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: Mr Apples on April 27, 2021, 05:39:57 PM
-
About 15-20 mins after the search group found Jodi’s body, the police finally showed up and this was Kelly’s very first comment to them. What a strange thing to ask, don’t you think? Especially given that Jodi was not known to frequent his house, so I doubt Judith instructed them to go there. And I don’t think the police would go there to his address before meeting up with the search party first.
Do you think there’s anything sinister in him asking this immediately, bearing in mind that this was the only person whose full DNA profile was found on Jodi’s body during the entire investigation (Kelly’s sperm was found on Jodi’s t-shirt and bra)?
Your thoughts?
-
About 15-20 mins after the search group found Jodi’s body, the police finally showed up and this was Kelly’s very first comment to them. What a strange thing to ask, don’t you think? Especially given that Jodi was not known to frequent his house, so I doubt Judith instructed them to go there. And I don’t think the police would go there to his address before meeting up with the search party first.
Do you think there’s anything sinister in him asking this immediately, bearing in mind that this was the only person whose full DNA profile was found on Jodi’s body during the entire investigation (Kelly’s sperm was found on Jodi’s t-shirt and bra)?
Your thoughts?
Where did you get this information, if you don't mind me asking?
-
Where did you get this information, if you don't mind me asking?
Kelly’s quote is verbatim, from Sandra Lean’s book, ‘Innocents Betrayed’ (p.44).
-
Where did you get this information, if you don't mind me asking?
My thoughts exactly.
I think new members must take note of forum rules requiring sources to be provided particularly when starting a new thread and attributing alleged comment to named individuals.
A cite is most definitely required here.
-
Kelly’s quote is verbatim, from Sandra Lean’s book, ‘Innocents Betrayed’ (p.44).
So in effect it is Sandra Lean's quote and nothing to do with the individual alleged to have made it.
-
Kelly’s quote is verbatim, from Sandra Lean’s book, ‘Innocents Betrayed’ (p.44).
Thank you
-
My thoughts exactly.
I think new members must take note of forum rules requiring sources to be provided particularly when starting a new thread and attributing alleged comment to named individuals.
A cite is most definitely required here.
Mr Apples has provided a cite. I’ve checked and the cite is correct.
-
Only Inspector Clouseau would think this is not suspicious. The excuse given for his semen stains being found on the T-shirt was the most stupid fairy tale ever spun. The t-shirt had been "borrowed"? Hmmm, I don't know any females who go out with dirty unwashed t-shirts on. First there was 2 black t-shirts and the other one had "disappeared". Then weeks later there were "several black t-shirts" not 2.
As I've said before, look through the wood and you will see the trees.
-
Only Inspector Clouseau would think this is not suspicious. The excuse given for his semen stains being found on the T-shirt was the most stupid fairy tale ever spun. The t-shirt had been "borrowed"? Hmmm, I don't know any females who go out with dirty unwashed t-shirts on. First there was 2 black t-shirts and the other one had "disappeared". Then weeks later there were "several black t-shirts" not 2.
As I've said before, look through the wood and you will see the trees.
Back to the topic of the thread.
Sandra Lean said these words. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12069.msg649378#msg649378
Kelly did not say these words.
Now someone prove me wrong.
-
Only Inspector Clouseau would think this is not suspicious. The excuse given for his semen stains being found on the T-shirt was the most stupid fairy tale ever spun. The t-shirt had been "borrowed"? Hmmm, I don't know any females who go out with dirty unwashed t-shirts on. First there was 2 black t-shirts and the other one had "disappeared". Then weeks later there were "several black t-shirts" not 2.
As I've said before, look through the wood and you will see the trees.
Dry semen and other contaminants are not necessarily visible to the naked eye on garments. Jodi probably just grabbed the garment without thinking in her rush to go out.
-
Back to the topic of the thread.
Sandra Lean said these words. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12069.msg649378#msg649378
Kelly did not say these words.
Now someone prove me wrong.
Kelly did say those words. Verbatim. As I said upthread, it’s in Sandra’s book, ‘Innocents Betrayed’, on page 44. Sandra has access to all the case files, court transcripts, police notes, police statements, witness statements . . . everything that is in conjunction with this case. She has a doctorate in criminology and has been studying this particular case assiduously and painstakingly since it happened. In fact, after taking an interest in the case, back in 2003, she decided to go and study Criminology at Stirling University, and then subsequently went on to complete a PHD in this field of study. She is also from Dalkeith, and has lived there most of her life.
-
Kelly did say those words. Verbatim. As I said upthread, it’s in Sandra’s book, ‘Innocents Betrayed’, on page 44. Sandra has access to all the case files, court transcripts, police notes, police statements, witness statements . . . everything that is in conjunction with this case. She has a doctorate in criminology and has been studying this particular case assiduously and painstakingly since it happened. In fact, after taking an interest in the case, back in 2003, she decided to go and study Criminology at Stirling University, and then subsequently went on to complete a PHD in this field of study. She is also from Dalkeith, and has lived there most of her life.
