of the clothes was after death so was the murderer trying to make it look like a sex attack or some serial killer of some sort to cover their tracks
-
I think you may be "struggling to understand" Luke Mitchell's conviction if you are basing your opinion on the Channel5 documentary.
Mitchell's case at trial was led by one of the foremost barristers in the land but even he could do little in the face of the sum of the prosecution evidence except to ensure that Mitchell received a fair trial and his voice was heard (well it would have been had he taken the stand).
Please enlighten me Brie on the sum of the prosecution evidence.
-
Mark Kane's name was also thrown into the ring as a possible suspect. He died about a year ? after the murders. Anyone know the cause of death?
-
The condom found at soc containing "fresh" semen was matched to the police dna database some 3 ? years later. Anyone know anything about this?
-
The condom found at soc containing "fresh" semen was matched to the police dna database some 3 ? years later. Anyone know anything about this?
It seems the above relates to a James Falconer and he was ruled out.
-
From my limited knowledge it seems the most damning evidence against LM is his missing knife. Has he ever given any explanation as to its whereabouts?
If he disposed of how come police didn't find in the locale?
-
What reason would LM have to kill J J? It seems the murder was frenzied and yet LM had no history of mental illness, anti-social behaviour or criminal history?
He came over in the interview as articulate and intelligent?
-
I’ve been struggling to understand it as well. Started looking into it over 10 years ago and I’m still no further forward. Problem is there is no hard evidence, dna, motive etc it’s all circumstantial and that can be open to interpretation.
For me it was not beyond reasonable doubt, the police handling of the scene etc was shocking and think the only way we can be sure is an independent review. It would put it to rest once and for all.
I’ve wondered the same, if she interrupted someone behind the wall and she was killed, a lot of the injuries and removing of the clothes was after death so was the murderer trying to make it look like a sex attack or some serial killer of some sort to cover their tracks
Well it seems to me the most damning evidence is the misssing knife and parka coat.
All the reseach into eye witness testimony shows it is unreliable
Teenage boys go through phases (think Kevin) so I'm not buying the urine in pots (even if true), Goth gear, a fondness for Marilyn Manson and the black dahlia etc.
-
What sort of activities went on in the woods? Given a condom was found containing "fresh" semen it seems that sex was one such activity. Was it frequented by doggers, gays?
What about drug dealers/users?
-
Well it seems to me the most damning evidence is the misssing knife and parka coat.
All the reseach into eye witness testimony shows it is unreliable
Teenage boys go through phases (think Kevin) so I'm not buying the urine in pots (even if true), Goth gear, a fondness for Marilyn Manson and the black dahlia etc.
If it was Luke I’ve always thought he could easily have dumped both the parka and the knife in any bin on his way home, the bins were emptied the following day and bin lorries never checked.
But the question is did he own a parka before. Eyewitnesses say yes but IMO they could be mistaken. If someone had a photo or cctv or something to prove he had a parka then that would be enough to convince me and most others who are not sure, that he is guilty. Did the police check cctv from shops in the area etc to find a picture of Luke in his parka before the murder, how much went into the search for the coat? I’m just not convinced there was a parka, so reasonable doubt for me on that.
Missing knife, I will need to check the book to see what was said on that, from what I remember, I’m sure someone will be quick to correct me if I’m wrong, the knife missing from the pouch that had the writing on it, the knife would be too small to be the murder weapon. Another knife that was meant to a missing knife, was found by Luke’s mum and handed to the lawyer who gave it to the police so no longer missing.
-
What sort of activities went on in the woods? Given a condom was found containing "fresh" semen it seems that sex was one such activity. Was it frequented by doggers, gays?
What about drug dealers/users?
On Sandras live chat on Sunday I’m sure she said behind the v in the wall was a place where one of the moped boys sold drugs to locals, anyone know if that’s right?
-
On Sandras live chat on Sunday I’m sure she said behind the v in the wall was a place where one of the moped boys sold drugs to locals, anyone know if that’s right?
There appears to have been a den not far from the murder site that the local youngsters, including [Name removed] and [Name removed], used to smoke cannabis. The fact that Jodi smoked cannabis up to a couple of hours before she was murdered is also interesting.
-
On Sandras live chat on Sunday I’m sure she said behind the v in the wall was a place where one of the moped boys sold drugs to locals, anyone know if that’s right?
Gossip or a secret source? What we do know for certainty though, it was a woodland that LM hung out in, he was friends with these boys. Has Luke said to Ms Lean that he bought drugs from them at any time whilst meeting with them in the woods?
Ms Lean has also made claim to the boys having a gang hut 'close' to where Jodi was found, did this information also come from LM? A gang hut that they kept these drugs in? - really? An area of woodland frequented by youngsters, a place claimed to be known for these boys selling drugs, and we are to believe they kept these drugs in this gang hut? Are these theories similar to that of the 'mechanic?'
Mention above of the condom, the wrapper also in one of the vlogs. It is a stretch of woodland that Jodi and Luke frequented. Next to a high school, youngsters will be youngsters? Which of course tells you, that there must be many places out of view, spots known to someone?, who we know, definitely frequented this woodland. Was the spot where Jodi was found one of their spots, out of prying eyes? Perhaps they used this gang hut?
Of the V - the lengths required to add weight to air, LM's denial and of JaJ witnessing LM turn immediately left.
LM denied knowing of the existence of this V break in the wall until the night of the 30th of June. Let us think about that.
LM frequently used this path, not only the route used to walk to his mothers work at Scots Caravans at the bottom of Mayfield. He walked this route many times with Jodi Jones - you can not fail to notice the V when walking this path. The videos are proof of this. One of these vloggers, also stated that "you can not fail to miss this V"
Ms Lean backs up LM's claim by implying that she had difficulty finding/seeing this V the first time. - Really?
PC and FS - the base of the V is waist height, around 4ft - Ms Lean, it is 6ft and JaJ just over 5ft?
Of these claims that a motorist from Basically Tool Hire stated that they had seen this bike, riderless at this V at 5.15pm.
Simply not true, is it. - You can not see this V from any road. It is however unsurprising that they did not see the boys or thought the bike to be at stand still - They were driving, looking across an expansive field. The wall is barely visible.
Even less likely that they would have heard anything from the woodland after LK. Is LM deaf that he did not hear this bike? or the boys with whom he was friends. Has LM said to anyone he heard the boys and bike? Also Ms Leans claim, of this V being difficult to see/find?
These young boys - Have never admitted to their bike being up against this wall, far less at the V.
It is of course, more than feasible to discount LM as being the killer, due to lack of DNA (outwith that law of averages) but this point blank refusal to discount this duo when there was, most definitely, no DNA of theirs. Far easier to believe, that two young teenage boys managed this somehow, double the DNA, as opposed to one young teenage boy who was meeting with his girlfriend that evening. That she died in a woodland that they frequented. This young courting couple. Did they enter this woodland, initially to have a 'smoke'? We know LM was with the boys in the abbey smoking, was not tested for having cannabis in his system that night, but what did the boys in the abbey say about smoking?
Can anyone help clarify one of these theories by CM? - That one of these boys cut off his hair to look like another boy, that it was not GD and JF on the bike at all, Ms Lean 'one of the boys gave a wrong description of themselves??' Surely therefore, there is no point discussing this duo on the bike as being them, as it wasn't really them anyway??
Should DF have asked, instead - Did the person you were impersonating kill Jodi Jones?
-
LM denied knowing of the existence of this V break in the wall until the night of the 30th of June. Let us think about that.
LM frequently used this path, not only the route used to walk to his mothers work at Scots Caravans at the bottom of Mayfield. He walked this route many times with Jodi Jones - you can not fail to notice the V when walking this path. The videos are proof of this. One of these vloggers, also stated that "you can not fail to miss this V"
Not only did LM deny knowing about the V, he denied that over the wall was a locale he frequented. The prosecution was able to demonstrate otherwise
(https://i.imgur.com/qjMfZ1H.png) found neear scene
-
If it was Luke I’ve always thought he could easily have dumped both the parka and the knife in any bin on his way home, the bins were emptied the following day and bin lorries never checked.
But the question is did he own a parka before. Eyewitnesses say yes but IMO they could be mistaken. If someone had a photo or cctv or something to prove he had a parka then that would be enough to convince me and most others who are not sure, that he is guilty. Did the police check cctv from shops in the area etc to find a picture of Luke in his parka before the murder, how much went into the search for the coat? I’m just not convinced there was a parka, so reasonable doubt for me on that.
Missing knife, I will need to check the book to see what was said on that, from what I remember, I’m sure someone will be quick to correct me if I’m wrong, the knife missing from the pouch that had the writing on it, the knife would be too small to be the murder weapon. Another knife that was meant to a missing knife, was found by Luke’s mum and handed to the lawyer who gave it to the police so no longer missing.
I thought the missing knife and parka were central to the proseuction case but it seems not.
I also thought the knife looked too small and it seems the damning evidence here is the inscription found on the case.
-
Not only did LM deny knowing about the V, he denied that over the wall was a locale he frequented. The prosecution was able to demonstrate otherwise
(https://i.imgur.com/qjMfZ1H.png) found neear scene
Did the prosecution demonstrate when the carving was done, pre or post Jodi’s murder and by whom, Jodi or Luke?
-
SL made the point in the docu that Dalkeith is a quiet place but it is very close to major trunk roads: A1, A7 and A68.
There are two hotels situated on the A7: Premier Inn and Sun Inn and a train station at Eskbank.
All the names bandied about in this case are locals. What's to suggest, if LM is innocent, that the perp was someone from further afield given the close proximity to major trunk roads and a train station?
-
There's also the Newbattle golf course and the River South Esk (fishing) so plenty of local attractions to attract outsiders to the area. "Murder in a Small Town" doesn't necessarily mean the perp was from the same small town especially given the close proximity of major roads and local attractions.
-
Gossip or a secret source? What we do know for certainty though, it was a woodland that LM hung out in, he was friends with these boys. Has Luke said to Ms Lean that he bought drugs from them at any time whilst meeting with them in the woods?
Has she?
Ms Lean has also made claim to the boys having a gang hut 'close' to where Jodi was found, did this information also come from LM? A gang hut that they kept these drugs in? - really? An area of woodland frequented by youngsters, a place claimed to be known for these boys selling drugs, and we are to believe they kept these drugs in this gang hut? Are these theories similar to that of the 'mechanic?'
Is there any evidence that anyone said that cannabis was kept in the hut or that it was simply used to sell and smoke drugs?
Mention above of the condom, the wrapper also in one of the vlogs. It is a stretch of woodland that Jodi and Luke frequented. Next to a high school, youngsters will be youngsters? Which of course tells you, that there must be many places out of view, spots known to someone?, who we know, definitely frequented this woodland. Was the spot where Jodi was found one of their spots, out of prying eyes? Perhaps they used this gang hut?
Is there any evidence of any of the above?
Of the V - the lengths required to add weight to air, LM's denial and of JaJ witnessing LM turn immediately left.
Mia directed Luke to the left. He would have been a fool to go any other way. SK and AW also went to the left.
LM denied knowing of the existence of this V break in the wall until the night of the 30th of June. Let us think about that.
LM frequently used this path, not only the route used to walk to his mothers work at Scots Caravans at the bottom of Mayfield. He walked this route many times with Jodi Jones - you can not fail to notice the V when walking this path. The videos are proof of this. One of these vloggers, also stated that "you can not fail to miss this V"
Ms Lean backs up LM's claim by implying that she had difficulty finding/seeing this V the first time. - Really?
Didn’t JaJ deny knowing that the path to Newbattle existed before that night?
PC and FS - the base of the V is waist height, around 4ft - Ms Lean, it is 6ft and JaJ just over 5ft?
Of these claims that a motorist from Basically Tool Hire stated that they had seen this bike, riderless at this V at 5.15pm.
Simply not true, is it. - You can not see this V from any road. It is however unsurprising that they did not see the boys or thought the bike to be at stand still - They were driving, looking across an expansive field. The wall is barely visible.
Even less likely that they would have heard anything from the woodland after LK. Is LM deaf that he did not hear this bike? or the boys with whom he was friends. Has LM said to anyone he heard the boys and bike? Also Ms Leans claim, of this V being difficult to see/find?
These young boys - Have never admitted to their bike being up against this wall, far less at the V.
I believe that the bike wasn’t working so where would the noise have come from? Further are you saying that the employees from Basically Tool Hire gave false statements?
It is of course, more than feasible to discount LM as being the killer, due to lack of DNA (outwith that law of averages) but this point blank refusal to discount this duo when there was, most definitely, no DNA of theirs. Far easier to believe, that two young teenage boys managed this somehow, double the DNA, as opposed to one young teenage boy who was meeting with his girlfriend that evening. That she died in a woodland that they frequented. This young courting couple. Did they enter this woodland, initially to have a 'smoke'? We know LM was with the boys in the abbey smoking, was not tested for having cannabis in his system that night, but what did the boys in the abbey say about smoking?
You tell us.
Can anyone help clarify one of these theories by CM? - That one of these boys cut off his hair to look like another boy, that it was not GD and JF on the bike at all, Ms Lean 'one of the boys gave a wrong description of themselves??' Surely therefore, there is no point discussing this duo on the bike as being them, as it wasn't really them anyway??
Who needs theories when we have facts. The boys failed to come forward in the first instance even though they must have known that they were on the path at the time Jodi was murdered and it took an appeal from the police for them to eventually come forward. JF cut of his very distinctive hair after the murder and made such a bad job of it that it had to be cut professionally soon after. JF has been ostracised by the Jones family in the years after Jodi’s murder. There are other coincidences but I think that that’s enough to be going on with.
Should DF have asked, instead - Did the person you were impersonating kill Jodi Jones?
-
Based on the first WS's provided by the grandmother, sister and sister's boyfriend it was LM's dog that drew attention to the soc as opposed to LM?
Untrained dogs will scent out blood and a decomposing body.
-
There are two hotels situated on the A7: Premier Inn and Sun Inn and a train station at Eskbank.
All the names bandied about in this case are locals. What's to suggest, if LM is innocent, that the perp was someone from further afield given the close proximity to major trunk roads and a train station?
Train station didn't exist in 2003. Borders railway was only brought back in the last few years
-
Based on the first WS's provided by the grandmother, sister and sister's boyfriend it was LM's dog that drew attention to the soc as opposed to LM?
Untrained dogs will scent out blood and a decomposing body.
Luke's dog was being trained as a tracker dog, apparently.
-
Thank you for answering my question, Parky.
I do look at other forums. I find them interesting, as I do this one, but I suspect that some people on them have an agenda of their own: either they are "pro Luke campaigners", or they are locals who are on the side of the Jones family. One never knows. Some might even be family members from one side or the other, with their own biased views.
It's hard to believe a 14 year old carried out such a brutal murder on his girlfriend----------.
It is extremely hard to digest that anyone so young is capable of such brutality.
Surely the only sides are, that of Luke Mitchell V Her Majesty's Advocate.
The Jones family - Lost Jodi, she was murdered. The Mitchells - Luke was found guilty of this murder. They are not the same, where did this split begin that sought to make them so? Here I will mention Ms Lean, yet again.
I make no bones over Ms Lean, that is apparent, as it is with others over time on these forums. Of her manipulation of evidence, the additions and tall tales. Which for me highlights, the strength of the reasoning behind these attempts to show that of the evidence against LM to be Incorrect. That one's attention has to be drawn away from the facts and into fiction. But where did this case of LM V HMA morph into LM V these others? primarily the Jones family? Did this not stem from Ms Lean? Of "Why were these two families treated differently?" From a time, long before this case came to court. Of those days of attention and focus on LM. Why the Mitchells and not the Jones's? Of course, the simplest, obvious reason is that of suspicion. Therefore should the question, primarily not have been, what kept suspicion upon LM?
