Maybe the hair being pulled was an unintended consequence of what took place. I'm not sure any evidence exists showing females are more likely to pull hair than males?
Is the pathology report in the public domain?
Was more than 1 person involved? The reason I ask this is that the hands were tied? At what stage were the hands tied and why?
Some of the many DNA profiles which were unidentified came back as "female" definitely. The number was 6 I think. At the time this caused great surprise to the Police. However, they were suffering from serious "confirmation bias" regarding Mitchell so not much importance seems to have been attributed to these female profiles. It seems they were then "written off" as a result. Clearly the idea that a female could have done it was not taken seriously by the Police. Granted, not many people would have thought it was a female, but there was major clues that it could have been.......no sexual assault, hair pulled out at the roots and the mystery female DNA profiles. Those are not just small clues, each of the 3 on their own are very significant, but taken together they should have been a very major red flag.
I don't think there's much doubt that in a violent confrontation men generally don't pull each other's hair but females are much more likely to. This could be simply because they have longer hair and it's easier to do, but hair pulling is not a trait of males who fight or of males who commit murders against females (to the extent of pulling it out by the roots).
I'm not sure about whether the pathology report is in the public domain or not.
I think you might be putting too much emphasis on the hair pulling. J J had long hair so I think it might have been an unintended consequence of what took place as opposed to someone deliberately wanting to pull out hair.
The following details some of the injuries:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4151915.stm
Yes, imo the Police were too stupid to fathom this our. Once they had allowed the crime scene to be contaminated for 7 hours, they then failed to search the houses of anyone except Mitchell because Dobbie had already decided he must have done it. They were suffering from "confirmation bias" from the first minute of the investigation. Murders such as those carried out by Tobin and Sinclair had no real motive apart from killing their victims. Now a character like either of them did not just happen to be hiding in the trees carrying weapons, over the wall at the path at about 5pm in broad daylight with dog walkers and cyclists around. Killers like the above 2 were smart, they abducted their victims and took them where there was no chance of other people being around.
The person who committed this murder was known to Jodi, but only Mitchell was deemed a suspect. Moped seen parked at V - explanation...."we don't remember what we were doing there, in fact we remember almost nothing about that whole day", but one of them remembered to shave all his hair off.? Next.....the moped strangely "disappears" and is never seen again or examined by the Police.
A witness statement given by A.O was "discovered" later (months, years?). A.O was not cited to give evidence despite being in the house apparently before Jodi went out. A.O told the Police something they didn't want to hear, something that pointed away from Mitchell being the only suspect. Something was going on in that house between 415pm and 445pm. About 8-10 texts were exchanged between A.O and Ju.J between 415pm and 430pm, despite the fact A.O was on his way home and would be back by about 430pm.
The "moped boys" took 5 days to tell the Police it was them on the moped the day of the murder. The Police were too thick to question the motives and statements of 2 people you wouldn't trust to keep 50p for you. These 2 were never identified by anyone whilst on the moped. The fact is, nobody knows WHO was on that moped.
To return back to motive. Mitchell had no motive to kill his girlfriend. Did the Police investigate anyone who might have had a motive? No they didn't. These Police were stupid. They had no experience of similar murders because they're rare in Scotland. When the DNA tests failed to match Mitchell they should have called in the FBI as this case was out of their league. They missed several clues and failed to identify other suspects. They also missed the most obvious clue of all.......the victim's hair was pulled out at the roots. That is a highly unusual facet of murders carried out by men. In fact I do not even know of one previous murder case where the victim sustained such an injury. Tobin and Sinclair did even worse things to their victims but pulling their hair out at the roots was not one of them. IMO the killer of Jodi Jones was not a man, it was a female. Men do not pull women's hair out, they have other sick depraved evil things in their heads. Women very rarely commit murders and almost never when there is no motive. In my opinion, a female with a motive killed Jodi. That is why there were no signs of sexual assault and why there were several female DNA profiles found.
Get your Inspector Clouseau hats on guys. Do you think the killer walked back towards Newbattle, went along the main road past traffic and people, covered in blood? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer ran across that main road risking being seen and going along the side of the small river behind the houses where Mitchell lived? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer walked back towards Easthouses onto the main road? Obviously NOT. Hiding in the woods across at the golf course and College wouldn't be a good option either with the possibility of Police swarming in once Jodi had been reported missing then found. So how did the killer get away undetected and witnessed by nobody, not even a dog walker? There was people around......the cyclist who heard noises over the wall. A man walking home from the tool hire shop who saw the moped at the V. Others would have been around walking dogs etc, but not one person saw anybody in a hurry looking agitated or with blood on them. WHY ??
The killer had plenty time to clean up any evidence of committing a murder, because only Mitchell and his house was searched. The Police were done up like kippers. They just didn't have the brains or experience to figure out the puzzle because they were obsessed with Mitchell. Mitchell did not do it. No DNA or blood at the scene or in his house makes it impossible. Some people say maybe he cleaned up in the river behind his house. So he did the murder at 515pm, got to the river across the main road at 530pm after running through the trees and across the main road without anyone seeing him covered in blood, spent 10 minutes cleaning up, in time to be witnessed by other youths near the Abbey in Newbattle at 545-550pm? What did he do with the bloodstained clothes? He had spare clothes in a backpack and changed by the river? See how stupid this theory is? It's just not realistic at all.
Those who continually say Mitchell did it are blinded to both the impossibility of the ridiculous timelines and lack of forensic evidence ANYWHERE. Mitchell didn't do it in my view. The killer was not male also in my opinion. IMO the killer was a female with a motive. You will have to work out for yourselves who it was and how they managed to escape the murder scene undetected.
The walls are closing in on the sick evil person who did this imo. The clock is ticking.
Or taken as a trophy?
I think you might be putting too much emphasis on the hair pulling. J J had long hair so I think it might have been an unintended consequence of what took place as opposed to someone deliberately wanting to pull out hair.
The following details some of the injuries:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4151915.stm
I think with the hair pulling you have to look at it as a piece of a picture that when joined with no sexual motive and female DNA being present, raises fairly high suspicion. I accept none of those things prove for sure it was a female, but they are indicators that the possibility was nowhere near as improbable as the Police may have thought. You might not realise it but you've actually said something very interesting there. You say the hair pulling may have been an unintended consequence rather than someone deliberately trying to do it. Now that is really a confirmation of what I am saying. If indeed you are correct, and I've always thought the hair was pulled out during a struggle, it is highly unlikely that a MAN armed with a knife or some other weapon is going to pull the victim's hair. He's going to slash or stab them or even punch them. This is a major reason why I believe it was a female. She attacked Jodi initially by pulling her hair and tearing it out. Other violence followed this initial attack.
Your other point about the female DNA is valid of course, but taken with the other 2 pointers to it being a female... it points to the killer possibly being female. Each of the 3 points on their own raise some suspicion, but my point is really that when you look at all 3 together, it creates high suspicion.
Your other point about footprints is also a good one, because those have been used to solve other crimes. Unfortunately after Jodi's body was found, the Police did not cordon the murder site off. People were trampling about over it for 7 hours overnight before forensics arrived, so crucial evidence was destroyed and lost forever. I've been trying to work out for years how any murder investigation team could be so incredibly stupid as to not secure the murder scene and protect forensic evidence. I still haven't worked out this level of stupidity. The investigating team did not have much if any experience of a murder like this, but there is a thing called common sense!!
Interesting stuff!
How do you know about AO and his witness statement, and about the text messages exchanged between him and JuJ ?? I haven't heard about any of this before, which is why I'm asking.
The female dna more than likely means squat. All the scientists were able to say is female dna was present on J J's clothing/person. It might well have been her own dna or that of her mother's or sister's given they all shared the same house.
I'm not sure most women would be capable of holding down another woman and tying up her hands whilst at the same time wielding a knife. I understand J J put up a fight.
Well as I'm sure you know, an Appeal Court is not a retrial. Therefore they will only look at the evidence from the Trial unless there is new evidence. Unfortunately the evidence from the Trial was just a web of lies..... "yes the moped was parked at the V but I don't remember where we were", "the moped was scrapped before Police saw it but I don't remember why", " I don't know why I shaved all my hair off myself after the murder", "Luke went straight to the V and over the wall" changed from initially... "Luke's dog alerted him at the V", Ju Jones....."Jo Jones was in the house all day and night" - no he wasn't, he was identified by a witness to be a member of Jodi's family who saw him (Stocky Man) following her along the main road at about 445pm.
Al Walker " I don't remember what clothes I was wearing the night of the murder". Ja Jones...."Jodi must have borrowed 1 of my 2 identical black T-shirts" - this later became "several" black T-shirts, because T-shirt number 2 had strangely "disappeared". Le Kelly the cyclist reported to Police he heard a noise like branches rustling over the other side of the V - by the time he went to Court this had transformed into.... "strangling noises, like someone in a headlock". St Kelly - DNA of sperm heads found on Jodi's T-shirt, "I don't know how that got there". Ja Jones.....initial statement..... "everyone at the scene was in hysterics" - changed in Court to Mitchell looked "fine" when he came back over the V.
The only person who told the truth was A.O but his statement "disappeared" and was never seen again until it was "discovered" and A.O was not cited as a witness. I wonder why.
Who identified [Name removed] as Stocky Man?
An independent witness who knew the Jones family saw him walking along the main road at about 445pm. The information released was that he was a member of Jodi's family. The witness recognised him. The name was not made public, but as he was the only male in her family there's no doubt it was him. This person was of stocky build and still is. It was definitely him. Despite that, Ju Jones said he was in the house all day and that evening. Ju Jones and A.O actually went out that night at about 6pm for an hour to go the cemetery, but that would have been after the Stocky Man sighting. I'm 99% sure it wasn't him that did it despite fingers now being pointed at him. Stocky Man had no motive to kill Jodi and neither did Luke Mitchell.