There was no case in 2003, there was however friendship? LM was not arrested until April 2004. Wholeheartedly agree, LM along with others were used to gain her qualifications and writing material? Ms Lean also wrote "No Smoke" on the basis of all knowledge. The book is flawed from start to finish. When pulled up on this, she first stated that it was not from "No Smoke", the paragraphs that were put up. Then she apologised and said it was, but that she had not referenced it for many years, basically making claim to forgetting what she had actually written?? Then goes on to say that it was written before she had access to anything, that it was done on the basis of court hearings and news reports?? Then it was pointed out to her of what she had also claimed in the book, which was the following:
"Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true."
Therefore, the book was written, completely flawed. Not simple typos. Almost everything. The times are completely out, people on the path, mystery man - a story which is mainly fiction? Written on the basis of "real possibilities?" And most definitely not on any witness statements - as she did not have them?
Of SK and the search party:
Absolutely absurd comment to make - Goodness knows what was going through Mr Kelly's head. After what he had just seen, after taking the phone and screaming at the operator. One extremity to the next. Shock? trauma? What is important also to note here is, all focus was not just on LM. The police were observing everyone. Taking note. Let us have some of those observation on LM? Of how calm and collective he was when the ambulance men were on the scene. And of the police observation of him? Instead of just this off the cuff remark by SK. You are incorrect of course Mr Apples, we know that Ms Lean does not have everything. We know there is much missing from what she has. Statements from Mr Kelly's father that were presented to Ms Lean after the submission to the SCCRC, after she had put claim to Mr Kelly only being alibied by his girlfriend for many years.. Which still smells pretty off does it not? For in those very statements from SK and JaJ there is mention of Mr Kelly's father. She missed all of this out though - didn't she? Those phone records? and of course the actual recordings that were played in court of the calls to the emergency services - She claims not to have those in her possession. Sometimes it pays to make claim to not having certain items, and sometimes it is actually true? - Hard however to determine the fact from the fiction?
Now I have said all of that above - I have a record of these conversations from the blue forum with Ms Lean. of Mr Kelly's statement and those phone calls. And what there is also record of, is LM's police journey to Dalkeith police station - of what was produced in court when Ms Mitchell was being questioned? LM was taken to Dalkeith police station as it was easy walking distance for his mother, she could not drive. Kind of takes away the heavy insinuation of him being separated? It was for his mother, was it not? On the way to the station with LM they stopped to speak with Ms Mitchell. The first thing she said to them was, 'is he under arrest?' - CM denied this in court, SK did not deny he had said what he did.
Further more, let us mention the time factor again - of just how ridiculous SK's remark was. This search party had not been out for hours, there was no intricate information of any of the events that had taken place. Jodi Jones was reported missing at 10.49pm she was found dead at 11.30pm The call to the emergency services was made at 11.34pm.Can we see now just how ridiculous this off the cuff remark was? Let's add more. The police attended JaJ's after 11pm they had barely walked out her door when the call came through that a body had been found. One minute they are taken note that she is missing and in the next breath she is dead. This if from that initial call at 10.49pm, to the police then going to JuJ, to taken further information, to walking out the door and bang!. Approx 40mins in total. The search party would be aware of how short that time was, they were barely on this path, around 10mins when LM had hopped into the woodland and shouted "I have found something" As AW stated "I was worried that Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself"
This search party are not looking for a dead body, they are looking for an injured girl at most. They had barely started this search and she is found dead. That is approx 10mins. One can only imagine the horror of what occurred in this small time frame. SK is not thinking at all that the police had actually been to his door. This off the cuff remark, when one see's a policeman, you been to mine's yet? Ridiculous comment - how on earth would they have been to his door? Of course he was not serious.
It is not suspicious in the slightest.? That this girl was found within 10mins of this search party meeting. That she was found by LM. That he had climbed the wall at the 'Gino' spot to look into this woodland. That when this search party "came to" the V in the wall he entered this woodland, seconds later he shouts I have found something.... More on another post.
-
Steven Kelly did say those words. Verbatim. As I said upthread, it’s in Sandra’s book, ‘Innocents Betrayed’, on page 44. Sandra has access to all the case files, court transcripts, police notes, police statements, witness statements . . . everything that is in conjunction with this case. She has a doctorate in criminology and has been studying this particular case assiduously and painstakingly since it happened. In fact, after taking an interest in the case, back in 2003, she decided to go and study Criminology at Stirling University, and then subsequently went on to complete a PHD in this field of study. She is also from Dalkeith, and has lived there most of her life.
With such super qualifications one wonders why every case she promotes as a miscarriage of justice like Prout and Hall have been an abject failure and to be fair a complete humiliation when the individuals eventually turn round and confess. Learning something in a classroom and real life are not the same thing.
Sandra Lean has been wrong about so much in the Luke Mitchell case, one wonders if it has now become an obsession with her rendering her judgement partisan and not impartial.
-
With such super qualifications one wonders why every case she promotes as a miscarriage of justice like Prout and Hall have been an abject failure and to be fair a complete humiliation when the individuals eventually turn round and confess. Learning something in a classroom and real life are not the same thing.
Sandra Lean has been wrong about so much in the Luke Mitchell case, one wonders if it has now become an obsession with her rendering her judgement partisan and not impartial.
Have you watched this?
Part 3 - The Power of Propaganda : When They See Us Goes Viral on Netflix
https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=iisdZAIwg4o
-
With such super qualifications one wonders why every case she promotes as a miscarriage of justice like Prout and Hall have been an abject failure and to be fair a complete humiliation when the individuals eventually turn round and confess. Learning something in a classroom and real life are not the same thing.