And she does focus on this but introduces many new ideas to these discussions, from those early days of 'Jigsawman' of "But what if I were to tell you?" - That power of suggestion? backed with, I have "all" the evidence. But this came long before having this claim to "all" the evidence did it not? Both Colin Bowman and Frontline Scotland using much of Ms Leans work to highlight and discuss this case, from those days of research and of writing "No Smoke"
And she is brought into discussion consistently as she enters these very discussions herself, has done from the beginning. With these very claims. Which in turn morphs LM V HMA into SL V 'others? It is no longer the defence from the trial that is primarily used but that of these books and so forth - heavily laden with this very bias. Is not the counteraction to this, that mainly of the Crown, of the evidence used? The agenda by posters to simply call out on this misinformation?
Truth be told - There is far more to this case than that of being different, a 'goth' of being 'picked upon' because he was different. Of carrying knives, two timing and smoking cannabis or urinating in bottles, these are mocked to simplify the case against LM. Used for distraction purpose. There is sound reason and evidence stacked against LM. The most fairest point in all of this is that Q? Was there enough evidence to show proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' But many come to the conclusion of no without actually looking at the case in detail. Declare innocence instead, whilst there is most definitely no proof beyond reasonable doubt of this? - And move onto trying others instead? Are they not confused with the confusion that is spread?
You can't take one or two areas of information, of multiple people and add them together to = one LM? To this "compelling story" against him?
The duo were on the path, they lied, MK wore a Parka, he had a scratch, Jaf left a condom with DNA he stood over the body?! SK had no alibi, [Name removed], his parents left him alone for a short while therefore no alibi. They all have history of some format or other, and? - Why were they eliminated? that is the sensible question is it not?
Perhaps the biggest misleading piece of information in all of this is - "they were never investigated"
A 14 year old boy, as you rightly point out. This factor alone brings about disbelief. A horrific attack on a 14 year old girl. The police. - Is it not foolish to claim that anyone was simply not investigated, that LM was simply chosen because he was different? Or because one police officer out of three 'may' have noted "with the boyfriend" Why is either side of this verbatim extract missing? Why is either side of SK's statement of "the dogs head being level with the V" missing? For that matter, why any of it? The reason is simple, is it not - it would not fit the narrative given around it. The bias.
To claim - That all of this search party were in agreement with LM that it was Mia who found Jodi. I have found nothing in this research to show this to be the case, more so, do we not go on the simple basis, first and foremost that if this were indeed the case, why were the police suspicious? Surely there is no 'self interest' (Colin Bowman) from this search party at all, if they all agreed with LM from the very beginning? That common sense does tell us, simply that there had to have been substantial difference in those statements for suspicion to stay/remain upon LM. Time being prominent, of scaling the wall at the 'Gino' break. That none of the search party had walked past this V.
That is why I chose my question "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?" Why were these 'others' eliminated, why did he remain at the fore, this 14 year old boy. For I took the stance two years ago of discounting first and foremost, that the police, in such a brutal murder case, kept Luke Mitchell in the loop, rather than Luke Mitchell keeping himself in the loop?
-
It is extremely hard to digest that anyone so young is capable of such brutality.
Surely the only sides are, that of Luke Mitchell V Her Majesty's Advocate.
The Jones family - Lost Jodi, she was murdered. The Mitchells - Luke was found guilty of this murder. They are not the same, where did this split begin that sought to make them so? Here I will mention Ms Lean, yet again.
I make no bones over Ms Lean, that is apparent, as it is with others over time on these forums. Of her manipulation of evidence, the additions and tall tales. Which for me highlights, the strength of the reasoning behind these attempts to show that of the evidence against LM to be Incorrect. That one's attention has to be drawn away from the facts and into fiction. But where did this case of LM V HMA morph into LM V these others? primarily the Jones family? Did this not stem from Ms Lean? Of "Why were these two families treated differently?" From a time, long before this case came to court. Of those days of attention and focus on LM. Why the Mitchells and not the Jones's? Of course, the simplest, obvious reason is that of suspicion. Therefore should the question, primarily not have been, what kept suspicion upon LM?
And she does focus on this but introduces many new ideas to these discussions, from those early days of 'Jigsawman' of "But what if I were to tell you?" - That power of suggestion? backed with, I have "all" the evidence. But this came long before having this claim to "all" the evidence did it not? Both Colin Bowman and Frontline Scotland using much of Ms Leans work to highlight and discuss this case, from those days of research and of writing "No Smoke"
And she is brought into discussion consistently as she enters these very discussions herself, has done from the beginning. With these very claims. Which in turn morphs LM V HMA into SL V 'others? It is no longer the defence from the trial that is primarily used but that of these books and so forth - heavily laden with this very bias. Is not the counteraction to this, that mainly of the Crown, of the evidence used? The agenda by posters to simply call out on this misinformation?
Truth be told - There is far more to this case than that of being different, a 'goth' of being 'picked upon' because he was different. Of carrying knives, two timing and smoking cannabis or urinating in bottles, these are mocked to simplify the case against LM. Used for distraction purpose. There is sound reason and evidence stacked against LM. The most fairest point in all of this is that Q? Was there enough evidence to show proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' But many come to the conclusion of no without actually looking at the case in detail. Declare innocence instead, whilst there is most definitely no proof beyond reasonable doubt of this? - And move onto trying others instead? Are they not confused with the confusion that is spread?
You can't take one or two areas of information, of multiple people and add them together to = one LM? To this "compelling story" against him?
The duo were on the path, they lied, MK wore a Parka, he had a scratch, Jaf left a condom with DNA he stood over the body?! SK had no alibi, [Name removed], his parents left him alone for a short while therefore no alibi. They all have history of some format or other, and? - Why were they eliminated? that is the sensible question is it not?
Perhaps the biggest misleading piece of information in all of this is - "they were never investigated"
A 14 year old boy, as you rightly point out. This factor alone brings about disbelief. A horrific attack on a 14 year old girl. The police. - Is it not foolish to claim that anyone was simply not investigated, that LM was simply chosen because he was different? Or because one police officer out of three 'may' have noted "with the boyfriend" Why is either side of this verbatim extract missing? Why is either side of SK's statement of "the dogs head being level with the V" missing? For that matter, why any of it? The reason is simple, is it not - it would not fit the narrative given around it. The bias.
To claim - That all of this search party were in agreement with LM that it was Mia who found Jodi. I have found nothing in this research to show this to be the case, more so, do we not go on the simple basis, first and foremost that if this were indeed the case, why were the police suspicious? Surely there is no 'self interest' (Colin Bowman) from this search party at all, if they all agreed with LM from the very beginning? That common sense does tell us, simply that there had to have been substantial difference in those statements for suspicion to stay/remain upon LM. Time being prominent, of scaling the wall at the 'Gino' break. That none of the search party had walked past this V.
That is why I chose my question "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?" Why were these 'others' eliminated, why did he remain at the fore, this 14 year old boy. For I took the stance two years ago of discounting first and foremost, that the police, in such a brutal murder case, kept Luke Mitchell in the loop, rather than Luke Mitchell keeping himself in the loop?
So, when and why do you think suspicion fell upon Luke Mitchell ?
As a matter of interest, did you attend the trial?
-
It is extremely hard to digest that anyone so young is capable of such brutality.
Surely the only sides are, that of Luke Mitchell V Her Majesty's Advocate.
The Jones family - Lost Jodi, she was murdered. The Mitchells - Luke was found guilty of this murder. They are not the same, where did this split begin that sought to make them so? Here I will mention Ms Lean, yet again.
I make no bones over Ms Lean, that is apparent, as it is with others over time on these forums. Of her manipulation of evidence, the additions and tall tales. Which for me highlights, the strength of the reasoning behind these attempts to show that of the evidence against LM to be Incorrect. That one's attention has to be drawn away from the facts and into fiction. But where did this case of LM V HMA morph into LM V these others? primarily the Jones family? Did this not stem from Ms Lean? Of "Why were these two families treated differently?" From a time, long before this case came to court. Of those days of attention and focus on LM. Why the Mitchells and not the Jones's? Of course, the simplest, obvious reason is that of suspicion. Therefore should the question, primarily not have been, what kept suspicion upon LM?
And she does focus on this but introduces many new ideas to these discussions, from those early days of 'Jigsawman' of "But what if I were to tell you?" - That power of suggestion? backed with, I have "all" the evidence. But this came long before having this claim to "all" the evidence did it not? Both Colin Bowman and Frontline Scotland using much of Ms Leans work to highlight and discuss this case, from those days of research and of writing "No Smoke"
And she is brought into discussion consistently as she enters these very discussions herself, has done from the beginning. With these very claims. Which in turn morphs LM V HMA into SL V 'others? It is no longer the defence from the trial that is primarily used but that of these books and so forth - heavily laden with this very bias. Is not the counteraction to this, that mainly of the Crown, of the evidence used? The agenda by posters to simply call out on this misinformation?
Truth be told - There is far more to this case than that of being different, a 'goth' of being 'picked upon' because he was different. Of carrying knives, two timing and smoking cannabis or urinating in bottles, these are mocked to simplify the case against LM. Used for distraction purpose. There is sound reason and evidence stacked against LM. The most fairest point in all of this is that Q? Was there enough evidence to show proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' But many come to the conclusion of no without actually looking at the case in detail. Declare innocence instead, whilst there is most definitely no proof beyond reasonable doubt of this? - And move onto trying others instead? Are they not confused with the confusion that is spread?
You can't take one or two areas of information, of multiple people and add them together to = one LM? To this "compelling story" against him?
The duo were on the path, they lied, MK wore a Parka, he had a scratch, Jaf left a condom with DNA he stood over the body?! SK had no alibi, [Name removed], his parents left him alone for a short while therefore no alibi. They all have history of some format or other, and? - Why were they eliminated? that is the sensible question is it not?
Perhaps the biggest misleading piece of information in all of this is - "they were never investigated"
A 14 year old boy, as you rightly point out. This factor alone brings about disbelief. A horrific attack on a 14 year old girl. The police. - Is it not foolish to claim that anyone was simply not investigated, that LM was simply chosen because he was different? Or because one police officer out of three 'may' have noted "with the boyfriend" Why is either side of this verbatim extract missing? Why is either side of SK's statement of "the dogs head being level with the V" missing? For that matter, why any of it? The reason is simple, is it not - it would not fit the narrative given around it. The bias.
To claim - That all of this search party were in agreement with LM that it was Mia who found Jodi. I have found nothing in this research to show this to be the case, more so, do we not go on the simple basis, first and foremost that if this were indeed the case, why were the police suspicious? Surely there is no 'self interest' (Colin Bowman) from this search party at all, if they all agreed with LM from the very beginning? That common sense does tell us, simply that there had to have been substantial difference in those statements for suspicion to stay/remain upon LM. Time being prominent, of scaling the wall at the 'Gino' break. That none of the search party had walked past this V.
That is why I chose my question "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?" Why were these 'others' eliminated, why did he remain at the fore, this 14 year old boy. For I took the stance two years ago of discounting first and foremost, that the police, in such a brutal murder case, kept Luke Mitchell in the loop, rather than Luke Mitchell keeping himself in the loop?
My, my you’re keen...your effort is to be commended. Your arrogance however is not.
Luke, long before a single word in a single statement had been written was treated differently from the rest of the search team. That is simply an undeniable truth.
Take AB’s sighting.
AB contacted the police on the first of July and over the next days gave statements that described a man and woman wearing demonstrably different clothes to Jodi and Luke and at a time, which according to the police, Jodi had already been murdered. It would appear that the sighting had been ruled out in the first instance as there was no appeal for the couple to come forward and be eliminated or portrayal of the couple during the reconstruction of Jodi’s last movements on the 7th of July or indeed collection of CCTV from Scotmid to confirm AB’s timings and it was not until the 14th of August, a full six weeks after the murder, that AB was asked to pick who she saw out of a set of photographs.
The police had not one scintilla of evidence connecting Luke to the murder at that point other than that he was the deceased boyfriend but from the very first moments after finding the body a decision had been made and the police had invested too much in Luke as perpetrator to change direction then. AB’s sighting therefore had to be given elevated importance.
-
It is extremely hard to digest that anyone so young is capable of such brutality.
Surely the only sides are, that of Luke Mitchell V Her Majesty's Advocate.
The Jones family - Lost Jodi, she was murdered. The Mitchells - Luke was found guilty of this murder. They are not the same, where did this split begin that sought to make them so? Here I will mention Ms Lean, yet again.
I make no bones over Ms Lean, that is apparent, as it is with others over time on these forums. Of her manipulation of evidence, the additions and tall tales. Which for me highlights, the strength of the reasoning behind these attempts to show that of the evidence against LM to be Incorrect. That one's attention has to be drawn away from the facts and into fiction. But where did this case of LM V HMA morph into LM V these others? primarily the Jones family? Did this not stem from Ms Lean? Of "Why were these two families treated differently?" From a time, long before this case came to court. Of those days of attention and focus on LM. Why the Mitchells and not the Jones's? Of course, the simplest, obvious reason is that of suspicion. Therefore should the question, primarily not have been, what kept suspicion upon LM?
And she does focus on this but introduces many new ideas to these discussions, from those early days of 'Jigsawman' of "But what if I were to tell you?" - That power of suggestion? backed with, I have "all" the evidence. But this came long before having this claim to "all" the evidence did it not? Both Colin Bowman and Frontline Scotland using much of Ms Leans work to highlight and discuss this case, from those days of research and of writing "No Smoke"
And she is brought into discussion consistently as she enters these very discussions herself, has done from the beginning. With these very claims. Which in turn morphs LM V HMA into SL V 'others? It is no longer the defence from the trial that is primarily used but that of these books and so forth - heavily laden with this very bias. Is not the counteraction to this, that mainly of the Crown, of the evidence used? The agenda by posters to simply call out on this misinformation?
Truth be told - There is far more to this case than that of being different, a 'goth' of being 'picked upon' because he was different. Of carrying knives, two timing and smoking cannabis or urinating in bottles, these are mocked to simplify the case against LM. Used for distraction purpose. There is sound reason and evidence stacked against LM. The most fairest point in all of this is that Q? Was there enough evidence to show proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' But many come to the conclusion of no without actually looking at the case in detail. Declare innocence instead, whilst there is most definitely no proof beyond reasonable doubt of this? - And move onto trying others instead? Are they not confused with the confusion that is spread?
You can't take one or two areas of information, of multiple people and add them together to = one LM? To this "compelling story" against him?
The duo were on the path, they lied, MK wore a Parka, he had a scratch, Jaf left a condom with DNA he stood over the body?! SK had no alibi, [Name removed], his parents left him alone for a short while therefore no alibi. They all have history of some format or other, and? - Why were they eliminated? that is the sensible question is it not?
Perhaps the biggest misleading piece of information in all of this is - "they were never investigated"
A 14 year old boy, as you rightly point out. This factor alone brings about disbelief. A horrific attack on a 14 year old girl. The police. - Is it not foolish to claim that anyone was simply not investigated, that LM was simply chosen because he was different? Or because one police officer out of three 'may' have noted "with the boyfriend" Why is either side of this verbatim extract missing? Why is either side of SK's statement of "the dogs head being level with the V" missing? For that matter, why any of it? The reason is simple, is it not - it would not fit the narrative given around it. The bias.
To claim - That all of this search party were in agreement with LM that it was Mia who found Jodi. I have found nothing in this research to show this to be the case, more so, do we not go on the simple basis, first and foremost that if this were indeed the case, why were the police suspicious? Surely there is no 'self interest' (Colin Bowman) from this search party at all, if they all agreed with LM from the very beginning? That common sense does tell us, simply that there had to have been substantial difference in those statements for suspicion to stay/remain upon LM. Time being prominent, of scaling the wall at the 'Gino' break. That none of the search party had walked past this V.
