UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on April 18, 2021, 11:27:56 AM
-
A significant part of the prosecution case focused on claims that LM reenacted the murder of Elizabeth Short known posthumously as "Black Dahlia". I do not see any comparisons between the injuries sustained by ES and J J:
Short's severely mutilated body was completely severed at the waist and drained of blood, leaving her skin a pallid white. Medical examiners determined that she had been dead for around ten hours prior to the discovery, leaving her time of death either sometime during the evening of January 14, or the early morning hours of January 15. The body had apparently been washed by the killer. Short's face had been slashed from the corners of her mouth to her ears, creating an effect known as the "Glasgow smile". She had several cuts on her thigh and breasts, where entire portions of flesh had been sliced away. The lower half of her body was positioned a foot away from the upper, and her intestines had been tucked neatly beneath her buttocks. The corpse had been "posed", with her hands over her head, her elbows bent at right angles, and her legs spread apart.
I think it far more likely J J was attacked as a result of identifying as a Goth evidenced by her hairstyle, clothing etc similar to the murder of Sophie Lancaster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmpn4F1nE74
Is this the reason J J's hair was pulled out and clothes removed ie articles that represent the Goth subculture?
-
A significant part of the prosecution case focused on claims that LM reenacted the murder of Elizabeth Short known posthumously as "Black Dahlia". I do not see any comparisons between the injuries sustained by ES and J J:
Short's severely mutilated body was completely severed at the waist and drained of blood, leaving her skin a pallid white. Medical examiners determined that she had been dead for around ten hours prior to the discovery, leaving her time of death either sometime during the evening of January 14, or the early morning hours of January 15. The body had apparently been washed by the killer. Short's face had been slashed from the corners of her mouth to her ears, creating an effect known as the "Glasgow smile". She had several cuts on her thigh and breasts, where entire portions of flesh had been sliced away. The lower half of her body was positioned a foot away from the upper, and her intestines had been tucked neatly beneath her buttocks. The corpse had been "posed", with her hands over her head, her elbows bent at right angles, and her legs spread apart.
I think it far more likely J J was attacked as a result of identifying as a Goth evidenced by her hairstyle, clothing etc similar to the murder of Sophie Lancaster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmpn4F1nE74
Is this the reason J J's hair was pulled out and clothes removed ie articles that represent the Goth subculture?
Perhaps it simply is what is was proven to be - That LM murdered his girlfriend in a fit of rage. That the reference was of similarities to Manson's depiction not of the actual murder of Elizabeth Short. That whilst no one physically saw LM view any of Manson's work there is no proof that he did not. This is akin to saying, he did not murder Jodi Jones because no one saw him do it. And you are also forgetting that of real possibility. That there simply was no time to do more. LM needed to get his alibi set in place, he had no way of being able to spend his evening in this woodland finishing what he had started? Equally important is that he had a knife on him that was not capable of completing this 'copy cat' work of Manson's.
You are also forgetting other damming evidence. That of possession of this DVD after the murder. It matters not that this was some freebie, many magazines are purchased on the basis of the freebie within. Of the real possibility that LM may have wanted this DVD as a replacement as with the knife and the parka - these clear keepsakes of having his work close to hand, the fantasy of replay in his mind?
Failing that we are still left, at the very very least left with this laddie, who showed absolutely no signs of trauma, upset at his girlfriend heinous death. That of 99% of the time there was no emotion or grief. That he would want to have a DVD of the horrific graphics of Manson of a girl murdered, of wanting an identical knife to the one that is still missing, of the parka. But as you rightly say, this is only one area of concentration in a trial that went of for 9 weeks.
-
Perhaps it simply is what is was proven to be - That LM murdered his girlfriend in a fit of rage. That the reference was of similarities to Manson's depiction not of the actual murder of Elizabeth Short. That whilst no one physically saw LM view any of Manson's work there is no proof that he did not. This is akin to saying, he did not murder Jodi Jones because no one saw him do it. And you are also forgetting that of real possibility. That there simply was no time to do more. LM needed to get his alibi set in place, he had no way of being able to spend his evening in this woodland finishing what he had started? Equally important is that he had a knife on him that was not capable of completing this 'copy cat' work of Manson's.
