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: Admin on March 05, 2021, 03:34:39 PM
-
And just when you all thought it couldn't get any worse, Luke Mitchell trolls led by Sandra Lean plan a protest outside Holyrood to demand a retrial for the convicted killer. It appears that due process in Scotland is under attack.
The event, which has been set up on Facebook, is to be held outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on 24 April 2021.
The Facebook page "Luke Mitchell Miscarriage of Justice" has been named as the original organiser.
More than 200 people, including 'crime expert' Dr Sandra Lean who was at the forefront of the recent documentary Murder in a Small Town, are set to attend.
The protest plan comes amid a two-part Channel 5 documentary in which two ex-detectives claim Luke Mitchell is innocent.
Luke Mitchell was convicted in 2005 for the murder of his then 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi Jones in Dalkeith, Midlothian in 2003.
Since being set up on February 24, over 700 Facebook users have expressed their interest in attending the event.
According to the event page, titled "Justice for Luke and Jodi", the demonstration will be a "peaceful protest to demand a retrial for Luke Mitchell".
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6775827/luke-mitchell-protest-scottish-parliament-retrial-jodi-jones-murder/
-
I presume Sandra Lean will be in full PPE
-
And just when you all thought it couldn't get any worse, Luke Mitchell trolls led by Sandra Lean plan a protest outside Holyrood to demand a retrial for the convicted killer. It appears that due process in Scotland is under attack.
The event, which has been set up on Facebook, is to be held outside the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on 24 April 2021.
The Facebook page "Luke Mitchell Miscarriage of Justice" has been named as the original organiser.
More than 200 people, including 'crime expert' Dr Sandra Lean who was at the forefront of the recent documentary Murder in a Small Town, are set to attend.
The protest plan comes amid a two-part Channel 5 documentary in which two ex-detectives claim Luke Mitchell is innocent.
Luke Mitchell was convicted in 2005 for the murder of his then 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi Jones in Dalkeith, Midlothian in 2003.
Since being set up on February 24, over 700 Facebook users have expressed their interest in attending the event.
According to the event page, titled "Justice for Luke and Jodi", the demonstration will be a "peaceful protest to demand a retrial for Luke Mitchell".
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6775827/luke-mitchell-protest-scottish-parliament-retrial-jodi-jones-murder/
You've made my Friday Admin. I've never laughed as much in weeks.
She's a 'crime expert' now you know! (&^&
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* 8@??)(
-
You've made my Friday Admin. I've never laughed as much in weeks.
She's a 'crime expert' now you know! (&^&
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* 8@??)(
Does anyone know if Corrine Mitchell was vaccinated before Sandra Lean visited with her on the TV show or were they in the same bubble?
Or was filming completed before March 2020?
Would be interested to know if all those people planning to meet up outside Holyrood are pro or anti vac?
-
Surely you're not allowed to call them "trolls"? Aren't they simply protesting for what they believe in (no matter how misguided you might think they are)? I think you risk upsetting some of Sandra's supporters on here with this thread title...
-
Surely you're not allowed to call them "trolls"? Aren't they simply protesting for what they believe in (no matter how misguided you might think they are)? I think you risk upsetting some of Sandra's supporters on here with this thread title...
I wouldn't call them "trolls" either. They are perfectly entitled to believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent.
I'm more concerned that they are probably going to be breaking lockdown rules !
-
Surely you're not allowed to call them "trolls"? Aren't they simply protesting for what they believe in (no matter how misguided you might think they are)? I think you risk upsetting some of Sandra's supporters on here with this thread title...
Fair enough but a lot are trolls like the two removed from here today.
Let's be in no doubt, this campaign is spearheaded by Sandra Lean whose only agenda is to make a name for herself.
I could offer a suggestion [censored word]
-
Surely you're not allowed to call them "trolls"? Aren't they simply protesting for what they believe in (no matter how misguided you might think they are)? I think you risk upsetting some of Sandra's supporters on here with this thread title...
Graciously amended.
-
I wouldn't call them "trolls" either. They are perfectly entitled to believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent.
I'm more concerned that they are probably going to be breaking lockdown rules !
I don't know what I would call them, mrswah. I'll have to give it a lot of thought.
-
Graciously amended.
Why ‘supporters’ and not ‘followers’?
The pied piper didn’t have ‘supporters’
These people are ‘following’ a convicted killer and a women who has no integrity or credibility as I see it
Furthermore arranging a ‘group meeting’ whilst we are coming out of a pandemic is highly irresponsible & telling
-
It actually is rather a thought provoking proposition just at this particular moment in time when there is a slight kerfuffle going on in Parliament touching on this very issue or one very close to it.
The Judiciary must be independent of politicians or we have a police state on our hands. I think that is what these people are campaigning for whether they know it or not.
-
It actually is rather a thought provoking proposition just at this particular moment in time when there is a slight kerfuffle going on in Parliament touching on this very issue or one very close to it.
The Judiciary must be independent of politicians or we have a police state on our hands. I think that is what these people are campaigning for whether they know it or not.
There are several agendas at play here Brietta
There are underground movements also
-
it is interesting - both this protest and the change.org petition seem to have the objective of side-stepping legal process as it stands. neither is advocating for a change in a law, as far as i know - just for an exception to existing legal procedure
imo this means the change.org petition falls foul of their own community guidelines, somethng for another discussion perhaps
will be interesting to who is willing to associate their face with it if it does go ahead
-
Graciously amended.
Just saves you a bit of bother later (probably).
-
Fair enough but a lot are trolls like the two removed from here today.
Let's be in no doubt, this campaign is spearheaded by Sandra Lean whose only agenda is to make a name for herself.
I could offer a suggestion [censored word]
Has the Boring one Farted off then? S/he was definitely on a trollish mission imo.
-
it is interesting - both this protest and the change.org petition seem to have the objective of side-stepping legal process as it stands. neither is advocating for a change in a law, as far as i know - just for an exception to existing legal procedure
imo this means the change.org petition falls foul of their own community guidelines, somethng for another discussion perhaps
will be interesting to who is willing to associate their face with it if it does go ahead
I don’t ‘follow’ James English but do you think he might be there too - in full PPE of course ?
-
I don’t ‘follow’ James English but do you think he might be there too - in full PPE of course ?
unlikely in my opinion, he'll never back a gammy horse, only in it for the views, and sells himself on being a "neutral" "just asking the real questions". poundland joe rogan
-
Sorry to disappoint those who think he did it. I'm afraid it would have been impossible for no trace of DNA to be found at the scene AND in his house despite 3 forensic searches. The timeline is also impossible and most of us know it was moved to create a window where he could have done it. The time of the murder is reasonably accurate at 5.15pm as the cyclist heard noises from over the wall. Someone please explain how LM could have walked back to his house and arrived between 525 and 530pm cleaned himself up, then be seen by several other young people near the Newbattle Abbey at 545pm? He cleaned himself up in 15 minutes and nobody saw him walking up his road full of people returning from work and children outside playing? At one time a year ago I actually thought he did do it, but the above proves otherwise. The person who did this did not walk back along the path in either direction, they exited by heading across the field towards Newbattle College and the golf club where the wooded area is much bigger and denser. The person who did this was Stocky Man. It doesn't need Inspector Clouseau to work that out.
-
Someone please explain how LM could have walked back to his house and arrived between 525 and 530pm cleaned himself up, then be seen by several other young people near the Newbattle Abbey at 545pm? He cleaned himself up in 15 minutes and nobody saw him walking up his road full of people returning from work and children outside playing?
forensic scientist derek scrimger giving evidence at the trial
Mr Scrimger said: "Possibly the assailant would have been behind, standing for example."