That is why I chose my question "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?" Why were these 'others' eliminated, why did he remain at the fore, this 14 year old boy. For I took the stance two years ago of discounting first and foremost, that the police, in such a brutal murder case, kept Luke Mitchell in the loop, rather than Luke Mitchell keeping himself in the loop?
I couldn't have put it better myself. The agenda has always been to blame the others, even shamelessly naming them one by one, even blaming some within Jodi's own family. One lad is dead now but not much is said about that by those who accused him. Fortunately however his words are here on the forum for all to see.
That Channel 5 documentary must rank amongst some of the worst pieces of tv journalism ever produced. For sheer bias it would win an academy award.
-
I couldn't have put it better myself. The agenda has always been to blame the others, even shamelessly naming them one by one, even blaming some within Jodi's own family. One lad is dead now but not much is said about that by those who accused him. Fortunately however his words are here on the forum for all to see.
That Channel 5 documentary must rank amongst some of the worst pieces of tv journalism ever produced. For sheer bias it would win an academy award.
For me the agenda has always been to ensure the correct person is behind bars and I think an independent review would be best way, then you don’t need to take Sandra word for anything, an independent team would go over everything and if Sandra is right on what she has said then that will all come out.
The police did a very poor job investigating the crime scene so many mistakes made that is a fact, therefore I have no confidence what so ever they then carried out a full investigation correctly. Get it checked, be sure!
-
I couldn't have put it better myself. The agenda has always been to blame the others, even shamelessly naming them one by one, even blaming some within Jodi's own family. One lad is dead now but not much is said about that by those who accused him. Fortunately however his words are here on the forum for all to see.
That Channel 5 documentary must rank amongst some of the worst pieces of tv journalism ever produced. For sheer bias it would win an academy award.
After 18 years of biased propaganda against Luke it’s rather rich to cry foul when the shoe is on the other foot.
As to suggesting other perpetrators for the murder, I couldn’t agree more. You don’t have to prove someone else is guilty to prove that the case against Luke was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
I couldn't have put it better myself. The agenda has always been to blame the others, even shamelessly naming them one by one, even blaming some within Jodi's own family. One lad is dead now but not much is said about that by those who accused him. Fortunately however his words are here on the forum for all to see.
That Channel 5 documentary must rank amongst some of the worst pieces of tv journalism ever produced. For sheer bias it would win an academy award.
If it wasn't Luke, it must have been someone else, and probably (although not necessarily) someone known to Jodi. I don't think anyone is actually blaming any other particular person, just pointing out a number of people who could have been suspects, and who should have been investigated more thoroughly by the police, rather than them concentrating solely on Luke.
-
If it wasn't Luke, it must have been someone else, and probably (although not necessarily) someone known to Jodi. I don't think anyone is actually blaming any other particular person, just pointing out a number of people who could have been suspects, and who should have been investigated more thoroughly by the police, rather than them concentrating solely on Luke.
What makes people believe these 'others' were not investigated thoroughly?
If they do feel this, does that surely not back up that there must have been substantial reason/evidence for the focus to remain on LM? For these others to have been eliminated.
These more likelier candidates? Why Luke?
Question around these others not being investigated - puzzler of which I have yet to find an answer. The brother and the medical records. Is this SM? If so, apologies for my comment a couple of days ago, when I asked why he had not been included in 'people of interest' Medical records are quite the deal are they not, why does Ms Lean have them? Why did the investigation choose to source his medical records? They would have been applied for on the basis of investigation and elimination purpose? Thorough work is it not?
Failing that, yet again - an investigation has to be accepted by the Crown. The precognitions and so forth. All are investigated thoroughly, are they not.
Failing that again - Let's take SK, the DNA. We already know that one of the mains sources of borrowed clothing came from LM himself, when he described to a T the clothing that Jodi was wearing the evening. His memory was astute to say the least. Yes, I'm going to mention Ms Lean again. In defence of CM she claims, ' who of us could remember anything of what we were doing on a certain day at a certain time' - Really? This was within 24hrs of this girls death. The clothing was down to a T by both of what Luke was wearing, and that of Jodi, right down to her DC trainers. And of course that he knew and remembered they were borrowed from her sister.
Of Ms Lean again - That the 'borrowed t-shirt did not come into play until day 10 of the investigation by the 'Jones's' Why would if have come into play before then?
-
What makes people believe these 'others' were not investigated thoroughly?
For me it’s the was the crime scene was mishandled, some of the things were basic yet not carried out, that does not give me much confidence the investigation was done any better, which is why I’d fully welcome an independent review even though it’s unlikely to happen.
-
What makes people believe these 'others' were not investigated thoroughly?
If they do feel this, does that surely not back up that there must have been substantial reason/evidence for the focus to remain on LM? For these others to have been eliminated.
No. it is common knowledge that most, if not all, miscarriages of justice begin with the police investigation having tunnel vision regarding a particular suspect
These more likelier candidates? Why Luke?
Question around these others not being investigated - puzzler of which I have yet to find an answer. The brother and the medical records. Is this SM? If so, apologies for my comment a couple of days ago, when I asked why he had not been included in 'people of interest' Medical records are quite the deal are they not, why does Ms Lean have them? Why did the investigation choose to source his medical records? They would have been applied for on the basis of investigation and elimination purpose? Thorough work is it not?
Is it SM? What evidence do you have that it was?
Failing that, yet again - an investigation has to be accepted by the Crown. The precognitions and so forth. All are investigated thoroughly, are they not.
Was the case watertight? Hadn’t the PF already refused to sanction a charge once? Why did it take 10 months to charge Luke when all the evidence the Crown used to suggest guilt had been collected in the first month?
Failing that again - Let's take SK, the DNA. We already know that one of the mains sources of borrowed clothing came from LM himself, when he described to a T the clothing that Jodi was wearing the evening. His memory was astute to say the least. Yes, I'm going to mention Ms Lean again. In defence of CM she claims, ' who of us could remember anything of what we were doing on a certain day at a certain time' - Really? This was within 24hrs of this girls death. The clothing was down to a T by both of what Luke was wearing, and that of Jodi, right down to her DC trainers. And of course that he knew and remembered they were borrowed from her sister.
Clothing and image matter when you’re 14
Of Ms Lean again - That the 'borrowed t-shirt did not come into play until day 10 of the investigation by the 'Jones's' Why would if have come into play before then?
Good question. Why wasn’t the information given by JaJ to the police immediately? In fact when did JaJ ‘remember’ that the t-shirt was hers? Was it after SK’s DNA was found all over it?
-
What makes people believe these 'others' were not investigated thoroughly?
If they do feel this, does that surely not back up that there must have been substantial reason/evidence for the focus to remain on LM? For these others to have been eliminated.
These more likelier candidates? Why Luke?
Question around these others not being investigated - puzzler of which I have yet to find an answer. The brother and the medical records. Is this SM? If so, apologies for my comment a couple of days ago, when I asked why he had not been included in 'people of interest' Medical records are quite the deal are they not, why does Ms Lean have them? Why did the investigation choose to source his medical records? They would have been applied for on the basis of investigation and elimination purpose? Thorough work is it not?
Failing that, yet again - an investigation has to be accepted by the Crown. The precognitions and so forth. All are investigated thoroughly, are they not.
Failing that again - Let's take SK, the DNA. We already know that one of the mains sources of borrowed clothing came from LM himself, when he described to a T the clothing that Jodi was wearing the evening. His memory was astute to say the least. Yes, I'm going to mention Ms Lean again. In defence of CM she claims, ' who of us could remember anything of what we were doing on a certain day at a certain time' - Really? This was within 24hrs of this girls death. The clothing was down to a T by both of what Luke was wearing, and that of Jodi, right down to her DC trainers. And of course that he knew and remembered they were borrowed from her sister.
Of Ms Lean again - That the 'borrowed t-shirt did not come into play until day 10 of the investigation by the 'Jones's' Why would if have come into play before then?
What makes you so sure that other potential suspects were investigated thoroughly?
-
What makes you so sure that other potential suspects were investigated thoroughly?
This level of whataboutism will not help Luke in the slightest.
-
an independent team would go over everything
One would imagine the reality of an independent review is neither here nor there for the majority of us/population. Whether there is enough from X amount of people, who may be steadfast enough in their belief to fight for one is however different. The reality yet again, being that this is no 'Hillsborough' Where sadly the lives of many were lost leaving a vast trail of devastation behind.
You have mentioned before the timings around the crime itself - If you expand to all areas but firstly that of alibi.
4.54pm: - 5.40pm approx: - AB to F&W
Then nothing for approx: - 18 - 20mins.
If the above was not LM, then 5.32pm - 7.30pm with only three sightings within a very short time frame of 6pm until 6.15pm
It's not just the oddity around not been seen outwith that short time frame, it is the reason giving behind that expansive time frame.
That of going out to wait for Jodi. That he got fed up around 7pm, that is 90mins later.
As you know there is much more in this, this is just the basic lay out of those time frames.
Let's Jump in first with that usual retort - It was around 45mins from Jodi leaving home when that call came through from Luke. Why weren't her parents worried? The comparison is worlds apart, is it not? One boy is claiming to be waiting around, we all know how time drags when there is nothing keeping you busy. You are aware of the time. This is 90mins, double that time frame with a lad who was doing nothing but idle away.
90 mins - No teenage boy hangs around for 90mins then simply shrugs his shoulders and says/thinks she must be grounded again? He knows she is not grounded, he phoned the Jones's landline and was told she had left to meet him.
90 mins before he calls his mother and claims to have asked "Has Jodi been?" "No Luke" "How would you know you are in the garden" "Don't be silly Luke Mia would have alerted me" "Well if she turns up tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"
So, we have this lad, who claims to have been at the entrance of this housing estate for most of that 90mins and would ask his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" - Odd is it not? He is claiming to have been waiting for her, looking out for her yet claims to have asked his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" Even odder that he had to ask his mother at all, his mother would of course have contacted him to say Jodi is here. - common sense here, this story is absolute rubbish, is it not?
Let's add on further information that is gathered - It is claimed that Jodi was not supposed to walk this path alone and that there had been other occasions were Luke had to meet with her to ensure that she did not walk it alone. We are not concentrating on that here, we are simply looking at those 90mins.
90mins: - That LM not only claims to have been idling away waiting on his girlfriend walking this path. That it did not concern him in the slightest that Jodi had started at one end of this path and not arrived at the other - really? Remember here, that it is LM who has made these absolute claims - That Jodi was walking to Newbattle to meet with him. That she did walk this path alone regardless of her parents wishes. That he neither went to walk up to meet with her, nor call the Jones house back.
That he phoned the boys from the Abbey, we are not interested in these tales of going to wrongful places, are we?, as we have this claim that "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where" The boys were simply not quick enough, were they?, that LM had to phone them back to ask why they were taking so long. "where are you?" Does this show his character, that LM did not like been kept waiting? That Jodi would know where but not the boys? Does it matter? As LM did phone the boys back, he did not phone back, chasing Jodi up. To ask again if she were there, had she returned home, angry perhaps that he had been idling away 90mins. To say "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"
Of 5.40pm until that sighting by the boys from school - What do we know? that it takes 7mins approx: To get from Roansdyke path to LM's house. That first and foremost LM would need an alibi. He needed to be seen on Newbatlle R'd. Seen to be waiting for Jodi. A further minute or two to get from his house to the estate entrance. 8 minutes leaving another 10 approx to put on that distinctive Jacket, change clothing/boots. IMO those boots would have been wet, not the best thing to burn granted but no trail of DNA into the house. Then we have this time frame from 6.15pm approx: until 7.30pm for that the rest of the story to be set, arrangement of disposal of evidence.
The distraction and concentration around there being no zips, nothing in this tiny burner. Really? Is one going to leave them there? - This burner was not taken away for 4 days. LM's house was not searched for 4 days. - yet these claims that they had it in for him before gathering statements and so forth. Really?
These surrounding woods - These claims that LM would have had to walk down Newbattle R'd, simply not true. Whilst it may have been far easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence, clothing and knife the story was something completely different, was it not? And it certainly is a tall tale, is it not? The basics. Of being home with his mother. Of being with the boys in the Abbey. Of his appearance being cleaner than that of normal (boys from the Abbey) Of then becoming very dirty from being in these wood for another 90 mins plus. These were the easy parts were they not?
-
Am already seeing through Allan Jamieson in part 2
There’s been no mention of Luke Mitchell having had the opportunity to wash himself off in a nearby stream before heading home for a shower and then heading back out to get dirt under his nails
Also - if greasy hair isn’t washed properly it can still appear greasy once dried and not all shampoos are scented
And extremely greasy hair of not washed thoroughly can still smell greasy
Your entitled to your opinion, but what did he do with the blood soaked clothes? Did he walk home in the nude?
-
If it wasn't Luke, it must have been someone else, and probably (although not necessarily) someone known to Jodi. I don't think anyone is actually blaming any other particular person, just pointing out a number of people who could have been suspects, and who should have been investigated more thoroughly by the police, rather than them concentrating solely on Luke.
Exactly. Nobody else was properly investigated. The amount of lies told by all these witnesses" would shame Pinocchio. Funny how the one unrelated person's (A.O) statement which had to be "discovered" was never mentioned in Court and he was never asked to give evidence. A.O knows who was in that house between 430pm and 5pm and who went out and when. A.O also knows what was going on between 400pm and 430pm in the house because 8 texts were exchanged between Ju Jones and him between 415pm and 430pm, even although he was due back home in a few minutes. He was a key witness but his evidence was never heard in Court. Can anyone suggest a non-sinister reason for that?
-
One would imagine the reality of an independent review is neither here nor there for the majority of us/population. Whether there is enough from X amount of people, who may be steadfast enough in their belief to fight for one is however different. The reality yet again, being that this is no 'Hillsborough' Where sadly the lives of many were lost leaving a vast trail of devastation behind.
You have mentioned before the timings around the crime itself - If you expand to all areas but firstly that of alibi.
4.54pm: - 5.40pm approx: - AB to F&W
Then nothing for approx: - 18 - 20mins.
If the above was not LM, then 5.32pm - 7.30pm with only three sightings within a very short time frame of 6pm until 6.15pm
It's not just the oddity around not been seen outwith that short time frame, it is the reason giving behind that expansive time frame.
That of going out to wait for Jodi. That he got fed up around 7pm, that is 90mins later.
As you know there is much more in this, this is just the basic lay out of those time frames.
Let's Jump in first with that usual retort - It was around 45mins from Jodi leaving home when that call came through from Luke. Why weren't her parents worried? The comparison is worlds apart, is it not? One boy is claiming to be waiting around, we all know how time drags when there is nothing keeping you busy. You are aware of the time. This is 90mins, double that time frame with a lad who was doing nothing but idle away.
90 mins - No teenage boy hangs around for 90mins then simply shrugs his shoulders and says/thinks she must be grounded again? He knows she is not grounded, he phoned the Jones's landline and was told she had left to meet him.
90 mins before he calls his mother and claims to have asked "Has Jodi been?" "No Luke" "How would you know you are in the garden" "Don't be silly Luke Mia would have alerted me" "Well if she turns up tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"
So, we have this lad, who claims to have been at the entrance of this housing estate for most of that 90mins and would ask his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" - Odd is it not? He is claiming to have been waiting for her, looking out for her yet claims to have asked his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" Even odder that he had to ask his mother at all, his mother would of course have contacted him to say Jodi is here. - common sense here, this story is absolute rubbish, is it not?
Let's add on further information that is gathered - It is claimed that Jodi was not supposed to walk this path alone and that there had been other occasions were Luke had to meet with her to ensure that she did not walk it alone. We are not concentrating on that here, we are simply looking at those 90mins.
90mins: - That LM not only claims to have been idling away waiting on his girlfriend walking this path. That it did not concern him in the slightest that Jodi had started at one end of this path and not arrived at the other - really? Remember here, that it is LM who has made these absolute claims - That Jodi was walking to Newbattle to meet with him. That she did walk this path alone regardless of her parents wishes. That he neither went to walk up to meet with her, nor call the Jones house back.