You are also forgetting other damming evidence.That of possession of this DVD after the murder. It matters not that this was some freebie, many magazines are purchased on the basis of the freebie within. Of the real possibility that LM may have wanted this DVD as a replacement as with the knife and the parka - these clear keepsakes of having his work close to hand, the fantasy of replay in his mind?
Failing that we are still left, at the very very least left with this laddie, who showed absolutely no signs of trauma, upset at his girlfriend heinous death. That of 99% of the time there was no emotion or grief. That he would want to have a DVD of the horrific graphics of Manson of a girl murdered, of wanting an identical knife to the one that is still missing, of the parka. But as you rightly say, this is only one area of concentration in a trial that went of for 9 weeks.
What I'm not forgetting is that the case against LM is wholly circumstantial.
I hear tenuous links surrounding Marilyn Manson and Black Dahlia. Unreliable witness testimony that changes with the wind. And items, if they ever existed, that the proseuction were somehow able to choreogrpah into the case against LM on the basis that if they could be found they would link LM to soc forensicially ie the knife and parka. All aided and abetted by the tabloid press. How this case ever got to court I will never understand.
Contrast the above with the case of Sophie Lancaster where the perps were linked forensicially to the victims by dna, footprints in blood and recorded confessions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmpn4F1nE74
Did J J's assailant fly to and from the soc on a magic carpet? Where are the footprints/tyre tracks?
-
What I'm not forgetting is that the case against LM is wholly circumstantial.
I hear tenuous links surrounding Marilyn Manson and Black Dahlia. Unreliable witness testimony that changes with the wind. And items, if they ever existed, that the proseuction were somehow able to choreogrpah into the case against LM on the basis that if they could be found they would link LM to soc forensicially ie the knife and parka. All aided and abetted by the tabloid press. How this case ever got to court I will never understand.
Contrast the above with the case of Sophie Lancaster where the perps were linked forensicially to the victims by dna, footprints in blood and recorded confessions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmpn4F1nE74
Did J J's assailant fly to and from the soc on a magic carpet? Where are the footprints/tyre tracks?
How do you know what the jury did hear and what it didn't? Do you have a transcript of the court proceedings?
Quite obviously you have no understanding of exactly what "circumstantial evidence" is.
Please bear in mind police work in conjunction with circumstantial evidence was enough to convict Gilroy of the murder of still missing woman Suzanne Pilley.
Just as police work in conjunction with circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict Mitchell of the slaughter of Jodi Jones.
Incidentally, both verdicts were I believe returned by a majority jury
-
Perhaps it simply is what is was proven to be - That LM murdered his girlfriend in a fit of rage. That the reference was of similarities to Manson's depiction not of the actual murder of Elizabeth Short. That whilst no one physically saw LM view any of Manson's work there is no proof that he did not. This is akin to saying, he did not murder Jodi Jones because no one saw him do it. And you are also forgetting that of real possibility. That there simply was no time to do more. LM needed to get his alibi set in place, he had no way of being able to spend his evening in this woodland finishing what he had started? Equally important is that he had a knife on him that was not capable of completing this 'copy cat' work of Manson's.
You are also forgetting other damming evidence. That of possession of this DVD after the murder. It matters not that this was some freebie, many magazines are purchased on the basis of the freebie within. Of the real possibility that LM may have wanted this DVD as a replacement as with the knife and the parka - these clear keepsakes of having his work close to hand, the fantasy of replay in his mind?
Failing that we are still left, at the very very least left with this laddie, who showed absolutely no signs of trauma, upset at his girlfriend heinous death. That of 99% of the time there was no emotion or grief. That he would want to have a DVD of the horrific graphics of Manson of a girl murdered, of wanting an identical knife to the one that is still missing, of the parka. But as you rightly say, this is only one area of concentration in a trial that went of for 9 weeks.
Ok so getting a CD free with a magazine when there was absolutely 0 found before the murder either on his devices or anywhere in fact makes him the murderer lol? What about the 42,545 other people who bought the magazine? Did they do the murder too? What do you mean he had a knife on him? Your imagination not only deludes you that he was there but now you even know he had a knife on him? I honestly cannot believe how people like you cannot get past this media rubbish that was all fake news and totally disproved by lack of evidence. I can't disclose certain things on here or name people, but I can tell you one thing. It wasn't Mitchell.