I've heard some crazy theories over the years, this one has to be in the top 5. It was a female @)(++(* @)(++(*
The tool hire guy seen the moped at the V @)(++(* @)(++(* No he did not.
All this craziness, is the same type of craziness a certain individual has been preaching over the years.
But yet here we are, 17/18 years down the line, many failed appeals. And what have these crazy stories lead too. Some t-shirts for sale @)(++(* @)(++(*
The moped was seen parked at the V by an employee of the tool hire shop who was walking home.
I also know a lot more than you about why it might have been a female
Someone who posts 6 stupid laughing emojis in a post including false information does not merit a response I'm afraid. Go back to Facebook.
Yes, imo the Police were too stupid to fathom this our. Once they had allowed the crime scene to be contaminated for 7 hours, they then failed to search the houses of anyone except Mitchell because Dobbie had already decided he must have done it. They were suffering from "confirmation bias" from the first minute of the investigation. Murders such as those carried out by Tobin and Sinclair had no real motive apart from killing their victims. Now a character like either of them did not just happen to be hiding in the trees carrying weapons, over the wall at the path at about 5pm in broad daylight with dog walkers and cyclists around. Killers like the above 2 were smart, they abducted their victims and took them where there was no chance of other people being around.
The person who committed this murder was known to Jodi, but only Mitchell was deemed a suspect. Moped seen parked at V - explanation...."we don't remember what we were doing there, in fact we remember almost nothing about that whole day", but one of them remembered to shave all his hair off.? Next.....the moped strangely "disappears" and is never seen again or examined by the Police.
A witness statement given by A.O was "discovered" later (months, years?). A.O was not cited to give evidence despite being in the house apparently before Jodi went out. A.O told the Police something they didn't want to hear, something that pointed away from Mitchell being the only suspect. Something was going on in that house between 415pm and 445pm. About 8-10 texts were exchanged between A.O and Ju.J between 415pm and 430pm, despite the fact A.O was on his way home and would be back by about 430pm.
The "moped boys" took 5 days to tell the Police it was them on the moped the day of the murder. The Police were too thick to question the motives and statements of 2 people you wouldn't trust to keep 50p for you. These 2 were never identified by anyone whilst on the moped. The fact is, nobody knows WHO was on that moped.
To return back to motive. Mitchell had no motive to kill his girlfriend. Did the Police investigate anyone who might have had a motive? No they didn't. These Police were stupid. They had no experience of similar murders because they're rare in Scotland. When the DNA tests failed to match Mitchell they should have called in the FBI as this case was out of their league. They missed several clues and failed to identify other suspects. They also missed the most obvious clue of all.......the victim's hair was pulled out at the roots. That is a highly unusual facet of murders carried out by men. In fact I do not even know of one previous murder case where the victim sustained such an injury. Tobin and Sinclair did even worse things to their victims but pulling their hair out at the roots was not one of them. IMO the killer of Jodi Jones was not a man, it was a female. Men do not pull women's hair out, they have other sick depraved evil things in their heads. Women very rarely commit murders and almost never when there is no motive. In my opinion, a female with a motive killed Jodi. That is why there were no signs of sexual assault and why there were several female DNA profiles found.
Get your Inspector Clouseau hats on guys. Do you think the killer walked back towards Newbattle, went along the main road past traffic and people, covered in blood? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer ran across that main road risking being seen and going along the side of the small river behind the houses where Mitchell lived? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer walked back towards Easthouses onto the main road? Obviously NOT. Hiding in the woods across at the golf course and College wouldn't be a good option either with the possibility of Police swarming in once Jodi had been reported missing then found. So how did the killer get away undetected and witnessed by nobody, not even a dog walker? There was people around......the cyclist who heard noises over the wall. A man walking home from the tool hire shop who saw the moped at the V. Others would have been around walking dogs etc, but not one person saw anybody in a hurry looking agitated or with blood on them. WHY ??
The killer had plenty time to clean up any evidence of committing a murder, because only Mitchell and his house was searched. The Police were done up like kippers. They just didn't have the brains or experience to figure out the puzzle because they were obsessed with Mitchell. Mitchell did not do it. No DNA or blood at the scene or in his house makes it impossible. Some people say maybe he cleaned up in the river behind his house. So he did the murder at 515pm, got to the river across the main road at 530pm after running through the trees and across the main road without anyone seeing him covered in blood, spent 10 minutes cleaning up, in time to be witnessed by other youths near the Abbey in Newbattle at 545-550pm? What did he do with the bloodstained clothes? He had spare clothes in a backpack and changed by the river? See how stupid this theory is? It's just not realistic at all.
Those who continually say Mitchell did it are blinded to both the impossibility of the ridiculous timelines and lack of forensic evidence ANYWHERE. Mitchell didn't do it in my view. The killer was not male also in my opinion. IMO the killer was a female with a motive. You will have to work out for yourselves who it was and how they managed to escape the murder scene undetected.
The walls are closing in on the sick evil person who did this imo. The clock is ticking.
Did you not say a few weeks ago that Stocky Man' committed the murder?
You did - look: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11975.msg644343#msg644343
But now you're saying 'The killer was a female with a motive'.
So, Stocky Man's a female, then?
A few weeks ago, William was saying that LM was guilty, and that was after reading SL's book.
I wonder what has changed his mind??
Did you not say a few weeks ago that Stocky Man' committed the murder?
You did - look: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11975.msg644343#msg644343
But now you're saying 'The killer was a female with a motive'.
So, Stocky Man's a female, then?
I did say about 6 weeks ago that Stocky Man did the murder, that is correct. I don't think he can be completely ruled out as he was seen by an independent witness at a time when he was reported by Ju Jones to have been in the house. However, it could be possible he left the house without telling them, so him being seen out could mean something or nothing. I believe now that it is highly unlikely it was him, because he had no motive. I've become convinced in the last few weeks that this was not an attack by a random psychopath and that there was a motive behind it.
HAIR PULLED OUT BY THE ROOTS
FEMALE DNA on Jodi's clothing
NO SEXUAL ASSAULT
Those combined are serious RED FLAGS that the attacker could have been a female.
I would add that there is another 'clue' which comes from the hair pulling. Somebody intent on doing someone serious damage that is carrying a knife, machete or other bladed weapon and is already in a rage, is not going to begin that attack by pulling someone's hair out. I think that is really obvious. It would also be very difficult to do with one hand, if they had a weapon in the other. What makes much more logical sense is that Jodi was attacked by someone in a rage and her hair was violently pulled out at the roots during the struggle. The attacker then completely lost the plot and attacked her with a weapon and killed her.
"Hair being pulled out by the roots" is not something ever disclosed about any of Tobin or Sinclair's victims. Nor was it mentioned in the case of Frances Auld (not proven: charged with killing Amanda Duffy in Hamilton), or Gavin Maguire who killed Mhairi Julyan in Ayrshire in 1996 and was found guilty. Mhairi's injuries were horrendous and there are similarities with the attack on Jodi. In Mhairi's case there was a sexual assault and a horrific list of other injuries, but "hair pulled out by the roots was not one of them". Maguire was known to Police and had a horrendous record and had only been out of jail a short time when he did this murder. An equally horrendous killing was the murder of Moira Jones in Queen's Park in Glasgow in 2008. Again, a huge amount of injuries sustained but again, hair pulling was not one of them.
What I'm getting at is that 3 of the most violent psychopathic horrific murders in Scotland in the last 25 years along with the multiple murders carried out by Tobin and Sinclair, contained no reference to hair pulling. Men including psychopaths that commit murders like those above don't pull hair. Hair pulling in Jodi's case points to an attack by a female which escalated into using a weapon. When you add the female DNA found and no sexual motive.........you have a serious RED FLAG.
I did say about 6 weeks ago that Stocky Man did the murder, that is correct. I don't think he can be completely ruled out as he was seen by an independent witness at a time when he was reported by Ju Jones to have been in the house. However, it could be possible he left the house without telling them, so him being seen out could mean something or nothing. I believe now that it is highly unlikely it was him, because he had no motive. I've become convinced in the last few weeks that this was not an attack by a random psychopath and that there was a motive behind it.
HAIR PULLED OUT BY THE ROOTS
FEMALE DNA on Jodi's clothing
NO SEXUAL ASSAULT
Those combined are serious RED FLAGS that the attacker could have been a female.
I would add that there is another 'clue' which comes from the hair pulling. Somebody intent on doing someone serious damage that is carrying a knife, machete or other bladed weapon and is already in a rage, is not going to begin that attack by pulling someone's hair out. I think that is really obvious. It would also be very difficult to do with one hand, if they had a weapon in the other. What makes much more logical sense is that Jodi was attacked by someone in a rage and her hair was violently pulled out at the roots during the struggle. The attacker then completely lost the plot and attacked her with a weapon and killed her.
"Hair being pulled out by the roots" is not something ever disclosed about any of Tobin or Sinclair's victims. Nor was it mentioned in the case of Frances Auld (not proven: charged with killing Amanda Duffy in Hamilton), or Gavin Maguire who killed Mhairi Julyan in Ayrshire in 1996 and was found guilty. Mhairi's injuries were horrendous and there are similarities with the attack on Jodi. In Mhairi's case there was a sexual assault and a horrific list of other injuries, but "hair pulled out by the roots was not one of them". Maguire was known to Police and had a horrendous record and had only been out of jail a short time when he did this murder. An equally horrendous killing was the murder of Moira Jones in Queen's Park in Glasgow in 2008. Again, a huge amount of injuries sustained but again, hair pulling was not one of them.
