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: Chris_Halkides on May 08, 2021, 01:02:20 PM
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press. From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.
(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”
There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.
(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”
This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”
(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”
This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.
(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”
One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.
(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”
If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically.
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press. From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.
(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”
There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.
(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”
This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”
(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”
This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.
(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”
One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.
(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”
If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically.
You state,
‘I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’
which ones are which in your above post - can you be more specific
And is there a reason you’ve not given a source for any of what you’ve posted
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press. From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.
(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”
There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.
(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”
This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”
(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”
This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.
(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”
One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.
(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”
If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically.
How can you be sure what you’ve quoted above is what was actually said ?
-
(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”
This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.
This makes no sense
The prosecution case was Luke Mitchell owned a parka jacket prior to the murder
‘One of the most significant pieces of evidence was that Mitchell had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the previous months and that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the murder.
As did his former high school teacher, who had reason to remember it because he joked that Luke resembled a "hooded monk" walking around school with it on. This teacher retired that summer so could only have seen Luke wearing it before the murder.
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press. From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.
(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”
There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.
(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”
This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”
(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”
This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.
(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”
One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.
(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”
If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically.
I have been lead to believe that a consultant was brought in by the police to determine that if Luke was guilty when the murder could have occurred.
Rather like putting the cart before the horses.
Of course we also have Leonard Kelly who, allegedly, heard a strangling sound as he rode his bike past the v in the wall at around 5.15. On closer examination, as with much in this case, his first statement was rather different and there was talk of him being pressured to make the change.
-
This makes no sense
The prosecution case was Luke Mitchell owned a parka jacket prior to the murder
‘One of the most significant pieces of evidence was that Mitchell had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the previous months and that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the murder.
What I find interesting from following a link to the quotation in your post https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ is that Mitchell was able to describe the murdered Jodi's clothing which had been stripped from her body and was lying scattered around. Even down to the red scrunchie she was wearing in her hair although as she was lying on her back and the bauble at the base of her neck could not have been seen..
Snip
A search of the path indicated that Jodi had gone through the break in the wall with someone she knew as there was no indication of a struggle and Mitchell knew the area well.
When questioned he mentioned seeing a distinctive hair fastening which had not been readily visible and was able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark. Also his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school as he claimed.
Mitchell claimed not to have met up with Jodie ~ yet he knew exactly what she had been wearing when she was murdered ~ only her killer could have known that.
-
What I find interesting from following a link to the quotation in your post https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ is that Mitchell was able to describe the murdered Jodi's clothing which had been stripped from her body and was lying scattered around. Even down to the red scrunchie she was wearing in her hair although as she was lying on her back and the bauble at the base of her neck could not have been seen..
Snip
A search of the path indicated that Jodi had gone through the break in the wall with someone she knew as there was no indication of a struggle and Mitchell knew the area well.
When questioned he mentioned seeing a distinctive hair fastening which had not been readily visible and was able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark. Also his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school as he claimed.
Mitchell claimed not to have met up with Jodie ~ yet he knew exactly what she had been wearing when she was murdered ~ only her killer could have known that.
8((()*/
-
Also - didn’t he initially tell police he saw ‘legs’ which looked like they were from a tailors dummy as opposed to what he’s now claiming to have first seen
‘He told police he saw legs like a "tailor's dummy", he took a step forward and registered that it was a body’
-
What I find interesting from following a link to the quotation in your post https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ is that Mitchell was able to describe the murdered Jodi's clothing which had been stripped from her body and was lying scattered around. Even down to the red scrunchie she was wearing in her hair although as she was lying on her back and the bauble at the base of her neck could not have been seen..
Snip
A search of the path indicated that Jodi had gone through the break in the wall with someone she knew as there was no indication of a struggle and Mitchell knew the area well.
When questioned he mentioned seeing a distinctive hair fastening which had not been readily visible and was able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark. Also his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school as he claimed.
Mitchell claimed not to have met up with Jodie ~ yet he knew exactly what she had been wearing when she was murdered ~ only her killer could have known that.
Luke Mitchell police statement
"I could see blood on her neck... she was naked”
"I thought it was Jodi. I just recognised the face, it looked like Jodi”
-
Also - didn’t he initially tell police he saw ‘legs’ which looked like they were from a tailors dummy as opposed to what he’s now claiming to have first seen
‘He told police he saw legs like a "tailor's dummy", he took a step forward and registered that it was a body’
‘he took a step forward and registered that it was a body’
Yet in the channel 5 show Luke Mitchell makes no mention of taking ‘a step forward’
-
‘he took a step forward and registered that it was a body’
Yet in the channel 5 show Luke Mitchell makes no mention of taking ‘a step forward’
Did he read from a script for the channel 5 show does anyone know?
Have his recorded prison phone calls been analysed?
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths
and lies (or Freudian slips)
Luke Mitchell
"I could see blood on her neck... she was naked"
“She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister”
-
You state,
‘I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’
which ones are which in your above post - can you be more specific
And is there a reason you’ve not given a source for any of what you’ve posted
I gave the citation to an article in the Scotsman in my opening post, with the title and date. The author is listed as "The Newsroom." https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415). I listed five statements that Mr. Dobbie made. I would classify #3 and probably #1 as half-truths, and #5 as either false or a stunning indictment of the crime scene management that Mr. Dobbie has seen (YMMV). I would put #2 and #4 into the category of being false. Some of these topics could become the subjects of individual threads if they don't have threads already. My primary point in beginning this thread is to show that some of the information that the public has been given is either wrong or misleading. My secondary point is that much of the press has been unskeptical in its reporting.
-
I gave the citation to an article in the Scotsman in my opening post, with the title and date. The author is listed as "The Newsroom." https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415).
So you did - my mistake
-
(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”
But today detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie launched a vigorous defence of their detective work.
Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the "finest I have ever seen".
He said that every care was taken to recover every single piece of evidence that was there.
And he defended claims made in court that the scene was not well managed.
Mr Dobbie admitted that the case against Luke Mitchell was purely circumstantial, but insisted Lothian and Borders Police Force had done a great job.
"We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible.
"I am open to suggestions as to where we could have made improvements in the investigation, but I can’t think of anything obvious."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
It is quite often a bit of a task to cherry pick the areas of a mixture of quotes and a journalist's paraphrasing to arrive at an unbiased conclusion.
For example Dobbie said "finest I have ever seen". But I really would have preferred to have seen the rest of that sentence which would have allowed me to make up my own mind about what was actually said.
The salient point you are making regarding 'falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’ has been addressed elsewhere in the full article which paints a different picture from the one you have chosen to portray is without a doubt - "We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible."
So the police actually did manage to make a case which stood up in court to close scrutiny. Which is very probably the reason that not one of Mitchell and his supporters attempts to overturn it have themselves stood up to scrutiny.
-
What I find interesting from following a link to the quotation in your post https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ is that Mitchell was able to describe the murdered Jodi's clothing which had been stripped from her body and was lying scattered around. Even down to the red scrunchie she was wearing in her hair although as she was lying on her back and the bauble at the base of her neck could not have been seen..
Snip
A search of the path indicated that Jodi had gone through the break in the wall with someone she knew as there was no indication of a struggle and Mitchell knew the area well.
When questioned he mentioned seeing a distinctive hair fastening which had not been readily visible and was able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark. Also his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school as he claimed.
Mitchell claimed not to have met up with Jodie ~ yet he knew exactly what she had been wearing when she was murdered ~ only her killer could have known that.
Not interesting at all. It helps to know in what interview Luke gave this information.
-
But today detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie launched a vigorous defence of their detective work.
Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the "finest I have ever seen".
He said that every care was taken to recover every single piece of evidence that was there.
And he defended claims made in court that the scene was not well managed.
Mr Dobbie admitted that the case against Luke Mitchell was purely circumstantial, but insisted Lothian and Borders Police Force had done a great job.
"We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible.
"I am open to suggestions as to where we could have made improvements in the investigation, but I can’t think of anything obvious."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
It is quite often a bit of a task to cherry pick the areas of a mixture of quotes and a journalist's paraphrasing to arrive at an unbiased conclusion.
For example Dobbie said "finest I have ever seen". But I really would have preferred to have seen the rest of that sentence which would have allowed me to make up my own mind about what was actually said.
The salient point you are making regarding 'falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’ has been addressed elsewhere in the full article which paints a different picture from the one you have chosen to portray is without a doubt - "We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible."
So the police actually did manage to make a case which stood up in court to close scrutiny. Which is very probably the reason that not one of Mitchell and his supporters attempts to overturn it have themselves stood up to scrutiny.
Can you never just stick to the point? Does every one of your posts have to be peppered by personal insults?