-
An excellent discussion on the case from truly informed members. The discussion on the AB sighting is particularly interesting.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336768
-
Ok so getting a CD free with a magazine when there was absolutely 0 found before the murder either on his devices or anywhere in fact makes him the murderer lol? What about the 42,545 other people who bought the magazine? Did they do the murder too? What do you mean he had a knife on him? Your imagination not only deludes you that he was there but now you even know he had a knife on him? I honestly cannot believe how people like you cannot get past this media rubbish that was all fake news and totally disproved by lack of evidence. I can't disclose certain things on here or name people, but I can tell you one thing. It wasn't Mitchell.
We know. It's rather shocking how one can become deluded into all sorts, isn't it? The podcast and joint theories, which have been firmly denied in discussion with Ms Lean as delusional, or is that mistaken? Or is Ms Lean back on board? Or of never being removed from that of JF not being on this bike, that he cut his hair off to look like someone else? Off with the evidence to a scrapyard and as you say "hey presto' gone? After all, she has only recently stated that JF gave a wrong description of himself? Perhaps she was on board with your theories after all. Whose theory came first here though? Yours/CM/SL?
Ignore the mad theories for Just a moment, they appear to have overtaken every part of rational? These claims to solving a case in their multiplication of fallacy. A boy cutting off his hair to look like the killer? Really?
-
Holly, you have a different bee in your bonnet about who committed the crime every time I look at this forum. A few days ago you were trying to make a link between this case and another murder that happened in 1994, and seemed to think Christopher Halliwell was responsible, now you seem quite convinced Jodi was a victim of a Goth hate crime. Could it be both perhaps? Did Halliwell have a hatred of Goths as well as being a keen fisherman? Perhaps you could check this out?
-
An excellent discussion on the case from truly informed members. The discussion on the AB sighting is particularly interesting.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336768
truly informed members.
[/b]
Indeed ;-) Noted that Ms Lean made a rather brief entry, some information passed over but has not 'stayed' around? it was this very forum that highlighted to Ms Lean that of the presence of female DNA. Thanking the poster humbly for giving the answer to something that had been puzzling her. After publicly broadcasting wrongful/harmful information around this very subject.
Perhaps Ms Lean is too busy to stick around, or perhaps she would not stand up to scrutiny of the many questions that would no doubt be asked of her? The multi areas of information missing? One poster highlighted this, "not near enough information around the Mitchells"
They are however, mainly in agreement that Luke Mitchell will remain where he is until his time is served? The question however is how long will that time be once parole hearings begin? The earliest point for a hearing being around April 2024? I wonder how much of an effect these books, campaign, podcasts and so forth will have upon the decision made for release? This could seriously add to LM's time in prison rather than gaining him freedom at all? He may never get out? Even if he were to admit guilt, the post mortem injuries on Jodi would still keep him in prison for a long time - He has nothing to lose in all that he has done/does?
-
Indeed ;-) Noted that Ms Lean made a rather brief entry, some information passed over but has not 'stayed' around? it was this very forum that highlighted to Ms Lean that of the presence of female DNA. Thanking the poster humbly for giving the answer to something that had been puzzling her. After publicly broadcasting wrongful/harmful information around this very subject.
Perhaps Ms Lean is too busy to stick around, or perhaps she would not stand up to scrutiny of the many questions that would no doubt be asked of her? The multi areas of information missing? One poster highlighted this, "not near enough information around the Mitchells"
They are however, mainly in agreement that Luke Mitchell will remain where he is until his time is served? The question however is how long will that time be once parole hearings begin? The earliest point for a hearing being around April 2024? I wonder how much of an effect these books, campaign, podcasts and so forth will have upon the decision made for release? This could seriously add to LM's time in prison rather than gaining him freedom at all? He may never get out? Even if he were to admit guilt, the post mortem injuries on Jodi would still keep him in prison for a long time - He has nothing to lose in all that he has done/does?
Do you know what I really like about the forum linked? That SL doesn’t drive the narrative but neither is she treated with the distain shown to her here. She is merely another source of information. It is, however, an excellent dissection of the flaws in the case and why Luke’s conviction should be considered unsafe .
-
An excellent discussion on the case from truly informed members. The discussion on the AB sighting is particularly interesting.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336768
Yes, I've read through the pages a couple of times. As you say, excellent site.
-
How do you know what the jury did hear and what it didn't? Do you have a transcript of the court proceedings?