What I'm getting at is that 3 of the most violent psychopathic horrific murders in Scotland in the last 25 years along with the multiple murders carried out by Tobin and Sinclair, contained no reference to hair pulling. Men including psychopaths that commit murders like those above don't pull hair. Hair pulling in Jodi's case points to an attack by a female which escalated into using a weapon. When you add the female DNA found and no sexual motive.........you have a serious RED FLAG.
And here. at http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11975.msg644343#msg644343 , you say that "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".
Do you still think that?
A few weeks ago, William was saying that LM was guilty, and that was after reading SL's book.
I wonder what has changed his mind??
I think they definitely didn't walk down the path in either direction, because they would not want to risk being seen. The easiest escape route on foot would be to head across the field to the trees near the College and the golf course because there are far more trees there than at the path. However, although that seems a likely route, they would then have to hide in there not knowing how soon Police would start arriving in the area which would be very risky, as would trying to get back to their house from those woods. There is a possibility they went that way, but I'm not as sure as before that they did. Which begs the question, how did they manage to "disappear" undetected?
You could think it means that, but alternatively it was probably the easiest way to avoid coming across anyone. There are a lot of trees over that side, it's much denser than the thin band of trees along the path. The chances of anybody being in those thick woods are very low. If they had gone across the field at the path side of the wall over the Mary Burn that route would be facing houses so that can surely be ruled out. The only route where they would have been highly unlikely to meet anyone would have been across the field towards the woods beside the College or the golf course. They obviously didn't go back along the Roan's Dyke footpath in any direction to avoid being seen. For that reason, I'm pretty sure they must have headed over to those thick woods. I've been down that path and from where the V is, the route across the field to the woods looks like the only possible way anyone would go. The other possible routes looked way too risky. In fact they looked like total non-starters, particularly at around 5-6pm in broad daylight and hot weather. If it had been at 11pm at night and dark, it would have been very hard to guess which way they went.
Pretty much the only sensible escape route would have been the one over to those woods. I don't recall whether the Police ever searched in there, I don't think they did, but I'm not certain.
I would actually take issue with that - the woods where the murder took place are/were actually quite dense.
Either way, you're talking about someone with a fairly detailed knowledge of those woods.
Also, the thought process would be akin to that of LM (if it was him) - how to get away without being seen.
Another point would be that those woods in June would be busier than usual with people talking a summer walk - not ideal for hiding - even now, in early April, you'll pass people out for a walk all the time.
I've said this before - any local teenager would know those woods like the back of their hand - especially if making regular walks between Newbattle and Easthouses.
That is true. I read all the stuff in the papers daily for about a year back in 2003-2005. Every day there was a new story about Mitchell and something horrendous, usually to do with Satan or some other made up nonsense like he was obsessed with Manson and the Black Dahlia Murder. None of which has ever been proved. As a result of all that media coverage I was one of the huge majority who believed he did it. I read Sandra Lean's book almost 2 years ago and I swithered between he did it and he didn't for months. Eventually I concluded that despite all the Police failings and what is in the book, he did it. However, more recently I analysed the book again much more thoroughly and did other research into what was known as fact and what was possibly made up, such as the nonsense about Black Dahlia and Manson. I spent a lot of time going over all the evidence against him and found the majority of it was seriously flawed. I am now certain he didn't do it and I think I know who did and why, but obviously I cannot go into detail about that unfortunately, because it could be wrong of course.
So in short, yes I have changed my mind about whether he did it or not, but most people probably have too. It's a complex case full of lies and evidence that was fabricated to fit the Police narrative and the timelines don't make any sense. The A.O statement that was "discovered" later which was never referred to in Court and the fact A.O was never cited to give evidence despite being in the house when Jodi allegedly went out is more than highly suspect.
Thanks for answering, William. I've been looking around on various forums, and there seem to be a lot of people who have changed their minds about this case!
To be honest, I had never heard of it before joining this forum, a few years ago, but then, I'm not from Scotland.
From what I've read, I lean towards Luke being innocent, but I could be wrong---------.
We could all be wrong but the real question is was the Crown’s case proved beyond reasonable doubt and with a majority verdict and so many questions still being asked almost 20 years later, the answer must be no.
I agree. Certainly not proved beyond reasonable doubt, from what I know.
I don't think you know a great deal about the case ~ neither do I ~ and neither does anyone who didn't sit through the evidence being presented in perhaps the longest trial of a single person ever held in Scotland.
The members of the jury did and they delivered a majority verdict which was both considered and lawful. A verdict which has since been upheld on appeal.
Mitchell's advocate was considered as the foremost in Scotland but it seems not even he could prevail against the sum and substance of the evidence presented which convicted Mitchell; foremost of which was his false alibi.
Thanks for answering, William. I've been looking around on various forums, and there seem to be a lot of people who have changed their minds about this case!
To be honest, I had never heard of it before joining this forum, a few years ago, but then, I'm not from Scotland.
From what I've read, I lean towards Luke being innocent, but I could be wrong---------.
I would actually take issue with that - the woods where the murder took place are/were actually quite dense.
Either way, you're talking about someone with a fairly detailed knowledge of those woods.
Also, the thought process would be akin to that of LM (if it was him) - how to get away without being seen.
Another point would be that those woods in June would be busier than usual with people talking a summer walk - not ideal for hiding - even now, in early April, you'll pass people out for a walk all the time.
I've said this before - any local teenager would know those woods like the back of their hand - especially if making regular walks between Newbattle and Easthouses.
You may know the area better than me, but the trees behind the wall although dense, they're not very spread out width wise are they? Are they not very close to the field?
I don't think you know a great deal about the case ~ neither do I ~ and neither does anyone who didn't sit through the evidence being presented in perhaps the longest trial of a single person ever held in Scotland.
The members of the jury did and they delivered a majority verdict which was both considered and lawful. A verdict which has since been upheld on appeal.
Mitchell's advocate was considered as the foremost in Scotland but it seems not even he could prevail against the sum and substance of the evidence presented which convicted Mitchell; foremost of which was his false alibi.
All my knowledge of the case has been gleaned from the internet, newspapers and Sandra Lean's book, so you're right, I only know a limited amount.
I would love to know what came out at trial, and I am very interested in hearing the views of people who live local to where the crime took place. Sometimes they know things that the rest of us haven't heard about!
I suspect, however, that what was presented at trial may not have been the whole story. I'm never going to actually know that, though!
I would love to know what came out at trial, and I am very interested in hearing the views of people who live local to where the crime took place. Sometimes they know things that the rest of us haven't heard about!
I suspect, however, that what was presented at trial may not have been the whole story. I'm never going to actually know that, though!
I had shared some local stories, but it was dismissed as rumour and hearsay.
I actually suspect the opposite to what you think - that the local cops had more info, but a lot of it would have been inadmissible.
Plenty stuff that was reported on at the time of the trial, at this website. Although some on here, will claim all sorts about bias media. That may be true in some aspects, but is also used as an easy excuse to use to avoid backing up claims made. One thing is for sure, some stuff you will come across on Free Library, you won't read in any of Sandra's propaganda.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?SearchBy=0&q=luke+mitchell&Search=Search&By=0
Inadmissible for what reason?
Maybe because of how it was obtained.
Yes, imo the Police were too stupid to fathom this our. Once they had allowed the crime scene to be contaminated for 7 hours, they then failed to search the houses of anyone except Mitchell because Dobbie had already decided he must have done it. They were suffering from "confirmation bias" from the first minute of the investigation. Murders such as those carried out by Tobin and Sinclair had no real motive apart from killing their victims. Now a character like either of them did not just happen to be hiding in the trees carrying weapons, over the wall at the path at about 5pm in broad daylight with dog walkers and cyclists around. Killers like the above 2 were smart, they abducted their victims and took them where there was no chance of other people being around.
The person who committed this murder was known to Jodi, but only Mitchell was deemed a suspect. Moped seen parked at V - explanation...."we don't remember what we were doing there, in fact we remember almost nothing about that whole day", but one of them remembered to shave all his hair off.? Next.....the moped strangely "disappears" and is never seen again or examined by the Police.
A witness statement given by A.O was "discovered" later (months, years?). A.O was not cited to give evidence despite being in the house apparently before Jodi went out. A.O told the Police something they didn't want to hear, something that pointed away from Mitchell being the only suspect. Something was going on in that house between 415pm and 445pm. About 8-10 texts were exchanged between A.O and Ju.J between 415pm and 430pm, despite the fact A.O was on his way home and would be back by about 430pm.
The "moped boys" took 5 days to tell the Police it was them on the moped the day of the murder. The Police were too thick to question the motives and statements of 2 people you wouldn't trust to keep 50p for you. These 2 were never identified by anyone whilst on the moped. The fact is, nobody knows WHO was on that moped.
To return back to motive. Mitchell had no motive to kill his girlfriend. Did the Police investigate anyone who might have had a motive? No they didn't. These Police were stupid. They had no experience of similar murders because they're rare in Scotland. When the DNA tests failed to match Mitchell they should have called in the FBI as this case was out of their league. They missed several clues and failed to identify other suspects. They also missed the most obvious clue of all.......the victim's hair was pulled out at the roots. That is a highly unusual facet of murders carried out by men. In fact I do not even know of one previous murder case where the victim sustained such an injury. Tobin and Sinclair did even worse things to their victims but pulling their hair out at the roots was not one of them. IMO the killer of Jodi Jones was not a man, it was a female. Men do not pull women's hair out, they have other sick depraved evil things in their heads. Women very rarely commit murders and almost never when there is no motive. In my opinion, a female with a motive killed Jodi. That is why there were no signs of sexual assault and why there were several female DNA profiles found.