"What many people fail to realise is that at the time of the assault there may not have been much blood there. There wouldn't necessarily be any blood on the assailant."
Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques
Stuart H. James, Jon J. Nordby Ph.D., Suzanne Bell, Lana J Williams
Chapter 4.8
4.8 Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence
In many cases, the presence of bloodstains originating from the victim and found
on the clothing or person of a suspect is powerful evidence to link the suspect to the
violent act. It must be pointed out that the absence of blood spatter on a suspect or
his clothing does not preclude his or her active participation in a bloodshed event. It
is possible to beat, stab, or shoot someone without being spattered with blood, and
exceptions to this rule are few. Unfortunately, many defense attorneys attempt to
offer the absence of blood spatter on their clients as proof of lack of participation.
From a review of the scientific literature and from practical experience, it is not
uncommon for an assailant to have little if any blood on his or her person after committing a violent crime.
important to listen to scientific experience here rather than instinct
-
Sorry to disappoint those who think he did it. I'm afraid it would have been impossible for no trace of DNA to be found at the scene AND in his house despite 3 forensic searches. The timeline is also impossible and most of us know it was moved to create a window where he could have done it. The time of the murder is reasonably accurate at 5.15pm as the cyclist heard noises from over the wall. Someone please explain how LM could have walked back to his house and arrived between 525 and 530pm cleaned himself up, then be seen by several other young people near the Newbattle Abbey at 545pm? He cleaned himself up in 15 minutes and nobody saw him walking up his road full of people returning from work and children outside playing? At one time a year ago I actually thought he did do it, but the above proves otherwise. The person who did this did not walk back along the path in either direction, they exited by heading across the field towards Newbattle College and the golf club where the wooded area is much bigger and denser. The person who did this was Stocky Man. It doesn't need Inspector Clouseau to work that out.
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, it was irrelevant to the case.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/jodi-jones-key-questions-evidence-19950020
-
forensic scientist derek scrimger giving evidence at the trial
Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques
Stuart H. James, Jon J. Nordby Ph.D., Suzanne Bell, Lana J Williams
Chapter 4.8
important to listen to scientific experience here rather than instinct
Hall claimed he didn’t have any visible blood on him
-
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, it was irrelevant to the case.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/jodi-jones-key-questions-evidence-19950020
There wasn’t any of Halls DNA on JA either
Amd he spent some time at the SOC after
-
Sorry to disappoint those who think he did it. I'm afraid it would have been impossible for no trace of DNA to be found at the scene AND in his house despite 3 forensic searches. The timeline is also impossible and most of us know it was moved to create a window where he could have done it. The time of the murder is reasonably accurate at 5.15pm as the cyclist heard noises from over the wall. Someone please explain how LM could have walked back to his house and arrived between 525 and 530pm cleaned himself up, then be seen by several other young people near the Newbattle Abbey at 545pm? He cleaned himself up in 15 minutes and nobody saw him walking up his road full of people returning from work and children outside playing? At one time a year ago I actually thought he did do it, but the above proves otherwise. The person who did this did not walk back along the path in either direction, they exited by heading across the field towards Newbattle College and the golf club where the wooded area is much bigger and denser. The person who did this was Stocky Man. It doesn't need Inspector Clouseau to work that out.
15 minutes is plenty of time to remove one set of clothes and put on another, wash face, and hands and rinse through hair.
-
Mr Derek Scrimger giving evidence at Luke Mitchell’s murder trial said:
“Possibly the assailant would have been behind, standing for example."
"What many people fail to realise is that at the time of the assault there may not have been much blood there. There wouldn't necessarily be any blood on the assailant."
What was it those 2 ex cops turned PI’s hired for the show said?
-
forensic scientist derek scrimger giving evidence at the trial
Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques
Stuart H. James, Jon J. Nordby Ph.D., Suzanne Bell, Lana J Williams
Chapter 4.8
important to listen to scientific experience here rather than instinct
Then why burn the parka?
You really can’t have it both ways.
-
Then why burn the parka?
You really can’t have it both ways.
Better safe than sorry. He wouldn’t have known for certain whether or not there was a speck of Jodi’s blood on it somewhere.
-
Sorry to disappoint those who think he did it. I'm afraid it would have been impossible for no trace of DNA to be found at the scene AND in his house despite 3 forensic searches. The timeline is also impossible and most of us know it was moved to create a window where he could have done it. The time of the murder is reasonably accurate at 5.15pm as the cyclist heard noises from over the wall. Someone please explain how LM could have walked back to his house and arrived between 525 and 530pm cleaned himself up, then be seen by several other young people near the Newbattle Abbey at 545pm? He cleaned himself up in 15 minutes and nobody saw him walking up his road full of people returning from work and children outside playing? At one time a year ago I actually thought he did do it, but the above proves otherwise. The person who did this did not walk back along the path in either direction, they exited by heading across the field towards Newbattle College and the golf club where the wooded area is much bigger and denser. The person who did this was Stocky Man. It doesn't need Inspector Clouseau to work that out.
Case closed, folks.
Tell us more about Stocky Man, please?
-
Better safe than sorry. He wouldn’t have known for certain whether or not there was a speck of Jodi’s blood on it somewhere.
And plenty of time to collect the remnants - zipper, buttons etc and dispose of away from home
Also Corrine Mitchell claimed in the frontline doc her log burner was only used for burning logs
Elsewhere it’s been claimed dead plants and leaves were burnt in it
-
And plenty of time to collect the remnants - zipper, buttons etc and dispose of away from home
Also Corrine Mitchell claimed in the frontline doc her log burner was only used for burning logs
Elsewhere it’s been claimed dead plants and leaves were burnt in it
Why not burn the rest of his clothes, if there was the chance there may be blood on them, especially his shoes?
-
Why not burn the rest of his clothes, if there was the chance there may be blood on them, especially his shoes?
Maybe he did - maybe he didn’t need to if the jacket covered everything else?
We don’t hear much about his footwear do we
-
Better safe than sorry. He wouldn’t have known for certain whether or not there was a speck of Jodi’s blood on it somewhere.
Mr Scrimger showed the jury photographs of bloodstains low down on a wall near where Jodi was found by a search party.
-
Maybe he did - maybe he didn’t need to if the jacket covered everything else?
We don’t hear much about his footwear do we
Covered everything? The bottom of his trousers and his shoes? His hair, which hadn’t been washed?
No we don’t hear much about his footwear which is odd as I believe the pathologist said Jodi had lost 5 litres of blood and if it was Luke who inflicted the wounds he’d have had to have got close to the body. He wouldn’t have been able to avoid getting blood on the soles of his shoes.
-
Covered everything? The bottom of his trousers and his shoes? His hair, which hadn’t been washed?
Not necessarily if he was behind her
Mr Derek Scrimger giving evidence at Luke Mitchell’s murder trial said:
“Possibly the assailant would have been behind, standing for example."
"What many people fail to realise is that at the time of the assault there may not have been much blood there. There wouldn't necessarily be any blood on the assailant."
-
Not necessarily if he was behind her
Many of her injuries couldn’t have been inflicted from behind especially if Jodi fought for her life as we are told.
-
Please stay on topic otherwise posts will be removed.
-
Covered everything? The bottom of his trousers and his shoes? His hair, which hadn’t been washed?
No we don’t hear much about his footwear which is odd as I believe the pathologist said Jodi had lost 5 litres of blood and if it was Luke who inflicted the wounds he’d have had to have got close to the body. He wouldn’t have been able to avoid getting blood on the soles of his shoes.