Quite obviously you have no understanding of exactly what "circumstantial evidence" is.
Please bear in mind police work in conjunction with circumstantial evidence was enough to convict Gilroy of the murder of still missing woman Suzanne Pilley.
Just as police work in conjunction with circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict Mitchell of the slaughter of Jodi Jones.
Incidentally, both verdicts were I believe returned by a majority jury
It isn't necessary to have a transcipt of the court proceedings to form an opinion when we have access to a concise summary by way of the CoA hearings:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
John Scott QC @ 3.30:
https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6
"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accussed".
Pointing the finger at someone does not amount to conclusive guilt.
-
Holly, you have a different bee in your bonnet about who committed the crime every time I look at this forum. A few days ago you were trying to make a link between this case and another murder that happened in 1994, and seemed to think Christopher Halliwell was responsible, now you seem quite convinced Jodi was a victim of a Goth hate crime. Could it be both perhaps? Did Halliwell have a hatred of Goths as well as being a keen fisherman? Perhaps you could check this out?
You obviously missed my post between Haliwell and a Goth attack suggesting Peter Tobin might have been involved until someone pointed out he was in prison at the time of J J's murder. Just putting it out there. Tis a discussion board after all. I'm now fixed on a Goth attack by unknown other(s) but will let you know if I change my mind. Goth attack fits the soc imo.
-
We know. It's rather shocking how one can become deluded into all sorts, isn't it? The podcast and joint theories, which have been firmly denied in discussion with Ms Lean as delusional, or is that mistaken? Or is Ms Lean back on board? Or of never being removed from that of JF not being on this bike, that he cut his hair off to look like someone else? Off with the evidence to a scrapyard and as you say "hey presto' gone? After all, she has only recently stated that JF gave a wrong description of himself? Perhaps she was on board with your theories after all. Whose theory came first here though? Yours/CM/SL?
Ignore the mad theories for Just a moment, they appear to have overtaken every part of rational? These claims to solving a case in their multiplication of fallacy. A boy cutting off his hair to look like the killer? Really?
It's not as bizarre as you might think. If he was never on that bike and I don't think he was, cutting his hair off wasn't going to get him arrested (and didn't of course), because he wasn't there and will have had an alibi on the night it happened and none of his DNA would be found obviously. Interesting that DNA belonging to SK was found and further down the line JF's, but zero from either of the 2 meant to have been on the moped. There is in fact NOTHING to prove GD and JF were up that path at all apart from their claims that they were. I do think though that GD was driving it with someone else on the back though, but not JF. JF was a "red herring", imo he shaved his own hair off so that he could claim it was him on the moped to avoid the real person being identified because that person also had short hair.
Consider this. Everyone knows GD and JF were less than helpful to the Court... "we don't remember anything about that day"......"we don't know where we were when the moped was seen at the V"....."we don't know why the moped disappeared without trace". They weren't credible witnesses so their claim to being the people on the moped is not credible either.
As for my theory coming before Sandra's well no I'm not going to claim that, but as you say, there have been various things said over the past 2 or 3 years about whether it was GD and JF on that moped, but never a huge amount of discussion about it. The more I've analysed this case in detail, the more I've thought Mitchell didn't do it and the more I've thought all the lies told by other people are covering something up. Trying to decipher what is being covered up exactly is no easy task obviously, but none of these witnesses connected in some way to J gave statements which sounded believable. Some of them were even jaw dropping like ..."we don't know what we were doing when the moped was at the V".
When the search party went to look for J they walked up a creepy dark path to look for her with torches but walked right past someone's house Jodi had been found in 2 months earlier when she hadn't come back when she was supposed to. That is most definitely suspect. Nobody would do that, they would knock that door and ask if she was there. They also didn't phone around other possible places she could have been apart from the Gran's. Nobody would do that either. You would phone everyone first, even if you did it whilst walking to the path. They never phoned them at all. Far from LM "knowing where the body was", the above indicates very strongly that someone had already told Ju Jones Jody was dead behind the V up the path. The first place anyone would look would be the house she was found in the last time. You wouldn't walk right past the front door which they did and walk up a creepy path in pitch dark.
To be blunt, I find it utterly staggering that the above was not viewed by the Police as highly suspect. Although I think everyone knows by now they messed up this whole investigation from the start by contaminating the crime scene for 7 hours.
-
Just removed lots of blank lines from the above.