That he phoned the boys from the Abbey, we are not interested in these tales of going to wrongful places, are we?, as we have this claim that "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where" The boys were simply not quick enough, were they?, that LM had to phone them back to ask why they were taking so long. "where are you?" Does this show his character, that LM did not like been kept waiting? That Jodi would know where but not the boys? Does it matter? As LM did phone the boys back, he did not phone back, chasing Jodi up. To ask again if she were there, had she returned home, angry perhaps that he had been idling away 90mins. To say "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"
Of 5.40pm until that sighting by the boys from school - What do we know? that it takes 7mins approx: To get from Roansdyke path to LM's house. That first and foremost LM would need an alibi. He needed to be seen on Newbatlle R'd. Seen to be waiting for Jodi. A further minute or two to get from his house to the estate entrance. 8 minutes leaving another 10 approx to put on that distinctive Jacket, change clothing/boots. IMO those boots would have been wet, not the best thing to burn granted but no trail of DNA into the house. Then we have this time frame from 6.15pm approx: until 7.30pm for that the rest of the story to be set, arrangement of disposal of evidence.
The distraction and concentration around there being no zips, nothing in this tiny burner. Really? Is one going to leave them there? - This burner was not taken away for 4 days. LM's house was not searched for 4 days. - yet these claims that they had it in for him before gathering statements and so forth. Really?
These surrounding woods - These claims that LM would have had to walk down Newbattle R'd, simply not true. Whilst it may have been far easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence, clothing and knife the story was something completely different, was it not? And it certainly is a tall tale, is it not? The basics. Of being home with his mother. Of being with the boys in the Abbey. Of his appearance being cleaner than that of normal (boys from the Abbey) Of then becoming very dirty from being in these wood for another 90 mins plus. These were the easy parts were they not?
The potential evidence that was burnt or destroyed and disappeared was not anything belonging to Mitchell. It was the moped ridden by 2 people who parked it at the V but "couldn't remember what they were doing there" and couldn't tell the Police where it went. Mitchell did not kill Jodi. He had no motive, but the Police failed to investigate other important suspects and uncover a possible motive.
-
One would imagine the reality of an independent review is neither here nor there for the majority of us/population. Whether there is enough from X amount of people, who may be steadfast enough in their belief to fight for one is however different. The reality yet again, being that this is no 'Hillsborough' Where sadly the lives of many were lost leaving a vast trail of devastation behind.
Agreed
You have mentioned before the timings around the crime itself - If you expand to all areas but firstly that of alibi.
4.54pm: - 5.40pm approx: - AB to F&W
Then nothing for approx: - 18 - 20mins.
If the above was not LM, then 5.32pm - 7.30pm with only three sightings within a very short time frame of 6pm until 6.15pm
It's not just the oddity around not been seen outwith that short time frame, it is the reason giving behind that expansive time frame.
That of going out to wait for Jodi. That he got fed up around 7pm, that is 90mins later.
As you know there is much more in this, this is just the basic lay out of those time frames.
Let's Jump in first with that usual retort - It was around 45mins from Jodi leaving home when that call came through from Luke. Why weren't her parents worried? The comparison is worlds apart, is it not? One boy is claiming to be waiting around, we all know how time drags when there is nothing keeping you busy. You are aware of the time. This is 90mins, double that time frame with a lad who was doing nothing but idle away.
90 mins - No teenage boy hangs around for 90mins then simply shrugs his shoulders and says/thinks she must be grounded again? He knows she is not grounded, he phoned the Jones's landline and was told she had left to meet him.
And Jodi’s parents would have known that it wouldn’t take her 50 minutes to meet Luke, especially if they thought that she was staying in Easthouses/Mayfield. Where did they think she’d got to? The same place as Luke perhaps? Their behaviour seems to suggest that they were used to her perhaps taking a diversion to, say, talk to friends. Perhaps Luke was aware of this side of her nature too?
90 mins before he calls his mother and claims to have asked "Has Jodi been?" "No Luke" "How would you know you are in the garden" "Don't be silly Luke Mia would have alerted me" "Well if she turns up tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"
So, we have this lad, who claims to have been at the entrance of this housing estate for most of that 90mins and would ask his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" - Odd is it not? He is claiming to have been waiting for her, looking out for her yet claims to have asked his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" Even odder that he had to ask his mother at all, his mother would of course have contacted him to say Jodi is here. - common sense here, this story is absolute rubbish, is it not?
Wouldn’t Corrine just have told Jodi that Luke was waiting for her at the entrance to the estate?
Let's add on further information that is gathered - It is claimed that Jodi was not supposed to walk this path alone and that there had been other occasions were Luke had to meet with her to ensure that she did not walk it alone. We are not concentrating on that here, we are simply looking at those 90mins.
90mins: - That LM not only claims to have been idling away waiting on his girlfriend walking this path. That it did not concern him in the slightest that Jodi had started at one end of this path and not arrived at the other - really? Remember here, that it is LM who has made these absolute claims - That Jodi was walking to Newbattle to meet with him. That she did walk this path alone regardless of her parents wishes. That he neither went to walk up to meet with her, nor call the Jones house back.
He was 14. You can’t equate his thought process with that of an adult.
That he phoned the boys from the Abbey, we are not interested in these tales of going to wrongful places, are we?, as we have this claim that "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where" The boys were simply not quick enough, were they?, that LM had to phone them back to ask why they were taking so long. "where are you?" Does this show his character, that LM did not like been kept waiting? That Jodi would know where but not the boys? Does it matter? As LM did phone the boys back, he did not phone back, chasing Jodi up. To ask again if she were there, had she returned home, angry perhaps that he had been idling away 90mins. To say "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"
He knew Jodi wasn’t at the Jones’s, AO had already told him that and I’m sure he wanted to avoid the ‘I’ve told you once she isn’t here’ reply he may have thought that he would get. Did Luke know that they were going to the cemetery? Was it perhaps a weekly visit? Anyway as Jodi didn’t have a phone what could the Jones’s have done?
Of 5.40pm until that sighting by the boys from school - What do we know? that it takes 7mins approx: To get from Roansdyke path to LM's house. That first and foremost LM would need an alibi. He needed to be seen on Newbatlle R'd. Seen to be waiting for Jodi. A further minute or two to get from his house to the estate entrance. 8 minutes leaving another 10 approx to put on that distinctive Jacket, change clothing/boots. IMO those boots would have been wet, not the best thing to burn granted but no trail of DNA into the house. Then we have this time frame from 6.15pm approx: until 7.30pm for that the rest of the story to be set, arrangement of disposal of evidence.
The distraction and concentration around there being no zips, nothing in this tiny burner. Really? Is one going to leave them there? - This burner was not taken away for 4 days. LM's house was not searched for 4 days. - yet these claims that they had it in for him before gathering statements and so forth. Really?
The burner was forensically tested. Residue from burned fabric would have clung to the bricks.
These surrounding woods - These claims that LM would have had to walk down Newbattle R'd, simply not true. Whilst it may have been far easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence, clothing and knife the story was something completely different, was it not? And it certainly is a tall tale, is it not? The basics. Of being home with his mother. Of being with the boys in the Abbey. Of his appearance being cleaner than that of normal (boys from the Abbey) Of then becoming very dirty from being in these wood for another 90 mins plus. These were the easy parts were they not?
”His appearance being cleaner than that of normal boys’? Who said that? We know from police statements that there was dirt on various parts of Luke’s body, dirt that does not happened in a few hours of horseplay. Yet again the true story is somewhat different from the narrative you seem to prefer.
-
Yet again the true story is somewhat different from the narrative you seem to prefer.
The true story? - You really are sounding 'cultish' Faithlilly. You comment repeatedly on the police having tunnel vision?, of cobbling together all and everything?
You are correct however, adults can not equate to that of the mind of a 14 year old. It was somewhat foolish of myself to raise any ? marks around a 14 year old boy twiddling his thumbs for the the best part of two hours. The ridiculous notion that Jodi would somehow have managed to have gotten past him to the house?
This endless 'cut and dry' repetitive reasoning of nonsense - That the police had absolutely no reason to be suspicious of LM
And Jodi’s parents would have known that it wouldn’t take her 50 minutes to meet Luke, especially if they thought that she was staying in Easthouses/Mayfield. Where did they think she’d got to? The same place as Luke perhaps? Their behaviour seems to suggest that they were used to her perhaps taking a diversion to, say, talk to friends. Perhaps Luke was aware of this side of her nature too?
I have absolutely no idea outwith these little areas that are factually known. Of making dinner, eating etc. Most certainly it would appear that they were not 'clock watching' Why would they be? If you feel that a young boy idling away for the best part of two hours is the same (of course you do) But let's expand that a little further.
LM phones and is told by Jodi's father that she had already left to meet with him? - All good.
You are of course correct, it wouldn't take 50mins to walk to the entrance of this path, it seems apparent though that Jodi did not say to her parents where she was actually meeting with Luke. Only that they would be "mucking around up here" Let's add a few assumptions here - you prefer these to the actual/factual truth it would seem?
This meet could have been in Mayfield, the caravan park, a mutual friends, the local community hall, a park - anywhere "up here." Wherever this meet may have been of 'anywhere' up here, Jodi at this point would still be waiting on the arrival of Luke surely? Had her parents at this time thought, simply that Luke was late for the meet, anything, as so many assumptions can be had here. This is the time frame up until that call. It is blatantly evident here that Jodi's parents were not concerned and why would they be? As you rightly point out, that main point - Luke had obviously not arrived for this meet at that point.
It does not change or alter the following in any way (the truth) - That of LM claiming that he had been idling away for the best part of two hours, 'after' he had been told Jodi had 'already left' to meet with him. That by his very account she would have 'only just left' as the meet was to take place 'after dinner' in Newbattle. That she would have been walking this path to get from A-B. That by his very account, there was absolutely no reason as to why Jodi would have went anywhere "up here" The ball here very much in LM's court, the onus completely on him where concern and worry would/should have been. Of phoning the Jones household back, of letting them know that Jodi was supposed to have went to 'his' that she had not turned up - No assumptions needed as to why of course - Is there?, Just excuses it would seem for this very odd tall tale?
-
The true story? - You really are sounding 'cultish' Faithlilly. You comment repeatedly on the police having tunnel vision?, of cobbling together all and everything?
I meant ‘true story’ as in not made up to fit a narrative as you tried to do with your claims about the 999 operator.
You are correct however, adults can not equate to that of the mind of a 14 year old. It was somewhat foolish of myself to raise any ? marks around a 14 year old boy twiddling his thumbs for the the best part of two hours. The ridiculous notion that Jodi would somehow have managed to have gotten past him to the house?
Best part of two hours or barely 80 minutes...a large difference I’m sure you’ll agree.
This endless 'cut and dry' repetitive reasoning of nonsense - That the police had absolutely no reason to be suspicious of LM
I have absolutely no idea outwith these little areas that are factually known. Of making dinner, eating etc. Most certainly it would appear that they were not 'clock watching' Why would they be? If you feel that a young boy idling away for the best part of two hours is the same (of course you do) But let's expand that a little further.
LM phones and is told by Jodi's father that she had already left to meet with him? - All good.
You are of course correct, it wouldn't take 50mins to walk to the entrance of this path, it seems apparent though that Jodi did not say to her parents where she was actually meeting with Luke. Only that they would be "mucking around up here" Let's add a few assumptions here - you prefer these to the actual/factual truth it would seem?
This meet could have been in Mayfield, the caravan park, a mutual friends, the local community hall, a park - anywhere "up here." Wherever this meet may have been of 'anywhere' up here, Jodi at this point would still be waiting on the arrival of Luke surely? Had her parents at this time thought, simply that Luke was late for the meet, anything, as so many assumptions can be had here. This is the time frame up until that call. It is blatantly evident here that Jodi's parents were not concerned and why would they be? As you rightly point out, that main point - Luke had obviously not arrived for this meet at that point.
50 minutes after Jodi had left the house and AO didn’t say “ she left almost an hour ago” or “isn’t she with you”?
It does not change or alter the following in any way (the truth) - That of LM claiming that he had been idling away for the best part of two hours, 'after' he had been told Jodi had 'already left' to meet with him. That by his very account she would have 'only just left' as the meet was to take place 'after dinner' in Newbattle. That she would have been walking this path to get from A-B. That by his very account, there was absolutely no reason as to why Jodi would have went anywhere "up here" The ball here very much in LM's court, the onus completely on him where concern and worry would/should have been. Of phoning the Jones household back, of letting them know that Jodi was supposed to have went to 'his' that she had not turned up - No assumptions needed as to why of course - Is there?, Just excuses it would seem for this very odd tall tale?
That’s the thing, if it was a very odd tall tale, why not do as everyone, you included, would have expected him to do...if he was innocent ? Why not call Jodi’s mum two or three times, asking where she was? Wouldn’t that have been a better way of covering your tracks? According to the police Jodi was dead soon after 5.15 so it would matter not a jot to Luke, if he was guilty, when the body was found after his 5.40 call to the Jones household. All he needed was a couple of minutes, according to the ‘Luke is guilty’ brigade for him to get home, get washed and get out to be seen sitting at the end of his estate around 6pm. Why draw attention to himself with a ‘very odd tall tale’? Could it simply be because it was true?
-
I meant ‘true story’ as in not made up to fit a narrative as you tried to do with your claims about the 999 operator.
Not my narrative though - very little of what I actually do say, is not my narrative, nor assumption. It is based on the evidence. The recording was played at trial was it not?
That’s the thing, if it was a very odd tall tale, why not do as everyone, you included, would have expected him to do...if he was innocent ? Why not call Jodi’s mum two or three times, asking where she was? Wouldn’t that have been a better way of covering your tracks? According to the police Jodi was dead soon after 5.15 so it would matter not a jot to Luke, if he was guilty, when the body was found after his 5.40 call to the Jones household. All he needed was a couple of minutes, according to the ‘Luke is guilty’ brigade for him to get home, get washed and get out to be seen sitting at the end of his estate around 6pm. Why draw attention to himself with a ‘very odd tall tale’? Could it simply be because it was true
Now you're Just being silly. Do you actually stop to think properly before you respond? As you say "if he was innocent" he most likely would have called Jodi's parents, once may have sufficed of course, to say, do you know if Jodi went elsewhere she has not shown up, or is Jodi back home yet? Anything really. But lets go firmly of that stance of guilt.
Who is this 'Luke is guilty brigade' You are doing it again. It was the Crown, of evidence presented before a Jury that found Luke Mitchell guilty. Nothing new has come about in this case, that is zero. These constant cries of 'new evidence' there is not as there is no new evidence to find - Top award for trying though. These constant feeds in the hope that the 'killer' may suddenly be brought to light from someone watching/listening.
These forums I've read, of people scouring every inch of these 'others' private lives. The invasion and condemnation is deplorable is it not? On what basis Faithlilly? That they do not know if Luke Mitchell is innocent, that at the very best there may be a ? of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' What there is not, in any shape or forum, is proof that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones and that he could not have.
"so it would matter not a jot to Luke, if he was guilty, when the body was found after his 5.40 call to the Jones household."
You are half correct of course - let us think about Luke Mitchell, those police interviews, those sociopathic tendencies. Those violent outburst, of being hot headed, that lack of empathy from 'claimed' discovery to the present day. - If you want to work on the opposite basis of complete innocence to complete guilt. The Crowns case and that of Luke Mitchell being found guilty.