-
It is quite often a bit of a task to cherry pick the areas of a mixture of quotes and a journalist's paraphrasing to arrive at an unbiased conclusion.
For example Dobbie said "finest I have ever seen". But I really would have preferred to have seen the rest of that sentence which would have allowed me to make up my own mind about what was actually said.
Does it read like the lyrics to a nirvana song
-
But today detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie launched a vigorous defence of their detective work.
Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the "finest I have ever seen".
He said that every care was taken to recover every single piece of evidence that was there.
And he defended claims made in court that the scene was not well managed.
Mr Dobbie admitted that the case against Luke Mitchell was purely circumstantial, but insisted Lothian and Borders Police Force had done a great job.
"We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible.
"I am open to suggestions as to where we could have made improvements in the investigation, but I can’t think of anything obvious."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
It is quite often a bit of a task to cherry pick the areas of a mixture of quotes and a journalist's paraphrasing to arrive at an unbiased conclusion.
For example Dobbie said "finest I have ever seen". But I really would have preferred to have seen the rest of that sentence which would have allowed me to make up my own mind about what was actually said.
The salient point you are making regarding 'falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’ has been addressed elsewhere in the full article which paints a different picture from the one you have chosen to portray is without a doubt - "We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible."
So the police actually did manage to make a case which stood up in court to close scrutiny. Which is very probably the reason that not one of Mitchell and his supporters attempts to overturn it have themselves stood up to scrutiny.
8((()*/
-
I gave the citation to an article in the Scotsman in my opening post, with the title and date. The author is listed as "The Newsroom." https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415). I listed five statements that Mr. Dobbie made. I would classify #3 and probably #1 as half-truths, and #5 as either false or a stunning indictment of the crime scene management that Mr. Dobbie has seen (YMMV). I would put #2 and #4 into the category of being false. Some of these topics could become the subjects of individual threads if they don't have threads already. My primary point in beginning this thread is to show that some of the information that the public has been given is either wrong or misleading. My secondary point is that much of the press has been unskeptical in its reporting.
I wholeheartedly agree that the Mitchell case is awash with lies and none more so than that the police did not apply due diligence - used mainly in conjunction with the despicable trait of casting suspicion on a number of named individuals in their turn using the pretext that the police had 'homed in' on Mitchell to the exclusion of all others.
Snip
But detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said the teenager was nothing more than a witness at the beginning of the investigation.
It wasn’t until inconsistencies emerged in his statements that he became a suspect.
He said they tried to eliminate him from their enquiries but "they just couldn’t".
Mr Dobbie, 53, said more than 3000 statements were taken throughout the course of the inquiry.
"We interviewed everyone possible," he said. "We interviewed every male who had been viewed with general suspicion.
"That group included any males known to Jodi - both relatives and friends.
"Luke was one, and, at first, he was no different from the rest of them. We were just trying to eliminate people from that group.
"It wasn’t until July 3 that our suspicions about Luke increased. We had a degree of suspicion, but not enough to detain him.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
-
I gave the citation to an article in the Scotsman in my opening post, with the title and date. https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415)
Craig Dobbie also apparently said,
"However, we still had to be aware that Luke was providing a statement voluntarily and that he may have been deeply traumatised at the time."
The next day, Mr Dobbie asked for Mitchell to be interviewed again - this time under police caution.
"We made it clear he was under caution - it was only fair to him to do so. This was when he further entrenched his position.
So what did Luke Mitchell say exactly to the police?
Where can we read his police interviews in full?
-
Does it read like the lyrics to a nirvana song
You would need to ask my son that ~ he's a bit of a fan ~ me, I know nothing about Nirvana 🙄
I'm sure Dobbie did say it but without the context of the rest of the sentence, it is impossible to evaluate it properly.
-
You would need to ask my son that ~ he's a bit of a fan ~ me, I know nothing about Nirvana 🙄
I'm sure Dobbie did say it but without the context of the rest of the sentence, it is impossible to evaluate it properly.
We have no idea what was omitted...
-
Craig Dobbie also apparently said,
"However, we still had to be aware that Luke was providing a statement voluntarily and that he may have been deeply traumatised at the time."
The next day, Mr Dobbie asked for Mitchell to be interviewed again - this time under police caution.
"We made it clear he was under caution - it was only fair to him to do so. This was when he further entrenched his position.
So what did Luke Mitchell say exactly to the police?
Where can we read his police interviews in full?
I think that is why so much rubbish is in circulation regarding Mitchell's case ~ we just do not have access to accurate information so I think in many instances people just make it up in internet fora as they go along.
The best source of information I have found so far is from the transcripts of the appeals and judgements. I haven't seen anything from the first trial except what is published in those and media reports.
-
I think that is why so much rubbish is in circulation regarding Mitchell's case ~ we just do not have access to accurate information so I think in many instances people just make it up in internet fora as they go along.
The best source of information I have found so far is from the transcripts of the appeals and judgements. I haven't seen anything from the first trial except what is published in those and media reports.
The campaign is grounded in dishonesty and has all the hallmarks of innocence fraud
-
What happened to Sandra Lean’s podcasts re killer Matthew Hamlen?
Anyone know?
-
But today detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie launched a vigorous defence of their detective work.
Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the "finest I have ever seen".
He said that every care was taken to recover every single piece of evidence that was there.
And he defended claims made in court that the scene was not well managed.
Mr Dobbie admitted that the case against Luke Mitchell was purely circumstantial, but insisted Lothian and Borders Police Force had done a great job.
"We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible.
"I am open to suggestions as to where we could have made improvements in the investigation, but I can’t think of anything obvious."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
It is quite often a bit of a task to cherry pick the areas of a mixture of quotes and a journalist's paraphrasing to arrive at an unbiased conclusion.
For example Dobbie said "finest I have ever seen". But I really would have preferred to have seen the rest of that sentence which would have allowed me to make up my own mind about what was actually said.
I provided the citation so that anyone could check to make sure that I had not misquoted Mr. Dobbie (obviously I did not). However, you left out a key passage in this article:
"Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was 'not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start'. The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene. Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back."
But it just gets more mind boggling. I previously mentioned that I can find no indication that anyone attempted to determine the TOD forensically. The Yorkshire dogs were not brought in until between 10 and 12 July, which was after the crime scene had been bleached. Jodi's body was not covered until 8 AM, and her clothes were gathered by non-forensics personnel (I seem to recall that they were piled together). There was a failure to take the clothing worn by the other members of the search party.
"But the investigators - now PIs with Integritas Investigative Solutions - say the crime scene was “terribly” managed." https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6718910/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-police/ (https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6718910/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-police/)
"But he [Mr Derek Scrimger agreed that if Jodi's clothing had been removed after death, it was likely the attacker would be bloodstained. Questioned by defence QC Donald Findlay, he said the body and clothing should not have been moved before he got there." https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100)
Can you square Mr. Dobbie's statement with Mr Scrimger's testimony?
-
I provided the citation so that anyone could check to make sure that I had not misquoted Mr. Dobbie (obviously I did not).
How do you know whoever wrote it
The author is listed as "The Newsroom.
was accurate ?
And of you are for Luke Mitchell - aren’t you meant to ignore what the media have said?
-
"But he [Mr Derek Scrimger agreed that if Jodi's clothing had been removed after death, it was likely the attacker would be bloodstained. Questioned by defence QC Donald Findlay, he said the body and clothing should not have been moved before he got there." https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100)
Derek Scrimger stated during the trial,
What many people fail to realise is that at the time of the assault there may not have been much blood there. There wouldn't necessarily be any blood on the assailant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4096295.stm
-
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100)
The above article also states,
Jodi's gran found her naked body on the Monday evening after her family launched a search.
-
I previously mentioned that I can find no indication that anyone attempted to determine the TOD forensically.
Sandra Lean wrote the same re TOD in the Simon Hall case
and like Luke Mitchell he used his mother for his alibi
-
"But the investigators - now PIs with Integritas Investigative Solutions - say the crime scene was “terribly” managed." https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6718910/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-police/ (https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6718910/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-police/)
Can you show us what they replied on to come to this conclusion - baring in mind they never attended the crime scene
-
The Yorkshire dogs were not brought in until between 10 and 12 July, which was after the crime scene had been bleached.
Who actioned the ‘Yorkshire dogs’ - what was their name ?
-
Jodi's body was not covered until 8 AM, and her clothes were gathered by non-forensics personnel (I
Who’s responsibility was this?
And do you have an exact breakdown of the times the various police officers and forensic officers involved were notified and arrived at the crime scene?