William you seem to have this case all mapped out. Are you able/willing to give us a motive?
-
You obviously missed my post between Haliwell and a Goth attack suggesting Peter Tobin might have been involved until someone pointed out he was in prison at the time of J J's murder. Just putting it out there. Tis a discussion board after all. I'm now fixed on a Goth attack by unknown other(s) but will let you know if I change my mind. Goth attack fits the soc imo.
OK. Were there any reports of Jodi ever being bullied or harassed because of her interest in goth culture? Were there any reports of other Goths in the area being targetted and murdered in such a brutal fashion?
-
It isn't necessary to have a transcipt of the court proceedings to form an opinion when we have access to a concise summary by way of the CoA hearings:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
John Scott QC @ 3.30:
https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6
"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accussed".
Pointing the finger at someone does not amount to conclusive guilt.
Those links are not to the trial by jury which is the thread topic >A Perspective The Jury Didn't Get To Hear...You Decide...<
I have never seen a transcript of Mitchell's trial ... and it seems evident that neither have you.
Friday 21 January 2005
Teenager Luke Mitchell was found guilty today of the "truly evil" murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones.
The jury of eight women and seven men convicted the 16-year-old on a majority verdict at the High Court in Edinburgh.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/teenager-convicted-of-jodi-murder-487597.html
-
Just removed lots of blank lines from the above.
William you seem to have this case all mapped out. Are you able/willing to give us a motive?
Mapped out yes, but it's a theory only of course until such time as new evidence or leads emerge. It might seem bizarre, but the circumstantial case against Mitchell is so flawed in every way including the totally inexplicable absence of his DNA at the scene AND in his house that there's actually nothing that can be described as a fact that links him to the murder. Even the so called link to Manson and the "Black Dahlia" was disproved. Nothing was ever found in his house or on his devices to suggest he had ever liked Manson or even heard of the" Black Dahlia". I definitely believe the wrong person is in jail.
Discussing possible motives would make it too easy to work out who the person (or persons) is that I think may have killed J. I don't have proof, nobody does.....yet, so in case I am wrong I have to refrain from naming them or by implication.
-
It isn't necessary to have a transcipt of the court proceedings to form an opinion when we have access to a concise summary by way of the CoA hearings:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
John Scott QC @ 3.30:
https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6
"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accussed".
Pointing the finger at someone does not amount to conclusive guilt.
In my opinion you have started a thread to discuss a topic about which you have little information and no understanding.
Seems to be de rigueur for those promoting murderers.
Where on earth did you dig up that definition of circumstantial evidence from? Couching it between quotation marks makes it no less risible.
-
Discussing possible motives would make it too easy to work out who the person (or persons) is that I think may have killed J. I don't have proof, nobody does.....yet, so in case I am wrong I have to refrain from naming them or by implication.
What an absolute cop-out.
Just state the alleged motive - if you're not naming names, there's no harm done.
Actually, if you have anything solid, you're obliged to report it to the authorities - do that.
Anyone who mutilates a body post mortem surely does so for thrills - it's clearly the case that many murders have been committed because the murderer liked doing it.
How long before you change your mind again?
-
In my opinion you have started a thread to discuss a topic about which you have little information and no understanding.
Seems to be de rigueur for those promoting murderers.
Where on earth did you dig up that definition of circumstantial evidence from? Couching it between quotation marks makes it no less risible.
I would have defined circumstantial evidence the same way as Holly did, so what is the correct definition?
Nobody "promotes murderers", as far as I'm aware, at least, not knowingly, but some of us question convictions. It's a good thing people do, otherwise MOJ's would never come to light.
-
Those links are not to the trial by jury which is the thread topic >A Perspective The Jury Didn't Get To Hear...You Decide...<
I have never seen a transcript of Mitchell's trial ... and it seems evident that neither have you.
Friday 21 January 2005
Teenager Luke Mitchell was found guilty today of the "truly evil" murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones.
The jury of eight women and seven men convicted the 16-year-old on a majority verdict at the High Court in Edinburgh.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/teenager-convicted-of-jodi-murder-487597.html
You seem unable or unwilling to accept that the judicial system is not infallible. Unfortunately miscarriages of justice do happen. I rather suspect that if we were discussing the case of Stefan Kiszko before his conviction was rightfully overturned you along with others here would be siding with the prosecution.