'This may very well have been a girl in love, happy at getting out without chores, to see her boyfriend whom she adored. Luke Mitchell chased up those boys in the abbey, he did not like to be kept waiting.? Jodi kept him waiting, or rather her mother? Did she not have to sit and listen to a song first? Luke phoning the speaking clock, angry at been kept waiting. Those actions witnessed by AB that caught her attention. And he did have a violent outburst and lost complete control, murdering his girlfriend, that young girl who adored him. And that anger and outburst subsided and he was calm and instantly calculated. That mind that had played something like this over in thought before. This gossip, information passed over of his past demeaners, not all made up at all, was it? He had killed animals before, he had described to someone the best way to kill someone, and much more. He had no PTSD, he wanted more knives, he wanted to go out partying, more girls in tow. The only thing he was medicated with was cannabis. No one was allowed to say no, there was no acceptance of that word from any of his actions. He needed to be centre of attention in all of this and still does. One of the major symptoms of being a sociopath. There is no diagnosis of it, no treatment. It is merited by the actions of a person and Luke Mitchell fits every one of them. That need to be adored. That OTT relationship with his mother'.
This is the Luke Mitchell that was found guilty. This is the Luke Mitchell who could not control one thing 'That of the police being the police' He may have thought he had outsmarted them. Such a shock, when relaxed, feeling that he had gotten away with it - Off up town to 'Whiplash Trash' those words to the employee "we are celebrating" For that knock to come at his door in April 2004.
He did not know those messages had been deleted and of this girls parents knowing she was going to meet with him. He had no choice to phone the Jones house. He did however have that choice to phone back. Why do you suppose he didn't Faithlilly?, remember here, he is guilty. He did not simply need time for that quick change, 5.40 until 6pm and to be seen in that very small time frame. He needed an alibi, and he needed a story set in place, and he needed time for disposal. He did not bank on being seen at the gate, he could not avoid having to cross Newbattle R'd. But what he did need first and foremost was that change of outer clothing. It may not have been drenched in blood but it certainly needed to be gotten rid of. That is what Luke Mitchell was doing from 6.15pm until 7.20pm at the latest. And he did leave the boys much earlier than he usually did when out. Claimed to be home from just after 9pm when it would usually be 10pm. Witnessed however going home at 10pm
But you are correct, there may have been a slim chance in that first phone call if it had caused any alert, it would however have changed nothing. The killer, being Luke Mitchell remember, knew that Jodi would not be found easily, and if she was, there was that time frame of Identity, everything. LM had plenty time on his hands. You can assume lots, let's make that clear assumption though, If this girls father had asked Luke or phoned back what do you assume Luke would have done then?
He was prepped and ready for that inevitable call coming through. He was ready from Just after 7pm. Most likely on a 'high' That buzz of waiting until that moment of discovery. That even higher buzz when he became part of it.
There is consistent mention of some call going missing from the case files of a 'missing person' Really? Is this like the 'mechanic' Did Luke Mitchell phone prior to Jodi's mother contacting him? Was he yet again becoming impatient? That other clear symptom of being a 'sociopath?'
So, all of the above, written on the clear basis of evidence from the crowns case - I do not know if Luke Mitchell is 100% guilty. But I have clearly stated over. That there was sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him and remained upon him.
-
Not my narrative though - very little of what I actually do say, is not my narrative, nor assumption. It is based on the evidence. The recording was played at trial was it not?
You have the evidence, gleaned from reputable sources. Best let it lie.
Now you're Just being silly. Do you actually stop to think properly before you respond? As you say "if he was innocent" he most likely would have called Jodi's parents, once may have sufficed of course, to say, do you know if Jodi went elsewhere she has not shown up, or is Jodi back home yet? Anything really. But lets go firmly of that stance of guilt.
No, please read what I wrote. He would have acted innocent, if guilty. Isn’t that what a sociopath would do...and such a clever sociopath at that.
Who is this 'Luke is guilty brigade' You are doing it again. It was the Crown, of evidence presented before a Jury that found Luke Mitchell guilty. Nothing new has come about in this case, that is zero. These constant cries of 'new evidence' there is not as there is no new evidence to find - Top award for trying though. These constant feeds in the hope that the 'killer' may suddenly be brought to light from someone watching/listening.
That found Luke guilty by a majority decision therefore a reasonable doubt existed in several of the jurors heads, possibly as many as 7. As to new evidence...you don’t have to rely on new evidence to make a case for innocence, simply look at the first statements and the statements that were presented in court to gauge something was terribly wrong with Luke’s trial.
These forums I've read, of people scouring every inch of these 'others' private lives. The invasion and condemnation is deplorable is it not? On what basis Faithlilly? That they do not know if Luke Mitchell is innocent, that at the very best there may be a ? of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' What there is not, in any shape or forum, is proof that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones and that he could not have.
I’m not sure what motivates others but I don’t wish, or need, to put anyone else ‘in the frame’. That is to do to someone else what was done to Luke. Your reasoning that Luke did it because he could have is spurious. The investigation was flawed from the very beginning. Who knows what proof there may have been against others if the police had done there job properly.
You are half correct of course - let us think about Luke Mitchell, those police interviews, those sociopathic tendencies. Those violent outburst, of being hot headed, that lack of empathy from 'claimed' discovery to the present day. - If you want to work on the opposite basis of complete innocence to complete guilt. The Crowns case and that of Luke Mitchell being found guilty.
What do you actually know about Luke’s personality other than what was presented by the prosecution ( they had an agenda) and the media ( the more ‘ not like us’ narrative that could be concocted by the media, the more papers sold). Do you know of anyone who personally knew Luke and his family before the murder? What did they say about him?
'This may very well have been a girl in love, happy at getting out without chores, to see her boyfriend whom she adored. Luke Mitchell chased up those boys in the abbey, he did not like to be kept waiting.? Jodi kept him waiting, or rather her mother? Did she not have to sit and listen to a song first? Luke phoning the speaking clock, angry at been kept waiting. Those actions witnessed by AB that caught her attention. And he did have a violent outburst and lost complete control, murdering his girlfriend, that young girl who adored him. And that anger and outburst subsided and he was calm and instantly calculated. That mind that had played something like this over in thought before. This gossip, information passed over of his past demeaners, not all made up at all, was it? He had killed animals before, he had described to someone the best way to kill someone, and much more. He had no PTSD, he wanted more knives, he wanted to go out partying, more girls in tow. The only thing he was medicated with was cannabis. No one was allowed to say no, there was no acceptance of that word from any of his actions. He needed to be centre of attention in all of this and still does. One of the major symptoms of being a sociopath. There is no diagnosis of it, no treatment. It is merited by the actions of a person and Luke Mitchell fits every one of them. That need to be adored. That OTT relationship with his mother'.
This is the Luke Mitchell that was found guilty. This is the Luke Mitchell who could not control one thing 'That of the police being the police' He may have thought he had outsmarted them. Such a shock, when relaxed, feeling that he had gotten away with it - Off up town to 'Whiplash Trash' those words to the employee "we are celebrating" For that knock to come at his door in April 2004.
He did not know those messages had been deleted and of this girls parents knowing she was going to meet with him. He had no choice to phone the Jones house. He did however have that choice to phone back. Why do you suppose he didn't Faithlilly?, remember here, he is guilty. He did not simply need time for that quick change, 5.40 until 6pm and to be seen in that very small time frame. He needed an alibi, and he needed a story set in place, and he needed time for disposal. He did not bank on being seen at the gate, he could not avoid having to cross Newbattle R'd. But what he did need first and foremost was that change of outer clothing. It may not have been drenched in blood but it certainly needed to be gotten rid of. That is what Luke Mitchell was doing from 6.15pm until 7.20pm at the latest. And he did leave the boys much earlier than he usually did when out. Claimed to be home from just after 9pm when it would usually be 10pm. Witnessed however going home at 10pm
But you are correct, there may have been a slim chance in that first phone call if it had caused any alert, it would however have changed nothing. The killer, being Luke Mitchell remember, knew that Jodi would not be found easily, and if she was, there was that time frame of Identity, everything. LM had plenty time on his hands. You can assume lots, let's make that clear assumption though, If this girls father had asked Luke or phoned back what do you assume Luke would have done then?
He was prepped and ready for that inevitable call coming through. He was ready from Just after 7pm. Most likely on a 'high' That buzz of waiting until that moment of discovery. That even higher buzz when he became part of it.
There is consistent mention of some call going missing from the case files of a 'missing person' Really? Is this like the 'mechanic' Did Luke Mitchell phone prior to Jodi's mother contacting him? Was he yet again becoming impatient? That other clear symptom of being a 'sociopath?'
So, all of the above, written on the clear basis of evidence from the crowns case - I do not know if Luke Mitchell is 100% guilty. But I have clearly stated over. That there was sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him and remained upon him.
Why was AB’s sighting ignored for the first six weeks? Why was CCTV of AB’s journey not accessed to prove categorically the time of her sighting? Luke said that he didn’t change clothes after school so why weren’t the pupils he went to school with asked what clothes he was wearing that day? Why did the first statements of many of the witnesses substantially change? Why were the charges of perverting the course of justice dropped against Corrine and Shane if there was evidence to substantiate the charge? Why were Luke’s school friends pressured into making statements? So many more but let’s just finish with...if Luke was as clever a sociopath as you say he would have made sure he had called Jodi’s parents more than once to ‘prove’ he was worried and would have been the one to direct the searchers down the path which he had already come....that’s simply common sense.
-
Not my narrative though - very little of what I actually do say, is not my narrative, nor assumption. It is based on the evidence. The recording was played at trial was it not?
Now you're Just being silly. Do you actually stop to think properly before you respond? As you say "if he was innocent" he most likely would have called Jodi's parents, once may have sufficed of course, to say, do you know if Jodi went elsewhere she has not shown up, or is Jodi back home yet? Anything really. But lets go firmly of that stance of guilt.
Who is this 'Luke is guilty brigade' You are doing it again. It was the Crown, of evidence presented before a Jury that found Luke Mitchell guilty. Nothing new has come about in this case, that is zero. These constant cries of 'new evidence' there is not as there is no new evidence to find - Top award for trying though. These constant feeds in the hope that the 'killer' may suddenly be brought to light from someone watching/listening.
These forums I've read, of people scouring every inch of these 'others' private lives. The invasion and condemnation is deplorable is it not? On what basis Faithlilly? That they do not know if Luke Mitchell is innocent, that at the very best there may be a ? of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' What there is not, in any shape or forum, is proof that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones and that he could not have.
You are half correct of course - let us think about Luke Mitchell, those police interviews, those sociopathic tendencies. Those violent outburst, of being hot headed, that lack of empathy from 'claimed' discovery to the present day. - If you want to work on the opposite basis of complete innocence to complete guilt. The Crowns case and that of Luke Mitchell being found guilty.
'This may very well have been a girl in love, happy at getting out without chores, to see her boyfriend whom she adored. Luke Mitchell chased up those boys in the abbey, he did not like to be kept waiting.? Jodi kept him waiting, or rather her mother? Did she not have to sit and listen to a song first? Luke phoning the speaking clock, angry at been kept waiting. Those actions witnessed by AB that caught her attention. And he did have a violent outburst and lost complete control, murdering his girlfriend, that young girl who adored him. And that anger and outburst subsided and he was calm and instantly calculated. That mind that had played something like this over in thought before. This gossip, information passed over of his past demeaners, not all made up at all, was it? He had killed animals before, he had described to someone the best way to kill someone, and much more. He had no PTSD, he wanted more knives, he wanted to go out partying, more girls in tow. The only thing he was medicated with was cannabis. No one was allowed to say no, there was no acceptance of that word from any of his actions. He needed to be centre of attention in all of this and still does. One of the major symptoms of being a sociopath. There is no diagnosis of it, no treatment. It is merited by the actions of a person and Luke Mitchell fits every one of them. That need to be adored. That OTT relationship with his mother'.
This is the Luke Mitchell that was found guilty. This is the Luke Mitchell who could not control one thing 'That of the police being the police' He may have thought he had outsmarted them. Such a shock, when relaxed, feeling that he had gotten away with it - Off up town to 'Whiplash Trash' those words to the employee "we are celebrating" For that knock to come at his door in April 2004.
He did not know those messages had been deleted and of this girls parents knowing she was going to meet with him. He had no choice to phone the Jones house. He did however have that choice to phone back. Why do you suppose he didn't Faithlilly?, remember here, he is guilty. He did not simply need time for that quick change, 5.40 until 6pm and to be seen in that very small time frame. He needed an alibi, and he needed a story set in place, and he needed time for disposal. He did not bank on being seen at the gate, he could not avoid having to cross Newbattle R'd. But what he did need first and foremost was that change of outer clothing. It may not have been drenched in blood but it certainly needed to be gotten rid of. That is what Luke Mitchell was doing from 6.15pm until 7.20pm at the latest. And he did leave the boys much earlier than he usually did when out. Claimed to be home from just after 9pm when it would usually be 10pm. Witnessed however going home at 10pm
But you are correct, there may have been a slim chance in that first phone call if it had caused any alert, it would however have changed nothing. The killer, being Luke Mitchell remember, knew that Jodi would not be found easily, and if she was, there was that time frame of Identity, everything. LM had plenty time on his hands. You can assume lots, let's make that clear assumption though, If this girls father had asked Luke or phoned back what do you assume Luke would have done then?
He was prepped and ready for that inevitable call coming through. He was ready from Just after 7pm. Most likely on a 'high' That buzz of waiting until that moment of discovery. That even higher buzz when he became part of it.
There is consistent mention of some call going missing from the case files of a 'missing person' Really? Is this like the 'mechanic' Did Luke Mitchell phone prior to Jodi's mother contacting him? Was he yet again becoming impatient? That other clear symptom of being a 'sociopath?'
So, all of the above, written on the clear basis of evidence from the crowns case - I do not know if Luke Mitchell is 100% guilty. But I have clearly stated over. That there was sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him and remained upon him.
What evidence is there that Luke had killed animals?
-
What do you actually know about Luke’s personality
The contents of Mitchell’s letter here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609 is interesting
Luke Mitchell: “You needn’t worry ‘bout the ‘risky’ pics being seized and falling into the wrong hands.
“The screws are usually very careful when it comes to do with me, due to me being high-profile.”
: “I’m sure you can think of a way for me to make it up to you! I’m sure I’ll be ‘up’ to the task!
“Yes, your photos are very hot! The more the better! I’m sure you could lay on your bed and think of ways for me to satisfy you!
“So, you’re thinking of a ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ thing to be happening? If that’s the case we’ll have to see
where things take us.
“If you tell me what you like, and how you want it, I’m pretty sure I’d be able to accommodate you in both reality and a story to keep you going for now!
“It’s very much fine by me if you let your ‘rude mind’ run riot.”
-
What evidence is there that Luke had killed animals?
I’ve never seen any over the years, I’m sure if there was it would be used all the time here, but I may be wrong.
From what I understand Luke loved animals, had horses in the past and adored his dog. I have never heard of him ever killing or even hurting animals. Please provide proof else stop coming out with such garbage. If the case on Luke is so strong people should not need to make up stuff like that and ‘he through himself on the body’ or that he was a sociopath etc, there is no evidence of this he was check by an expert who said he had no mental issues.
-
The contents of Mitchell’s letter here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609 is interesting
Luke Mitchell: “You needn’t worry ‘bout the ‘risky’ pics being seized and falling into the wrong hands.
“The screws are usually very careful when it comes to do with me, due to me being high-profile.”
: “I’m sure you can think of a way for me to make it up to you! I’m sure I’ll be ‘up’ to the task!
“Yes, your photos are very hot! The more the better! I’m sure you could lay on your bed and think of ways for me to satisfy you!
“So, you’re thinking of a ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ thing to be happening? If that’s the case we’ll have to see
where things take us.
“If you tell me what you like, and how you want it, I’m pretty sure I’d be able to accommodate you in both reality and a story to keep you going for now!
“It’s very much fine by me if you let your ‘rude mind’ run riot.”
Sounds like a typical young lad to me
-
You have the evidence, gleaned from reputable sources. Best let it lie.
Ms Lean - 'I don't have the actual recordings played in court but I do have the court transcript of evidence led around them???'
to the effect of?