Can you post the timings in order of arrival to the crime scene and of times each officer was notified - this information should be logged somewhere in the case files
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths
Can you tell us what Luke Mitchell told police he was doing from 6.05pm till 7.30pm ?
-
Jodi's body was not covered until 8 AM
What exactly do the case files say about this ?
-
Derek Scrimger stated during the trial,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4096295.stm
This is a good example of whataboutism. In addition, you left out something.
Mr [Derek] Scrimger said if her throat had been cut from behind, the blood would have travelled forward and there wouldn't necessarily have been any on the attacker. But he agreed that if Jodi's clothing had been removed after death, it was likely the attacker would be bloodstained."
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100)
-
The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.
Was it the fault of the female forensic officer who had a bad back and apparently couldn’t climb the wall for not erecting a tent?
And why didn’t she walk around to the end of the path and through the woodland?
What do this case papers specifically say about this?
-
This is a good example of whataboutism.
Can you post a transcript of everything Derek Scrimger said during the trial
-
Mr [Derek] Scrimger said if her throat had been cut from behind, the blood would have travelled forward and there wouldn't necessarily have been any on the attacker. But he agreed that if Jodi's clothing had been removed after death, it was likely the attacker would be bloodstained."
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI'S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100)
What time did Derek Scrimger indicate the clothing was removed?
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths
It’s been alleged AW had Alzheimer’s at the time of Jodi’s murder - if true (I don’t know) is this why she couldn’t remember what she was wearing?
And would the Mitchell’s/Sandra Lean be aware of this or not?
-
Was it the fault of the female forensic officer who had a bad back and apparently couldn’t climb the wall for not erecting a tent?
And why didn’t she walk around to the end of the path and through the woodland?
You answered your own question.
-
Can you post a transcript of everything Derek Scrimger said during the trial
Are you claiming that Mr Scrimger said something different from what was reported? If so, please post a transcript. If not, you are just blowing smoke.
-
Are you claiming that Mr Scrimger said something different from what was reported? If so, please post a transcript. If not, you are just blowing smoke.
No smoke here
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths
What was it Corinne Mitchell said to James English
May 2010 - Corrine Mitchell
‘oh for heavens sake.....this is getting tiresome.
For the record....Findlay wouldn't speak to Sandra....just as he would not speak to me...he wouldn't even speak to his own client....Luke...at one point he banged his fist on the table and told Luke..."We do things MY way’
Why were "the facts" not brought up in court?.........Ask Donald Findlay!!!!
That's why we dropped him. Why did he not bring in expert witnesses? Why did he not bring in ANY witnesses for Luke? We asked him to, but as I have said earlier....he didn't speak to us. It was his way.....or no way.
-
I would like to return to the actual subject of this thread. Mr. Dobbie said, "We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket." A casual observer of the case could infer that Mr. Dobbie's statement referred to a period before the murder. Did the police produce any photos of Luke wearing a parka dating from this period? Did they produce a sales receipt that fell into this period?
-
I would like to return to the actual subject of this thread. Mr. Dobbie said, "We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket." A casual observer of the case could infer that Mr. Dobbie's statement referred to a period before the murder. Did the police produce any photos of Luke wearing a parka dating from this period? Did they produce a sales receipt that fell into this period?
No and no.
-
I would like to return to the actual subject of this thread. Mr. Dobbie said, "We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket." A casual observer of the case could infer that Mr. Dobbie's statement referred to a period before the murder. Did the police produce any photos of Luke wearing a parka dating from this period? Did they produce a sales receipt that fell into this period?
Were photos of Luke Mitchell committing the murder produced ?
-
I would like to return to the actual subject of this thread. Mr. Dobbie said, "We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket." A casual observer of the case could infer that Mr. Dobbie's statement referred to a period before the murder. Did the police produce any photos of Luke wearing a parka dating from this period? Did they produce a sales receipt that fell into this period?
Corrine Mitchell make the false claim to James English Luke didn’t wear coats - her words ⬇️
“Luke was the type of lad who didn’t wear jackets. You could,buy him any jacket and he would not wear one ’he hated jackets’
-
Corrine Mitchell make the false claim to James English Luke didn’t wear coats - her words ⬇️
“Luke was the type of lad who didn’t wear jackets. You could,buy him any jacket and he would not wear one ’he hated jackets’
Corinne Mitchell then goes on to tell James English she took Luke shopping to buy him clothes after the police had taken all his
But the police hadn’t taken all of his jackets - which he ‘hated’ wearing
There were numerous jackets pictured hanging up on the back of his bedroom door
So why did he want another jacket - another green jacket?
-
Corinne Mitchell then goes on to tell James English she took Luke shopping to buy him clothes after the police had taken all his
But the police hadn’t taken all of his jackets - which he ‘hated’ wearing
There were numerous jackets pictured hanging up on the back of his bedroom door
So why did he want another jacket - another green jacket?
I think Corinne wasn’t being literal with the jacket statement in that interview — it was hyperbolic, if you will. I don’t particularly like wearing jackets either, but still own about 6. Living in the central belt of Scotland, where a cold, unpredictable climate predominates, several jackets are essential wether one likes wearing them or not. As for those jackets hanging over the back of Luke’s bedroom door . . . I presume you know of these jackets because of the pictures shown on an estate agent’s website when Corinne put the family home (on N’battle Abbey Crescent) up for sale circa 2013/14? If so, what does that prove? Those jackets might’ve been Shane’s, or Luke’s old jackets from before 2003. There could’ve been lots of valid reasons for those jackets being there between 2003 and the house being sold, and, as I noted above, jackets are unequivocally essential in Scotland.
The green parka jacket, however, remains a contentious issue for me. I think I read an article that mentioned classmates and a teacher of Luke’s had all testified in court that he did own such a parka before the murder (alas, I can’t find the link). If this was the case, then that makes me feel uneasy; while not categorical proof of his guilt, it does look incriminating — especially when you also consider that his brother didn’t give him an alibi and consider the sightings of AB and F & W (and, of course, all the other evidence in its totality make things seem that bit worse for Luke, too).
-
May 2010 - Corrine Mitchell
‘oh for heavens sake.....this is getting tiresome.
For the record....Findlay wouldn't speak to Sandra....just as he would not speak to me...he wouldn't even speak to his own client....Luke...at one point he banged his fist on the table and told Luke..."We do things MY way’
Why were "the facts" not brought up in court?.........Ask Donald Findlay!!!!
That's why we dropped him. Why did he not bring in expert witnesses? Why did he not bring in ANY witnesses for Luke? We asked him to, but as I have said earlier....he didn't speak to us. It was his way.....or no way.
Look how this story by Corrine Mitchell has ‘grown arms and legs’ over the years and how her own words are attributed to Donald Findlay *&^^&
2019
@ approx 11.28 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UbHl3oCCClI
Corrine Mitchell says;
“At one point when Luke asked for a certain witness to be called his QC banged his fist on the table and said ‘it’s my way or no way laddie.”
-
I think Corinne wasn’t being literal with the jacket statement in that interview — it was hyperbolic, if you will. I don’t particularly like wearing jackets either, but still own about 6. Living in the central belt of Scotland, where a cold, unpredictable climate predominates, several jackets are essential wether one likes wearing them or not. As for those jackets hanging over the back of Luke’s bedroom door . . . I presume you know of these jackets because of the pictures shown on an estate agent’s website when Corinne put the family home (on N’battle Abbey Crescent) up for sale circa 2013/14? If so, what does that prove? Those jackets might’ve been Shane’s, or Luke’s old jackets from before 2003. There could’ve been lots of valid reasons for those jackets being there between 2003 and the house being sold, and, as I noted above, jackets are unequivocally essential in Scotland.
I don’t know what photos you mean but I’m referring to photographs of Luke Mitchell’s bedroom taken by Lothian and borders police
You may recall photos of Luke’s bedroom spoken about by Corrine and her accusing the police of given them to the press - which it appears they did - only after the trial
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042868?adppopup=true
-
I don’t know what photos you mean but I’m referring to photographs of Luke Mitchell’s bedroom taken by Lothian and borders police
You may recall photos of Luke’s bedroom spoken about by Corrine and her accusing the police of given them to the press - which it appears they did - only after the trial
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042868?adppopup=true
Thanks for the link - I've not seen it before.
-
I don’t know what photos you mean but I’m referring to photographs of Luke Mitchell’s bedroom taken by Lothian and borders police
You may recall photos of Luke’s bedroom spoken about by Corrine and her accusing the police of given them to the press - which it appears they did - only after the trial
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042868?adppopup=true
It appears the back of his bedroom door is where Luke kept his jackets, whether he wore them often or not. Can you see a parka jacket?