With regard to the tabloids overuse of the word evil, which you seem fond of repeating, I refer you to Prof Simon Baron-Cohen's take on the word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq_nCTGSfWE
-
In my opinion you have started a thread to discuss a topic about which you have little information and no understanding.
Seems to be de rigueur for those promoting murderers.
Where on earth did you dig up that definition of circumstantial evidence from? Couching it between quotation marks makes it no less risible.
May I suggest you reread the post you refer to above. I provided the link, along with the time, to QC John Scott's explanation of circumstantial evidence which I transcribed verbatim from 'Murder in a Small Town'. If you find it risible then I suggest you take it up with him:
https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about
-
I would have defined circumstantial evidence the same way as Holly did, so what is the correct definition?
Nobody "promotes murderers", as far as I'm aware, at least, not knowingly, but some of us question convictions. It's a good thing people do, otherwise MOJ's would never come to light.
I can't take credit for the explanation. I simply transcribed it verbatim from QC John Scott's input to 'Murder in a Small Town':
John Scott QC @ 3.30:
https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6
"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accused".
https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about
-
Mapped out yes, but it's a theory only of course until such time as new evidence or leads emerge. It might seem bizarre, but the circumstantial case against Mitchell is so flawed in every way including the totally inexplicable absence of his DNA at the scene AND in his house that there's actually nothing that can be described as a fact that links him to the murder. Even the so called link to Manson and the "Black Dahlia" was disproved. Nothing was ever found in his house or on his devices to suggest he had ever liked Manson or even heard of the" Black Dahlia". I definitely believe the wrong person is in jail.
Discussing possible motives would make it too easy to work out who the person (or persons) is that I think may have killed J. I don't have proof, nobody does.....yet, so in case I am wrong I have to refrain from naming them or by implication.
I suspect as a Goth LM did enjoy listening to Marilyn Manson music. Given the number of views on youtube he seems rather popular: 186,076,769
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvVdTlA23w
I've included a couple of tracks on my playlist as he does covers for some of my fave 80's tracks 8(>((
How on earth can anyone be condemned for enjoying listening to the music of a popular musician with global appeal?
Scottish schoolgirl, Nicola Ann Raphael, committed suicide after enduring years of bullying because she dressed in a goth style. According to the following, shortly after her death she had been due to attend a Marilyn Mason concert and MM was seen at the concert comforting her mother.
I know Scots are intolerant over allegiances to football clubs: Celtic v Rangers but hadn't appreciated it extends to choice of music too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Nicola_Ann_Raphael
-
I can't take credit for the explanation. I simply transcribed it verbatim from QC John Scott's input to 'Murder in a Small Town':
John Scott QC @ 3.30:
https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6
"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accused".
https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about
Or can mean something completely different. Did Scott explain that part?
-
I suspect as a Goth LM did enjoy listening to Marilyn Manson music. Given the number of views on youtube he seems rather popular: 186,076,769
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvVdTlA23w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvVdTlA23w)
I've included a couple of tracks on my playlist as he does covers for some of my fave 80's tracks 8(>((
How on earth can anyone be condemned for enjoying listening to the music of a popular musician with global appeal?
Scottish schoolgirl, Nicola Ann Raphael, committed suicide after enduring years of bullying because she dressed in a goth style. According to the following, shortly after her death she had been due to attend a Marilyn Mason concert and MM was seen at the concert comforting her mother.
I know Scots are intolerant over allegiances to football clubs: Celtic v Rangers but hadn't appreciated it extends to choice of music too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Nicola_Ann_Raphael (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Nicola_Ann_Raphael)
Popular musician!!!... What a complete pile of poo!!! Some people will listen to any old tripe! You need your ears syringing, Holly Gothhead.
-
Or can mean something completely different. Did Scott explain that part?
Such as?
-
You seem unable or unwilling to accept that the judicial system is not infallible. Unfortunately miscarriages of justice do happen. I rather suspect that if we were discussing the case of Stefan Kiszko before his conviction was rightfully overturned you along with others here would be siding with the prosecution.
With regard to the tabloids overuse of the word evil, which you seem fond of repeating, I refer you to Prof Simon Baron-Cohen's take on the word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq_nCTGSfWE
I find the due process of the law courts preferable to the conspiracy theories rampant on the internet based on no information, misinformation and misunderstanding where the accused does not have a voice and there is no right of appeal.