As to the red bobble, perhaps you need to look more deeply to where the red bobble story originated from.
It came from Luke, no one else. Let us turn that around.
Ms Lean;
"I believe I explained this before. It was a reporter who noted the words "red scrunchie" in his notebook during an off the record interview with Luke. He could not say whether these were Luke's words or what they were in relation to. I know, for example, that Luke was asked on one of the police interviews, "How did Jodi usually wear her hair?"
Is this what you are going to refer to? Which of course is used for one purpose only, to distract away from what LM actually did say in his statements.
However, Ms Lean (perhaps because this is more public) Goes to great lengths to explain why? Luke saw this "scrunchie". A brief summary of this explanation;
'The body had been moved which could give reason as to why the 'scrunchie' them became out of sight, cause as to why the pathologist did not see it at first, due to it being buried/tangled out of sight in Jodi's hair. Outwith Luke, the only other people to have seen the body before it was moved were AW and SK. Admittedly they do not mention seeing this bobble, however they simply were not asked. They may have seen it.
In depth explanation as to why Luke saw this as opposed to the others, primarily the pathologist. However; These witness's as with Luke would have been asked to describe what they had seen. It is hardly surprising that they did not see this bobble, firstly and primarily because it was out of sight, and secondly the actual horror of what they had witnessed. Who would actually pick up on the type of tree and the bobble as opposed to the horror before them. Clearly points to the killer only having knowledge of this bobble and of the tree.
-
Sounds like a typical young lad to me
Do you know whether or not he’s gay?
And what is it about his ‘image’ he doesn’t want to portray?
'He's kept the gay fan mail quiet though. That's not the image he wants to portray of himself at all
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+killer+Luke%27s+Gay+fan+mail%3B+Sex+letters+from+men+make+schoolboy...-a0131219871
-
I’ve never seen any over the years, I’m sure if there was it would be used all the time here, but I may be wrong.
From what I understand Luke loved animals, had horses in the past and adored his dog. I have never heard of him ever killing or even hurting animals. Please provide proof else stop coming out with such garbage. If the case on Luke is so strong people should not need to make up stuff like that and ‘he through himself on the body’ or that he was a sociopath etc, there is no evidence of this he was check by an expert who said he had no mental issues.
Dear oh dear? - The post was written in response to Faithlilly. Clearly put out as is mentioned in it. Someone who may post with the absolute belief of guilt as opposed to those of innocence. The 'killing' of animals, put in as there has been much mentioned of this before. Added on the basis, on top of the evidence of how Luke Mitchell is/was/would be with that stance of complete guilt. Of putting him without doubt as the 'killer' Those poor animals, how dare a poster say such a thing?
Instead of just jumping into the defence, perhaps noting, as I clearly stated what the intention of the post was. As was the 'other' post. In response to another poster who stated, categorically that there was 'equally' enough evidence against others.
Far too much, intimate 'touchy touchy' here, is there not?
NB - there is no diagnosis as such nor treatment as stated. However there had been concern on more than one occasion of LM as a younger lad.
-
Ms Lean - to the effect of?
'I don't have the actual recordings played in court but I do have the court transcript of evidence led around them???'
As to the red bobble, perhaps you need to look more deeply to where the red bobble story originated from.
It came from Luke, no one else. Let us turn that around.
Ms Lean;
"I believe I explained this before. It was a reporter who noted the words "red scrunchie" in his notebook during an off the record interview with Luke. He could not say whether these were Luke's words or what they were in relation to. I know, for example, that Luke was asked on one of the police interviews, "How did Jodi usually wear her hair?"
Is this what you are going to refer to? Which of course is used for one purpose only, to distract away from what LM actually did say in his statements.
However, Ms Lean (perhaps because this is more public) Goes to great lengths to explain why? Luke saw this "scrunchie". A brief summary of this explanation;
'The body had been moved which could give reason as to why the 'scrunchie' them became out of sight, cause as to why the pathologist did not see it at first, due to it being buried/tangled out of sight in Jodi's hair. Outwith Luke, the only other people to have seen the body before it was moved were AW and SK. Admittedly they do not mention seeing this bobble, however they simply were not asked. They may have seen it.
In depth explanation as to why Luke saw this as opposed to the others, primarily the pathologist. However; These witness's as with Luke would have been asked to describe what they had seen. It is hardly surprising that they did not see this bobble, firstly and primarily because it was out of sight, and secondly the actual horror of what they had witnessed. Who would actually pick up on the type of tree and the bobble as opposed to the horror before them. Clearly points to the killer only having knowledge of this bobble and of the tree.
Luke Mitchell to Grace McLean before his murder trial
“My torch lit up the path like daytime and I was about 12 yards from Jodi when I saw her lying there,' he began. 'She was so white. Her throat had been slit and her head was to the side.
'Her eyes were staring up at me and she was naked but for a pair of socks, I think... no, she wasn't wearing anything. Her body was so white and she was just staring and staring.
Did the police interview Grace McLean?
-
Dear oh dear? - The post was written in response to Faithlilly. Clearly put out as is mentioned in it. Someone who may post with the absolute belief of guilt as opposed to those of innocence. The 'killing' of animals, put in as there has been much mentioned of this before. Added on the basis, on top of the evidence of how Luke Mitchell is/was/would be with that stance of complete guilt. Of putting him without doubt as the 'killer' Those poor animals, how dare a poster say such a thing?
Instead of just jumping into the defence, perhaps noting, as I clearly stated what the intention of the post was. As was the 'other' post. In response to another poster who stated, categorically that there was 'equally' enough evidence against others.
Far too much, intimate 'touchy touchy' here, is there not?
NB - there is no diagnosis as such nor treatment as stated. However there had been concern on more than one occasion of LM as a younger lad.
So, where is the evidence that Luke had killed animals???
-
Ms Lean - to the effect of?
As to the red bobble, perhaps you need to look more deeply to where the red bobble story originated from.
It came from Luke, no one else. Let us turn that around.
Ms Lean;
Is this what you are going to refer to? Which of course is used for one purpose only, to distract away from what LM actually did say in his statements.
However, Ms Lean (perhaps because this is more public) Goes to great lengths to explain why? Luke saw this "scrunchie". A brief summary of this explanation;
'The body had been moved which could give reason as to why the 'scrunchie' them became out of sight, cause as to why the pathologist did not see it at first, due to it being buried/tangled out of sight in Jodi's hair. Outwith Luke, the only other people to have seen the body before it was moved were AW and SK. Admittedly they do not mention seeing this bobble, however they simply were not asked. They may have seen it.
In depth explanation as to why Luke saw this as opposed to the others, primarily the pathologist. However; These witness's as with Luke would have been asked to describe what they had seen. It is hardly surprising that they did not see this bobble, firstly and primarily because it was out of sight, and secondly the actual horror of what they had witnessed. Who would actually pick up on the type of tree and the bobble as opposed to the horror before them. Clearly points to the killer only having knowledge of this bobble and of the tree.
I don't think it would have been possible for Mitchell to have seen what Jodi was wearing in her hair let alone what colour it was. When found it was dark and she was lying on her back.
If he knew that she had her hair tied back using the method described he must have seen it that way before she was killed.
-
I don't think it would have been possible for Mitchell to have seen what Jodi was wearing in her hair let alone what colour it was. When found it was dark and she was lying on her back.
If he knew that she had her hair tied back using the method described he must have seen it that way before she was killed.
Para 92 CoA Judgement
(10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school
-
Dear oh dear? - The post was written in response to Faithlilly.
And mine was in response to mrswah
So, where is the evidence that Luke had killed animals???
There is none that I have seen. I would have thought we would have seen/heard of this by now. Another misleading or untrue post it seems?
-
Sounds like a typical young lad to me
Just what I was thinking.
-
&^^&*
Ms Lean - to the effect of?
I have given quotes one from Frontline Scotland, one from the BBC website. This is becoming embarrassing.
As to the red bobble, perhaps you need to look more deeply to where the red bobble story originated from.
It came from Luke, no one else. Let us turn that around.
Ms Lean;
Is this what you are going to refer to? Which of course is used for one purpose only, to distract away from what LM actually did say in his statements.
However, Ms Lean (perhaps because this is more public) Goes to great lengths to explain why? Luke saw this "scrunchie". A brief summary of this explanation;
'The body had been moved which could give reason as to why the 'scrunchie' them became out of sight, cause as to why the pathologist did not see it at first, due to it being buried/tangled out of sight in Jodi's hair. Outwith Luke, the only other people to have seen the body before it was moved were AW and SK. Admittedly they do not mention seeing this bobble, however they simply were not asked. They may have seen it.
In depth explanation as to why Luke saw this as opposed to the others, primarily the pathologist. However; These witness's as with Luke would have been asked to describe what they had seen. It is hardly surprising that they did not see this bobble, firstly and primarily because it was out of sight, and secondly the actual horror of what they had witnessed. Who would actually pick up on the type of tree and the bobble as opposed to the horror before them. Clearly points to the killer only having knowledge of this bobble and of the tree.
The ‘bobble’ comment.....was it in one of Luke’s police statements?
-
Not my narrative though - very little of what I actually do say, is not my narrative, nor assumption. It is based on the evidence. The recording was played at trial was it not?
Now you're Just being silly. Do you actually stop to think properly before you respond? As you say "if he was innocent" he most likely would have called Jodi's parents, once may have sufficed of course, to say, do you know if Jodi went elsewhere she has not shown up, or is Jodi back home yet? Anything really. But lets go firmly of that stance of guilt.
Who is this 'Luke is guilty brigade' You are doing it again. It was the Crown, of evidence presented before a Jury that found Luke Mitchell guilty. Nothing new has come about in this case, that is zero. These constant cries of 'new evidence' there is not as there is no new evidence to find - Top award for trying though. These constant feeds in the hope that the 'killer' may suddenly be brought to light from someone watching/listening.
These forums I've read, of people scouring every inch of these 'others' private lives. The invasion and condemnation is deplorable is it not? On what basis Faithlilly? That they do not know if Luke Mitchell is innocent, that at the very best there may be a ? of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' What there is not, in any shape or forum, is proof that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones and that he could not have.
You are half correct of course - let us think about Luke Mitchell, those police interviews, those sociopathic tendencies. Those violent outburst, of being hot headed, that lack of empathy from 'claimed' discovery to the present day. - If you want to work on the opposite basis of complete innocence to complete guilt. The Crowns case and that of Luke Mitchell being found guilty.
'This may very well have been a girl in love, happy at getting out without chores, to see her boyfriend whom she adored. Luke Mitchell chased up those boys in the abbey, he did not like to be kept waiting.? Jodi kept him waiting, or rather her mother? Did she not have to sit and listen to a song first? Luke phoning the speaking clock, angry at been kept waiting. Those actions witnessed by AB that caught her attention. And he did have a violent outburst and lost complete control, murdering his girlfriend, that young girl who adored him. And that anger and outburst subsided and he was calm and instantly calculated. That mind that had played something like this over in thought before. This gossip, information passed over of his past demeaners, not all made up at all, was it? He had killed animals before, he had described to someone the best way to kill someone, and much more. He had no PTSD, he wanted more knives, he wanted to go out partying, more girls in tow. The only thing he was medicated with was cannabis. No one was allowed to say no, there was no acceptance of that word from any of his actions. He needed to be centre of attention in all of this and still does. One of the major symptoms of being a sociopath. There is no diagnosis of it, no treatment. It is merited by the actions of a person and Luke Mitchell fits every one of them. That need to be adored. That OTT relationship with his mother'.
This is the Luke Mitchell that was found guilty. This is the Luke Mitchell who could not control one thing 'That of the police being the police' He may have thought he had outsmarted them. Such a shock, when relaxed, feeling that he had gotten away with it - Off up town to 'Whiplash Trash' those words to the employee "we are celebrating" For that knock to come at his door in April 2004.
He did not know those messages had been deleted and of this girls parents knowing she was going to meet with him. He had no choice to phone the Jones house. He did however have that choice to phone back. Why do you suppose he didn't Faithlilly?, remember here, he is guilty. He did not simply need time for that quick change, 5.40 until 6pm and to be seen in that very small time frame. He needed an alibi, and he needed a story set in place, and he needed time for disposal. He did not bank on being seen at the gate, he could not avoid having to cross Newbattle R'd. But what he did need first and foremost was that change of outer clothing. It may not have been drenched in blood but it certainly needed to be gotten rid of. That is what Luke Mitchell was doing from 6.15pm until 7.20pm at the latest. And he did leave the boys much earlier than he usually did when out. Claimed to be home from just after 9pm when it would usually be 10pm. Witnessed however going home at 10pm
But you are correct, there may have been a slim chance in that first phone call if it had caused any alert, it would however have changed nothing. The killer, being Luke Mitchell remember, knew that Jodi would not be found easily, and if she was, there was that time frame of Identity, everything. LM had plenty time on his hands. You can assume lots, let's make that clear assumption though, If this girls father had asked Luke or phoned back what do you assume Luke would have done then?
He was prepped and ready for that inevitable call coming through. He was ready from Just after 7pm. Most likely on a 'high' That buzz of waiting until that moment of discovery. That even higher buzz when he became part of it.
There is consistent mention of some call going missing from the case files of a 'missing person' Really? Is this like the 'mechanic' Did Luke Mitchell phone prior to Jodi's mother contacting him? Was he yet again becoming impatient? That other clear symptom of being a 'sociopath?'
So, all of the above, written on the clear basis of evidence from the crowns case - I do not know if Luke Mitchell is 100% guilty. But I have clearly stated over. That there was sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him and remained upon him.
Andrina Bryson did not identify him in Court even though his face had been in the papers daily for over a year. The 2 witnesses who saw someone at the gate said in Court it was definitely not Mitchell. There's no confirmed sightings of him at the path at all. Rather than going into a huge lengthy reply, please explain these points:
1. Why was there no DNA belonging to Mitchell at the scene?
2. Why was there no DNA connecting him to the murder in his house?
3. Why do you think the moped 'persons' intially lied and claimed to have been up the path at 415pm and not 515pm?
5. Why did the moped disappear very soon after the murder so fast that the Police never traced it?
6. Why were 3 statements about who found the body and how, changed and all changed to say the same thing?
7. What was the motive for Luke Mitchell to kill her?
8. Why did [Name removed] hide a damp pair of rubber gloves in a drawer in another house and claim it was to stop his niece touching them?
9. Why was Alan Ovens never asked to give evidence - he was in the house when Jodi allegedly left.
Mitchell was not the person who killed Jodi Jones. The person who did this got away undetected. Mitchell didn't walk down the path and along the main road and up his own street full of people after committing a murder. Nor is the "he washed himself in the stream behind his house" theory anything but laughable. If he did......did he walk back to the house in the nude?
-
Andrina Bryson did not identify him in Court even though his face had been in the papers daily for over a year. The 2 witnesses who saw someone at the gate said in Court it was definitely not Mitchell. There's no confirmed sightings of him at the path at all. Rather than going into a huge lengthy reply, please explain these points:
1. Why was there no DNA belonging to Mitchell at the scene?
2. Why was there no DNA connecting him to the murder in his house?
3. Why do you think the moped 'persons' intially lied and claimed to have been up the path at 415pm and not 515pm?
5. Why did the moped disappear very soon after the murder so fast that the Police never traced it?
6. Why were 3 statements about who found the body and how, changed and all changed to say the same thing?
7. What was the motive for Luke Mitchell to kill her?
8. Why did [Name removed] hide a damp pair of rubber gloves in a drawer in another house and claim it was to stop his niece touching them?
9. Why was Alan Ovens never asked to give evidence - he was in the house when Jodi allegedly left.
Mitchell was not the person who killed Jodi Jones. The person who did this got away undetected. Mitchell didn't walk down the path and along the main road and up his own street full of people after committing a murder. Nor is the "he washed himself in the stream behind his house" theory anything but laughable. If he did......did he walk back to the house in the nude?