Mitchell had every opportunity to wash and get rid of clothing and change. That explains why forensics failed to find Jodi's DNA on him. IMO he later went out into the woods on purpose to get mucked up.
-
Mitchell had every opportunity to wash and get rid of clothing and change. That explains why forensics failed to find Jodi's DNA on him. IMO he later went out into the woods on purpose to get mucked up.
But that’s the thing Angelo, you have absolutely no evidence of that.
So he got rid of his parka and the rest of his clothes? Where? In the log burner? Where not one button or zip was found but ashes were.
So Corrine/Luke burn Luke’s bloodstained parka in the log burner then Corrine goes out and buys the exact same parka after they take his clothes and gives the police the receipt. Does that make sense to you? Why not buy the parka as soon after it was burned as possible and pass it off as the burned one?
-
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, it was irrelevant to the case.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/jodi-jones-key-questions-evidence-19950020
Sandra has always said -
“ The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.
The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included.
There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.”
Thats how I always understood it, there was a partial dna of Luke, but also could be from loads of other guys as it’s only partial. But if it was in fact a full DNA of Luke then that goes against what Sandra has been saying for years.
-
Sandra has always said -
“ The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.
The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included.
There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.”
Thats how I always understood it, there was a partial dna of Luke, but also could be from loads of other guys as it’s only partial. But if it was in fact a full DNA of Luke then that goes against what Sandra has been saying for years.
Caution is advised with newspaper articles. The often don’t research their subject matter adequately.
-
Luke Mitchell: Supporters plan protest outside Scottish Parliament to demand retrial over Jodi Jones murder
Why do these folk think that out of all the vicious murderers locked up in Scottish jails Mitchell alone is entitled to retrial after retrial until he gets a verdict which suits their fancy?
Mitchell was convicted on the evidence and was kept there despite numerous reviews on that evidence which has never changed since the night that Jodi Jones was slaughtered by Michell.
Snip
The latter case has attracted an unedifying surfeit of gossip and bizarre tittle-tattle over the last couple of weeks and this sort of behaviour, whilst possibly understandable given human nature, is unhelpful.
What will help individuals determine any situation is education by those that know what they are talking about as opposed to those that mistakenly think they know (or wished they knew).
There is a big difference.
Take a salutary glance at most social media platforms and you’ll find an abundant supply of lawyers, doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, teachers, et cetera et cetera.
Except none of them are.
They just like to think they are.
In the Mitchell murder trial, we are not and have not been privy to everything that was led in evidence, nor have we seen every shred of it and heard every word of testimony.
What we do know is
(a) the jury would have received judicial direction before their deliberation
(b) the accused’s defence counsel would have been last to address the jury and
(c) the accused had (and invoked) the right of appeal (several times) , as only he and the Crown may do.
In fact he has failed in multiple appeals and, whilst there has been the view that his human rights were breached (despite his case being ‘pre-Cadder’), even the SCCRC in 2014 decided not to refer his case to the High Court for review.
The main theme that ran through the rather ‘tacky’ programme was the supposed temerity of the jury to return a unanimous ‘guilty’ verdict.
But, even if that were so, there have been (multiple) appeals and a review by the SCCRC.
All to no avail.
Those who are wildly criticising the jury’s verdict are therefore also criticising our judiciary, appellate system, review commission and entire judicial process.
It is neither my style nor intention to comment on a jury’s decision as to do so would strike at the heart of our criminal justice system that I have been an intrinsic part of for over 30 years.
What I would say is that any perceived injustice or perversity in a verdict is not the final word as there is a robust appeals process.
Indeed the appeals process is where the case is reviewed only by our country’s most senior and eminent judges with no jury.
All these avenues have been explored and exhausted.
https://thescotslawblog.com/2021/03/01/unravelling-corroboration-and-circumstantial-evidence/
-
Sandra has always said -
“ The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.
The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included.
There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.”
Thats how I always understood it, there was a partial dna of Luke, but also could be from loads of other guys as it’s only partial. But if it was in fact a full DNA of Luke then that goes against what Sandra has been saying for years.
He was with her at school but she changed clothing I believe before going out again to meet up with him.
-
Luke Mitchell: Supporters plan protest outside Scottish Parliament to demand retrial over Jodi Jones murder
Why do these folk think that out of all the vicious murderers locked up in Scottish jails Mitchell alone is entitled to retrial after retrial until he gets a verdict which suits their fancy?
Mitchell was convicted on the evidence and was kept there despite numerous reviews on that evidence which has never changed since the night that Jodi Jones was slaughtered by Michell.
Snip
The latter case has attracted an unedifying surfeit of gossip and bizarre tittle-tattle over the last couple of weeks and this sort of behaviour, whilst possibly understandable given human nature, is unhelpful.
What will help individuals determine any situation is education by those that know what they are talking about as opposed to those that mistakenly think they know (or wished they knew).
There is a big difference.
Take a salutary glance at most social media platforms and you’ll find an abundant supply of lawyers, doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, teachers, et cetera et cetera.
Except none of them are.
They just like to think they are.
In the Mitchell murder trial, we are not and have not been privy to everything that was led in evidence, nor have we seen every shred of it and heard every word of testimony.
What we do know is
(a) the jury would have received judicial direction before their deliberation
(b) the accused’s defence counsel would have been last to address the jury and
(c) the accused had (and invoked) the right of appeal (several times) , as only he and the Crown may do.
In fact he has failed in multiple appeals and, whilst there has been the view that his human rights were breached (despite his case being ‘pre-Cadder’), even the SCCRC in 2014 decided not to refer his case to the High Court for review.
The main theme that ran through the rather ‘tacky’ programme was the supposed temerity of the jury to return a unanimous ‘guilty’ verdict.
But, even if that were so, there have been (multiple) appeals and a review by the SCCRC.
All to no avail.
Those who are wildly criticising the jury’s verdict are therefore also criticising our judiciary, appellate system, review commission and entire judicial process.
It is neither my style nor intention to comment on a jury’s decision as to do so would strike at the heart of our criminal justice system that I have been an intrinsic part of for over 30 years.
What I would say is that any perceived injustice or perversity in a verdict is not the final word as there is a robust appeals process.
Indeed the appeals process is where the case is reviewed only by our country’s most senior and eminent judges with no jury.
All these avenues have been explored and exhausted.
https://thescotslawblog.com/2021/03/01/unravelling-corroboration-and-circumstantial-evidence/
Well said Brietta. Mob rule has never achieved anything in this country.
-
Well said Brietta. Mob rule has never achieved anything in this country.
Unless you include that carried out by the Suffering-gets to achieve universal suffrage.
-
Luke Mitchell: Supporters plan protest outside Scottish Parliament to demand retrial over Jodi Jones murder
Why do these folk think that out of all the vicious murderers locked up in Scottish jails Mitchell alone is entitled to retrial after retrial until he gets a verdict which suits their fancy?
Mitchell was convicted on the evidence and was kept there despite numerous reviews on that evidence which has never changed since the night that Jodi Jones was slaughtered by Michell.
Snip
The latter case has attracted an unedifying surfeit of gossip and bizarre tittle-tattle over the last couple of weeks and this sort of behaviour, whilst possibly understandable given human nature, is unhelpful.
What will help individuals determine any situation is education by those that know what they are talking about as opposed to those that mistakenly think they know (or wished they knew).
There is a big difference.
Take a salutary glance at most social media platforms and you’ll find an abundant supply of lawyers, doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, teachers, et cetera et cetera.