None of that is applicable to Mitchell's conviction but it most certainly is for those who have had nooses put over their heads by the ignorant lieges of the kangaroo courts of the internet.
-
I suspect as a Goth LM did enjoy listening to Marilyn Manson music. Given the number of views on youtube he seems rather popular: 186,076,769
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvVdTlA23w
I've included a couple of tracks on my playlist as he does covers for some of my fave 80's tracks 8(>((
How on earth can anyone be condemned for enjoying listening to the music of a popular musician with global appeal?
Scottish schoolgirl, Nicola Ann Raphael, committed suicide after enduring years of bullying because she dressed in a goth style. According to the following, shortly after her death she had been due to attend a Marilyn Mason concert and MM was seen at the concert comforting her mother.
I know Scots are intolerant over allegiances to football clubs: Celtic v Rangers but hadn't appreciated it extends to choice of music too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Nicola_Ann_Raphael
That sounds a bit racist to me.
-
Or can mean something completely different. Did Scott explain that part?
Not sure what you mean John?
-
I would have defined circumstantial evidence the same way as Holly did, so what is the correct definition?
Nobody "promotes murderers", as far as I'm aware, at least, not knowingly, but some of us question convictions. It's a good thing people do, otherwise MOJ's would never come to light.
Basically, under Scots Law it takes corroborated evidence to secure a conviction. Circumstantial evidence in scots law is nothing new nor is it 'inferior' in any way. It is valid evidence which most certainly does not amount to "pointing the finger".
I think it possible that had Mitchell not gone for the defence of alibi it might have left the door open for members of the the jury to presume reasonable doubt. But that door was slammed shut in theirs and Mitchell's face when his brother did not substantiate the narrative.
The Scottish Law of Evidence is a complex issue and I have seen one or two explanations provided in context by John on the forum which are worth checking out. Bearing in mind he has first hand training and experience of this.
I also recommend you type - circumstantial evidence in scots law - or words to that effect into your search engine which should provide you with accurate information.
-
Popular musician!!!... What a complete pile of poo!!! Some people will listen to any old tripe! You need your ears syringing, Holly Gothhead.
Hello You!
Its a rite of passage for teenagers to be somewhat rebellious by way of listening to controversial music and dressing provactively perhaps in an attempt to shock their elders! In my day it was heavy rock, glam rock, punks and new romantics.
We see all this stuff with Bamber eg claims he wore make-up and feminine clothing.
-
May I suggest you reread the post you refer to above. I provided the link, along with the time, to QC John Scott's explanation of circumstantial evidence which I transcribed verbatim from 'Murder in a Small Town'. If you find it risible then I suggest you take it up with him:
https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about
That would be Sandra Lean's book you are quoting, would it 😉
-
I find the due process of the law courts preferable to the conspiracy theories rampant on the internet based on no information, misinformation and misunderstanding where the accused does not have a voice and there is no right of appeal.
None of that is applicable to Mitchell's conviction but it most certainly is for those who have had nooses put over their heads by the ignorant lieges of the kangaroo courts of the internet.
Well thankfully the above do not get to influence due process of law unlike the tabloid media.
-
I can't take credit for the explanation. I simply transcribed it verbatim from QC John Scott's input to 'Murder in a Small Town':
John Scott QC @ 3.30:
https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6
"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accused".
https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about
You qualified what was said in the Channel5 documentary with your own interpretation
"Pointing the finger at someone does not amount to conclusive guilt." Holly G
A singular which is the very antithesis of what constitutes 'circumstantial evidence' acceptable to a court of law.
-
That would be Sandra Lean's book you are quoting, would it 😉
Brie I don't wish to sound rude but I really don't think I can be any clearer. Final attempt. I was quoting John Scott QC verbatim, direct from the horse's mouth, from his input to the docu: 'Murder in a Small Town'.
ohn Scott QC @ 3.30:
https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6
"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accused".
https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about
I have not read Sandra Lean's book but might well do in the near future.
-
Or can mean something completely different. Did Scott explain that part?
Maybe he did and it ended up on the cutting room floor?
I think there is so much cherry picking around this case it is no wonder the internet is awash with confusion.