-
It appears the back of his bedroom door is where Luke kept his jackets, whether he wore them often or not. Can you see a parka jacket?
no because these photos were part of a series taken by police during the murder investigation, long after anyone had last seen the jacket
another from same series:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/09/09/020A93C10000044D-0-image-m-12_1507537695955.jpg (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/09/09/020A93C10000044D-0-image-m-12_1507537695955.jpg)
-
I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press. From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.
(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”
There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.
(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”
This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”
(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”
This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.
(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”
One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.
(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”
If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically.
In comparison to the Mitchell’s the family were indeed consistent with their evidence
Why won’t Sandra Lean/Luke Mitchell publish Luke, Corrine and Shane’s police statements in full?
What are they hiding ?
-
no because these photos were part of a series taken by police during the murder investigation, long after anyone had last seen the jacket
another from same series:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/09/09/020A93C10000044D-0-image-m-12_1507537695955.jpg (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/09/09/020A93C10000044D-0-image-m-12_1507537695955.jpg)
You have to ask why they are in the public domain at all.
-
(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”
This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”
Led a merry dance down the garden path - Of everyone all agreeing it was the dog who led LM to Jodi. You mention the parka and of how a statement may give a false impression, that they could be talking about the Jacket bought after this murder, you need to see more. - As with the above - Of everyone agreeing it was the dog who led LM to Jodi - completely false and misleading statement. Firstly the dog led no one to Jodi, the dog was not in this woodland. Secondly the dog was only ever at this V break in the wall. So what we can gleam from this, at the very most - is that the dog led LM directly to the V, for him them to enter this woodland. We know the evidence around this "the dogs head being level with the V" and "dog pulling to the V" - and that these statements changed to LM going directly to this V - Not changed however, clarified. As LM did go straight to this V, it was always stated this way. His dog was on the lead, a dog pulling towards a wall, how very unusual? - Now if this search trio were making statements to the effect, that the dog starting going crazy, she was barking, frantically jumping at the wall, and it had been well passed this V - you get the drift. But there was none of this, was there? There was simply this search party, going down this path - and of a dog sniffing at a wall and pulling. That LM entered this woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation - nothing. He turned immediately to his left.
And we know without a shadow of a doubt, that they did not say they had walked passed this V at the point of the dog doing anything, and we know there was no evidence of this dog alerting to Jodi in the slightest - it was a dog, doing what dogs do. When one wants to talk 'wafer thin' These claims and attempts to show any different are transparent to the max - And we know without a shadow of a doubt, that JaJ and AW could see LM on the other side of this V - we are being asked to disbelief this due to their height- really? Of these blatant lies that the base of this V is 6ft from the ground. And we know the torch light was the major factor of knowing exactly which way he turned, immediately upon entering this woodland.
And this was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That LM, the search trio and his dog were not passed this V break - and Ms lean, relies heavily upon them not and never saying, it was Luke's dog that found Jodi then they said it wasn't - And from this point and of every other lie that fell off his lips - we are being asked to believe the search trio were not being honest? -Really? With these wafer thin, transparent, empty of substance claims. Grasping and scraping to find something solid against the abundance of evidence against LM. - Of what happened on this brief time on that path.
Of introducing the woodland at the Gino spot. Of being unaffected, of leading the emergency services/ police a merry dance whilst others were screaming in the background. For that was what was in that call - the recording played in court. Ms Lean may have hoped over time that her need to troll and infiltrate every discussion may win the day - The hope that in 9weeks of a trial. A crammed court room. Of legal bodies, media, students, spectators and so forth - That her 'knowledge is power' cries - would be thwarted at every angle.
Of people getting told that what they say holds no water as they can not cite as much as she can? - for she holds the defence papers. - Complete and utter bias, that citing snip bits proves absolutely nothing. Completely empty of substance. The only part that is true, is those few words verbatim, the official timings of calls and so forth. Manipulating and playing around with these times to suit.
And of those recordings - Of LM toying with the operator. Of those screams in the background. Of SK taking over the call and screaming "It's a f*****g body". And like the statements of the search trio, of AB and just about anyone else - the same method is used - to add weight to air. Everything around what happened needs to be known - not these futile claims of the dog leading LM anywhere. - Of CM and Findlay not listening to them "my way or the high way" Of not speaking with SL? - of other legal teams not touching them with a barge pole - One wonders why? Is it not more of a case of "It's our way or no way" of CM "All Findlay had to do was walk in and say, we have blood, sperm, hair, none of it Luke's, I rest my case"
How honest do you feel the Mitchells were Chris?
-
Led a merry dance down the garden path - Of everyone all agreeing it was the dog who led LM to Jodi. You mention the parka and of how a statement may give a false impression, that they could be talking about the Jacket bought after this murder, you need to see more. - As with the above - Of everyone agreeing it was the dog who led LM to Jodi - completely false and misleading statement. Firstly the dog led no one to Jodi, the dog was not in this woodland. Secondly the dog was only ever at this V break in the wall. So what we can gleam from this, at the very most - is that the dog led LM directly to the V, for him them to enter this woodland. We know the evidence around this "the dogs head being level with the V" and "dog pulling to the V" - and that these statements changed to LM going directly to this V - Not changed however, clarified. As LM did go straight to this V, it was always stated this way. His dog was on the lead, a dog pulling towards a wall, how very unusual? - Now if this search trio were making statements to the effect, that the dog starting going crazy, she was barking, frantically jumping at the wall, and it had been well passed this V - you get the drift. But there was none of this, was there?
8((()*/
-
There was simply this search party, going down this path - and of a dog sniffing at a wall and pulling. That LM entered this woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation - nothing. He turned immediately to his left.
And we know without a shadow of a doubt, that they did not say they had walked passed this V at the point of the dog doing anything, and we know there was no evidence of this dog alerting to Jodi in the slightest - it was a dog, doing what dogs do. When one wants to talk 'wafer thin' These claims and attempts to show any different are transparent to the max -
8((()*/
-
And we know without a shadow of a doubt, that JaJ and AW could see LM on the other side of this V - we are being asked to disbelief this due to their height- really? Of these blatant lies that the base of this V is 6ft from the ground. And we know the torch light was the major factor of knowing exactly which way he turned, immediately upon entering this woodland.
And this was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8((()*/
-
And this was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That LM, the search trio and his dog were not passed this V break - and Ms lean, relies heavily upon them not and never saying, it was Luke's dog that found Jodi then they said it wasn't - And from this point and of every other lie that fell off his lips - we are being asked to believe the search trio were not being honest? -Really? With these wafer thin, transparent, empty of substance claims. Grasping and scraping to find something solid against the abundance of evidence against LM. - Of what happened on this brief time on that path.
Of introducing the woodland at the Gino spot. Of being unaffected, of leading the emergency services/ police a merry dance whilst others were screaming in the background. For that was what was in that call - the recording played in court.
8((()*/
-
Ms Lean may have hoped over time that her need to troll and infiltrate every discussion may win the day - The hope that in 9weeks of a trial. A crammed court room. Of legal bodies, media, students, spectators and so forth - That her 'knowledge is power' cries - would be thwarted at every angle.
Of people getting told that what they say holds no water as they can not cite as much as she can? - for she holds the defence papers. - Complete and utter bias, that citing snip bits proves absolutely nothing. Completely empty of substance. The only part that is true, is those few words verbatim, the official timings of calls and so forth. Manipulating and playing around with these times to suit.
8@??)(
-
And of those recordings - Of LM toying with the operator. Of those screams in the background. Of SK taking over the call and screaming "It's a f*****g body".
8((()*/
-
And like the statements of the search trio, of AB and just about anyone else - the same method is used - to add weight to air.
8((()*/
-
Everything around what happened needs to be known - not these futile claims of the dog leading LM anywhere. - Of CM and Findlay not listening to them "my way or the high way" Of not speaking with SL? - of other legal teams not touching them with a barge pole - One wonders why? Is it not more of a case of "It's our way or no way" of CM "All Findlay had to do was walk in and say, we have blood, sperm, hair, none of it Luke's, I rest my case" 8((()*/
-
How honest do you feel the Mitchells were Chris?
⬆️
-
Led a merry dance down the garden path - Of everyone all agreeing it was the dog who led LM to Jodi. You mention the parka and of how a statement may give a false impression, that they could be talking about the Jacket bought after this murder, you need to see more. - As with the above - Of everyone agreeing it was the dog who led LM to Jodi - completely false and misleading statement. Firstly the dog led no one to Jodi, the dog was not in this woodland. Secondly the dog was only ever at this V break in the wall. So what we can gleam from this, at the very most - is that the dog led LM directly to the V, for him them to enter this woodland. We know the evidence around this "the dogs head being level with the V" and "dog pulling to the V" - and that these statements changed to LM going directly to this V - Not changed however, clarified. As LM did go straight to this V, it was always stated this way. His dog was on the lead, a dog pulling towards a wall, how very unusual? - Now if this search trio were making statements to the effect, that the dog starting going crazy, she was barking, frantically jumping at the wall, and it had been well passed this V - you get the drift. But there was none of this, was there? There was simply this search party, going down this path - and of a dog sniffing at a wall and pulling. That LM entered this woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation - nothing. He turned immediately to his left.