Except none of them are.
They just like to think they are.
In the Mitchell murder trial, we are not and have not been privy to everything that was led in evidence, nor have we seen every shred of it and heard every word of testimony.
What we do know is
(a) the jury would have received judicial direction before their deliberation
(b) the accused’s defence counsel would have been last to address the jury and
(c) the accused had (and invoked) the right of appeal (several times) , as only he and the Crown may do.
In fact he has failed in multiple appeals and, whilst there has been the view that his human rights were breached (despite his case being ‘pre-Cadder’), even the SCCRC in 2014 decided not to refer his case to the High Court for review.
The main theme that ran through the rather ‘tacky’ programme was the supposed temerity of the jury to return a unanimous ‘guilty’ verdict.
But, even if that were so, there have been (multiple) appeals and a review by the SCCRC.
All to no avail.
Those who are wildly criticising the jury’s verdict are therefore also criticising our judiciary, appellate system, review commission and entire judicial process.
It is neither my style nor intention to comment on a jury’s decision as to do so would strike at the heart of our criminal justice system that I have been an intrinsic part of for over 30 years.
What I would say is that any perceived injustice or perversity in a verdict is not the final word as there is a robust appeals process.
Indeed the appeals process is where the case is reviewed only by our country’s most senior and eminent judges with no jury.
All these avenues have been explored and exhausted.
https://thescotslawblog.com/2021/03/01/unravelling-corroboration-and-circumstantial-evidence/
I’m sure many wrote similar critiques of the actions of those campaigning for the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, the Cardiff 3 etc etc etc. Of course many of those who were convicted of the most heinous crimes also had numerous appeals dismissed by ‘our country’s most senior and eminent judges’ before their sentences were quashed.
Your post simply exemplifies the mindset that allows these wholly innocent individuals to spend years and years in prison, denying them and their families the life we all wish for ourselves.
BTW Brietta I believe the verdict was a majority verdict rather than a unanimous one. One more vote for innocence could have seen Luke free.
-
I’m sure many wrote similar critiques of the actions of those campaigning for the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, the Cardiff 3 etc etc etc. Of course many of those who were convicted of the most heinous crimes also had numerous appeals dismissed by ‘our country’s most senior and eminent judges’ before their sentences were quashed.
Your post simply exemplifies the mindset that allows these wholly innocent individuals to spend years and years in prison, denying them and their families the life we all wish for ourselves.
BTW Brietta I believe the verdict was a majority verdict rather than a unanimous one. One more vote for innocence could have seen Luke free.
What exactly is it that makes you 100% certain that Mitchell is "wholly innocent"? I'd love to know, but you will of course ignore this question as I presume you don't have a logical answer.
-
I’m sure many wrote similar critiques of the actions of those campaigning for the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, the Cardiff 3 etc etc etc. Of course many of those who were convicted of the most heinous crimes also had numerous appeals dismissed by ‘our country’s most senior and eminent judges’ before their sentences were quashed.
Your post simply exemplifies the mindset that allows these wholly innocent individuals to spend years and years in prison, denying them and their families the life we all wish for ourselves.
BTW Brietta I believe the verdict was a majority verdict rather than a unanimous one. One more vote for innocence could have seen Luke free.
Jury votes are secret. It could have been a difference of 1 or a difference of 14.
Had he been tried elsewhere in the UK he might not have been convicted. That's Scotland's Law for you.
-
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822.amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
I'm not 100% certain, I don't think anyone can be but the evidence certainly points that way. Had the Mitchell family spoken with one voice I might think differently.
-
What exactly is it that makes you 100% certain that Mitchell is "wholly innocent"? I'd love to know, but you will of course ignore this question as I presume you don't have a logical answer.
The legal standard in this country is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I don’t believe that Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was a majority decision which means as many as seven jurors may not have thought that that legal standard was achieved either.
The investigation was a shambles. The body was left in situ for hours without protection, even though it was raining.
Luke, a minor at the time, was questioned in a way appeal court judges called ‘deplorable’.
The jury had been subjected to months and months of prejudicial reporting in the media against Luke.
One of the main eye witnesses could not point out Luke in court.
Pressure had been brought to bear on both of the main alibi witnesses.
The statements of witnesses central to Luke’s guilt changed over time.
No blood on Luke.
No motive....it is obvious from Jodi’s demeanour before leaving her house that she was not upset after finding out that Luke had two-timed her, a motive sometimes put forward.
Shall I go on?
-
Jury votes are secret. It could have been a difference of 1 or a difference of 14.
Had he been tried elsewhere in the UK he might not have been convicted. That's Scotland's Law for you.
It could have been or 7 to 8.
-
I'm not 100% certain, I don't think anyone can be but the evidence certainly points that way. Had the Mitchell family spoken with one voice I might think differently.
They did at first then they were charged with perverting the course of justice. A charge that was dropped just before they gave evidence. Why would the police do that if not to bring pressure to bear?
-
The legal standard in this country is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I don’t believe that Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was a majority decision which means as many as seven jurors may not have thought that that legal standard was achieved either.
The investigation was a shambles. The body was left in situ for hours without protection, even though it was raining.
Luke, a minor at the time, was questioned in a way appeal court judges called ‘deplorable’.
The jury had been subjected to months and months of prejudicial reporting in the media against Luke.
One of the main eye witnesses could not point out Luke in court.
Pressure had been brought to bear on both of the main alibi witnesses.
The statements of witnesses central to Luke’s guilt changed over time.
No blood on Luke.
No motive....it is obvious from Jodi’s demeanour before leaving her house that she was not upset after finding out that Luke had two-timed her, a motive sometimes put forward.
Shall I go on?
Go on as long as you like, are you 100% convinced of his innocence?
-
No motive....
See Prof Jane Monckton Smith’s work on ‘intimate partner femicide timeline’
Luke Mitchell ticked all the 8 stage boxes and some
-
If appeal judges described the way Mitchell was questioned as “deplorable “ why have four appeals failed in overturning his conviction?
-
It could have been or 7 to 8.
It could indeed, I was the same. It beggars belief that one person could destroy an innocent person's life. The Scottish system is 300 years out of date.
-
If appeal judges described the way Mitchell was questioned as “deplorable “ why have four appeals failed in overturning his conviction?
Because that was irrelevant to the evidence.
-
The legal standard in this country is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I don’t believe that Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was a majority decision which means as many as seven jurors may not have thought that that legal standard was achieved either.
The investigation was a shambles. The body was left in situ for hours without protection, even though it was raining.
Luke, a minor at the time, was questioned in a way appeal court judges called ‘deplorable’.
The jury had been subjected to months and months of prejudicial reporting in the media against Luke.
One of the main eye witnesses could not point out Luke in court.
Pressure had been brought to bear on both of the main alibi witnesses.
The statements of witnesses central to Luke’s guilt changed over time.
No blood on Luke.
No motive....it is obvious from Jodi’s demeanour before leaving her house that she was not upset after finding out that Luke had two-timed her, a motive sometimes put forward.
Shall I go on?
I personally accept all that Faith but his brother still failed to corrobate Luke and his mother's version of events and TO THIS DAY continues to do so.
Explain that away?
-
I personally accept all that Faith but his brother still failed to corrobate Luke and his mother's version of events.
Can you explain why you accept there was no motive John?
-
Can you explain why you accept there was no motive John?
I am undecided whether it was a spur of the moment thing or premeditated if Luke is indeed guilty.
-
I am undecided whether it was a spur of the moment thing or premeditated if Luke is indeed guilty.
It sounds like you are wavering on the issue of his guilt John...?