-
You qualified what was said in the Channel5 documentary with your own interpretation
"Pointing the finger at someone does not amount to conclusive guilt." Holly G
A singular which is the very antithesis of what constitutes 'circumstantial evidence' acceptable to a court of law.
I made it perfectly clear from the quotation marks what originated from John Scott QC:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12048.msg648356#msg648356
-
Well thankfully the above do not get to influence due process of law unlike the tabloid media.
I beg your pardon! What is it you think that Lean et al are doing with themselves if it is not to influence due process?
-
I made it perfectly clear from the quotation marks what originated from John Scott QC:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12048.msg648356#msg648356
What was the point when you used it to repeat three words taken from it out of context to illustrate your opinion.
-
What an absolute cop-out.
Just state the alleged motive - if you're not naming names, there's no harm done.
Actually, if you have anything solid, you're obliged to report it to the authorities - do that.
Anyone who mutilates a body post mortem surely does so for thrills - it's clearly the case that many murders have been committed because the murderer liked doing it.
How long before you change your mind again?
No it's not a cop out. You know that naming people on here is BANNED. Remember what happened when a certain male was being named by numerous people?? The names were removed, the posts edited and certain people disappeared after that!
Check out these Twitter posts below.
-
No it's not a cop out. You know perfectly well that naming people on here is BANNED. Remember what happened when a certain male was being named by numerous people?? The names were removed, the posts edited and certain people were banned, because 2 at least never posted again lol.
I have now received a WARNING !! Why have I received a warning ??? At no time have I named who I think did it, but I'm being given yellow cards with an imminent red card no doubt being prepared. For what? For putting forward an alternative theory which would point the finger away from Mitchell?
I thought there was free speech in here as long as you don't say Mr or Mrs X did it. Seemingly any theories which could prove Mitchell is innocent merit a warning. That tells you something, or it should do.
Before they ban me have a look at some of the stuff that's been posted on Twitter very recently by Judas Iscariot and under the name of THE SEER. Are they going to ban me for mentioning these?
Whoever issued me with the unjust warning because I didn't name anyone or accuse anyone, I can tell you gagging people won't work I'm afraid. The snowball has already started rolling down the mountain. The truth has been suppressed for 17 years. The walls are closing in on the real killer.
I find your crazy theories hilarious. But that is all they are. You have provided no links/sources/quotes to back up anything you have said &^&*%
-
No it's not a cop out. You know perfectly well that naming people on here is BANNED. Remember what happened when a certain male was being named by numerous people?? The names were removed, the posts edited and certain people were banned, because 2 at least never posted again lol.
I have now received a WARNING !!
No-one's asking you to name names - you were asked to state the motive, which you claim to have worked out somehow.
We know you've received a warning, because you've posted as much on three threads.
I'll make it easier for you - does the motive concern a drug debt?
-
I
The drug debt question, the short answer is NO. J was known to smoke hash, she wasn't known to habitually use more expensive drugs like Class A. I really don't think anyone would carry out an extreme murder like this over a debt owed relating to some hash.
-
As for the drug debt question, the short answer is NO. J was known to smoke hash, she wasn't known to habitually use more expensive drugs like Class A. I really don't think anyone would carry out an extreme murder like this over a debt owed relating to some hash.
The only reason I mention a possible drug debt is because someone kept mentioning a 'soap bar' during a recent Facebook Q&A by Dr Lean - glad you've ruled that out.
I'm sorry you've been given a warning - I don't know what that's about, but I hope you're ok.
You could always get your pal to post the motive on Twitter? If you don't share it, we'll never know.
-
Hi thanks for that, and yes I'm fine thanks. I removed my comments about warnings, don't want red carded. 8)--))
A new very interesting thread has appeared by UndertheSun. Take a look. Some idiotic people inferred it was me who made that post because what's in it points to what I have been theorising, that it could have been a female that did it.
-
Hi thanks for that, and yes I'm fine thanks. I removed my comments about warnings, don't want red carded. 8)--))
A new very interesting thread has appeared by UndertheSun. Take a look. Some idiotic people inferred it was me who made that post because what's in it points to what I have been theorising, that it could have been a female that did it. I think you'll be able to work out from UndertheSun's post who this female is.
Saw that - that would really be something.
Curiously, UndertheSun doesn't give a motive.
-
Saw that - that would really be something.
Curiously, UndertheSun doesn't give a motive.
There is something very weird about that post. Definitely not fake.