And we know without a shadow of a doubt, that they did not say they had walked passed this V at the point of the dog doing anything, and we know there was no evidence of this dog alerting to Jodi in the slightest - it was a dog, doing what dogs do. When one wants to talk 'wafer thin' These claims and attempts to show any different are transparent to the max - And we know without a shadow of a doubt, that JaJ and AW could see LM on the other side of this V - we are being asked to disbelief this due to their height- really? Of these blatant lies that the base of this V is 6ft from the ground. And we know the torch light was the major factor of knowing exactly which way he turned, immediately upon entering this woodland.
And this was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That LM, the search trio and his dog were not passed this V break - and Ms lean, relies heavily upon them not and never saying, it was Luke's dog that found Jodi then they said it wasn't - And from this point and of every other lie that fell off his lips - we are being asked to believe the search trio were not being honest? -Really? With these wafer thin, transparent, empty of substance claims. Grasping and scraping to find something solid against the abundance of evidence against LM. - Of what happened on this brief time on that path.
Of introducing the woodland at the Gino spot. Of being unaffected, of leading the emergency services/ police a merry dance whilst others were screaming in the background. For that was what was in that call - the recording played in court. Ms Lean may have hoped over time that her need to troll and infiltrate every discussion may win the day - The hope that in 9weeks of a trial. A crammed court room. Of legal bodies, media, students, spectators and so forth - That her 'knowledge is power' cries - would be thwarted at every angle.
Of people getting told that what they say holds no water as they can not cite as much as she can? - for she holds the defence papers. - Complete and utter bias, that citing snip bits proves absolutely nothing. Completely empty of substance. The only part that is true, is those few words verbatim, the official timings of calls and so forth. Manipulating and playing around with these times to suit.
And of those recordings - Of LM toying with the operator. Of those screams in the background. Of SK taking over the call and screaming "It's a f*****g body". And like the statements of the search trio, of AB and just about anyone else - the same method is used - to add weight to air. Everything around what happened needs to be known - not these futile claims of the dog leading LM anywhere. - Of CM and Findlay not listening to them "my way or the high way" Of not speaking with SL? - of other legal teams not touching them with a barge pole - One wonders why? Is it not more of a case of "It's our way or no way" of CM "All Findlay had to do was walk in and say, we have blood, sperm, hair, none of it Luke's, I rest my case"
How honest do you feel the Mitchells were Chris?
How do you know what the dog did or didn't do? Were you there?
-
How do you know what the dog did or didn't do? Were you there?
There were people there who have testified to what the dog did or didn't do.
Snip
As they walked down the path, they saw Luke Mitchell, also carrying a torch, coming towards them. The four of them plus Mitchell's dog then started to walk back down the path.
Janine says Mitchell went through a V-shaped gap in the wall. She adds: 'We heard Luke shouting there was something there or he had found something.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
The court was convened in an area covering the wall and the break in the wall leading to the deposition site where Jodi's body had been left. I would imagine that Mitchell's version of events was heard along with that of the three other witnesses.
It was obviously considered to be an area of paramount importance since it was deemed necessary to construct a replica wall in the courtroom.
If we had to have been there to discuss particular aspects of this or any other case there would be no blogs - no social media and no fora such as ours.
From what I have witnessed and read ~ that might indeed be no bad thing.
-
There were people there who have testified to what the dog did or didn't do.
Snip
As they walked down the path, they saw Luke Mitchell, also carrying a torch, coming towards them. The four of them plus Mitchell's dog then started to walk back down the path.
Janine says Mitchell went through a V-shaped gap in the wall. She adds: 'We heard Luke shouting there was something there or he had found something.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
The court was convened in an area covering the wall and the break in the wall leading to the deposition site where Jodi's body had been left. I would imagine that Mitchell's version of events was heard along with that of the three other witnesses.
It was obviously considered to be an area of paramount importance since it was deemed necessary to construct a replica wall in the courtroom.
If we had to have been there to discuss particular aspects of this or any other case there would be no blogs - no social media and no fora such as ours.
From what I have witnessed and read ~ that might indeed be no bad thing.
‘ Cross-examining Janine, Donald Findlay QC says: 'The fact of the matter is, the only person who showed any interest in checking behind the wall was Luke.'
Janine replies: 'Yes.'
Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+%27We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
It’s interesting that where there was another witness, not family, to Luke’s distress the way Janine concedes the fact.
Let us not forget that JaJ would have read the statement she made to the police and signed it as a true representation of what she said.
-
IMO Luke wanted to be there when the body was recovered so that he could enjoy the others’ reactions to the grisly sight.
-
Why didn’t Corinne go with him?
Where was her concern for missing Jodi?
-
IMO Luke wanted to be there when the body was recovered so that he could enjoy the others’ reactions to the grisly sight.
IMO, a guilty person would want to be as far away as possible when the body was discovered, but, as I say, just my opinion!
-
There were people there who have testified to what the dog did or didn't do.
Snip
As they walked down the path, they saw Luke Mitchell, also carrying a torch, coming towards them. The four of them plus Mitchell's dog then started to walk back down the path.
Janine says Mitchell went through a V-shaped gap in the wall. She adds: 'We heard Luke shouting there was something there or he had found something.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
The court was convened in an area covering the wall and the break in the wall leading to the deposition site where Jodi's body had been left. I would imagine that Mitchell's version of events was heard along with that of the three other witnesses.
It was obviously considered to be an area of paramount importance since it was deemed necessary to construct a replica wall in the courtroom.
If we had to have been there to discuss particular aspects of this or any other case there would be no blogs - no social media and no fora such as ours.
From what I have witnessed and read ~ that might indeed be no bad thing.
I heard that, the first time they were questioned by police, all four members of the search party said that they were alerted by the dog.
-
IMO, a guilty person would want to be as far away as possible when the body was discovered, but, as I say, just my opinion!
Some killers return to the crime scene to relive the moment
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/colchester-schoolboy-double-killer-returned-7781562
-
I heard that, the first time they were questioned by police, all four members of the search party said that they were alerted by the dog.
They did. The statements changed over time.
-
They did. The statements changed over time.
No matter how many times you repeat it - it won’t overturn his murder conviction
-
I heard that, the first time they were questioned by police, all four members of the search party said that they were alerted by the dog.
There's a plethora of hearsay doing the rounds a lot of which cannot be substantiated perhaps for the simple reason they certainly never happened.
The only yardstick is the testimony given under oath in court much as Shane Mitchell did after changing his sworn statement (on two occasions?? I think).
There is no provenance that Jodi's family changed their initial statements and why would they. They were there and they know exactly what happened when Mitchell 'discovered' Jodi's remains.
-
IMO, a guilty person would want to be as far away as possible when the body was discovered, but, as I say, just my opinion!
My opinion is that it became part of whatever was going on in Mitchell's head at the time. The mutilation was a 'shock/horror' thing for whoever found Jodi which could only be phantasized about.
I don't think he could believe his luck to have Jodi's family at the scene with him in a ringside seat. He couldn't have passed that up if he'd tried.
Also a guilty person would have used the opportunity of proximity to ensure that any traces he had left at the scene had an 'innocent' explanation.
-
No matter how many times you repeat it - it won’t overturn his murder conviction
I have never seen any proof whatsoever that the statements were changed. Hearsay from a third party means nothing as far as I am concerned.
But it makes absolutely no difference if their initial traumatised recollections were subject to change as long as everything in the statement was true.
-
I have never seen any proof whatsoever that the statements were changed. Hearsay from a third party means nothing as far as I am concerned.
But it makes absolutely no difference if their initial traumatised recollections were subject to change as long as everything in the statement was true.
The fact Sandra Lean doesn’t appear able to understand the effects of shock and trauma for me is telling
Confusion for example is one of many known side effects
-
I have never seen any proof whatsoever that the statements were changed. Hearsay from a third party means nothing as far as I am concerned.
But it makes absolutely no difference if their initial traumatised recollections were subject to change as long as everything in the statement was true.
8((()*/
-
I have never seen any proof whatsoever that the statements were changed. Hearsay from a third party means nothing as far as I am concerned.