Sandra Lean has been wrong about so much in the Luke Mitchell case, one wonders if it has now become an obsession with her rendering her judgement partisan and not impartial.
What, exactly, has she been wrong about in the Luke Mitchell case?
-
What, exactly, has she been wrong about in the Luke Mitchell case?
So much I wouldn't know where to start but two do come to mind as they have been discussed quite recently.
She was wrong about the position of the gate where the two ladies saw Luke Mitchell standing shortly after the murder. She was also wrong about the shortcut through the woods from that gate to Luke Mitchell's street, a route which is clearly marked on Google maps and involves crossing a shallow river. For someone who has supposedly been part of the case for 17 years and who lives a short distance away, she exudes a worrying ignorance of the local terrain.
-
So much I wouldn't know where to start but two that come to mind are these.
She was wrong about the position of the gate where the two ladies saw Luke Mitchell standing shortly after the murder. She was also wrong about the shortcut through the woods from that gate to Luke Mitchell's street, a route which is clearly marked on Google maps and involves crossing a shallow river.
I take it you are well acquainted with the area, John. Have you read Sandra's book, and have you pointed out the above mistakes to her?
-
I take it you are well acquainted with the area, John. Have you read Sandra's book, and have you pointed out the above mistakes to her?
I explored the area on foot some years ago and visited Jodi's grave. I have also pointed out many things to Sandra over the years at a time when she was virtually alone in advocating a case for Luke Mitchell online.
-
Back to the topic of the thread.
Sandra Lean said these words. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12069.msg649378#msg649378
Kelly did not say these words.
Now someone prove me wrong.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
-
SK didn't say it.
He denies saying it.
These are Sandra Lean's words until she provides proof. She's had carte blanche for years and has been economical with the truth.
She also can't provide any proof anyone seen the moped "propped against the v break in the wall unmanned" and eventually tried to say she never claimed such a thing.
She has also backtracked on claims she made regarding semen, when actually confronted about them.
SK has denied saying it.
Sandra Lean/Corinne also claim Luke was the only person whose clothes were taken. SK has since confirmed his clothes were taken and his mobile phone, on the night Jodi was found.
-
What, exactly, has she been wrong about in the Luke Mitchell case?
She said he had no interest in Satanism and only a few years ago Mitchell requested Satanic texts be delivered to him Shotts prison citing religious rights.
She severely downplays his problems at school.
In "No Smoke" she said SK was on the path at the time of the murder. She has since claimed to pull this book from sale due to the mistruth, yet I have seen her tell people in FB groups where they can buy it.
People really need to stop trusting Sandra Lean as their sole source of info regarding this case, it is extremely biased.
I'll believe SK made this statement, and query it, when a single shred of solid proof of him saying it is provided.
Did the first responding officers claim he made this comment? ie not in his statement?
Since when did Sandra Lean take everything police said relating to this case as gospel? Isn't she always discrediting them?
Oh we've not to question them when it suits her theory. They only make mistakes regarding Luke? Cool.
-
She said he had no interest in Satanism and only a few years ago Mitchell requested Satanic texts be delivered to him Shotts prison citing religious rights.
She severely downplays his problems at school.
In "No Smoke" she said SK was on the path at the time of the murder. She has since claimed to pull this book from sale due to the mistruth, yet I have seen her tell people in FB groups where they can buy it.
People really need to stop trusting Sandra Lean as their sole source of info regarding this case, it is extremely biased.
I'll believe SK made this statement, and query it, when a single shred of solid proof of him saying it is provided.
Did the first responding officers claim he made this comment? ie not in his statement?
Since when did Sandra Lean take everything police said relating to this case as gospel? Isn't she always discrediting them?
Oh we've not to question them when it suits her theory. They only make mistakes regarding Luke? Cool.
Dr Lean has the police statements, you don’t.
As to the SK comment in ‘No Smoke’, Leonard KELLY was...I’m sure it was just a typo.
-
With such super qualifications one wonders why every case she promotes as a miscarriage of justice like Prout and Hall have been an abject failure and to be fair a complete humiliation when the individuals eventually turn round and confess. Learning something in a classroom and real life are not the same thing.
Sandra Lean has been wrong about so much in the Luke Mitchell case, one wonders if it has now become an obsession with her rendering her judgement partisan and not impartial.
I posted the wrong link - here’s the correct one
Part 3 - The Power of Propaganda : When They See Us Goes Viral on Netflix
https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=iisdZAIwg4o
-
Dry semen and other contaminants are not necessarily visible to the naked eye on garments. Jodi probably just grabbed the garment without thinking in her rush to go out.
Jodi didn't live in the same house as the owner of the t-shirt though. It's true that minor staining may not have been noticed on a borrowed t-shirt, but there is a rather serious issue around this theory. The owner of it at first told Police there were 2 identical t-shirts and she didn't know where the other one was. However a few weeks later she then told Police there were several identical t-shirts not 2, yet another changed statement. By saying there were several, it is removing the mystery about where the 2nd t-shirt went. It ceases to become missing because there wasn't only 2. I have my own opinion about how many t-shirts there were and whether any really went missing, but I can't elaborate publicly for obvious reasons.