-
Whoever did this - the nature of the murder was horrific - clearly committed by someone who was/is psychotic or deranged - people who are psychotic/deranged don't need a motive, imo - they just commit the act.
-
It could indeed, I was the same. It beggars belief that one person could destroy an innocent person's life. The Scottish system is 300 years out of date.
Absolutely agree.
Joe Steele appealed his conviction 3 times before it was quashed. 20 years to clear his name and it is worth remembering that at the time he and TC Campbell were as vilified as Luke is now.
-
Because that was irrelevant to the evidence.
The Appeal Court judgment is still damning.
-
Sorry to disappoint those who think he did it. I'm afraid it would have been impossible for no trace of DNA to be found at the scene AND in his house despite 3 forensic searches. The timeline is also impossible and most of us know it was moved to create a window where he could have done it. The time of the murder is reasonably accurate at 5.15pm as the cyclist heard noises from over the wall. Someone please explain how LM could have walked back to his house and arrived between 525 and 530pm cleaned himself up, then be seen by several other young people near the Newbattle Abbey at 545pm? He cleaned himself up in 15 minutes and nobody saw him walking up his road full of people returning from work and children outside playing? At one time a year ago I actually thought he did do it, but the above proves otherwise. The person who did this did not walk back along the path in either direction, they exited by heading across the field towards Newbattle College and the golf club where the wooded area is much bigger and denser. The person who did this was Stocky Man. It doesn't need Inspector Clouseau to work that out.
Inspector Clouseau, aye?
How do you know the killer walked across the field to the college/golf club?
The woods towards the college/golf club aren't/weren't any more dense towards the college.
Why would Stocky Man walk towards the college/golf club?
-
It sounds like you are wavering on the issue of his guilt John...?
No, just considered. The evidence certainly points to his involvement but by no means beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The Appeal Court judges is still damning.
I have personally engaged every court level in Scotland and let me tell you, I'm not impressed.
-
Sorry to disappoint those who think he did it. I'm afraid it would have been impossible for no trace of DNA to be found at the scene AND in his house despite 3 forensic searches. The timeline is also impossible and most of us know it was moved to create a window where he could have done it. The time of the murder is reasonably accurate at 5.15pm as the cyclist heard noises from over the wall. Someone please explain how LM could have walked back to his house and arrived between 525 and 530pm cleaned himself up, then be seen by several other young people near the Newbattle Abbey at 545pm? He cleaned himself up in 15 minutes and nobody saw him walking up his road full of people returning from work and children outside playing? At one time a year ago I actually thought he did do it, but the above proves otherwise. The person who did this did not walk back along the path in either direction, they exited by heading across the field towards Newbattle College and the golf club where the wooded area is much bigger and denser. The person who did this was Stocky Man. It doesn't need Inspector Clouseau to work that out.
He didn't have to go home to get cleaned up or to dispose of articles. To this day I guarantee the Scottish police have never searched the woods where I suspect items were hidden.
-
No, just considered. The evidence certainly points to his involvement but by no means beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then surely you should be supporting any campaign that asks for the evidence to be re-assessed?
-
Then surely you should be supporting any campaign that asks for the evidence to be re-assessed?
Under the current laws in Scotland that responsibility falls within the jurisdiction of the SCCRC. Standing outside the Party building howling won't change that.
What I would support is a wholly independent review body and the scrapping of the SCCRC. I would also demand the scrapping of the block whereby defendants are denied the right to take their case to the UK Supreme Court.
-
I personally accept all that Faith but his brother still failed to corrobate Luke and his mother's version of events and TO THIS DAY continues to do so.
Explain that away?
Shane corroborated his mother’s and Luke’s version of events in his first statement and subsequently, when pressure was applied he changed it. Can you imagine the pressure for a young man of having a charge of perverting the cause of justice, which carries a custodial sentence, over your head? A charge that was coincidentally dropped just as he gave evidence. There is one sentence reported from Shane’s evidence that says it all for me ‘ He could have been there’. IMO this was the only way Shane, in his mind, could avoid completely throwing his brother under the bus without facing a charge of perjury.
As to what Shane thinks now, do we really know? As far as I am aware he hasn’t talked about the case since his brother’s conviction. Imagine if he did change his evidence now. Would you believe him? Could he face charges? Coming forward now could impact his who life.
-
Shane corroborated his mother’s and Luke’s version of events in his first statement and subsequently, when pressure was applied he changed it. Can you imagine the pressure for a young man of having a charge of perverting the cause of justice, which carries a custodial sentence, over your head? A charge that was coincidentally dropped just as he gave evidence. There is one sentence reported from Shane’s evidence that says it all for me ‘ He could have been there’. IMO this was the only way Shane, in his mind, could avoid completely throwing his brother under the bus without facing a charge of perjury.
As to what Shane thinks now, do we really know? As far as I am aware he hasn’t talked about the case since his brother’s conviction. Imagine if he did change his evidence now. Would you believe him? Could he face charges? Coming forward now could impact his who life.
Shane was rightly warned of the consequences of committing perjury. He admitted in court that his mother had influenced his initial statement and we all know what that means in reality.
Do you really really really think that Shane Mitchell wouldn't have spoken out if he was wronged in some way?
He has kept quiet for 17 years and for good reason imo.
-
No, just considered. The evidence certainly points to his involvement but by no means beyond a reasonable doubt.
And that is the legal standard.
-
I have personally engaged every court level in Scotland and let me tell you, I'm not impressed.
I don’t wonder at that.
-
He didn't have to go home to get cleaned up or to dispose of articles. To this day I guarantee the Scottish police have never searched the woods where I suspect items were hidden.
Then why not dispose of the parka too? Why take it back for his mum to burn? Wasn’t that risky?
-
Shane corroborated his mother’s and Luke’s version of events in his first statement and subsequently, when pressure was applied he changed it. Can you imagine the pressure for a young man of having a charge of perverting the cause of justice, which carries a custodial sentence, over your head? A charge that was coincidentally dropped just as he gave evidence. There is one sentence reported from Shane’s evidence that says it all for me ‘ He could have been there’. IMO this was the only way Shane, in his mind, could avoid completely throwing his brother under the bus without facing a charge of perjury.
As to what Shane thinks now, do we really know? As far as I am aware he hasn’t talked about the case since his brother’s conviction. Imagine if he did change his evidence now. Would you believe him? Could he face charges? Coming forward now could impact his who life.
Strange he wasn’t standing by his mother’s side in the documentary then wasn’t it?
-
Under the current laws in Scotland that responsibility falls within the jurisdiction of the SCCRC. Standing outside the Party building howling won't change that.
What I would support is a wholly independent review body and the scrapping of the SCCRC. I would also demand the scrapping of the block whereby defendants are denied the right to take their case to the UK Supreme Court.
Whilst you may not believe protesting outside a building changes anything surely you support their cause in principle? I find your stance puzzling.
-
Shane was rightly warned of the consequences of committing perjury. He admitted in court that his mother had influenced his initial statement and we all know what that means in reality.
Do you really really really think that Shane Mitchell wouldn't have spoken out if he was wronged in some way?
He has kept quiet for 17 years and for good reason imo.
Were any of the other witnesses warned of the consequences of committing perjury? What about Janine Jones and Steven Kelly who we know gave evidence in court that was different from their initial statements. Were they warned?
And as to your question...he experienced directly the absolute nightmare that swirled around his family for years. He’s been a firsthand witness to the vilification of his mum and others who have defended his brother. I don’t blame him for not wanting to get involved.