But it makes absolutely no difference if their initial traumatised recollections were subject to change as long as everything in the statement was true.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that trauma caused all the searchers first statements to claim the same thing and then to change in an identical fashion later.
It’s a pity Luke wasn’t the recipient of such understanding.
Within hours of a 14 year old child finding his girlfriend’s mutilated body he separated from everyone he knew and taken to a police station where he was stripped of his clothes and forensically examined. He was not examined by a mental health expert at any time to gauge his mental state and whether he was fit to be questioned but was questioned nonetheless.
I am at an absolute loss how anyone can defend Luke’s treatment.
-
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that trauma caused all the searchers first statements to claim the same thing
I very much doubt they did
-
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that trauma caused all the searchers first statements to claim the same thing and then to change in an identical fashion later.
It’s a pity Luke wasn’t the recipient of such understanding.
Within hours of a 14 year old child finding his girlfriend’s mutilated body he separated from everyone he knew and taken to a police station where he was stripped of his clothes and forensically examined. He was not examined by a mental health expert at any time to gauge his mental state and whether he was fit to be questioned but was questioned nonetheless.
I am at an absolute loss how anyone can defend Luke’s treatment.
He was
and was treated as a witness not a suspect
According to a 2018 femicide census 62% of females are killed by their partners
The police did the right thing attempting to rule him out early - especially given he was the one who found Jodi’s body
-
He was
and was treated as a witness not a suspect
According to a 2018 femicide census 62% of females are killed by their partners
The police did the right thing attempting to rule him out early - especially given he was the one who found Jodi’s body
Problem was they couldn’t
-
I am at an absolute loss how anyone can defend Luke’s treatment.
How are you claiming he was treated exactly ?
-
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that trauma caused all the searchers first statements to claim the same thing and then to change in an identical fashion later.
It’s a pity Luke wasn’t the recipient of such understanding.
Within hours of a 14 year old child finding his girlfriend’s mutilated body he separated from everyone he knew and taken to a police station where he was stripped of his clothes and forensically examined. He was not examined by a mental health expert at any time to gauge his mental state and whether he was fit to be questioned but was questioned nonetheless.
I am at an absolute loss how anyone can defend Luke’s treatment.
Why didn’t Corinne show any concern for Jodi when she learned she was missing and why didn’t she go out and help with the search ?
-
IMO Luke wanted to be there when the body was recovered so that he could enjoy the others’ reactions to the grisly sight.
Another young girl - 13 year old Trisytn Bailey - murdered by a 14 year old boy who seems more interested in gaining notoriety - like Mitchell did when he went on Sky TV *&^^&
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/boy-14-poses-police-car-24088821.amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that trauma caused all the searchers first statements to claim the same thing and then to change in an identical fashion later.
Time for some rabbits is it not? - perhaps that's what the dog sensed in the woodland? There is absolutely no point in spouting out this repetitive claim - There was not a snifter in any of this search trios statement that gave cause to LM turning immediately to his left. LM lied plain and simple - the search party were never some distance passed this V break together. They were not even a couple of feet passed it together. They always maintained from the off until they took the stand - than upon arriving at this V break LM went into the woodland. And yes shock does go a long way to explaining, as to why at first they may have thought the dog alerted LM to the V, upon approaching it, rather than LM leading, instructing his dog. "seek" That once this shock had worn off, that fog had lifted a little - they realised exactly what the dog had actually been doing. Sniffing about and pulling to the undergrowth, standing up at the V. Following it's masters instructions?
However, rather than just show clearly what each member of this search party had said from the off - one can't though. What Ms Lean does instead is give another reason for Luke Mitchell turning left - Just on the off chance he was lying/ mistaken about where the dog was?
SL:
alternatively, that the others had continued down the path, he was a 14 year old boy, alone on the other side of the wall in woodland, so he was likely to travel in the same direction as the others for safety and security.
One thinks of everything? - therefore, if one wishes to claim that this search party lied from their first statement to evidence in court - that they made the whole thing up 'upon reaching this V, of AW being handed the lead, of seeing LM turn left, of then continuing down this path, of being shouted back to this V. I mean, if one is claiming that this search party all said, the dog led 'us' to Jodi, why did they not just say it was some distance passed this V from the off? - because they were telling the truth. They had absolutely no reason to lie. They said it how it was. - this repetitive (i'm guilty too of this just now?) They changed their minds? No they did not, did they. Not a smidgeon of LM's claims fit together. Of the Gino spot - I know, again! Why did he take the notion to introduce the woodland to the search? - This wee boy, who was following the direction of the search party for safety and security - there is those bells again! And of DF to JaJ, "If it had not been for Luke taking the notion to search this woodland, Jodi would have been left lying there?" That is Luke, not his dog?
-
Sandra Lean
alternatively, that the others had continued down the path, he was a 14 year old boy, alone on the other side of the wall in woodland, so he was likely to travel in the same direction as the others for safety and security.
A 14 year old boy who’s mother suggested he go out looking for Jodi on his own *&^^&
‘Safety and security’ *&^^&
Corrine Mitchell’s claim to James English of saying to Luke “not at this time of night you’re not young man” also doesn’t fit with what Luke told police his mother had said to him
“The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.
In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4111441.stm
-
Time for some rabbits is it not? - perhaps that's what the dog sensed in the woodland? There is absolutely no point in spouting out this repetitive claim - There was not a snifter in any of this search trios statement that gave cause to LM turning immediately to his left. LM lied plain and simple -
Oh he did alright
He would have been an ab-so-lute IDIOT if he turned right
*&^^&
-
Time for some rabbits is it not? - perhaps that's what the dog sensed in the woodland? There is absolutely no point in spouting out this repetitive claim - There was not a snifter in any of this search trios statement that gave cause to LM turning immediately to his left. LM lied plain and simple - the search party were never some distance passed this V break together. They were not even a couple of feet passed it together. They always maintained from the off until they took the stand - than upon arriving at this V break LM went into the woodland. And yes shock does go a long way to explaining, as to why at first they may have thought the dog alerted LM to the V, upon approaching it, rather than LM leading, instructing his dog. "seek" That once this shock had worn off, that fog had lifted a little - they realised exactly what the dog had actually been doing. Sniffing about and pulling to the undergrowth, standing up at the V. Following it's masters instructions?
We are not talking about when they took the stand but in their first statements. By the time they took the stand the scene was set. SK refusing to categorically verify the what had happened...no doubt the spectre of perjury charges colouring his very utterings and JaJ, so insistently dishonest even when her own words caught her out...no realistic chance of deniability here though as she signed as true the very words she was now disowning.
As to trauma...are we really to believe that social amnesia was the result ? That the searcher’s trauma only affected their recollections of the parts of the narrative that damned Luke? That the only, collective, changes in their statements were those which damned Luke? How much contempt do you have for your reader?
However, rather than just show clearly what each member of this search party had said from the off - one can't though. What Ms Lean does instead is give another reason for Luke Mitchell turning left - Just on the off chance he was lying/ mistaken about where the dog was?
You really can’t have it both ways....you can’t say that the search party was so traumatised that they gave a false narrative to the police, later to be collectively corrected, and in the same breath say they didn’t change their statements and that is why Dr Lean is running scared.
SL:
One thinks of everything? - therefore, if one wishes to claim that this search party lied from their first statement to evidence in court - that they made the whole thing up 'upon reaching this V, of AW being handed the lead, of seeing LM turn left, of then continuing down this path, of being shouted back to this V. I mean, if one is claiming that this search party all said, the dog led 'us' to Jodi, why did they not just say it was some distance passed this V from the off? - because they were telling the truth. They had absolutely no reason to lie. They said it how it was. - this repetitive (i'm guilty too of this just now?) They changed their minds? No they did not, did they. Not a smidgeon of LM's claims fit together. Of the Gino spot - I know, again! Why did he take the notion to introduce the woodland to the search? - This wee boy, who was following the direction of the search party for safety and security - there is those bells again! And of DF to JaJ, "If it had not been for Luke taking the notion to search this woodland, Jodi would have been left lying there?" That is Luke, not his dog?
But one does not wish to claim that the search party lied from their first statement....quite the opposite. The first statements were absolutely true. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that miles apart and at different times Luke and the search party remembered the finding of Jodi’s body in exactly the same way? Where does the effect of trauma fit in to that narrative? That Luke steadfastly stuck to the truth in those first statements while the other searchers allowed their recollections to be distorted. DF knew the truth of those first statements...the statements that were signed as a true representation of the witness’s recall.....those statements that agreed with Luke’s and then, inexplicably, changed.
-
When did Luke Mitchell make threats of suicide and who did he make them to?
-
When did Luke Mitchell make threats of suicide and who did he make them to?