-
SK didn't say it.
He denies saying it.
These are Sandra Lean's words until she provides proof. She's had carte blanche for years and has been economical with the truth.
She also can't provide any proof anyone seen the moped "propped against the v break in the wall unmanned" and eventually tried to say she never claimed such a thing.
She has also backtracked on claims she made regarding semen, when actually confronted about them.
SK has denied saying it.
Sandra Lean/Corinne also claim Luke was the only person whose clothes were taken. SK has since confirmed his clothes were taken and his mobile phone, on the night Jodi was found.
How do you know SK "denied saying it" ?
Why should I believe SK rather than Luke/Sandra/Corinne ?
-
She said he had no interest in Satanism and only a few years ago Mitchell requested Satanic texts be delivered to him Shotts prison citing religious rights.
She severely downplays his problems at school.
In "No Smoke" she said SK was on the path at the time of the murder. She has since claimed to pull this book from sale due to the mistruth, yet I have seen her tell people in FB groups where they can buy it.
People really need to stop trusting Sandra Lean as their sole source of info regarding this case, it is extremely biased.
I'll believe SK made this statement, and query it, when a single shred of solid proof of him saying it is provided.
Did the first responding officers claim he made this comment? ie not in his statement?
Since when did Sandra Lean take everything police said relating to this case as gospel? Isn't she always discrediting them?
Oh we've not to question them when it suits her theory. They only make mistakes regarding Luke? Cool.
On ‘No Smoke’ Sandra Lean has also claimed to be updating it but hasn’t been able to speak to the publishers - or they have yet to get back to her
-
She said he had no interest in Satanism and only a few years ago Mitchell requested Satanic texts be delivered to him Shotts prison citing religious rights.
She severely downplays his problems at school.
In "No Smoke" she said SK was on the path at the time of the murder. She has since claimed to pull this book from sale due to the mistruth, yet I have seen her tell people in FB groups where they can buy it.
People really need to stop trusting Sandra Lean as their sole source of info regarding this case, it is extremely biased.
I'll believe SK made this statement, and query it, when a single shred of solid proof of him saying it is provided.
Did the first responding officers claim he made this comment? ie not in his statement?
Since when did Sandra Lean take everything police said relating to this case as gospel? Isn't she always discrediting them?
Oh we've not to question them when it suits her theory. They only make mistakes regarding Luke? Cool.
Reminds me of Elizabeth “I don't know how I let that line slip by” Loftus
-
Reminds me of Elizabeth “I don't know how I let that line slip by” Loftus
Did she say both Steven Kelly and Leonard Kelly were on the path? If not it was probably just a mistake...typing one name when the other was meant. Was the book proof read ?
-
Did she say both Steven Kelly and Leonard Kelly were on the path? If not it was probably just a mistake...typing one name when the other was meant. Was the book proof read ?
Dismissing "No Smoke" as a simple typo? Are you sure this was all it was? because in the same book she states;
Given that there were no positive sightings of Jodi that evening, there is no proof of what time she left the house.
That will be that cleared up then? And of any information to date, about these very much unverified 'possible sightings' of anyone - known to the defence also. Once of course Ms Lean had cleared up this complete paragraph of misinformation. of this mystery man seen following Jodi. yes? no positive ID of Jodi as above but the mystery man was seen following her into this path;
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John [Name removed], Gordon [Name removed], his father, David [Name removed], Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
No mystery man on the path, Jodi on the path? DD nope.
When it emerged that DNA belonging to Stephen Kelly had been found on Jodi‟s t shirt and underwear, the explanation given was that Jodi had been wearing her sister Janine‟s T-shirt. Yet we have only Stephen Kelly (who is implicated by the presence of his DNA) and Janine (his fiancé)‟s word that this was, in fact, the case. The significance of the fact that none of the other members of the search party‟s clothes were taken for forensic testing that night becomes immediately apparent – no-one can ever know what evidence such testing may have yielded
Mr Kelly also gave a statement, of which confirmed that all three had been together for dinner. Please, spare us the multiple areas again of not having this alibi for weeks. No ones clothing was taken that night, it was late hrs into the following morning, and SK had his taken hours later that same day. Ms Lean then explained all was written prior to having access to statements yet in the very same book, she again states:
Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true.
Then there is much ado about how she was unaware of Mr Kelly's alibi for his son, that it was only unearthed by the SCCRC and not known to the defence? Really? as we also know that it is in both JaJ and SK's statements. That we also know that precognitions are done - That the defence were very much aware of this alibi, not to forget the actual trial itself. There seems to be a theme that runs rife through this case:
Of lies covering up lies, to cover up misinformation, for more misinformation to be given to cover up more??
And again, why do you suppose CM made comment on James English of being caught on camera, whilst others were simply captured?
Because these others were, where they said they had been, Ms Mitchell was not, was she? She was not home helping finishing this relaxed dinner story - with lots of information on LM's clothing. Let's leave the sunshine out for the moment.
MK, who told the police where he was that evening and it checked out, as he was captured on CCTV - with no face full of scratches?
AO, whom again was exactly where he had stated.
And one wonders why, one family was believed over the other - One was clearly telling the truth all the way through?, the other clearly not?