Get your Inspector Clouseau hats on guys. Do you think the killer walked back towards Newbattle, went along the main road past traffic and people, covered in blood? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer ran across that main road risking being seen and going along the side of the small river behind the houses where Mitchell lived? Obviously NOT. Do you think the killer walked back towards Easthouses onto the main road? Obviously NOT. Hiding in the woods across at the golf course and College wouldn't be a good option either with the possibility of Police swarming in once Jodi had been reported missing then found. So how did the killer get away undetected and witnessed by nobody, not even a dog walker? There was people around......the cyclist who heard noises over the wall. A man walking home from the tool hire shop who saw the moped at the V. Others would have been around walking dogs etc, but not one person saw anybody in a hurry looking agitated or with blood on them. WHY ??
The killer had plenty time to clean up any evidence of committing a murder, because only Mitchell and his house was searched. The Police were done up like kippers. They just didn't have the brains or experience to figure out the puzzle because they were obsessed with Mitchell. Mitchell did not do it. No DNA or blood at the scene or in his house makes it impossible. Some people say maybe he cleaned up in the river behind his house. So he did the murder at 515pm, got to the river across the main road at 530pm after running through the trees and across the main road without anyone seeing him covered in blood, spent 10 minutes cleaning up, in time to be witnessed by other youths near the Abbey in Newbattle at 545-550pm? What did he do with the bloodstained clothes? He had spare clothes in a backpack and changed by the river? See how stupid this theory is? It's just not realistic at all.
Those who continually say Mitchell did it are blinded to both the impossibility of the ridiculous timelines and lack of forensic evidence ANYWHERE. Mitchell didn't do it in my view. The killer was not male also in my opinion. IMO the killer was a female with a motive. You will have to work out for yourselves who it was and how they managed to escape the murder scene undetected.
The walls are closing in on the sick evil person who did this imo. The clock is ticking.
I don't think you know a great deal about the case ~ neither do I ~ and neither does anyone who didn't sit through the evidence being presented in perhaps the longest trial of a single person ever held in Scotland.
The members of the jury did and they delivered a majority verdict which was both considered and lawful. A verdict which has since been upheld on appeal.
Mitchell's advocate was considered as the foremost in Scotland but it seems not even he could prevail against the sum and substance of the evidence presented which convicted Mitchell; foremost of which was his false alibi.
No one needs to know a great deal about the case to appreciate the judicial system isn't infallible.
I would remind you of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice the country has ever witnessed where the appeal judges stated:
Stefan Kizsko
"We can find no grounds whatsoever to condemn the jury's verdict of murder as in any way safe or unsatisfactory. The appeal is dismissed". Lord Justice Bridge.
even though we know whose side she is on.
And that is the problem.
And that is the problem.
William Wallace, do you live near Dalkeith? Are you of a similar age to Luke or Shane? I think I read a lengthy post of yours recently on here and the inference was that you thought Luke was guilty. What has made you change your mind? The lack of incriminating forensic evidence on Luke? You now think a female could be the murderer — who? Just looking to stir up some further debate. Cheers.
A reminder William Wallace that opinion should be stated as such. The use of the IMO acronym is acceptable.
Which completely ignores the failed alibi and all the other evidence. Maybe it was all simply a coincidence?
Have you ever seen a man or heard of a man who pulled someone's hair out by the roots during a fight? I haven't. If you say you have, I wouldn't believe you.Males are on record as pulling out hair by the roots usually during a domestic violence incident where the victim is being dragged by the hair and while other outrages causing severe injury such as stamping and kicking are taking place.
I asked William the same question, and he has answered it, if you look back a bit!
Okay, thanks (never saw your post, btw, as I don’t have the time to trawl through all the replies). Just a quick thought regarding the female DNA found on Jodi: surely this is dna that was innocently transferred from a family member? I highly doubt Judith, Janine, Alice W or Yvonne W did it. And, I can’t see [Name removed]’s or [Name removed]’s girlfriend doing it, either (unless, of course, they were assisted by these two lads — lads who were known to police and had a history of violence to both men and women). I highly doubt Kimberly Thomson was involved either. Definitely think it was male, 16 years of age and upwards. I wouldn’t rule Luke out completely, but, from what I’ve read of the case so far and from what I’ve read of Sandra’s book (I’m currently at the ‘Boys on the Moped’ chapter), I think it was a lone perpetrator who had a lot of strength, though I certainly wouldn’t rule out someone with an accomplice. Such a complex case with still so many unanswered questions.
Btw, how tall was Luke back in 2003? Was he a big lad for his age? It’s difficult to tell from the online photos of him at the time.
I might be completely wrong but I think its probably a mistake this was anything to do with local people who were living in the vicinity at the time. I think it has all the hallmarks of a lone psychopath like Christopher Halliwell who just happened to be in the area at the time. Haliwell has links to Scotland, was a taxi driver and keen fisherman. He also started off his life as a butcher. Dalkeith is on the river Esk. Was Halliwell driving a fare paying passenger to Edinburgh and stopped off for a spot of fishing?Where was he living at the time might be a good place to start before making such accusations. He murdered a woman in Swindon in 2002 which is where he lived, got any evidence he was ferrying people up to Scotland from swindon in his taxi at the time of Jodi's death?
Hi, yes I did write that post saying he is guilty. However, I've changed my mind as I explained to Mr.Swah. I've re-analysed everything in a lot more detail since then and concluded he definitely didn't do it. There is very little doubt in my mind that pulling hair out by the roots was something that happened during an attack by a female which escalated into a knife attack. Men don't pull hair out in fights or during attacks on women. The evidence from the many Sinclair and Tobin murders as well as the other high profile examples I gave of horrendous injuries to the victims but no hair pulling speaks for itself. Does it prove it was a female? No not conclusively, but it's a major red flag when you consider female DNA was found and there was no sexual assault.
Where was he living at the time might be a good place to start before making such accusations. He murdered a woman in Swindon in 2002 which is where he lived, got any evidence he was ferrying people up to Scotland from swindon in his taxi at the time of Jodi's death?
Are folk in the habit of taking taxis from the South West of England to central Scotland?
We're told that Christopher Halliwell was in the area at the time of Jodi's tragic murder - how is that known?
Also, it seems that part of Halliwell's MO was to bury his victims - that didn't happen here.
I think his home address is irrelevant when his job as a taxi driver could take him all over the country and he was known to be a keen fisherman. He has been linked to the murder of Caroline Glachan.So you are completely cool with publicly pointing the finger at others without a single solitary speck of evidence?
So you are completely cool with publicly pointing the finger at others without a single solitary speck of evidence?
What makes you think any route he might have taken was direct from SW England?
He was partly brought up in Scotland moving there at the age of 10 where he remained until adhulthood.
He was from, and lived in Swindon.
He may have taken a passenger to the Midlands or North and an opportunity presented to take a passenger to Edinburgh.He may have taken a detour via London and York and picked up Suzy Lamplugh and Claudia Lawrence too.
He may have decided to take a fishing trip to Scotland, or visited old acquaintances, and made the trip pay by taking passengers direct from SW or looked for passengers en route. All sorts of permutations exist IF he was responsible.
He may have taken a passenger to the Midlands or North and an opportunity presented to take a passenger to Edinburgh.
He may have decided to take a fishing trip to Scotland, or visited old acquaintances, and made the trip pay by taking passengers direct from SW or looked for passengers en route. All sorts of permutations exist IF he was responsible.
So, Halliwell has maybe taken a fare from Swindon to the Midlands or North of England, them his next fare may have been from there to central Scotland, and on arriving in Scotland, he meets his pal, goes fishing, and commits a murder?
What was the motive for Halliwell's murders, btw?
As I said the permutations are infinite. He was a taxi driver, had connections in Scotland and was a keen fisherman.
He may have taken a detour via London and York and picked up Suzy Lamplugh and Claudia Lawrence too.
As I said the permutations are infinite. He was a taxi driver, had connections in Scotland and was a keen fisherman.
Former detective Steve Fulsher who brought Haliwell to book has suggested he might be responsible for the disappearance of CL.
I have to say I'm not getting the keen fisherman thing.
Former detective Steve Fulsher who brought Haliwell to book has suggested he might be responsible for the disappearance of CL.What do you think of policemen making public claims such as this about named individuals but without any actual evidence?
What do you think of policemen making public claims such as this about named individuals but without any actual evidence?
He's on a whole life tariff. The cases are non-contentious and he has admitted guilt. What's to lose?OK, so as long as they’re in prison “on a whole life tariff” it’s ok to accuse them of any crime without any evidence. I got it.
If men never pull out women’s hair in a fight then women never butcher other women in the manner Jodi was butchered.
Males are on record as pulling out hair by the roots usually during a domestic violence incident where the victim is being dragged by the hair and while other outrages causing severe injury such as stamping and kicking are taking place.
Jodi Jones suffered blunt force trauma to her head and I believe to other parts of her body; she may have been dragged by the hair.
Injuries of this type appear to be classic domestic violence wounds perpetrated by male on female and less often by female on male.
I have never witnessed a male pulling a female's hair out by the roots but the evidence is it does happen and Luke Mitchell was found guilty of doing so to Jodi Jones.(https://e3.365dm.com/18/01/2048x1152/skynews-west-midlands-police_4204027.jpg?bypass-service-worker&20180112164857)PC Emma Agyei lost some of her hair in the attack. Pic: West Midlands PoliceIn the clip released by the West Midlands force, the policewoman is forced to the ground by a 24-year-old man, who beats her and then rips out a large chunk of her hair.
https://news.sky.com/story/footage-released-of-man-ripping-out-policewomans-hair-in-attack-11204986
FEMALE OFFICER’S HAIR RIPPED OUT, COLLEAGUE’S GENITALS TWISTED – ATTACK CAPTURED ON BODYCAM: Police were responding to a domestic incident.