⬇️
Excerpt from Prof Jane Monckton Smith book ‘In Control: Dangerous Relationships & How They End in Murder’
The calm before the storm
’Threats of suicide and threats to kill are not necessarily idle; both could signal a future homicide in this context and should be taken very seriously every time.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/in-control/jane-monckton-smith/9781526613219
-
Luke Mitchell - 2018 to Rozlyn Little
“The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world.
‘In the months before he killed Jodi, Luke was seeing at least two other girls, one in Perthshire and another who lived closer to his Midlothian home. None knew about his relationship with the others.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg651052#msg651052
-
One thinks of everything? -
One would I suspect if they’d had access to numerous rapists and killers confidential case files and knew how they were manipulated by the prosecution and defence alike
She never refers to Luke Mitchell’s threats of suicide though
‘The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world.’
Were the other girls also his ‘connection to the world’ or did he view Jodi as ‘special’ in his warped killer mind ?
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/
-
When did Luke Mitchell make threats of suicide and who did he make them to?
Perhaps to nobody other than himself.
It isn't unusual for teenagers to contemplate suicide. Very sadly, a few actually go through with it, but, IMO , most dont.
-
Luke Mitchell - 2018 to Rozlyn Little
“The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world.
‘In the months before he killed Jodi, Luke was seeing at least two other girls, one in Perthshire and another who lived closer to his Midlothian home. None knew about his relationship with the others.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg651052#msg651052
Perhaps he WAS happy with Jodi, and perhaps, he had nothing to do with her death???
Nothing unusual about teenagers two timing (or three timing, or four timing) their girlfriends/boyfriends.
We saw the photo of him at Jodi's graveside. Doo you think he looked happy???
-
Perhaps he WAS happy with Jodi, and perhaps, he had nothing to do with her death???
Nothing unusual about teenagers two timing (or three timing, or four timing) their girlfriends/boyfriends.
We saw the photo of him at Jodi's graveside. Doo you think he looked happy???
Is there anything unusual about teenagers at all in your book? You seem to dismiss any sort of strange or delinquent or immoral behaviour as perfectly usual in teenagers, whether it’s threatening suicide or storing urine in bottles under the bed or carrying knives or three timing or smoking excessive amounts of dope or fighting other kids.
-
Is there anything unusual about teenagers at all in your book? You seem to dismiss any sort of strange or delinquent or immoral behaviour as perfectly usual in teenagers, whether it’s threatening suicide or storing urine in bottles under the bed or carrying knives or three timing or smoking excessive amounts of dope or fighting other kids.
I taught teenagers for over 30 years, much of the time in deprived areas. I've seen all sorts of things (although I will admit the urine storing is new to me). Delinquent and disturbing behaviour is delinquent and disturbing behaviour, but, IMO, it's not unusual, and, although a few of my former students have been in and out of prison, none of them have (yet) committed murder.
Perhaps I have become immune to teenagers.
-
Perhaps he WAS happy with Jodi, and perhaps, he had nothing to do with her death???
Nothing unusual about teenagers two timing (or three timing, or four timing) their girlfriends/boyfriends.
We saw the photo of him at Jodi's graveside. Doo you think he looked happy???
Remembering press photos of the time one of his girlfriends resembled Jodi so exactly it was difficult to determine who was who. So I think he was happy with a type.
Also at the time I found the graveside photoshoot more than disgusting similarly the Sky interview. The self publicity certainly caused problems at his trial since he had flouted the anonymity he was due as a minor and then as a suspect.
I think Mitchell had everything to do with Jodi's death and I think the evidence heard at the trial for her murder proved that.
It was his choice to do what he did ~ Jodi didn't have any say in it. It could have been any one of the three girlfriends he had at the time (there may have been more for all we know) but whatever triggered the brutal attack suffered by Jodi she obviously had no clue it was about to happen.
She thought he was her boyfriend and she thought she knew him - it turned out she was one of a few and she didn't know him at all. What chance do you think anyone who didn't know him has of knowing what he was capable of when Jodi didn't?
-
I taught teenagers for over 30 years, much of the time in deprived areas. I've seen all sorts of things (although I will admit the urine storing is new to me). Delinquent and disturbing behaviour is delinquent and disturbing behaviour, but, IMO, it's not unusual, and, although a few of my former students have been in and out of prison, none of them have (yet) committed murder.
Perhaps I have become immune to teenagers.
I would not have associated Mitchell with deprivation - I think he had too much money to play with as well as just being out of control.
-
Thank you yet again for verifying that none of this search party, from those very first statements, made any claim to walking passed this V break, in line with LM's claim. And that yet again - you chose that predictive route of missing every part of those statements, inclusive of LM's to zone in on the dog only. We are not to consider either side of this. For you, every other part is irrelevant - you are not interested in context, of clarification - nothing. The only thing you can survive on are those tiny excerpts - that prove nothing. You know where this dog was. You know LM was Lying and you know those statements prove this. - And we know without a shadow of a doubt, the reason why you need to ignore every other part. As there was absolutely nothing, other than LM having knowledge of this locus that he was able to go directly to where Jodi lay. - And we know why, with common sense the reason DF chose not to bring irrelevant dog experts in - were they to go down some foolish route of 'dog whisperers?' Did LM read the way the dogs nose was twitching, whilst it was "air sniffing" at this V break? - for he would have looked foolish, attempting to prove the dog sensed Jodi from this V break. It had nothing to do with funding. And the dog had absolutely nothing to do with LM turning left. - and you can ignore every other lie - of denying the existence of this V, of being in this woodland and so forth - For what? to make some foolish claim, of mincing words around to state . All of this search party agreed with LM, that it was his dog that led them "all" to Jodi.
And as you state, yet again, that this search trio were telling the truth in their first statement - then someone was clearly lying. And the lies were exactly to do with the search party - not going passed this V point. And the only person to make claim, that they had done this was LM. And you are correct, he was steadfast in what he claimed. That from going around "not even 20yrds" (40-60ft) to further given exactly where he claimed the search party were, which was bang on the 40ft mark - "parallel" to where Jodi lay on the wood side - There was no trauma, shock nor being confused. He knew he had to match it to the 'teddy up a tree' expertise of this dog?? Sniffing in the air at the exact spot where Jodi lay.
Can you actually give us anywhere, were LM told the truth - perhaps his name? unless of course he was getting a tattoo?
-
I taught teenagers for over 30 years, much of the time in deprived areas. I've seen all sorts of things (although I will admit the urine storing is new to me). Delinquent and disturbing behaviour is delinquent and disturbing behaviour, but, IMO, it's not unusual, and, although a few of my former students have been in and out of prison, none of them have (yet) committed murder.
Perhaps I have become immune to teenagers.
But would you be overly surprised to hear that one of the disturbed and delinquent teenagers that ended up in prison had committed murder?
-
Can you actually give us anywhere, were LM told the truth - perhaps his name? unless of course he was getting a tattoo?
According to some folk, LM was the only teenager that didn't lie - every other teenager in Midlothian made up stories for attention or cash from hack journalists.
The same folk want us to believe that LM's big bro is lying about the alibi.
LM carried knives. and smoked copious amounts of weed, but he's never told a lie.
8((()*/
-
It could have been any one of the three girlfriends he had at the time (there may have been more for all we know)
I concur
-
Thank you yet again for verifying that none of this search party, from those very first statements, made any claim to walking passed this V break, in line with LM's claim. And that yet again - you chose that predictive route of missing every part of those statements, inclusive of LM's to zone in on the dog only. We are not to consider either side of this. For you, every other part is irrelevant - you are not interested in context, of clarification - nothing. The only thing you can survive on are those tiny excerpts - that prove nothing. You know where this dog was. You know LM was Lying and you know those statements prove this. - And we know without a shadow of a doubt, the reason why you need to ignore every other part. As there was absolutely nothing, other than LM having knowledge of this locus that he was able to go directly to where Jodi lay. - And we know why, with common sense the reason DF chose not to bring irrelevant dog experts in - were they to go down some foolish route of 'dog whisperers?' Did LM read the way the dogs nose was twitching, whilst it was "air sniffing" at this V break? - for he would have looked foolish, attempting to prove the dog sensed Jodi from this V break. It had nothing to do with funding. And the dog had absolutely nothing to do with LM turning left. - and you can ignore every other lie - of denying the existence of this V, of being in this woodland and so forth - For what? to make some foolish claim, of mincing words around to state . All of this search party agreed with LM, that it was his dog that led them "all" to Jodi.