-
Did she say both Steven Kelly and Leonard Kelly were on the path? If not it was probably just a mistake...typing one name when the other was meant. Was the book proof read ?
As she’s a “very good friend” of yours perhaps you could ask her what she meant?
-
Dismissing "No Smoke" as a simple typo? Are you sure this was all it was? because in the same book she states;
There was no positive sightings...several suspected sightings, several of which were incompatible with Jodi leaving the house at 4.50, as her mum claimed, and Andrina Bryson’s sighting at 4.54.
That will be that cleared up then? And of any information to date, about these very much unverified 'possible sightings' of anyone - known to the defence also. Once of course Ms Lean had cleared up this complete paragraph of misinformation. of this mystery man seen following Jodi. yes? no positive ID of Jodi as above but the mystery man was seen following her into this path;
If there was no mystery man following Jodi and the police didn’t find the witnesses who saw him credible then why did they appeal for him to come forward?
No mystery man on the path, Jodi on the path? DD nope.
Mr Kelly also gave a statement, of which confirmed that all three had been together for dinner. Please, spare us the multiple areas again of not having this alibi for weeks. No ones clothing was taken that night, it was late hrs into the following morning, and SK had his taken hours later that same day. Ms Lean then explained all was written prior to having access to statements yet in the very same book, she again states:
Then there is much ado about how she was unaware of Mr Kelly's alibi for his son, that it was only unearthed by the SCCRC and not known to the defence? Really? as we also know that it is in both JaJ and SK's statements. That we also know that precognitions are done - That the defence were very much aware of this alibi, not to forget the actual trial itself. There seems to be a theme that runs rife through this case:
Of lies covering up lies, to cover up misinformation, for more misinformation to be given to cover up more??
And again, why do you suppose CM made comment on James English of being caught on camera, whilst others were simply captured?
Because these others were, where they said they had been, Ms Mitchell was not, was she? She was not home helping finishing this relaxed dinner story - with lots of information on LM's clothing. Let's leave the sunshine out for the moment.
MK, who told the police where he was that evening and it checked out, as he was captured on CCTV - with no face full of scratches?
AO, whom again was exactly where he had stated.
And one wonders why, one family was believed over the other - One was clearly telling the truth all the way through?, the other clearly not?
Judith said Jodi never walked the Roan’s Dyke path alone, Janine, under oath, testified that her motherknew fine well that she did. When DF asked her if she was sure she simply answered ‘yes’....so not quiet as honest as you’d have us believe. As an aside did Judith never ask the three searchers why they were searching the path as Jodi wasn’t allowed to walk there alone?
-
Jodi didn't live in the same house as the owner of the t-shirt though. It's true that minor staining may not have been noticed on a borrowed t-shirt, but there is a rather serious issue around this theory. The owner of it at first told Police there were 2 identical t-shirts and she didn't know where the other one was. However a few weeks later she then told Police there were several identical t-shirts not 2, yet another changed statement. By saying there were several, it is removing the mystery about where the 2nd t-shirt went. It ceases to become missing because there wasn't only 2. I have my own opinion about how many t-shirts there were and whether any really went missing, but I can't elaborate publicly for obvious reasons.
Yeah, it was definitely strange that when JAJ first handed in the clothes that she was wearing on the night of Jodi’s murder to police on 06.07.03, she gave no indication that the black t-shirt she was handing in was part of an identical pair and that one was missing; it was 10 days llater, on 16.07.03, that she said her identical black t-shirt was missing — and that Jodi may have borrowed it without her permission. Okay, it’s possible that that may have happened, and Jodi did in fact borrow it, but what JAJ said in the coming months (between July and September 2003) was interesting: she said that she had ‘several black t-shirts’ that were all similar, and that she had ‘lots of black tops’, mainly plain. Despite this, even after nearly 3 months, she still didn’t know where the other identical black t-shirt was. It should also be noted that police took away 6 black t-shirts from a washing pile (JUDJ’s description) in Jodi’ s bedroom for examination, so clearly she wasn’t in short supply of them; and, more importantly, who’s to say the borrowed t-shirt was not in that pile! It was never confirmed where this missing identical black t-shirt was — until it was accepted as a fact in court. It was accepted as a fact in court to explain that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing the night she was killed was borrowed from Janine, and this would therefore explain why DNA from SK was found on Jodi’s t-shirt — that it was ‘innocently transferred’. How convenient, eh? It seems that, rather than immediately ask SK why his full DNA (blood and sperm) was on the victim’s t-shirt, they went out of their way to give him an alibi. And, remember, he was part of the search trio that found the body along with Luke and, more importantly, the first thing he said when the police first arrived at the crime scene was: “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?” (perhaps he said this because he was known to police and the police seemed to take longer than expected to get to the crime scene, but I doubt it).
It seems the police had tunnel vision on this case as soon as they arrived at the crime scene; they instantly thought LM was their man and didn’t let go until they fornulated a theory that would result in his conviction. They waited a full week before taking the others’ clothing and statements, so vital evidence could’ve been lost— and it also gave the others time to collude, cross examine and get their stories and alibis water-tight. If they had investigated the others with the same vigour as they did with Luke, I think they may have locked a different person up. Btw, I am in the not proven camp in regards to this case: I haven’t ruled out LM as being guilty, but, on the basis of the original investigation and trial, I don’t understand how a majority guilty verdict was returned. But, this case was a debacle from the off. The above is just one of many discrepancies and anomalies of this case.