HE GRABS THE FEMALE OFFICER BY THE HAIR
YOU CAN HEAR HOW MUCH PAIN SHE IS IN
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3093930627330287
Domestic abuse victim speaks out - Viewers may find some images disturbing
"My hair had been pulled out ... " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14t9bnDe9XY
Police: Lowell man pulled out victim’s hair
— Soon after being served with a restraining order obtained by his wife, police say Wade Woehler returned to his Lowell apartment early Tuesday morning, kicked in the door, pulled out a handful of his wife’s hair ...
https://www.lowellsun.com/2014/01/15/police-lowell-man-pulled-out-victims-hair/
Okay, thanks (never saw your post, btw, as I don’t have the time to trawl through all the replies). Just a quick thought regarding the female DNA found on Jodi: surely this is dna that was innocently transferred from a family member? I highly doubt Judith, Janine, Alice W or Yvonne W did it. And, I can’t see [Name removed]’s or [Name removed]’s girlfriend doing it, either (unless, of course, they were assisted by these two lads — lads who were known to police and had a history of violence to both men and women). I highly doubt Kimberly Thomson was involved either. Definitely think it was male, 16 years of age and upwards. I wouldn’t rule Luke out completely, but, from what I’ve read of the case so far and from what I’ve read of Sandra’s book (I’m currently at the ‘Boys on the Moped’ chapter), I think it was a lone perpetrator who had a lot of strength, though I certainly wouldn’t rule out someone with an accomplice. Such a complex case with still so many unanswered questions.
Btw, how tall was Luke back in 2003? Was he a big lad for his age? It’s difficult to tell from the online photos of him at the time.
”Much more violent” than the attack on Jodi?! It really doesn’t get much more violent than that IMO.
I accept this may happen in domestic violence situations, albeit still nowhere near as common as other methods of violence. However, the point I'm making is that "pulling hair out by the roots" is not a characteristic of male murderers. As I mentioned, it was not something Tobin or Sinclair did nor those other 3 high profile murders I referred to. The reason might be because these type of psychopaths prefer much more violent assaults including sexual attacks. I don't even recall one other murder case where "pulling hair out by the roots" was part of the attack.
”Much more violent” than the attack on Jodi?! It really doesn’t get much more violent than that IMO.
To my mind J J's injuries are such one could be forgiven for thinking a patient from a psychiatric hospital escaped but it appears the only psychiatric hospital in the area didn't open until 2010.
”Much more violent” than the attack on Jodi?! It really doesn’t get much more violent than that IMO.
”Much more violent” than the attack on Jodi?! It really doesn’t get much more violent than that IMO.
We agree on something for once!
To my mind J J's injuries are such one could be forgiven for thinking a patient from a psychiatric hospital escaped but it appears the only psychiatric hospital in the area didn't open until 2010.
Its a mystery to me because there doesn't seem to be anything in LM's background to suggest he was capable of such violence. How to reconcile:
Pathologist's Trial Testimony
don't actually recommend doing this, but if you read what happened to Moira Jones, Mhairi Julyan and Amanda Duffy as well as the victims of Tobin and Sinclair, it was much worse trust me. That's why I don't recommend reading it. It's sickening. I did it only to check if this hair pulling was part of these attacks.
The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. 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.
Psychiatric Reports on LM
The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.
There was nothing in Luke's background to point to any psychiatric disorder
And do you know the names of his biological grandparents?
What can you tell us about Luke Mitchell’s extended family?
And do you know the names of his biological grandparents?
Prof James Fallon had genetic testing done https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/
Interesting article. I don't know much about his extended family to be honest, but psychopaths like Tobin and Sinclair and even Fred West had siblings who were most certainly not like them. Are you suggesting psychopathy can be passed from a parent to a child? Or that the psychopath's behaviour can make children become like them?
Apparently psychopathy can be genetic
In the case of ‘pro social’ psychopath Prof James Fallen “....his family line included seven alleged murderers, including Lizzie Borden, infamously accused of killing her father and stepmother in 1892”
Would be interested to learn more about Luke Mitchell’s biological family line
tricky to establish that as luke's mother's parents adopted her.
Interestingly in reading about luke family we read of a late Des Guetta, Corinnes adoptive brother. in interview with newspaper, Des Guetta refused to comment on allegations luke attacked him with a baseball bat some time prior to the murder.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562)
... is there any credibility in the claim this attack happened? i can't find this reported elsewhere but would be keen to learn more.
tricky to establish that as luke's mother's parents adopted her.
Interestingly in reading about luke family we read of a late Des Guetta, Corinnes adoptive brother. in interview with newspaper, Des Guetta refused to comment on allegations luke attacked him with a baseball bat some time prior to the murder.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562)
... is there any credibility in the claim this attack happened? i can't find this reported elsewhere but would be keen to learn more.
tricky to establish that as luke's mother's parents adopted her.
Interestingly in reading about luke family we read of a late Des Guetta, Corinnes adoptive brother. in interview with newspaper, Des Guetta refused to comment on allegations luke attacked him with a baseball bat some time prior to the murder.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562)
... is there any credibility in the claim this attack happened? i can't find this reported elsewhere but would be keen to learn more.
tricky to establish that as luke's mother's parents adopted her.
Interestingly in reading about luke family we read of a late Des Guetta, Corinnes adoptive brother. in interview with newspaper, Des Guetta refused to comment on allegations luke attacked him with a baseball bat some time prior to the murder.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562)
... is there any credibility in the claim this attack happened? i can't find this reported elsewhere but would be keen to learn more.
Was Corrine Mitchell’s adoption official?
Weren’t her parents ‘travellers’?
And were her biological parents also ‘travellers’?
Were Corrine and Desmond related by blood ?
tricky to establish that as luke's mother's parents adopted her.
Interestingly in reading about luke family we read of a late Des Guetta, Corinnes adoptive brother. in interview with newspaper, Des Guetta refused to comment on allegations luke attacked him with a baseball bat some time prior to the murder.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562)
... is there any credibility in the claim this attack happened? i can't find this reported elsewhere but would be keen to learn more.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562)
‘Judy and Corinne hardly knew each other before Jodi's murder. In the immediate aftermath of the killing they spoke frequently. Judy was concerned Luke would need emotional support and asked Corinne whether he was receiving counselling and if there was anything she could do to help.
But as the focus of the inquiry started to fix on Mitchell, Judy realised the boy she had reached out to was Jodi's killer.
Later, she would learn that the mother she grieved with had provided the killer with a false alibi. Reluctantly, she asked that Luke stay away from the funeral.
But in a very public slap in the face, Luke and Corinne created their own media circus - first inviting Sky TV round for an interview in which a smirking Luke denied he was the killer.
Then we have the real slap in the face which Corrine received at her place of work from a rather drunken Judith. I believe the police had to be called.
Then we have the real slap in the face which Corrine received at her place of work from a rather drunken Judith. I believe the police had to be called.
Then we have the real slap in the face which Corrine received at her place of work from a rather drunken Judith. I believe the police had to be called.
Yes but it pales in comparison to what Corrine’s son Luke did to Judith’s daughter Jodi
Although I doubt very much it went down anything like Corrine Mitchell alleged - she’s a renowned story teller after all
Were there any witnesses ?
Was there any witnesses to Luke killing Jodi?
Are you suggesting if there aren’t witnesses to a murder then no one should be arrested, charged and subsequently convicted?
.
I’m not suggesting that at all, I’m using your argument that if there were no witnesses then how can we be sure something actually happened?
there were no witnesses then how can we be sure something actually happened?
Most of the reasoning and debate around LM not being the killer of Jodi Jones is based upon that of 'fallacy' ?
AB - The first and foremost absolute basis for her sighting, the only factual reason for her attention was that of what appeared to be 'a disagreement, argument of sorts' Her attention was drawn to the male. His actions. It was he she recalled with certainty when she stated "I'm as sure as sure can be" This person was honest to a T. She made nothing up and she did not pick LM out in court on this absolute basis. LM some 18 months later had changed dramatically. Much fuller. long hair pulled tightly back in a ponytail. There is absolutely no doubt she had seen his picture many times in the paper after that Identification. She stuck firmly to that of the youth she had seen, on the path and in the Identification.
That photo Id where LM's hair is more blonde than anything else. It is however not 'poker straight' Any other picture we see of LM is that of a youth with brown - sandy coloured hair. Exactly the colour she described. 11 other youths in those pictures, different colour of hair, shape, size. - she picked LM out, even though his hair appeared very blonde as opposed to sandy. She remembered him with clarity. She was not drawn to the white background she was drawn to him.
Every other part of her description was nothing short of - dam good. From the first until those more in-depth clarification ones were obtained. The hair appearing to be clumped at his neck - it stuck out. That Khaki green jacket, not shiny, the bulging pocket, badge. The type was of possibility. Not definite. It appeared to be drawn at the waist. Parkas have draw cords do they not? What colour were the trousers, green?
Of the girl - Dark hair which was possibly contained. It was not flowing in whatever length. She had on a dark blue top with LIGHTER coloured trousers, possibly Jeans and possibly bootcut. Upon further clarification. Very dark blue/black possibly navy. The trousers were SLIGHTLY LIGHTER in colour than that of the top. They were loose fitting. Possibly Jeans but not trousers as such. Jodi was wearing a black hoody with slightly lighter coloured dark blue cord/jeans.
The attention was on the male. His actions. Not his clothing nor that of the female. She did however get those clothes pretty dam close to what they actually were.
So it is easy is it not - with this fallacy of reasoning to ignore all of this dam good description and choose to concentrate on that emblem. This witness had LM implanted in her recall, his apparent anger. Whatever else was captured in her mind was that of brief colours and description. Not everything, which is nigh on impossible to do - it was him and she did remember that face very clearly. When AB said "I'm as sure as sure as can be"
I was watching some TV documentary series last night - based on cameras in real police work. Glasgow? Comment by one of the DI's.
'I'm glad we can now do this, it used to annoy the hell of me when people simply thought crimes should be solved almost instantly. They are more often than not, that of a long drawn out process. Whilst we may be able to eliminate most in those first days and weeks, it still takes a long time of gathering evidence to solve. Often many months.