Interesting that Andrina Bryson said that she couldn’t describe anything with regard to her sighting’s facial features but managed to identify Luke from a photograph of his face.
-
Andrina Bryson did not identify him in Court even though his face had been in the papers daily for over a year. The 2 witnesses who saw someone at the gate said in Court it was definitely not Mitchell. There's no confirmed sightings of him at the path at all. Rather than going into a huge lengthy reply, please explain these points:
1. Why was there no DNA belonging to Mitchell at the scene?
2. Why was there no DNA connecting him to the murder in his house?
3. Why do you think the moped 'persons' intially lied and claimed to have been up the path at 415pm and not 515pm?
5. Why did the moped disappear very soon after the murder so fast that the Police never traced it?
6. Why were 3 statements about who found the body and how, changed and all changed to say the same thing?
7. What was the motive for Luke Mitchell to kill her?
8. Why did [Name removed] hide a damp pair of rubber gloves in a drawer in another house and claim it was to stop his niece touching them?
9. Why was Alan Ovens never asked to give evidence - he was in the house when Jodi allegedly left.
Mitchell was not the person who killed Jodi Jones. The person who did this got away undetected. Mitchell didn't walk down the path and along the main road and up his own street full of people after committing a murder. Nor is the "he washed himself in the stream behind his house" theory anything but laughable. If he did......did he walk back to the house in the nude?
Quiz time, how quaint:
1) There was, hidden, buried in those case files?
2) Shoddy police work - silly boys didn't go in until day 4?
3) Duo would have sufficed for male and female?
5) SM took it to a scrapyard with the rest of the evidence?
6) They too advice from CM, LM and co - from the experts?
7) I'll ask him next time I write to him?
8) I do not know anyone called 'name removed'
9) Perhaps he was and declined?
For the 'blankety blank one no 4) I'll use my right to remain silent.
And please - His name is Luke not 'Mitchell'
-
Andrina Bryson did not identify him in Court even though his face had been in the papers daily for over a year. The 2 witnesses who saw someone at the gate said in Court it was definitely not Mitchell. There's no confirmed sightings of him at the path at all. Rather than going into a huge lengthy reply, please explain these points:
1. Why was there no DNA belonging to Mitchell at the scene?
2. Why was there no DNA connecting him to the murder in his house?
3. Why do you think the moped 'persons' intially lied and claimed to have been up the path at 415pm and not 515pm?
5. Why did the moped disappear very soon after the murder so fast that the Police never traced it?
6. Why were 3 statements about who found the body and how, changed and all changed to say the same thing?
7. What was the motive for Luke Mitchell to kill her?
8. Why did [Name removed] hide a damp pair of rubber gloves in a drawer in another house and claim it was to stop his niece touching them?
9. Why was Alan Ovens never asked to give evidence - he was in the house when Jodi allegedly left.
Mitchell was not the person who killed Jodi Jones. The person who did this got away undetected. Mitchell didn't walk down the path and along the main road and up his own street full of people after committing a murder. Nor is the "he washed himself in the stream behind his house" theory anything but laughable. If he did......did he walk back to the house in the nude?
Points 1 to 9. Boring, been done to death. 17/18 years round in circles. Luke is still in jail and will be for many years to come. Need to find something new 8((()*/
-
Quiz time, how quaint:
1) There was, hidden, buried in those case files?
2) Shoddy police work - silly boys didn't go in until day 4?
3) Duo would have sufficed for male and female?
5) SM took it to a scrapyard with the rest of the evidence?
6) They too advice from CM, LM and co - from the experts?
7) I'll ask him next time I write to him?
8) I do not know anyone called 'name removed'
9) Perhaps he was and declined?
For the 'blankety blank one no 4) I'll use my right to remain silent.
And please - His name is Luke not 'Mitchell'
1) Yet the Crown didn’t use that very pertinent evidence’ buried in the case files’ but decided to cobble together a purely circumstantial case. How very unprofessional of them.
2)Corrine must have been a whizz with the dettol spray if she managed to obliterate every speck of incriminating evidence from the family home. Did the FLO say that she’d seen Corrine, Luke or Shane clean the house to within an inch of its life?
3) through 9)....my, my you fairly buckle under pressure.
-
My my you fairly buckle under pressure
Oh dear. But really?
Chill 8(0(*- Somewhat of a 'bulldozer' are we not? Complete ' word play' response to this pleasant (please) demand for answers. My response to the poster who asked this of myself. Basically saying to them? "are you having a laugh here?
-
Please keep posts amicable, or I will be editing them!
Thank you.
-
Oh dear. But really?
Chill 8(0(*- Somewhat of a 'bulldozer' are we not? Complete ' word play' response to this pleasant (please) demand for answers. My response to the poster who asked this of myself. Basically saying to them? "are you having a laugh here?
Oh is that what it was? Fantastic because I, ridiculously, thought it was your way of avoiding some rather challenging questions.
I stand corrected ( apologies for the lack of a smilie emoticon here, I’m trying to wean myself off of them).
As you were.
-
As did the girl he was cheating on Jodi with, Kimberley Thomson:
(https://i.imgur.com/ISKF3qF.png)
And he absolutely was 2 timing the pair of them despite what Sandra says. This is likely what they were arguing about on the day of the murder, because Luke had plans to spend time with Kimberley Thomson 60 miles away now that school was finished. Kimberley and Luke were texting "love you" to each other just days before the murder.
As did his former high school teacher, who had reason to remember it because he joked that Luke resembled a "hooded monk" walking around school with it on. This teacher retired that summer so could only have seen Luke wearing it before the murder.
As did Luke's friends.
All these independent people, deciding to lie for no apparent reason. *%87
This is another girl called ‘Kim’ NOT Kimberly Thompson
-
As did the girl he was cheating on Jodi with, Kimberley Thomson:
(https://i.imgur.com/ISKF3qF.png)
And he absolutely was 2 timing the pair of them despite what Sandra says. This is likely what they were arguing about on the day of the murder, because Luke had plans to spend time with Kimberley Thomson 60 miles away now that school was finished. Kimberley and Luke were texting "love you" to each other just days before the murder.
As did his former high school teacher, who had reason to remember it because he joked that Luke resembled a "hooded monk" walking around school with it on. This teacher retired that summer so could only have seen Luke wearing it before the murder.
As did Luke's friends.
All these independent people, deciding to lie for no apparent reason. *%87
Blimey! How many young lassies was LM hassling?
-
Blimey! How many young lassies was LM hassling?
The evidence of the other Kim who stated Luke Mitchell had a parka before the murder doesn’t help him at all - so it’s not mentioned - it’s omitted
-
The evidence of the other Kim who stated Luke Mitchell had a parka before the murder doesn’t help him at all - so it’s not mentioned - it’s omitted
My wouldn’t her claim have been dynamite in court...except she was never called to testify. It does make you wonder why as the evidence of Luke having a parka prior to the murder were tenuous to say the least.
You really do need to stop believing everything you read Nic.
-
My wouldn’t her claim have been dynamite in court...except she was never called to testify. It does make you wonder why as the evidence of Luke having a parka prior to the murder were tenuous to say the least.
Can you point me to the transcripts of what exactly was said in court throughout the duration of the trial in relation to the parka ?
-
You really do need to stop believing everything you read Nic.
I believe nothing I read or hear from Sandra Lean
Anything and everything she states should always be fact checked
-
My wouldn’t her claim have been dynamite in court...except she was never called to testify.
Why was that do you know?
What does Sandra Lean and the Mitchell’s have to say about this?
-
Why was that do you know?
What does Sandra Lean and the Mitchell’s have to say about this?
Was ‘Kim’ asked to give evidence in court?
-
Was ‘Kim’ asked to give evidence in court?
You stated
My wouldn’t her claim have been dynamite in court...except she was never called to testify. It does make you wonder why as the evidence of Luke having a parka prior to the murder were tenuous to say the least.
What do Sandra Lean and the Mitchell’s say about this?
-
Blimey! How many young lassies was LM hassling?
According to Luke Mitchell he made threats of suicide/or suicide idealisations
“The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world. When I was with Jodi nothing mattered, then she was taken away.” https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/16881794.amp/
What a liar he is and was
-
“The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world. When I was with Jodi nothing mattered, then she was taken away.” https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/16881794.amp/
What about the two Kim’s ?
-
You stated
What do Sandra Lean and the Mitchell’s say about this?
I’m not asking Dr Lean....I’m asking you.
-
I’m not asking Dr Lean....I’m asking you.
Ask away...
I’m of the firm view Luke Mitchell’s guilty and is committing innocence fraud
-
Corrine Mitchell 2010
I don't know Condom man at all. He is a different generation to me and neither of my sons knew him. I only know about him from various sources and documentation on him.
Down where I live is fine, the natives are very friendly. A few minutes up the road where I work is a different story. At the beginning it was Hell.
I got 30 caravans trashed. I got a brick through my car window, while I was driving. I got shouted and sworn at on a regular basis.
It improved after the Frontline Documenary people started to change but alas ther are still some knuckle draggers who think "The Sun" is the bible and in certain parts if you are a "Luke Supporter".....you have to watch your back.....I have a German Shepherd attached to me at all times!!!!
What I have noticed over the years is quite simple really........
Areas who read the Guardian, Scotsman etc.......safe place
Areas who read the Sun, Retard and the Mail.............not safe place!!!
sorry! I used to live in the sun area myself many moons ago, I know it can be very mixed. All it can take is a few bad families and an entire street is ruined.
Where I lived was really nice until "The family from Hell" moved in a few doors up and they made everyones lives Hell.....so we moved out!
Janines first statement said everyone was in hysterics (or words to that effect) The 999 operator confirms that when she says " The laddie is in a bit of a state.
By the time Janine gets to court she has changed her statement an told the court Luke showed no emotion.
Mias reaction (my dog):
When Luke was going up the path he was making his way to Jodis house as this was the arrangement. Mia could well have reacted on the way up but Luke would have ignored it and just told her to "come on"
When going back down the path with the family Luke told Mia "seek Jodi" as the word "seek" was used in her training. (We were being tought dog tracking by a friend of mine whose job it was , in the army, to train tracker dogs)
When she approached the 'V' in the wall she jumped up and put her front paws up against the wall and started "air sniffing".
Again the families first statements confirm this and again, by the time they are in coiurt, they deny it.
Mia didn't go over the wall. It was too high for her. Luke and Stephen helped the granny get over the wall. Janine didn't go over. She held Mia.
The family, in court said Luke turned left when he went over the wall and the prosecution said it was because he knew where the body was.
The family could not see anything at all......unless they could see through stone walls.....the wall is too high to see over.
The simple explanation for Luke going left instead of right.....he was going to where Mia was sniffing and wouldn't come away. Basic common sense really.
sorry....correction to last post
Mia didn't sniff at the 'V'...it was further down. It was the 'V' luke went to as it was the only way to get over the wall as the rest was to high.
"save me some dinner" was said to Jodis mother, not Luke. Jodi didn't speak to Luke she texted him.
Judy (Jodis mum) went into great detail about that evening and one of the things were saying how Jodi had asked her to save her some dinner.
Luke vaguely remembers a "rough sketch" shown at the trial. I spoke to him yesterday on the 'phone.
It took Luke and Stephen to eventually get granny Walker over the wall. Apparantly it was quite a task!!!
What time did Jodi last eat?
-
Ask away...
I’m of the firm view Luke Mitchell’s guilty and is committing innocence fraud
Was ‘Kim’ asked to give evidence in court about the parka and the knives?
-
Was ‘Kim’ asked to give evidence in court about the parka and the knives?
What do the case files say
-
What do the case files say
I’m asking you.
You seem to believe in the veracity of her post so surely you’d expect her to have given evidence in court.
Parka and knives....a witness too good not to call, you’d think.
Or is it a case of you believing any old nonsense as long as it smears the Mitchells?
-
I’m asking you.
I don’t have the case files
-
I don’t have the case files
The testimony of all the main witnesses were reported in the press. Surely a girlfriend of Luke’s who could prove that he had knives and a parka would be a very important witness?
Was ‘Kim’s ‘ testimony reported in the press?
-
Corrine also stated this in 2010 ⬇️
This was interesting from Corrine
6th May 2010
‘Like all miscarriages of justice....the police make the time of death....when the suspect has no alibi.
And this
Luke was in the house between 5 and 5.30 ....eating his dinner. And here lies the problem they say we are lying.
should add to that.....I was also in the house eating my dinner as was Shane, albeit differnt rooms. Shane was in his bedroom , upstairs, I was outside and Luke was in the livingroom.
-
Surely the things to note in Kim's statement isn't the number of girlfriends LM had, but that she mentions the parka, and that he carried knives in it?
Which Kim said this?
-
Corinne Mitchell also said this in 2010
From an old timeline
10.39pm Judy sends a text to Lukes phone, Right Toad, say goodnight toLuke. Thats you grounded for another week.
10.40pm Luke phones Judy to say he hasnt seen Jodi all night. Judy says she will call round Jodis friends. Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said.
10.49pm Judy calls back to say Jodi is nowhere to be found, and she is calling the police. Luke says he will go up the path to look for Jodi, and if he doesnt find her, he will make his way to Judys house to decide what to do next. (This story was later changed to claim that Luke had agreed to meet the other members of the search party at the path.)
Luke returns to the house?
-
Ask away...
I’m of the firm view Luke Mitchell’s guilty and is committing innocence fraud
Can you discuss why you think this? I am genuinely curious to know? I am friends with SH.
-
Curiously there are no lawyers in Scotland currently called Scott Forbes.
There is however a listing from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (PDF attached)
Was this the alleged ‘fantastic work’ Sandra lean referred to during one of her live videos 🙄
-
Was this the alleged ‘fantastic work’ Sandra lean referred to during one of her live videos 🙄
SF claims because his licence to practice has lapsed, he is no longer registered. I have no idea how these things work but that's his Twitter claim. I have one question for SF or SL. Either one is fine but I've been ignored by both.it can wait. Why wouldn't SF renew his licence? Got to be better than Tweeting all day about LBGQT and Nicola Sturgeon, no? IMO only.
-
SF claims because his licence to practice has lapsed
What sort of alleged licence was it ?
-
What sort of alleged licence was it ?
I assumed it was some kind of licence to practice law but I don't actually know. Must have been or it wouldn't have been his reason/excuse for not being registered anymore. I'll find something about it and I'll send it to you.
-
8()-000(
I assumed it was some kind of licence to practice law but I don't actually know. Must have been or it wouldn't have been his reason/excuse for not being registered anymore. I'll find something about it and I'll send it to you.
SF definitely posted on Twitter the reason he's no longer licensed to practice law is because he didn't renew his licence but in all honesty, I can't find it now so I can't send you the link. If I come across it I'll send it.
-
8()-000(
SF definitely posted on Twitter the reason he's no longer licensed to practice law is because he didn't renew his licence but in all honesty, I can't find it now so I can't send you the link. If I come across it I'll send it.
Well if he did it would seem he’s deleted it
Did you see this tweeted under Jane Hamilton article for the Daily Record?
The Daily Record
@Daily_Record
Jun 30
Jodi Jones' family blast Luke Mitchell for taunts on anniversary of her death
5:52 AM · Jun 30, 2021·TweetDeck
https://twitter.com/Daily_Record/status/1410098961541644296
Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@Daily_Record
This is not true! The statement was released on Sat 26th June, inorder to get at Sandra Lean. Then Jane H used the anniversary of the murder to invent this headline,,pretty disgusting actually
3:59 PM · Jun 30, 2021·Twitter for Android
Why does killer Luke Mitchell want to ‘get at’ Sandra Lean?
-
SF claims because his licence to practice has lapsed, he is no longer registered. I have no idea how these things work but that's his Twitter claim. I have one question for SF or SL. Either one is fine but I've been ignored by both.it can wait. Why wouldn't SF renew his licence? Got to be better than Tweeting all day about LBGQT and Nicola Sturgeon, no? IMO only.