-
Yeah, it was definitely strange that when JAJ first handed in the clothes that she was wearing on the night of Jodi’s murder to police on 06.07.03, she gave no indication that the black t-shirt she was handing in was part of an identical pair and that one was missing; it was 10 days llater, on 16.07.03, that she said her identical black t-shirt was missing — and that Jodi may have borrowed it without her permission. Okay, it’s possible that that may have happened, and Jodi did in fact borrow it, but what JAJ said in the coming months (between July and September 2003) was interesting: she said that she had ‘several black t-shirts’ that were all similar, and that she had ‘lots of black tops’, mainly plain. Despite this, even after nearly 3 months, she still didn’t know where the other identical black t-shirt was. It should also be noted that police took away 6 black t-shirts from a washing pile (JUDJ’s description) in Jodi’ s bedroom for examination, so clearly she wasn’t in short supply of them; and, more importantly, who’s to say the borrowed t-shirt was not in that pile! It was never confirmed where this missing identical black t-shirt was — until it was accepted as a fact in court. It was accepted as a fact in court to explain that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing the night she was killed was borrowed from Janine, and this would therefore explain why DNA from SK was found on Jodi’s t-shirt — that it was ‘innocently transferred’. How convenient, eh? It seems that, rather than immediately ask SK why his full DNA (blood and sperm) was on the victim’s t-shirt, they went out of their way to give him an alibi. And, remember, he was part of the search trio that found the body along with Luke and, more importantly, the first thing he said when the police first arrived at the crime scene was: “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?” (perhaps he said this because he was known to police and the police seemed to take longer than expected to get to the crime scene, but I doubt it).
It seems the police had tunnel vision on this case as soon as they arrived at the crime scene; they instantly thought LM was their man and didn’t let go until they fornulated a theory that would result in his conviction. They waited a full week before taking the others’ clothing and statements, so vital evidence could’ve been lost— and it also gave the others time to collude, cross examine and get their stories and alibis water-tight. If they had investigated the others with the same vigour as they did with Luke, I think they may have locked a different person up. Btw, I am in the not proven camp in regards to this case: I haven’t ruled out LM as being guilty, but, on the basis of the original investigation and trial, I don’t understand how a majority guilty verdict was returned. But, this case was a debacle from the off. The above is just one of many discrepancies and anomalies of this case.
From what I know of the case, I agree with you entirely.
I don't rule out LM as being guilty either, but I do suspect there is an awful lot we haven't been told.
-
Yeah, it was definitely strange that when JAJ first handed in the clothes that she was wearing on the night of Jodi’s murder to police on 06.07.03, she gave no indication that the black t-shirt she was handing in was part of an identical pair and that one was missing; it was 10 days llater, on 16.07.03, that she said her identical black t-shirt was missing — and that Jodi may have borrowed it without her permission. Okay, it’s possible that that may have happened, and Jodi did in fact borrow it, but what JAJ said in the coming months (between July and September 2003) was interesting: she said that she had ‘several black t-shirts’ that were all similar, and that she had ‘lots of black tops’, mainly plain. Despite this, even after nearly 3 months, she still didn’t know where the other identical black t-shirt was. It should also be noted that police took away 6 black t-shirts from a washing pile (JUDJ’s description) in Jodi’ s bedroom for examination, so clearly she wasn’t in short supply of them; and, more importantly, who’s to say the borrowed t-shirt was not in that pile! It was never confirmed where this missing identical black t-shirt was — until it was accepted as a fact in court. It was accepted as a fact in court to explain that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing the night she was killed was borrowed from Janine, and this would therefore explain why DNA from SK was found on Jodi’s t-shirt — that it was ‘innocently transferred’. How convenient, eh? It seems that, rather than immediately ask SK why his full DNA (blood and sperm) was on the victim’s t-shirt, they went out of their way to give him an alibi. And, remember, he was part of the search trio that found the body along with Luke and, more importantly, the first thing he said when the police first arrived at the crime scene was: “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?” (perhaps he said this because he was known to police and the police seemed to take longer than expected to get to the crime scene, but I doubt it).
It seems the police had tunnel vision on this case as soon as they arrived at the crime scene; they instantly thought LM was their man and didn’t let go until they fornulated a theory that would result in his conviction. They waited a full week before taking the others’ clothing and statements, so vital evidence could’ve been lost— and it also gave the others time to collude, cross examine and get their stories and alibis water-tight. If they had investigated the others with the same vigour as they did with Luke, I think they may have locked a different person up. Btw, I am in the not proven camp in regards to this case: I haven’t ruled out LM as being guilty, but, on the basis of the original investigation and trial, I don’t understand how a majority guilty verdict was returned. But, this case was a debacle from the off. The above is just one of many discrepancies and anomalies of this case.
There is a plethora of self opinionated comment there which forum rules require you to either state as opinion or supply a valid cite for if claimed as fact.
For example ~ you claim ~ "(a)they instantly thought LM was their man and didn’t let go until they fornulated(sic) a theory that would result in his conviction.