Therefore again, this fallacy of reasoning. That if they were so sure they had got their man, why did it take months until his arrest. - It is called investigating and being thorough. Making sure they do have the right man rather than fitting up the wrong one. Yes, we are all aware it happens. But still there is nothing in the case of LM to show this to be true, quite the opposite.
I agree
A source at Scotts Caravan Park said yesterday:
"A woman has turned up demanding to speak to Corinne and has obviously been drinking.
"There has been a confrontation in the reception between the two women and then the woman who came to the park has just gone wild.
There were heated words exchanged before things got physical and blows were struck.
"The scrap was mostly hairpulling.
"Corinne tried to fight back but the woman gave her a bit of a beating.
So "A source at Scotts Caravan Park ..." is considered sufficient to blackguard a woman who from the information I have read has in all circumstances behaved with great dignity and restraint.Totally agree. Was the source Corrine Mitchell herself.?Wouldn't surprise me .
I think that is shameful.
So "A source at Scotts Caravan Park ..." is considered sufficient to blackguard a woman who from the information I have read has in all circumstances behaved with great dignity and restraint.
I think that is shameful.
So "A source at Scotts Caravan Park ..." is considered sufficient to blackguard a woman who from the information I have read has in all circumstances behaved with great dignity and restraint.
I think that is shameful.
I agree
A source at Scotts Caravan Park said yesterday:
"A woman has turned up demanding to speak to Corinne and has obviously been drinking.
"There has been a confrontation in the reception between the two women and then the woman who came to the park has just gone wild.
There were heated words exchanged before things got physical and blows were struck.
"The scrap was mostly hairpulling.
"Corinne tried to fight back but the woman gave her a bit of a beating.
Most of the reasoning and debate around LM not being the killer of Jodi Jones is based upon that of 'fallacy' ?
AB - The first and foremost absolute basis for her sighting, the only factual reason for her attention was that of what appeared to be 'a disagreement, argument of sorts' Her attention was drawn to the male. His actions. It was he she recalled with certainty when she stated "I'm as sure as sure can be" This person was honest to a T. She made nothing up and she did not pick LM out in court on this absolute basis. LM some 18 months later had changed dramatically. Much fuller. long hair pulled tightly back in a ponytail. There is absolutely no doubt she had seen his picture many times in the paper after that Identification. She stuck firmly to that of the youth she had seen, on the path and in the Identification.
Cite please for AB’s attention being drawn to ‘an argument of sorts’? Nowhere have a read that AB offered that as a reason for her attention being drawn to the couple. The male’s arms were outstretched, palms up, that is all. I do however agree with you that AB was an honest witness. In her first two statements she said that she saw the couple between 5.40-5.45. That is more than likely true and probably why the police, in the first instance, dismissed her sighting. She said under cross examination in court that the jacket that the male wore was definitely not a parka, the jacket the police said categorically that Luke was wearing. ‘As sure as I can be’....it appears even she had some doubt about her identification, a doubt that seemed to still exist when she stepped into the witness box. No wonder...her original statement described the male as having on trousers that matched his jacket ( green), in his early 20s ( Luke was 14 ) and with a high collar and bulging pocket on his left arm ( certainly not a parka).
That photo Id where LM's hair is more blonde than anything else. It is however not 'poker straight' Any other picture we see of LM is that of a youth with brown - sandy coloured hair. Exactly the colour she described. 11 other youths in those pictures, different colour of hair, shape, size. - she picked LM out, even though his hair appeared very blonde as opposed to sandy. She remembered him with clarity. She was not drawn to the white background she was drawn to him.
You have no idea what influence the white background had in AB’s identification, albeit subconsciously. Further at the height of summer in June Luke’s hair would have been at its blondest. So, according to you, Luke’s hair, in his police photograph, was a different shade from the male AB had seen. His clothes were also different, he was much younger than the male she saw and she couldn’t describe his face at all....no wonder she qualified her identification by saying ‘as sure as I can be.
Every other part of her description was nothing short of - dam good. From the first until those more in-depth clarification ones were obtained. The hair appearing to be clumped at his neck - it stuck out. That Khaki green jacket, not shiny, the bulging pocket, badge. The type was of possibility. Not definite. It appeared to be drawn at the waist. Parkas have draw cords do they not? What colour were the trousers, green?
Clumped at the back, not the neck, and thick. AB said the jacket had a high collar and she couldn’t see the length of the male’s hair....suggesting she couldn’t see the neck either and Luke didn’t have ‘ thick hair’. The jacket was waist length not drawn at the waist and no, parkas ( the very jacket AB in court categorically said it wasn’t ) don’t normally have draw cords ( I’d suggest doing a quick google for proof)
Of the girl - Dark hair which was possibly contained. It was not flowing in whatever length. She had on a dark blue top with LIGHTER coloured trousers, possibly Jeans and possibly bootcut. Upon further clarification. Very dark blue/black possibly navy. The trousers were SLIGHTLY LIGHTER in colour than that of the top. They were loose fitting. Possibly Jeans but not trousers as such. Jodi was wearing a black hoody with slightly lighter coloured dark blue cord/jeans.
Look at the reconstruction. Jodi’s trousers were not jeans, bootcut or otherwise and nowhere is ‘slightly lighter’ mentioned in AB’s statement. The ‘possibly jeans’ does seem to suggest a much lighter, denim blue. No mention though of the really stand out part oh her clothing...the bright orange Deftones logo.
The attention was on the male. His actions. Not his clothing nor that of the female. She did however get those clothes pretty dam close to what they actually were.
See above.
So it is easy is it not - with this fallacy of reasoning to ignore all of this dam good description and choose to concentrate on that emblem. This witness had LM implanted in her recall, his apparent anger. Whatever else was captured in her mind was that of brief colours and description. Not everything, which is nigh on impossible to do - it was him and she did remember that face very clearly. When AB said "I'm as sure as sure as can be"
There is no evidence that AB described the male she saw as angry.
I was watching some TV documentary series last night - based on cameras in real police work. Glasgow? Comment by one of the DI's.
'I'm glad we can now do this, it used to annoy the hell of me when people simply thought crimes should be solved almost instantly. They are more often than not, that of a long drawn out process. Whilst we may be able to eliminate most in those first days and weeks, it still takes a long time of gathering evidence to solve. Often many months.
Therefore again, this fallacy of reasoning. That if they were so sure they had got their man, why did it take months until his arrest. - It is called investigating and being thorough. Making sure they do have the right man rather than fitting up the wrong one. Yes, we are all aware it happens. But still there is nothing in the case of LM to show this to be true, quite the opposite.
From the body laying uncovered for 8 hours to Luke’s fascination with Marilyn Manson, which there was not one scrap of evidence for, this case, along with the convictions of Steele and Campbell, will remain as indelible stains on the Scottish judicial system.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
“But today as Mitchell was found guilty, Lothian and Borders Police’s hunch was proved right, although there was severe criticism of their handling of the investigation during the case.
There was no murder weapon, no blood covered clothes - despite the gruesome nature of the murder - and no damning DNA find.
There was not even convincing eye-witness testimony.
The trial heard that Jodi’s body was left uncovered and exposed to the elements for eight hours after it was first discovered, possibly risking the destruction of vital DNA evidence.
The schoolgirl’s body and items around it had been moved before the forensic team started work.
Even though the knife used to murder Jodi had not been found, the bins in the area were allowed to be emptied before a thorough search could be carried out.
The way police carried out a virtual identity parade, presenting photographs of Luke and other youths to one witness, was also criticised during the trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.
A string of incidents were highlighted by Mitchell’s defence lawyer Donald Findlay, QC, during the 42-day trial.
In one blistering courtroom attack, Mr Findlay described the behaviour of detectives as "a disgrace".
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.
The jury also heard that a pioneering lab using the most sensitive DNA test in Britain failed to identify Mitchell as the
It also emerged that detectives probing the murder broke normal guidelines by not putting Mitchell on an ID parade.
Mr Findlay claimed "a tactical decision" had been taken not to treat the boy fairly.”
Luke Mitchell was the one who ‘went wild’
He wasn't on it when it was seen at the tool hire shop and he wasn't on it when it went up the Roan's Dyke Path.[/i][/b] The moped was driven by GD, but JF wasn't the person on the back of it.
"After the boys on the moped passed through the tool hire place, an employee there told police that s/he spotted the bike parked against the V break (with no people in sight) on the witness's drive home."[/b]
I'm afraid you are wrong. It was not Mitchell who did it. You may not agree with me that it may have been a female and you won't agree with me that Mitchell didn't do it. We all know about the absent DNA, but think about this for as long as it takes.............the search party went straight from the house up the Roan's Dyke Path and walked right past a house Jodi had been in 2 months previously smoking hash on another night she had not come back when she was supposed to. They walked within yards of it, but didn't knock on the door to see if she was there before going up a pitch black path with torches? They also didn't phone round other likely houses she could have been in before they went up the path. So they went to all the trouble of walking up that dark path when Jodi could have been in someone else's house just as she was the last time. Nobody would do that. They would phone friends and relatives first.
When they met Mitchell on the path he told them he hadn't seen anything on the way, but they insisted on going back down the path the way Mitchell came taking them back towards the V in the wall. So they were wanting to walk back down a path Mitchell had just walked up. Why would anyone do that?
We also know they said Mitchell's dog alerted him near the V, but changed what they said in those statements later. Three people changed their statements....all to say the exact same thing. The chances of that happening by coincidence are less than nil.
JF and GD managed to make the moped disappear. Why? JF shaved all his hair off, why?
I'm surprised people have not figured this whole thing out by now. None of the behaviour or actions mentioned above generate anything other than an extremely high level of suspicion. Why do you think Alan Ovens was not asked to give evidence in Court when he was in the house supposedly when Jodi left?