Now to my question. If Shane said now that he had lied on the stand, would you believe him?
-
Strange he wasn’t standing by his mother’s side in the documentary then wasn’t it?
Would you let your mother live in a cold damp shed?
-
Whilst you may not believe protesting outside a building changes anything surely you support their cause in principle? I find your stance puzzling.
I certainly support reform.
-
Were any of the other witnesses warned of the consequences of committing perjury? What about Janine Jones and Steven Kelly who we know gave evidence in court that was different from their initial statements. Were they warned?
And as to your question...he experienced directly the absolute nightmare that swirled around his family for years. He’s been a firsthand witness to the vilification of his mum and others who have defended his brother. I don’t blame him for not wanting to get involved.
Now to my question. If Shane said now that he had lied on the stand, would you believe him?
Shane never supported any previous demonstrations involving his mother and Sandra Lean. Have you never wondered about that?
To be honest Faith, all he has to do is come on here or contact me and I will fully back his brother if appropriate.
Shane can have his say on here if he wants it.
-
Would you let your mother live in a cold damp shed?
If you’re estranged from your mother perhaps. Remember this is not the whole of Corrine and Shane’s life. He could be annoyed about her selling the house, not liking his wife....who knows. You can’t base the destruction of a man’s life on assumptions.
-
If you’re estranged from your mother perhaps. Remember this is not the whole of Corrine and Shane’s life. He could be annoyed about her selling the house, not liking his wife....who knows. You can’t base the destruction of a man’s life on assumptions.
He could be but I doubt it.
Catch you all later.
-
Shane never supported any previous demonstrations involving his mother and Sandra Lean. Have you never wondered about that?
To be honest Faith, all he has to do is come on here or contact me and I will fully back his brother if appropriate.
No I haven’t wondered at that for the reasons already explained.
With the greatest respect John he has his anonymity now....what would your support offer him that would be worth risking that?
Shane doesn’t want his say. He obviously wants to be left alone. This doesn’t, however, make his brother guilty.
-
Would you let your mother live in a cold damp shed?
Certainly not, nor would I leave her or my sibling to fight their battle alone, especially if I felt I had in some way contributed to their predicament. I find the virtual absence of the brother in the documentary narrative quite telling.
-
If you’re estranged from your mother perhaps. Remember this is not the whole of Corrine and Shane’s life. He could be annoyed about her selling the house, not liking his wife....who knows. You can’t base the destruction of a man’s life on assumptions.
You're assuming he is innocent. Your faith could very well be misplaced.
-
Shane never supported any previous demonstrations involving his mother and Sandra Lean. Have you never wondered about that?
To be honest Faith, all he has to do is come on here or contact me and I will fully back his brother if appropriate.
Shane can have his say on here if he wants it.
YES. Let Shane speak up if his testimony was misinterpreted.
-
YES. Let Shane speak up if his testimony was misinterpreted.
I wouldn’t make the least difference and he’d be pulled apart.
-
Shane doesn't believe in his brothers innocence and openly tells people this. He told the police he believed his brother was capable of it. He admitted on the stand his brother wasn't home. He hasn't got involved at any point in Luke's campaign. He has never visited HMP Shotts. Corinne has disowned him.
It's not rocket science.
-
Shane doesn't believe in his brothers innocence and openly tells people this. He told the police he believed his brother was capable of it. He admitted on the stand his brother wasn't home. He hasn't got involved at any point in Luke's campaign. He has never visited HMP Shotts. Corinne has disowned him.
It's not rocket science.
When/where has Shane said this? It fits with him not being involved now
-
Shane doesn't believe in his brothers innocence and openly tells people this. He told the police he believed his brother was capable of it. He admitted on the stand his brother wasn't home. He hasn't got involved at any point in Luke's campaign. He has never visited HMP Shotts. Corinne has disowned him.
It's not rocket science.
That’s sadly ironic.
-
Shane doesn't believe in his brothers innocence and openly tells people this. He told the police he believed his brother was capable of it. He admitted on the stand his brother wasn't home. He hasn't got involved at any point in Luke's campaign. He has never visited HMP Shotts. Corinne has disowned him.
It's not rocket science.
This alone is extremely damning.
I know Shane follows these comments, if this isn't true he can contact us and we will be happy to remove it.
-
Shane doesn't believe in his brothers innocence and openly tells people this. He told the police he believed his brother was capable of it. He admitted on the stand his brother wasn't home. He hasn't got involved at any point in Luke's campaign. He has never visited HMP Shotts. Corinne has disowned him.
It's not rocket science.
Do you have cites for the above🐩?
-
This alone is extremely damning.
I know Shane follows these comments, if this isn't true he can contact us and we will be happy to remove it.
You know Shane follows these comments. How so?
-
Even had Shane wished to back up his brother's alibi as discussed with his mother the evidence just did not allow it.
His hard drive said it all ~ down to what site he was on and when. Irrefutable evidence which must have gone a long way to cementing the prosecution case
Computer records revealed he was in the house viewing internet porn and he testified that he had taken precautions to ensure he was alone.
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Complex trial revealed Jodi truth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm
-
Even had Shane wished to back up his brother's alibi as discussed with his mother the evidence just did not allow it.
His hard drive said it all ~ down to what site he was on and when. Irrefutable evidence which must have gone a long way to cementing the prosecution case
Computer records revealed he was in the house viewing internet porn and he testified that he had taken precautions to ensure he was alone.
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Complex trial revealed Jodi truth
Your link doesn’t seem to work.
-
Even had Shane wished to back up his brother's alibi as discussed with his mother the evidence just did not allow it.
His hard drive said it all ~ down to what site he was on and when. Irrefutable evidence which must have gone a long way to cementing the prosecution case
Computer records revealed he was in the house viewing internet porn and he testified that he had taken precautions to ensure he was alone.
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Complex trial revealed Jodi truth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm
Thank you for adding the link however there is so much wrong with this report that I really don’t know where to start. I guess the media simply count on readers not having much information on the case.
-
’Crown warning as supporters tell jury members to come forward
Supporters of the killer of Jodi Jones have been posting messages asking members of the jury which convicted him to come forward’
Excerpts:
‘In a Facebook group in which Mitchell's 2003 murder of teenager Jodi Jones is discussed, supporters posted messages asking jurors from the case to come forward.
But strict laws make it a potential contempt of court for anyone to approach a juror, and there are limitations on what a juror can discuss even after the trial ends.
In a message on the Facebook group, one user posted asking jurors to contact Dr Sandra Lean, an author who has campaigned against Mitchell's conviction as a miscarriage of justice
“Any Luke's jurors following this, please reach out to Sandra as she can't approach you by law.
A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: “It is a contempt of court for anyone to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings.
“In all cases where the Crown becomes aware of issues of potential contempt, these will be considered carefully and action will be taken if considered appropriate.”
.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-crown-warning-supporters-20138120.amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
’Crown warning as supporters tell jury members to come forward
Supporters of the killer of Jodi Jones have been posting messages asking members of the jury which convicted him to come forward’
Excerpts:
‘In a Facebook group in which Mitchell's 2003 murder of teenager Jodi Jones is discussed, supporters posted messages asking jurors from the case to come forward.
But strict laws make it a potential contempt of court for anyone to approach a juror, and there are limitations on what a juror can discuss even after the trial ends.
In a message on the Facebook group, one user posted asking jurors to contact Dr Sandra Lean, an author who has campaigned against Mitchell's conviction as a miscarriage of justice
“Any Luke's jurors following this, please reach out to Sandra as she can't approach you by law.
A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: “It is a contempt of court for anyone to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings.