(b)They waited a full week before taking the others’ clothing ..." which needs two cites particularly as I seem to remember reading one of the material witnesses saying the opposite to you in court re the clothing.
-
From what I know of the case, I agree with you entirely.
I don't rule out LM as being guilty either, but I do suspect there is an awful lot we haven't been told.
Mitchell was found guilty of the murder of Jodi Jones in a court of law by a jury of his peers who were privy to all the information available.
He did not suffer a miscarriage of justice. There is absolutely no evidence to support that he did despite the best efforts of his supporters to find some ~ innuendo/speculation and misinterpretation just don't fit the bill.
-
Mitchell was found guilty of the murder of Jodi Jones in a court of law by a jury of his peers who were privy to all the information available.
He did not suffer a miscarriage of justice. There is absolutely no evidence to support that he did despite the best efforts of his supporters to find some ~ innuendo/speculation and misinterpretation just don't fit the bill.
Let's hope you never have to eat your words !!
-
Mitchell was found guilty of the murder of Jodi Jones in a court of law by a jury of his peers who were privy to all the information available.
He did not suffer a miscarriage of justice. There is absolutely no evidence to support that he did despite the best efforts of his supporters to find some ~ innuendo/speculation and misinterpretation just don't fit the bill.
How can you admit to knowing little about the case yet still claim, with all the fervour of the recently converted, that the jury came to the right conclusion?
It really is worth repeating....every miscarriage of justice begins with a jury of the defendant’s peers hearing all the information available yet still coming to a erroneous verdict.
-
Let's hope you never have to eat your words !!
Very soon Mitchell will meet his tariff of twenty years.
[8] In fixing the punishment part of 20 years, the trial judge said that he took into account principally the seriousness of the offence. The deceased had looked upon the appellant with affection and trust, yet he had inflicted a horrible death on her and mutilated her body. In the trial judge's opinion, this was one of the worst cases of the murder of a single victim to come before the court in recent years. If the appellant had been older, the seriousness of the offence would have merited the imposition of a punishment part among the longest that there had been. Only the appellant's age persuaded him to fix a lesser period.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
As can be seen from the link and the reasoning of the appeal court judges Mitchell lost his appeal against that punishment. He has had the benefit of appeals and many and various investigations from the point of view of asserting his innocence.
I think the evidence is heavily weighted against me ever having to "eat my words" as far as Mitchell's guilt is concerned.
I don't know the exact working of it but I think unless he draws his horns in it is going to be many a long day before he will ever set foot outside a prison and I think that would be a sigh of relief for any community he might choose to settle amongst.
-
Yeah, it was definitely strange that when JAJ first handed in the clothes that she was wearing on the night of Jodi’s murder to police on 06.07.03, she gave no indication that the black t-shirt she was handing in was part of an identical pair and that one was missing; it was 10 days llater, on 16.07.03, that she said her identical black t-shirt was missing — and that Jodi may have borrowed it without her permission. Okay, it’s possible that that may have happened, and Jodi did in fact borrow it, but what JAJ said in the coming months (between July and September 2003) was interesting: she said that she had ‘several black t-shirts’ that were all similar, and that she had ‘lots of black tops’, mainly plain. Despite this, even after nearly 3 months, she still didn’t know where the other identical black t-shirt was. It should also be noted that police took away 6 black t-shirts from a washing pile (JUDJ’s description) in Jodi’ s bedroom for examination, so clearly she wasn’t in short supply of them; and, more importantly, who’s to say the borrowed t-shirt was not in that pile! It was never confirmed where this missing identical black t-shirt was — until it was accepted as a fact in court. It was accepted as a fact in court to explain that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing the night she was killed was borrowed from Janine, and this would therefore explain why DNA from SK was found on Jodi’s t-shirt — that it was ‘innocently transferred’. How convenient, eh? It seems that, rather than immediately ask SK why his full DNA (blood and sperm) was on the victim’s t-shirt, they went out of their way to give him an alibi. And, remember, he was part of the search trio that found the body along with Luke and, more importantly, the first thing he said when the police first arrived at the crime scene was: “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?” (perhaps he said this because he was known to police and the police seemed to take longer than expected to get to the crime scene, but I doubt it).
It seems the police had tunnel vision on this case as soon as they arrived at the crime scene; they instantly thought LM was their man and didn’t let go until they fornulated a theory that would result in his conviction. They waited a full week before taking the others’ clothing and statements, so vital evidence could’ve been lost— and it also gave the others time to collude, cross examine and get their stories and alibis water-tight. If they had investigated the others with the same vigour as they did with Luke, I think they may have locked a different person up. Btw, I am in the not proven camp in regards to this case: I haven’t ruled out LM as being guilty, but, on the basis of the original investigation and trial, I don’t understand how a majority guilty verdict was returned. But, this case was a debacle from the off. The above is just one of many discrepancies and anomalies of this case.
Agree with you 100%. There is something very dodgy about this T-shirt story and the SK DNA being on it. A borrowed T-shirt that had sperm on it? Honestly, I mean come on?? This just sounds like a fairy tale, or to be blunt... a load of garbage. There's another possibility as to why this T-shirt had SK's DNA and sperm on it, but I can't expand as I'd probably get another warning lol.