Why do you think JF couldn't remember what he was doing when the moped was parked at the V or anything else from that day? I'll tell you why.........because JF was never on that moped. He wasn't on it when it was seen at the tool hire shop and he wasn't on it when it went up the Roan's Dyke Path.The moped was driven by GD, but JF wasn't the person on the back of it.
Just reading Sandra’s book for the first time right now. Here’s a rather interesting paragraph that I’ve just read:
”Given that a knife, sharp enough to cut a piece from a 9oz bar of cannabis
Just reading Sandra’s book for the first time right now. Here’s a rather interesting paragraph that I’ve just read:
”Given that a knife, sharp enough to cut a piece from a 9oz bar of cannabis, was present in Judith’s house that day,
Totally agree. Was the source Corrine Mitchell herself.?Wouldn't surprise me .
Who do you think was on the moped with GD? JOSJ? Or another one of his buddies who was never called as a witness? Anyway, the crux of your post is that, in your opinion, JF was Jodi’s killer? He wasn’t on the moped with GD, because he was in the woodland strip behind the V-break in the wall murdering Jodi (with, possibly, a female accomplice such as his girlfriend)?
Btw, why was JF ostracised by Jodi’s family shortly after the murder? On the night of Jodi’s murder, JF was originally meant to go and visit JOSJ at his house, but decided against it. Why did he change his mind? Also, on that same night or a few days later, JUDJ told JF that he wasn’t welcome at the house anymore and that JOSJ was going to batter him. Does anyone know why? It’s was a very interesting development, given the context of everything.
Did this incident ever take place, do you know? (Or, does anyone know?).
Mrs Jones denied it ever happened.
I know I'm talking in riddles a bit, but I can't actually state what I think in full here because it would involve naming someone as the killer which isn't allowed. I'm almost certain JF was not the killer. The point I'm making about the "moped boys" is that NOBODY ever identified them as being JF and GD. Witness descriptions at no time said they saw those 2 on the moped. All that was ever described was "2 boys on a moped". It was JF and GD who told the Police it was them on the moped. They lied about the time they were on the path, lied by omission by not explaining to Police or in Court what they were doing when the moped was parked at the V, JF shaved all his hair off to change his appearance and last but not least.........the moped mysteriously disappeared before Police could even examine it. The moped was very obviously crushed, but these 2 couldn't tell the Police where it went?
In short, those 2 basically just lied about everything. The story about them being on the moped though we should believe to be true? Why, when they lied about everything else and were never identified on it?
As I said, I don't believe JF was ever on that moped. GD drove the moped up the path with someone else on the back of it. The mystery of how the killer managed to get away by walking or running and being seen by absolutely nobody with blood on them or scratches or other injuries has always been baffling, because it was tea time, it was light, the weather was good and there was people around. The reason they got away undetected is because they were on the back of that moped, which is why it was disposed of probably the very next day. The murder weapon was probably under the seat of the moped and crushed as well.
Why did JF claim it was him that was on the moped? The reason for that is because he wasn't up the path at all so obviously none of his DNA would be found and no witnesses would see him. By claiming it was him on the moped he concealed the identity of who was on the back of it. JF didn't remember anything about that day in his evidence in Court, that's because he wasn't there.
I know I'm talking in riddles a bit, but I can't actually state what I think in full here because it would involve naming someone as the killer which isn't allowed. I'm almost certain JF was not the killer. The point I'm making about the "moped boys" is that NOBODY ever identified them as being JF and GD. Witness descriptions at no time said they saw those 2 on the moped. All that was ever described was "2 boys on a moped". It was JF and GD who told the Police it was them on the moped. They lied about the time they were on the path, lied by omission by not explaining to Police or in Court what they were doing when the moped was parked at the V, JF shaved all his hair off to change his appearance and last but not least.........the moped mysteriously disappeared before Police could even examine it. The moped was very obviously crushed, but these 2 couldn't tell the Police where it went?
In short, those 2 basically just lied about everything. The story about them being on the moped though we should believe to be true? Why, when they lied about everything else and were never identified on it?
As I said, I don't believe JF was ever on that moped. GD drove the moped up the path with someone else on the back of it. The mystery of how the killer managed to get away by walking or running and being seen by absolutely nobody with blood on them or scratches or other injuries has always been baffling, because it was tea time, it was light, the weather was good and there was people around. The reason they got away undetected is because they were on the back of that moped, which is why it was disposed of probably the very next day. The murder weapon was probably under the seat of the moped and crushed as well.
Why did JF claim it was him that was on the moped? The reason for that is because he wasn't up the path at all so obviously none of his DNA would be found and no witnesses would see him. By claiming it was him on the moped he concealed the identity of who was on the back of it. JF didn't remember anything about that day in his evidence in Court, that's because he wasn't there.
Why, if your narrative is as simplistic as you have detailed it above, has it never been accepted as grounds to challenge Mitchell's murder conviction in the appeal court?
I've no idea who the boys on the moped might have been. However, I have read that JF moved away, and is now estranged from the Jones family. Do you have any idea why?
I think it highly unlikely that it did.
Snip
A Lothian and Borders spokeswoman said: "Police were called to an incident at a caravan park in Dalkeith regarding allegations of an assault.
"A full investigation was carried out.
"As a result no report will be sent to the procurator fiscal."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/police-take-no-further-action-968577
Had it happened I am sure the report in the paper would have been worded differently.
Neither the police nor the trial judge had ever seen such mutilation as that inflicted on Jodi
Snip
Lord Nimmo Smith said it was beyond any skill of his to see into the black depths of the baby-faced killer's mind.
He added: "It was a truly evil murder and one of the most appalling crimes that any of us can remember.
"You must rightly be regarded as wicked - you subjected Jodi to a horrible death and one can only hope mercifully quick.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4194463.stm
At the time of LM's trial it appears there was no precedent for a 'Goth attack' resulting in murder. Roll on 2007 and we have the case of Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend Robert Maltby:
Police said that it was "a sustained attack during the course of which the pair received serious head injuries and their faces were so swollen we could not ascertain which one was female and which one was male". Both were hospitalised as a result of the attack, initially at Rochdale Infirmary. Maltby's injuries left him in a coma and with internal bleeding. He gradually recovered, but had lost memory of the time leading up to, and during, the attack. Lancaster, in a deep coma, was placed on life support and moved to Fairfield General Hospital in Bury, then to the neurology unit at Hope Hospital (now Salford Royal Hospital) in Salford. The hospital staff determined that she would never regain consciousness, and on 24 August 2007 her life support was terminated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster
FAO William Wallace
Re your questions about J J's hair being pulled out, was this connected to her Goth appearance/dreadlocks?
Please listen to the following at 10 mins in and you will hear two comments about Sophie Lancaster's (SL) hair (dreadlocks) pulled out to the extent part of her scalp was removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmpn4F1nE74
Is this the reason the moped (?) guy cut his hair ie fear of a Goth attack as opposed to anything else?
FAO William Wallace
Re your questions about J J's hair being pulled out, was this connected to her Goth appearance/dreadlocks?
Please listen to the following at 10 mins in and you will hear two comments about Sophie Lancaster's (SL) hair (dreadlocks) pulled out to the extent part of her scalp was removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmpn4F1nE74
Is this the reason the moped (?) guy cut his hair ie fear of a Goth attack as opposed to anything else?
Did this incident ever take place, do you know? (Or, does anyone know?).
Mrs Jones denied it ever happened.
The heading of this thread, is it the police who were too stupid? Or simply that continuous fallacy of reasoning.
The duo on the moped.
The information given, from an employee from Basically Tool Hire and others was used to put the appeal out for these boys. Around a certain time frame. These boys, were very much "persons of interest" They were not only in the locality of where Jodi met her death, one of the boys, was also a cousin of Jodi. Both boys were friends with Luke Mitchell, the common link Jodi and cannabis. From here we shall tell a different story, more accurate, in context, of all information/evidence as opposed to that of this continuing suspicion.
Firstly, most of what is put out comes from JF's (Jodi's cousin) statements, and here I put a question out on this. There are continuous claims that this lad may not be the brightest spark, not the most intelligent. Is he therefore the one primarily chosen to keep that flame of doubt from snuffing out for this very reason - choose quite literally the simplest target? A compulsive liar it is claimed What do we actually know however about this boy, prior to the appeal going out:
What we know is this lad did not attempt to hide the fact he had been on this path, by the very next morning he had told his gran he had been on it. That he had been in that vicinity. This may very well have been due to knowing they had been seen, not only by getting chased from Basically Tool hire, but of arriving back to GD's, parents, neighbours, others who gave an account of the boys time home, of this duo and their noisy bike. Of JF telling his gran he had gotten back to GD's around 4.30pm. (the clock was out by one hour, it had not been moved forward) Remember here, that his gran would have been aware at this point that Jodi had not left home until around 5pm or after. (prior to verification of times) Believing at this point it would seem, that there would be no relevance in her grandson being in the vicinity as Jodi would still have been at home.
However, there are two of them, they would obviously know without a doubt the time they were on this path, but did they know what time Jodi had left home? Why would they? All we are really told is JF 'hacked off' his hair' He gave no reason for this other than that is was a mess. Perhaps he was trying to distance himself from this murder, rather a silly action of course? Especially since he had already told his gran, and of course those 'many' witness's who had saw him, people he knew, not just strangers. And those 'gloves' in his relatives house, wet with a condom inside them (still in wrapper, hidden he claimed from his niece) And we have to ask ourselves again. That very rational question, our common sense - That these gloves had absolutely nothing to do with Jodi's murder. Irrespective of these wild claims of intelligence, would they not have been carted off with this claimed disappearance of the bike.