“In all cases where the Crown becomes aware of issues of potential contempt, these will be considered carefully and action will be taken if considered appropriate.”
.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-crown-warning-supporters-20138120.amp?__twitter_impression=true
Stinks of desperation now. And apparently the big march to the Scottish Parliament has been postponed too.
-
Fair enough but a lot are trolls like the two removed from here today.
Let's be in no doubt, this campaign is spearheaded by Sandra Lean whose only agenda is to make a name for herself.
I could offer a suggestion [censored word]
Luke is Dr Lean’s meal ticket
-
And plenty of time to collect the remnants - zipper, buttons etc and dispose of away from home
Also Corrine Mitchell claimed in the frontline doc her log burner was only used for burning logs
Elsewhere it’s been claimed dead plants and leaves were burnt in it
Was the log burn not physically tested ?
-
Do you know anything about his shoes?
-
Was the log burn not physically tested ?
It was and nothing forensically significant was found. No melted residue from the material a parka is made from clinging to the wood burner walls and no residue of plastic or rubber from shoes, which must have been bloodstained too, was found.
For the clothes to have been totally obliterated in a small domestic wood burner such as the one owned by the Mitchells would be nigh on impossible. The temperature simply does not get high enough and it was also raining much of the night so that also has to be factored in.
-
The time has come for family of Luke Mitchell murder victim Jodi Jones to be respected
Not only have they endured the horror of losing the 14-year-old but they have also had to watch a misinformation campaign snowball.
ByRecord View
04:30, 15 JUN 2021
The family of murdered schoolgirl Jodi Jones have suffered years of anguish since she was brutally killed by twisted Luke Mitchell.
Not only have they endured the horror of losing the 14-year-old but they have also had to watch a misinformation campaign snowball.
False claims of Mitchell’s innocence have been stepped up in recent years – adding to the agony of Jodi’s loved ones.
Now stickers bearing Jodi’s image next to the words “truth must be known” have been plastered on lampposts and street signs in Midlothian.
This insensitive act comes on the back of a documentary which aired claims that someone else could have been responsible for the murder. It is little wonder that Jodie’s relatives are incensed by the stickers.
Family of murdered Scot Jodi Jones slam Luke Mitchell supporters for using schoolgirl's image in 'shameful' campaign for his release
As one family member said: “We are satisfied the right man is in prison for Jodi’s murder. It’s shameful they are using her picture to further their cause. As a family we are disgusted at this latest tactic.”
The relative said of Mitchell’s online supporters: “They are nothing but social media attention seekers jumping on the bandwagon of a hopeless cause.”
The time has come for Jodi’s family to be respected and for this shameless attempt at rewriting history to stop.
Mitchell should serve the full sentence for his despicable crime and his supporters must end their misguided campaign.
Scotland was shocked at Jodi’s brutal murder and heartbroken her life was cut tragically short. The public will also be horrified by attempts at painting Mitchell as a victim – rather than as the perpetrator of this evil act.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/record-view-jodi-jones-murder-24319536
-
The time has come for family of Luke Mitchell murder victim Jodi Jones to be respected
Not only have they endured the horror of losing the 14-year-old but they have also had to watch a misinformation campaign snowball.
ByRecord View
04:30, 15 JUN 2021
The family of murdered schoolgirl Jodi Jones have suffered years of anguish since she was brutally killed by twisted Luke Mitchell.
Not only have they endured the horror of losing the 14-year-old but they have also had to watch a misinformation campaign snowball.
False claims of Mitchell’s innocence have been stepped up in recent years – adding to the agony of Jodi’s loved ones.
Now stickers bearing Jodi’s image next to the words “truth must be known” have been plastered on lampposts and street signs in Midlothian.
This insensitive act comes on the back of a documentary which aired claims that someone else could have been responsible for the murder. It is little wonder that Jodie’s relatives are incensed by the stickers.
Family of murdered Scot Jodi Jones slam Luke Mitchell supporters for using schoolgirl's image in 'shameful' campaign for his release
As one family member said: “We are satisfied the right man is in prison for Jodi’s murder. It’s shameful they are using her picture to further their cause. As a family we are disgusted at this latest tactic.”
The relative said of Mitchell’s online supporters: “They are nothing but social media attention seekers jumping on the bandwagon of a hopeless cause.”
The time has come for Jodi’s family to be respected and for this shameless attempt at rewriting history to stop.
Mitchell should serve the full sentence for his despicable crime and his supporters must end their misguided campaign.
Scotland was shocked at Jodi’s brutal murder and heartbroken her life was cut tragically short. The public will also be horrified by attempts at painting Mitchell as a victim – rather than as the perpetrator of this evil act.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/record-view-jodi-jones-murder-24319536
SN: ‘Let’s just make this ABUNDANTLY clear
I have never and probably will never live in Dalkeith. I have lived in the same place my entire live, miles away from Dalkeith.
You’ve got the love the Media making up lies to fit their own narrative, AGAIN!
The sticker says #justiceforjodijones and the truth must be known! That means even if the right person is in prison, Jodi deserves this to be re-investigated because nobody should be talking about this 18 years later. She deserves to rest.
She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death also.
I’d like to think her family would agree with that. And if they don’t, I’d like to personally ask them why.
So whoever passed my picture on, pass that on as well.
Many thanks.[/i] (sic)
What this individual ⬆️ doesn’t appear to comprehend is the fact Jodi Jones family would have had access to the same case material as Sandra Lean and I suspect even more..
The Jones/Walker families weren’t and aren’t ignorant like killer Luke Mitchell and his supporters attempt to portray them as. And I suspect they would have undoubtably had numerous questions they wanted answers to over the years - especially in the early days/months/years and I again suspect they won’t have stopped asking questions until they were satisfied with the answers.
To make the claim,
‘She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death’
does suggest this individual may have been taken in by Sandra Leans bs but also suggests they view Jodi as a commodity for their own ends
Sadly Jodi’s body had already been exposed to the elements for several hours before she was found.
The general public are not privy to ALL the facts regarding the management of the crime scene and relying on Sandra Leans interpretation of the case papers is foolish
Maybe if Sandra had provided a detailed sketch, which included all measurements of the area where Jodi was found along with every single intricate detail of that evening her followers would have had more of an idea of what the police and forensic experts based some of their decisions on through the night
And this ⬇️
‘I’d like to think her family would agree with that. And if they don’t, I’d like to personally ask them why’
is uncalled for
-
SN: ‘Let’s just make this ABUNDANTLY clear
I have never and probably will never live in Dalkeith. I have lived in the same place my entire live, miles away from Dalkeith.
You’ve got the love the Media making up lies to fit their own narrative, AGAIN!
The sticker says #justiceforjodijones and the truth must be known! That means even if the right person is in prison, Jodi deserves this to be re-investigated because nobody should be talking about this 18 years later. She deserves to rest.
She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death also.
I’d like to think her family would agree with that. And if they don’t, I’d like to personally ask them why.
So whoever passed my picture on, pass that on as well.
Many thanks.[/i] (sic)
What this individual ⬆️ doesn’t appear to comprehend is the fact Jodi Jones family would have had access to the same case material as Sandra Lean and I suspect even more..
The Jones/Walker families weren’t and aren’t ignorant like killer Luke Mitchell and his supporters attempt to portray them as. And I suspect they would have undoubtably had numerous questions they wanted answers to over the years - especially in the early days/months/years and I again suspect they won’t have stopped asking questions until they were satisfied with the answers.