-
There was no case in 2003, there was however friendship? LM was not arrested until April 2004. Wholeheartedly agree, LM along with others were used to gain her qualifications and writing material? Ms Lean also wrote "No Smoke" on the basis of all knowledge. The book is flawed from start to finish. When pulled up on this, she first stated that it was not from "No Smoke", the paragraphs that were put up. Then she apologised and said it was, but that she had not referenced it for many years, basically making claim to forgetting what she had actually written?? Then goes on to say that it was written before she had access to anything, that it was done on the basis of court hearings and news reports?? Then it was pointed out to her of what she had also claimed in the book, which was the following:
Therefore, the book was written, completely flawed. Not simple typos. Almost everything. The times are completely out, people on the path, mystery man - a story which is mainly fiction? Written on the basis of "real possibilities?" And most definitely not on any witness statements - as she did not have them?
Of SK and the search party:
Absolutely absurd comment to make - Goodness knows what was going through Mr Kelly's head. After what he had just seen, after taking the phone and screaming at the operator. One extremity to the next. Shock? trauma? What is important also to note here is, all focus was not just on LM. The police were observing everyone. Taking note. Let us have some of those observation on LM? Of how calm and collective he was when the ambulance men were on the scene. And of the police observation of him? Instead of just this off the cuff remark by SK. You are incorrect of course Mr Apples, we know that Ms Lean does not have everything. We know there is much missing from what she has. Statements from Mr Kelly's father that were presented to Ms Lean after the submission to the SCCRC, after she had put claim to Mr Kelly only being alibied by his girlfriend for many years.. Which still smells pretty off does it not? For in those very statements from SK and JaJ there is mention of Mr Kelly's father. She missed all of this out though - didn't she? Those phone records? and of course the actual recordings that were played in court of the calls to the emergency services - She claims not to have those in her possession. Sometimes it pays to make claim to not having certain items, and sometimes it is actually true? - Hard however to determine the fact from the fiction?
Now I have said all of that above - I have a record of these conversations from the blue forum with Ms Lean. of Mr Kelly's statement and those phone calls. And what there is also record of, is LM's police journey to Dalkeith police station - of what was produced in court when Ms Mitchell was being questioned? LM was taken to Dalkeith police station as it was easy walking distance for his mother, she could not drive. Kind of takes away the heavy insinuation of him being separated? It was for his mother, was it not? On the way to the station with LM they stopped to speak with Ms Mitchell. The first thing she said to them was, 'is he under arrest?' - CM denied this in court, SK did not deny he had said what he did.
Further more, let us mention the time factor again - of just how ridiculous SK's remark was. This search party had not been out for hours, there was no intricate information of any of the events that had taken place. Jodi Jones was reported missing at 10.49pm she was found dead at 11.30pm The call to the emergency services was made at 11.34pm.Can we see now just how ridiculous this off the cuff remark was? Let's add more. The police attended JaJ's after 11pm they had barely walked out her door when the call came through that a body had been found. One minute they are taken note that she is missing and in the next breath she is dead. This if from that initial call at 10.49pm, to the police then going to JuJ, to taken further information, to walking out the door and bang!. Approx 40mins in total. The search party would be aware of how short that time was, they were barely on this path, around 10mins when LM had hopped into the woodland and shouted "I have found something" As AW stated "I was worried that Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself"
This search party are not looking for a dead body, they are looking for an injured girl at most. They had barely started this search and she is found dead. That is approx 10mins. One can only imagine the horror of what occurred in this small time frame. SK is not thinking at all that the police had actually been to his door. This off the cuff remark, when one see's a policeman, you been to mine's yet? Ridiculous comment - how on earth would they have been to his door? Of course he was not serious.
It is not suspicious in the slightest.? That this girl was found within 10mins of this search party meeting. That she was found by LM. That he had climbed the wall at the 'Gino' spot to look into this woodland. That when this search party "came to" the V in the wall he entered this woodland, seconds later he shouts I have found something.... More on another post.
Not being patronising but do you actually know anything about him (SK) ? Are you aware of some of the sinister and concerning nature of the comments he posted on social media between 2010 and 2014, mainly Facebook? I would be careful about promoting him as a normal upstanding member of the community if I was you. It might still be there if you start digging. I can't post it on here because it wouldn't be allowed.
-
How do you know SK "denied saying it" ?
Why should I believe SK rather than Luke/Sandra/Corinne ?
He has previously denied it publicly on forums. Had no idea what Sandra was talking about.
-
Afaik Sandra Lean is not a member here? In any event all members have the right to post under a pseudonym.
Any further ref to SL need to relate to her book etc and not speculation about whether she posts here etc.
-
Afaik Sandra Lean is not a member here? In any event all members have the right to post under a pseudonym.
Any further ref to SL need to relate to her book etc and not speculation about whether she posts here etc.
She isnt brave enough to post in her own name.
-
How can you admit to knowing little about the case yet still claim, with all the fervour of the recently converted, that the jury came to the right conclusion?
It really is worth repeating....every miscarriage of justice begins with a jury of the defendant’s peers hearing all the information available yet still coming to a erroneous verdict.
@)(++(* at paragraph 1.
-
She isnt brave enough to post in her own name.
And why should she? Do you?