Next, the appeal: The police are asking for the boys to come forward and they do so. Evasive we are told and evasive is the information given out on this? as;
What we do know for absolute certainty is the following. The boys did not enter this path until around 5.10pm as opposed to those claims of it being 5pm - 5.05pm, we know this for several reasons. Firstly these boys were still in Basically Tool Hire between those 5mins. We know this as the employee finished work at 5pm. It was after coming out of work, to go home that he had to chase the boys from here. These boys had a heavy bike, that they had great difficulty in getting started. They were pushing it and trying to start it uphill to the entrance to this path. We know they could not have entered this path until after 5.10pm as the cyclist was on the path at this time. He did not see the boys. The approx: time LK heard 'noises' was around 5.15pm. The account the boys gave was approximation of how long they thought they had been on the path. 20-30mins. We know however it is closer to the 20mins: mark as they did arrive home at 5.30pm. Witnessed. It is all very well swerving away from the witness's on the other side of this path, of the boys arrival home, knowing however the only reason for doing so. As it does not serve purpose for the following.
So we have, this approx time of 20mins of these boys getting the bike started and riding up and down the path "a couple" of times, then home. Their 'truthful account' was verified. One mention here also of LK, of worrying that suspicion may have fallen upon him, for that very simple reason, of being in the locality of where this girl was murdered. Perhaps the most simplest reason, also, as to why these boys did not instantly come forward. 'What if they think it was us' . They were right, the police very much interested at first, until eliminated - but to this very day, they have no peace. Consistently put forward and discussed by that very person at the fore front of this 'Justice' campaign. For being on this bike for some 20mins on both Roansdyke and Lady path before arriving home. That window of opportunity to kill Jodi. of two boys, no DNA found at the actual locus, nothing from the V - zilch. Of multiple witness's from 5.30pm onwards.
The claimed sighting of this bike at 5.15pm against this V riderless - Sounds the part? Firstly note what is missing from below - there is no verbatim used. There is very good reason for this is there not? Perhaps due to there being a world of difference between someone saying the bike was "close" to where there is a V break in the wall as opposed to being at it? How do we know this sighting at the V did not take place. You simply can not see the V in this wall from 'The Beeches' or 'Newbattle R'd' and we know the witness was not driving a tractor, as you would have to be in the actual field, close to the path to see this V. It is of course unsurprising that this type of claimed sighting would hold substantial weight from across an expansive field, yet AB's sighting, description of clothing, almost 80% and that positive ID of LM is dismissed due to the logo. Both were travelling in a car, one close the other some distance away. That fallacy of reasoning? It is also unsurprising that this employee may have thought the bike was at a standstill and riderless. They were driving, moving much faster than a bike the boys were attempting to start.
SL:
Below is a link to 'The Beeches' Look immediately to your right. Across that expansive field. Not for the V, you simply can not see it but of the reliability on what this employee could have made out? Therefore, not only was the approximation of time 5.15pm incorrect, there was no sighting of this bike, riderless at the V break in the wall.
Before you continue to Google Maps
First you have to ask yourself why JuJ was at Corrine’s place of work in the first place, then why were the police called?
I think that should give you your answer.
Do we know whether or not she was ever there? Or whether the police were called? I don't believe everything I read in newspapers!!
Do we know whether or not she was ever there? Or whether the police were called? I don't believe everything I read in newspapers!!
Corrine says that JuJ came to her place of work slightly the worse for wear. While there Corrine was assaulted in some way by JuJ and her glasses were broken as a consequence. The police were called but no charges were brought.
If you believe that Corrine is a liar then of course you won’t believe her.
Under the circumstances, it's not hard to believe that JuJ wanted to punch CM's lights out.
Under the same circumstances, it's maybe not hard to understand why the cops might want to let JuJ off with a warning,
That's if the alleged incident took place.
One said it happened and one said it didn't, so somebody is either lying or exaggerating, or the journalist was stirring things up. Who knows?
I agree. I too can understand why JuJ, perhaps the worse for wear, would want to take her grief and anger out on Corrine, the next best thing to Luke and I can understand why Corrine and/or the police didn’t want to press charges.
Why someone would want to make up the incident, that’s what I don’t understand.
No idea if it happened or not but such a situation arose in the case of Stefan Kiszko:
Molseed's father, Frederick Anderson, had hurled a volley of angry verbal abuse at Kiszko's mother outside the court, after her son was convicted. Anderson had also told the media that he would be outside the prison gates waiting for Kiszko should he ever be released.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed#Release_and_death
I did say about 6 weeks ago that Stocky Man did the murder, that is correct.
Luke Mitchell committed the murder
Print in full what the SCCRC have said regarding ‘Stocky Man’
Luke Mitchell committed the murder
Print in full what the SCCRC have said regarding ‘Stocky Man’
What? Police did appeal for that couple to come forward. The same way they did with stocky man, the girl pushing the buggy, etc on the basis of having potential "information." Obviously they weren't referring to it as a sighting of Luke and Jodi at that stage, or they wouldn't be asking any couple to come forward, would they?! You've been misled by Sandra, it's not your fault. I saw the live stream too lol.
The SCCRC let Ms Lean know about this statement (2014)? - which tells us one thing clearly, that Ms Lean had also put claim into the SCCRC that SK and JaJ may have been lying as that SK had no corroborated alibi. And of course he did.
What are we left with. Lots of assumption, hypothetical scenarios, masses of misinformation touted out in the year leading up to "No Smoke" being written. Then the book with the same as above, and with that same proviso? of having "all" knowledge of this case. But she did not have, and the book is massively flawed. Then we have the POA and the submission to the SCCRC with lots of the above also inclusive?, and lots of correction given on this back to Ms Lean. Then Ms Lean still touted out lots of misinformation did she not? on the basis of what she did not have, she was free to make many claims and assumptions around not having those calls, statements, and all of the work done in the investigation by the police.
Has anyone contacted the SCCRC re what they’ve allegedly written in their SoR to Luke Mitchell/Sandra Lean re ‘stocky man’
Email: info@sccrc.org.uk
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #2667 on: July 14, 2014, 04:38:PM »
judicial review of the decision ors there's the echr.
or new submission could made possbly if more evedence was found.
theres now 2 new dna profiles and they dont belong to luke sonner or later they will be matched to somebody.
I believe the SCCRC only re-tested the trousers, and found further DNA (which was missed during the investigation) on the zipper and inside of the button hole. What the SCCRC does not appear to have sought is any sort of explanation for the dozens of tests which came back "inconclusive" or "no reportable result." Unless it is known what they were asked to report about it can never be known if there would have been reportable results for other factors - contrary to popular belief, the lab are not given samples and asked to "test for everything" - samples are sent with specific instructions.
It would be helpful to see those reports - they should of course, as with many other areas, namely the Mitchell statements and so forth - be part and parcel of any campaign
Much like Marty and the ID of stocky man carrying this girls coffin? - Really, when one was confronted with, that only employees from the funeral directors carried the coffin, did Ms Lean jump on board to say no-one had ever made claim to someone carrying a coffin
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. An apparently successful campaign for one high profile case in 2009/2010, which drew several hundred supporters, collapsed amidst a very public, bitter and acrimonious dispute between various contributors.89 There were several consequences, including some contributors and supporters withdrawing from internet advocacy, others withdrawing from some campaigns whilst supporting others, and the creation of a general rift in what had, prior to that, been an encouraging and cohesive group. Anonymous and malicious posting, and posters using multiple online identities, have been an ongoing difficulty for online campaigns (and campaigners), with smear tactics and dishonesty being used to discredit individuals and cases, sometimes spilling over into physical threats and arrests 90
MK and the parka? - what parka?
Ms Lean is now saying the call was after LM got wasted, that he had come back out of the Abbey to make this call. That he was stoned and time was therefore perhaps distorted - Lies to cover more lies, to cover up the continuation of stories that change dramatically to fit around any new narrative given?
”Much more violent” than the attack on Jodi?! It really doesn’t get much more violent than that IMO.
The new thread by UndertheSun.............very interesting.
Also check out the Twitter posts below.
*&^^&
Same malicious tactics of innocence fraud
Kane had a parka. Luke Mitchell had a parka but the parka LM owned wasn't being looked for by the police the day after poor Jodi's murder. The day Kane supposedly showed up at Scott Forbes' flat because they didn't know about Luke's parka yet. So, Kane is encouraged to go to the police to clear his name and that's obviously good enough for Scott Forbes although he never bothers to check things out. A bit like sending Tobin into a police station incase he did it, no? But leaving it at that. Never checking. Not even caring when someone is given a life sentence who isn't MK. Then, the parka comes to light. If SF knew MK and he did, he would have almost certainly known about the parka that MK definitely owned. MK is now investigated. At last!! Surely, if SF suspected MK was a child killer, he wouldn't have just tossed a coin and left it for nearly 3 years. Hence, all the fuss about a parka.
You are talking total rubbish again.But I'm not though, am I, Dexter?
But I'm not though, am I, Dexter?
Yes you are actually. Do you read what you write? Incorrect again.
I'm not wrong. That parka that MK DID own was a gift to SF who clearly didn't give a s**t before 2006.
You are actually unbelievable. Will leave you to post your nonsense and not give you the attention you so clearly crave.
Hence, the lie about where SL and SF first met and possibly the conflict of interest between witness and lawyer. IMO Kane was set up. It just didn't work out. No sane person says nothing for nearly 3 years when they suspect someone is a child killer. That scenario doesn't make me crazy.
*&^^&
No, to what Dexter? It can't be Kane having a parka because he did. It can't be about SL lying about where she first met SF because she did lie. It can't be about Mitchell's parka because LM owned a parka prior to poor Jodi's murder and it can't be about any conflict of interest because there's clearly a dodgy area there. They set Kane up. Never be SF's "friend."