To make the claim,
‘She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death’
does suggest this individual may have been taken in by Sandra Leans bs but also suggests they view Jodi as a commodity for their own ends
Sadly Jodi’s body had already been exposed to the elements for several hours before she was found.
The general public are not privy to ALL the facts regarding the management of the crime scene and relying on Sandra Leans interpretation of the case papers is foolish
Maybe if Sandra had provided a detailed sketch, which included all measurements of the area where Jodi was found along with every single intricate detail of that evening her followers would have had more of an idea of what the police and forensic experts based some of their decisions on through the night
And this ⬇️
‘I’d like to think her family would agree with that. And if they don’t, I’d like to personally ask them why’
is uncalled for
Well said.
These people do not speak for Jodi nor for her family. The family have stated many times over the years, that THEY are happy justice has been done.
-
SN: ‘Let’s just make this ABUNDANTLY clear
I have never and probably will never live in Dalkeith. I have lived in the same place my entire live, miles away from Dalkeith.
You’ve got the love the Media making up lies to fit their own narrative, AGAIN!
The sticker says #justiceforjodijones and the truth must be known! That means even if the right person is in prison, Jodi deserves this to be re-investigated because nobody should be talking about this 18 years later. She deserves to rest.
She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death also.
I’d like to think her family would agree with that. And if they don’t, I’d like to personally ask them why.
So whoever passed my picture on, pass that on as well.
Many thanks.[/i] (sic)
What this individual ⬆️ doesn’t appear to comprehend is the fact Jodi Jones family would have had access to the same case material as Sandra Lean and I suspect even more..
The Jones/Walker families weren’t and aren’t ignorant like killer Luke Mitchell and his supporters attempt to portray them as. And I suspect they would have undoubtably had numerous questions they wanted answers to over the years - especially in the early days/months/years and I again suspect they won’t have stopped asking questions until they were satisfied with the answers.
To make the claim,
‘She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death’
does suggest this individual may have been taken in by Sandra Leans bs but also suggests they view Jodi as a commodity for their own ends
Sadly Jodi’s body had already been exposed to the elements for several hours before she was found.
The general public are not privy to ALL the facts regarding the management of the crime scene and relying on Sandra Leans interpretation of the case papers is foolish
Maybe if Sandra had provided a detailed sketch, which included all measurements of the area where Jodi was found along with every single intricate detail of that evening her followers would have had more of an idea of what the police and forensic experts based some of their decisions on through the night
And this ⬇️
‘I’d like to think her family would agree with that. And if they don’t, I’d like to personally ask them why’
is uncalled for
To make the claim, ‘She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death’ indicates to me that this individual has little or no sensitivity and certainly has no regard for Jodi's family.
Jodi received the justice she deserved when the perpetrator of the outrages committed against her living and her dead body got his just deserts in a court of law.
I think it perfectly possible that the gutter support Mitchell receives will be noted and may well reflect to his disadvantage in the years to come.
The question has to be asked if his 'supporters' really want him to ever walk free because I think they are going entirely the wrong way about it.
-
To make the claim, ‘She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death’ indicates to me that this individual has little or no sensitivity and certainly has no regard for Jodi's family.
Jodi received the justice she deserved when the perpetrator of the outrages committed against her living and her dead body got his just deserts in a court of law.
I think it perfectly possible that the gutter support Mitchell receives will be noted and may well reflect to his disadvantage in the years to come.
The question has to be asked if his 'supporters' really want him to ever walk free because I think they are going entirely the wrong way about it.
If Luke Mitchell were ever freed I think he will be placed well away from the area he previously frequented as part of his parole conditions.
-
Well said.
These people do not speak for Jodi nor for her family. The family have stated many times over the years, that THEY are happy justice has been done.
Stephanie Nicol doesn’t appear to get it
She further states,
‘Oh I’ll need to clarify something else...
The picture referred to as “mine” is the picture of the lamppost the sticker is stuck to.
The image of Jodi Jones in the sticker is obviously not mine but has been available in the media for many years.
If people want to start after anybody using Jodi’s image then you’ll be taking on mainstream media as a whole, the news, documentaries and internet search engines.
Her sticker - where she’s used a photo of [Name removed]’s states on it
‘The truth must be known’ & ‘justiceforjodijones’
which is extremely disrespectful towards [Name removed]’s family and beyond contempt
The ‘media’ haven’t used an image of [Name removed]’s in the way Stephanie Nicol has
It suggests to me she seems to be under the impression the Jones & Walker families don’t care?! *&^^&
-
To make the claim, ‘She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death’ indicates to me that this individual has little or no sensitivity and certainly has no regard for Jodi's family.
Totally
It’s yet more obscenities *&^^&
As it Sandra Lean’s nonsense
‘An open message to the Daily Record:
You claim that misinformation and false claims of innocence are being disseminated in the campaign to have Luke Mitchell's conviction re-examined. Why? We are telling the truth
🙄
-
Her sticker - where she’s used a photo of [Name removed]’s states on it
‘The truth must be known’ & ‘justiceforjodijones’
which is extremely disrespectful towards [Name removed]’s family and beyond contempt
The ‘media’ haven’t used an image of [Name removed]’s in the way Stephanie Nicol has
It suggests to me she seems to be under the impression the Jones & Walker families don’t care?! *&^^&
In response to Sandra Lean ⬇️
‘An open message to the Daily Record:
You claim that misinformation and false claims of innocence are being disseminated in the campaign to have Luke Mitchell's conviction re-examined. Why? We are telling the truth - you are the source of so much misinformation and false claims and today's article proves it.
The stickers to which you refer were not "plastered all over Midlothian" - they are nowhere near Midlothian. You claim that using Jodi's image is "insensitive," yet you use the same image to peddle your lies.
The ‘media’ haven’t used an image of [Name removed]’s in the way Stephanie Nicol has
-
SN: ‘Let’s just make this ABUNDANTLY clear
I have never and probably will never live in Dalkeith. I have lived in the same place my entire live, miles away from Dalkeith.
You’ve got the love the Media making up lies to fit their own narrative, AGAIN!
The sticker says #justiceforjodijones and the truth must be known! That means even if the right person is in prison, Jodi deserves this to be re-investigated because nobody should be talking about this 18 years later. She deserves to rest.
She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death also.
I’d like to think her family would agree with that. And if they don’t, I’d like to personally ask them why.
So whoever passed my picture on, pass that on as well.
Many thanks.[/i] (sic)
What this individual ⬆️ doesn’t appear to comprehend is the fact Jodi Jones family would have had access to the same case material as Sandra Lean and I suspect even more..
The Jones/Walker families weren’t and aren’t ignorant like killer Luke Mitchell and his supporters attempt to portray them as. And I suspect they would have undoubtably had numerous questions they wanted answers to over the years - especially in the early days/months/years and I again suspect they won’t have stopped asking questions until they were satisfied with the answers.
To make the claim,
‘She also deserves justice for how she was neglected after her death’
does suggest this individual may have been taken in by Sandra Leans bs but also suggests they view Jodi as a commodity for their own ends
Sadly Jodi’s body had already been exposed to the elements for several hours before she was found.
The general public are not privy to ALL the facts regarding the management of the crime scene and relying on Sandra Leans interpretation of the case papers is foolish
Maybe if Sandra had provided a detailed sketch, which included all measurements of the area where Jodi was found along with every single intricate detail of that evening her followers would have had more of an idea of what the police and forensic experts based some of their decisions on through the night
And this ⬇️
‘I’d like to think her family would agree with that. And if they don’t, I’d like to personally ask them why’
is uncalled for
How low will these followers go? Can they get any lower? I think so.