SF gave up his practice cert after he married money, went into semi retirement, working on couple of miscarriages cases and writing a book about Luke Mitchell naming and shaming the police and others. When he isn't walking mountains or working he laughs at his stalkers
-
SF gave up his practice cert after he married money, went into semi retirement, working on couple of miscarriages cases and writing a book about Luke Mitchell naming and shaming the police and others. When he isn't walking mountains or working he laughs at his stalkers
You mean he receives hostile phone calls, messages, threats, poison pen letters, people watching his house, that sort of thing?
-
You mean he receives hostile phone calls, messages, threats, poison pen letters, people watching his house, that sort of thing?
Ask him if you follow him on Twitter etc as you mentioned his account and what he shares
-
Well if he did it would seem he’s deleted it
Did you see this tweeted under Jane Hamilton article for the Daily Record?
The Daily Record
@Daily_Record
Jun 30
Jodi Jones' family blast Luke Mitchell for taunts on anniversary of her death
5:52 AM · Jun 30, 2021·TweetDeck
https://twitter.com/Daily_Record/status/1410098961541644296
Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@Daily_Record
This is not true! The statement was released on Sat 26th June, inorder to get at Sandra Lean. Then Jane H used the anniversary of the murder to invent this headline,,pretty disgusting actually
3:59 PM · Jun 30, 2021·Twitter for Android
Why does killer Luke Mitchell want to ‘get at’ Sandra Lean?
No I didn't see it but I just read the article. Is SF saying LM's statement was to get at Sandra Lean? I have no idea why he may do that. Maybe he thinks the other group can do more to help him? I don't know.
-
SF gave up his practice cert after he married money, went into semi retirement, working on couple of miscarriages cases and writing a book about Luke Mitchell naming and shaming the police and others. When he isn't walking mountains or working he laughs at his stalkers
Jesus mate. Do you need a shovel?
-
Jesus mate. Do you need a shovel?
@)(++(*
-
SF gave up his practice cert after he married money
-
His words for the forum. Maybe he knows exactly what kind of forum this is. Yes im sure that's it 8**8:/:
-
His words for the forum. Maybe he knows exactly what kind of forum this is. Yes im sure that's it 8**8:/:
Tell 'im 'hi'.
-
Tell 'im 'hi'.
Will do.
-
Seriously though @)(++(* he isn't gonna give you every detail of his life is he.
Whatever the reasons for the certificate etc ...well that is for him to know.
-
Seriously though @)(++(* he isn't gonna give you every detail of his life is he.
Whatever the reasons for the certificate etc ...well that is for him to know.
Dexter, if you're not SF and you have no proof or cites of SFs words, are you allowed to post on here reciting SF? I mean, how does anyone know for sure that you've even met SFlet alone know him? Have we to take your word only?
-
Seriously though @)(++(* he isn't gonna give you every detail of his life is he.
Whatever the reasons for the certificate etc ...well that is for him to know.
Oh and I have to wonder why the moderator hasn't pulled you up because I've been pulled up for much.less.
-
Oh and I have to wonder why the moderator hasn't pulled you up because I've been pulled up for much.less.
Sure there has been a post saying if you aren't happy with a mod to message. Stop blaming mrswah for my posts
You said you were familiar with SF twitter. Sure he would confirm everything for you.
-
Dexter, if you're not SF and you have no proof or cites of SFs words, are you allowed to post on here reciting SF? I mean, how does anyone know for sure that you've even met SFlet alone know him? Have we to take your word only?
Why would you even care. Why is every minute detail so important to you? It's you who keeps demanding answers.
-
Why would you even care. Why is every minute detail so important to you? It's you who keeps demanding answers.
Fair enough. Just give me the rough details and just a couple of cites but please answer the question.
-
Fair enough. Just give me the rough details and just a couple of cites but please answer the question.
For what?
-
For what?
I'll ask you again. You have spoken for someone else. Is that allowed? How does anyone else know that you even know SF? Do you have proof the words are his and not yours? Do you have cites?
-
I'll ask you again. You have spoken for someone else. Is that allowed? How does anyone else know that you even know SF? Do you have proof the words are his and not yours? Do you have cites?
What proof does anyone have about anything they say on here? Unless we read transcripts from SL via her videos and know they are true as we heard them too. You asked for proof I asked on what?
-
What proof does anyone have about anything they say on here? Unless we read transcripts from SL via her videos and know they are true as we heard them too. You asked for proof I asked on what?
That's not an answer. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else. Why won't you answer my questions please? It's a reasonable couple of questions that shouldn't be difficult to answer. Do you have straight answers to only two simple questions please?
-
That's not an answer. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else. Why won't you answer my questions please? It's a reasonable couple of questions that shouldn't be difficult to answer. Do you have straight answers to only two simple questions please?
Honestly if I knew what you were asking I was would answer
-
Why would you even care. Why is every minute detail so important to you? It's you who keeps demanding answers.
-
I recall in the past her book ‘No Smoke’ was published on the net - no idea if it’s still available
Sandra has made it clear with her 2nd book release she wants to make money from sales ⬇️ - I very much doubt she will release it as a pdf
Link www.longroadtojustice.com bowcappears to be working btw
For anyone interested - convicted but exonerated murderer *Michael O’Briens book which Sandra Lean has on her site - alongside Michelle Diskin Bates @)(++(* and convicted killer Michelle Nicholson - it’s publication ceased some time ago apparently
* I remain of the firm view Michael O’Brien, Darren Hall and Ellis Sherwood murdered Philip Saunders
Michael A O’Brien
I fully support Dai Morris's parents in their fight to clear their son's name they haven't done anything wrong to me and I have never said a bad word about them. I feel for them at their tragic loss and it will be for them I will do what I can to help clear Dai name.
I do not care if other family members don't like it or that arsehole Geraint its nothing to do with them who I campaign for I am an independent person who has a right to share my views on the case as one of the leading experts on miscarriages of Justices in the UK and on South Wales Police.
Is Sandra Lean aware Michael O’Brien’s first book is no longer printed?
-
Michael A O’Brien
I fully support Dai Morris's parents in their fight to clear their son's name they haven't done anything wrong to me and I have never said a bad word about them. I feel for them at their tragic loss and it will be for them I will do what I can to help clear Dai name.
I do not care if other family members don't like it or that arsehole Geraint its nothing to do with them who I campaign for I am an independent person who has a right to share my views on the case as one of the leading experts on miscarriages of Justices in the UK and on South Wales Police.
For me Michael O’Brien is another promoter of innocence fraud
-
Luke Mitchell is being called the Scottish version of Damian Echols
DON’T MISS IT.. ‘Luke Mitchell & Damian Echols: Killer Comrades?’
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/19/coming-soon/
-
Will Matt Elliott’s new film include the callousness, contempt and disrespect shown towards [Name removed]’s family over the years by people like dangerous, toxic and abusive innocence fraud killer enabler Sandra Lean?
Matt Elliott
*FILM*
It’s fair to say I’ve been involved with true crime for a long time now, but have always had an issue with it being disrespectful and purely for entertainment. If you watch ‘some’ documentaries and listen to some podcasts then you’ll probably understand what I’m talking about.
What’s been skimmed over, in Luke’s case, is portraying him as just a 2 dimensional ‘emotionless’ character who listened to ‘death’ metal and had interests in the ‘darker’ side of life. What’s often gets forgotten, and sometimes conveniently, is the fact he was a child himself and had found his girlfriend brutally mudered.
Within the film I’m looking to give a true and honest account of Luke,before his life was turned upside down, as a typical teenage boy in 2003.
What was life like for Luke then?
How did he spend his free time?
Who did he hang around with?
What was school life like?
Etc
If you knew Luke then, or know someone who would be happy to chat with me, I’d be grateful for the pointers.
I’m fully respectful to the sensitive nature of the case and everything will be held in confidence.
Every story has a backstory…
Ty
Matt
And will Matt Elliott be speaking to the people who knew the killer best ie; Shane Mitchell, Philip Mitchell and his step-mother ?
-
Will Matt Elliott’s new film include the callousness, contempt and disrespect shown towards [Name removed]’s family over the years by people like dangerous, toxic and abusive innocence fraud killer enabler Sandra Lean?
Matt Elliott
*FILM*
It’s fair to say I’ve been involved with true crime for a long time now, but have always had an issue with it being disrespectful and purely for entertainment. If you watch ‘some’ documentaries and listen to some podcasts then you’ll probably understand what I’m talking about.
What’s been skimmed over, in Luke’s case, is portraying him as just a 2 dimensional ‘emotionless’ character who listened to ‘death’ metal and had interests in the ‘darker’ side of life. What’s often gets forgotten, and sometimes conveniently, is the fact he was a child himself and had found his girlfriend brutally mudered.
Within the film I’m looking to give a true and honest account of Luke,before his life was turned upside down, as a typical teenage boy in 2003.
What was life like for Luke then?
How did he spend his free time?
Who did he hang around with?
What was school life like?
Etc
If you knew Luke then, or know someone who would be happy to chat with me, I’d be grateful for the pointers.
I’m fully respectful to the sensitive nature of the case and everything will be held in confidence.
Every story has a backstory…
Ty
Matt
And will Matt Elliott be speaking to the people who knew the killer best ie; Shane Mitchell, Philip Mitchell and his step-mother ?
Or will this ‘Film’ include people like fantasist Derek Edmund - who claimed to have seen LM & [Name removed] in the school playground?
Derek Edmund
That’s interesting as I lived in Whitecraig at the time. I still imagine Luke as I saw him last at school. Same with Jodi too. Working so closely with Dr Sandra Lean and our little team that we have, we are not giving up on getting that justice for both Jodi and Luke. We won’t stop until we see Luke exonerated. The more likeminded people we get on board, the more clout we will have to call into question those who have let the system down and more importantly, Jodi and Luke.
As I’ve said - he apparently recalls seeing them both in the school playground once talking to each other
-
Will Matt Elliott’s new film include the callousness, contempt and disrespect shown towards [Name removed]’s family over the years by people like dangerous, toxic and abusive innocence fraud killer enabler Sandra Lean?
Matt Elliott
*FILM*
It’s fair to say I’ve been involved with true crime for a long time now, but have always had an issue with it being disrespectful and purely for entertainment. If you watch ‘some’ documentaries and listen to some podcasts then you’ll probably understand what I’m talking about.
What’s been skimmed over, in Luke’s case, is portraying him as just a 2 dimensional ‘emotionless’ character who listened to ‘death’ metal and had interests in the ‘darker’ side of life. What’s often gets forgotten, and sometimes conveniently, is the fact he was a child himself and had found his girlfriend brutally mudered.
Within the film I’m looking to give a true and honest account of Luke,before his life was turned upside down, as a typical teenage boy in 2003.
What was life like for Luke then?
How did he spend his free time?
Who did he hang around with?
What was school life like?
Etc
If you knew Luke then, or know someone who would be happy to chat with me, I’d be grateful for the pointers.
I’m fully respectful to the sensitive nature of the case and everything will be held in confidence.
Every story has a backstory…
Ty
Matt
And will Matt Elliott be speaking to the people who knew the killer best ie; Shane Mitchell, Philip Mitchell and his step-mother ?
Will Matt Elliott also be talking to the Mitchell families drugs supplier/s and finding out if Shane, Corinne and killer Luke had their own illegal drug suppliers or if the family had one preferred supplier?
-
Will Matt Elliott’s new film include the callousness, contempt and disrespect shown towards [Name removed]’s family over the years by people like dangerous, toxic and abusive innocence fraud killer enabler Sandra Lean?
Matt Elliott
*FILM*
It’s fair to say I’ve been involved with true crime for a long time now, but have always had an issue with it being disrespectful and purely for entertainment. If you watch ‘some’ documentaries and listen to some podcasts then you’ll probably understand what I’m talking about.
What’s been skimmed over, in Luke’s case, is portraying him as just a 2 dimensional ‘emotionless’ character who listened to ‘death’ metal and had interests in the ‘darker’ side of life. What’s often gets forgotten, and sometimes conveniently, is the fact he was a child himself and had found his girlfriend brutally mudered.
Within the film I’m looking to give a true and honest account of Luke,before his life was turned upside down, as a typical teenage boy in 2003.
What was life like for Luke then?
How did he spend his free time?
Who did he hang around with?
What was school life like?
Etc
If you knew Luke then, or know someone who would be happy to chat with me, I’d be grateful for the pointers.
I’m fully respectful to the sensitive nature of the case and everything will be held in confidence.
Every story has a backstory…
Ty
Matt
And will Matt Elliott be speaking to the people who knew the killer best ie; Shane Mitchell, Philip Mitchell and his step-mother ?
And will Matt Elliott be attempting to shed more light on killer Luke Mitchell apparently battering his uncle Des Guetta with a baseball bat prior to when he was charged with his murder of [Name removed]?
-
Lucy Briers Blue heart
@lucyjbriers
I’m proud to have narrated this new Channel 5 documentary examining the murder of Jodi Jones - here's how to watch
8:54 AM · Feb 24, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Daughter of actor Richard Briers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Briers
Seems Lucy Briars has deleted her above tweet
-
‘The two-part documentary, which airs next week, follows ex-Police Scotland detectives John Sallens and Michael Neill as they re-examine the case.
‘Four detectives from elite anti-terrorist unit are facing corruption probe over claims of fraud
by Russell Findlay June 2013
‘FOUR detectives who worked for an elite unit which targets terrorists are at the centre of a
corruption probe.
Detective Sergeant John Sallens, 48, and three Major Investigation Team colleagues have been reported to Crown Office prosecutors who will decide if they should stand trial.
The others are constables Geoff Fisher, 48, Michael Neil, 43, and Lynn McConnachie, 42.
All four were based at the MIT office in Glasgow’s high-security Govan police station
Read more: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/four-detectives-elite-anti-terrorist-unit-1941239
‘Tweedledee and tweedledum’ aka John Sallens and Michael Neill of Integritas Investigative Solutions mentioned below
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo
Also mentioned here
👇
Rob Davies
@ByRobDavies
Just as an aside, Integritas Investigative Solutions is exactly the name a corny scriptwriter would choose for a private investigative outfit run by two ex-coppers. It's too perfect.
9:16 AM · Mar 14, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/ByRobDavies/status/1503299086006505477
And here
👇
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/14/brewdog-boss-hired-private-investigators-to-gather-evidence-of-alleged-smear-campaign?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
-
Does anyone know whether or not Luke Mitchell obtained the prison governors permission regarding the channel 5 documentary ?
In Dec 2019 Sandra Lean stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10066.0.html
‘Technically, prisoners have the right to speak to journalists, etc, if the purpose is to highlight a claimed miscarriage of justice, but each case is at the discretion of the prison governor.
In Luke's case, the reason given for refusing the interview with James English was that "it would cause a public outcry"
Do all those people who are supporting this sadistic killer know what Luke Mitchell’s prison security records will look like?
-
Am already seeing through Allan Jamieson in part 2
There’s been no mention of Luke Mitchell having had the opportunity to wash himself off in a nearby stream before heading home for a shower and then heading back out to get dirt under his nails
Also - if greasy hair isn’t washed properly it can still appear greasy once dried and not all shampoos are scented
And extremely greasy hair of not washed thoroughly can still smell greasy
Allan Jamieson and innocence fraudsters Andrew Green and Michael Naughton mentioned here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/05/quite-a-hall-tale-part-17e%ef%b8%8f/
-
Luke Mitchell is being called the Scottish version of Damian Echols
“Luke Mitchell and Damian Echols Killer comrades?”
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo
-
Terry Mullins is a chancer. The polygraph is only a gimmic for daytime TV. @)(++(*
What type of killer (and his toxic and abusive enablers) would use Terry Mullens after he claimed psychopathic mass murderer, child killer, rapist and coercive controller Jeremy Bamber was innocent