And as you state, yet again, that this search trio were telling the truth in their first statement - then someone was clearly lying. And the lies were exactly to do with the search party - not going passed this V point. And the only person to make claim, that they had done this was LM. And you are correct, he was steadfast in what he claimed. That from going around "not even 20yrds" (40-60ft) to further given exactly where he claimed the search party were, which was bang on the 40ft mark - "parallel" to where Jodi lay on the wood side - There was no trauma, shock nor being confused. He knew he had to match it to the 'teddy up a tree' expertise of this dog?? Sniffing in the air at the exact spot where Jodi lay.
Can you actually give us anywhere, were LM told the truth - perhaps his name? unless of course he was getting a tattoo?
Words of a killer
"They would rather feel safe than be safe"
Sandra Lean states 🙄
‘So, on Luke's behalf, every time you meet a doubter, ask them - would you rather feel safe than actually be safe?
-
Thank you yet again for verifying that none of this search party, from those very first statements, made any claim to walking passed this V break, in line with LM's claim. And that yet again - you chose that predictive route of missing every part of those statements, inclusive of LM's to zone in on the dog only. We are not to consider either side of this. For you, every other part is irrelevant - you are not interested in context, of clarification - nothing.
Of course I verified none of your contrived narrative but I’m sure you know that already. The truth was there in their earliest statements, the agreement of JaJ and SK that with the dog’s reaction Luke doubled back to the v while they kept walking. And what of those soon to be abandoned descriptions from SK of the dog, up on her front legs, nose in the air, nostrils filled with the horrific scent of what awaited them all over that life changing wall? They would not have been easy to forget....those last moments of normality....the seconds between before and after...but forget they did, maybe not truly, but for long enough to inflict the damage.
The only thing you can survive on are those tiny excerpts - that prove nothing. You know where this dog was. You know LM was Lying and you know those statements prove this. - And we know without a shadow of a doubt, the reason why you need to ignore every other part. As there was absolutely nothing, other than LM having knowledge of this locus that he was able to go directly to where Jodi lay. - And we know why, with common sense the reason DF chose not to bring irrelevant dog experts in - were they to go down some foolish route of 'dog whisperers?' Did LM read the way the dogs nose was twitching, whilst it was "air sniffing" at this V break? - for he would have looked foolish, attempting to prove the dog sensed Jodi from this V break. It had nothing to do with funding. And the dog had absolutely nothing to do with LM turning left. - and you can ignore every other lie - of denying the existence of this V, of being in this woodland and so forth - For what? to make some foolish claim, of mincing words around to state . All of this search party agreed with LM, that it was his dog that led them "all" to Jodi.
And as you state, yet again, that this search trio were telling the truth in their first statement - then someone was clearly lying. And the lies were exactly to do with the search party - not going passed this V point. And the only person to make claim, that they had done this was LM. And you are correct, he was steadfast in what he claimed. That from going around "not even 20yrds" (40-60ft) to further given exactly where he claimed the search party were, which was bang on the 40ft mark - "parallel" to where Jodi lay on the wood side - There was no trauma, shock nor being confused. He knew he had to match it to the 'teddy up a tree' expertise of this dog?? Sniffing in the air at the exact spot where Jodi lay.
The search party did tell the truth in their first statements, of Luke doubling back at Mia’s alert, of Janine being convinced that Luke had found something bad beyond the wall ‘by the concern in his voice’ and of him looking like he was in shock. Of the hysterical behaviour of everyone, of everyone being so upset.....it was all there. The lies came later.
Can you actually give us anywhere, were LM told the truth - perhaps his name? unless of course he was getting a tattoo?
-
‘by the concern in his voice’
What did Luke Mitchell say about Jodi’s grandmother ?
‘Alice Walker initially thought she had stumbled upon an animal until she realised it was the 14-year-old.’
Mrs Walker said at one point Luke Mitchell climbed over a v-shaped gap in a wall on the Roan's Dyke path, near Jodi's home, and said "there's something there". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4092213.stm
‘Mr Kelly said he climbed over the wall to join Mr Mitchell, who pointed down the inside of the wall and said: "Down there, 5ft out from the wall."
‘The witness said he thought he could "see something", believing it at first to be a log.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085983.stm
Not only did Luke Mitchell find Jodi’s body he knew it was her body whilst the others thought they saw an animal or a log - and he didn’t need to peer around a tree like SK did
‘Prosecuting advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC asked: "Did you come to realise there was a body there?"
Mr Kelly replied: "When I got a bit closer, yes."
The witness paused, before adding that he then "peered round a tree".
Mr Turnbull asked: "What did you see when you did that?"
‘A body lying there," a tearful Mr Kelly replied.[/b]
-
But would you be overly surprised to hear that one of the disturbed and delinquent teenagers that ended up in prison had committed murder?
Afraid not , to be perfectly honest with you. Probably why I don't like reading the local paper!
-
And there we have it - that predictive manipulation and blatant lies - That this campaign reeks of. Becoming quite the habit for you. One can only assume that LM himself is very close to your heart. Far too personally involved. Only someone close will continuously try to re-write the evidence, the statements and lie. Any measure used to add weight, yet again to nothing.
Mr Swah - In, response to your question, how do I know what the dog did, was I there? - Is it not relatively simple? - We have witnessed, time and again. Those excerpts of verbatim used. We know, do we not, that the same method would and should be used for such important points. For proof. It is nowhere near good enough to claim witness's did something, then use some long winded r'd in an attempt to prove that point? - Clear, precise, sentences from their statements would do the job. - When this does not happen, when we know a defence tactic is being used, of which we naturally choose the opposite of the point attempting to be made. As with the above. There is no dispute over SK claiming to forget about the dog standing at this V. It is where LM claimed this happened. One should show, with clarity that they said - 'we had walked some distance passed this V -------------- in line with LM's claim and his clarification. He did not clarify this by saying, oh it was slightly passed, or just to the left - he said exactly "parallel to where Jodi lay" He drew a diagram. Intelligent lad.
DF did not make ref to this search party being way passed this V and so forth - he spoke of what happened at this V. Of SK forgetting about the dog standing at it? Of the dog "pulling to it" whilst approaching on their walk down. How do I know this where Findlay is concerned? As yet again there is nothing clear and precise given. - It would be a tricky R'd if Ms Lean attempted to change those statements. Manipulate yes, change not? Omit 95% yes, cherry pick for a solo defence - most definitely. And of bringing in no dog expert, why? - How was this dog expert going to prove LM, the search duo and the dog were 40ft, parallel to where Jodi was? - we can see what a dismal job Ms Lean makes of it. They backtracked, how did they see LM on the other side and those blatant lies - That the base of this V is 6ft from the ground?
What did you make of CM's podcast about the jacket and the burner? - When she spoke of the jacket claimed to have been burnt. That it was an original army parka, very heavy and so forth - Freudian slip? Not really, no - as she went on to talk about buying the new one, the claimed replacement. She knew this claimed replacement was of the exact type - this original army surplus of it's heaviness and so forth? Not a replica but the exact same, an original.
-
And there we have it - that predictive manipulation and blatant lies - That this campaign reeks of.
Innocence fraud is very real
-
Innocence fraud is very real
Most definitely.
-
As yet again there is nothing clear and precise given. - It would be a tricky R'd if Ms Lean attempted to change those statements. Manipulate yes, change not? Omit 95% yes, cherry pick for a solo defence - most definitely.
‘Telling the truth just doesn’t feel right to a compulsive liar who will bend the truth to fit her own needs and desires. Compulsive lying is often accompanied by other personality disorders like narcissism.
While the person delving into compulsive lies feels secure, the lies often hurt and damage relationships, family and friends. Compulsive lying is an addiction and becomes difficult to stop once it has become a way of life.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/understanding-people-who-lie/
-
he said exactly "parallel to where Jodi lay" He drew a diagram. Intelligent lad.
Psychopath
-
DF did not make ref to this search party being way passed this V and so forth - he spoke of what happened at this V. Of SK forgetting about the dog standing at it? Of the dog "pulling to it" whilst approaching on their walk down. How do I know this where Findlay is concerned? As yet again there is nothing clear and precise given. - It would be a tricky R'd if Ms Lean attempted to change those statements. Manipulate yes, change not? Omit 95% yes, cherry pick for a solo defence - most definitely.
Worth listening to Donald Findlay’s comment to Prof David Wilson on appeals
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17769853.donald-findlay-qc-talks-distressing-toll-work/
“Donald Findlay QC features in a new BBC Scotland show exploring those criminal cases which continue to fascinate us.
Crimes Files sees criminologist, Professor David Wilson, conduct in-depth investigations into both historic and contemporary crime cases as he interviews professionals who combat crime – high profile lawyers, pathologists, frontline police as well as some of the nation’s most notorious criminals.
https://scottishlegal.com/article/donald-findlay-qc-features-in-new-crime-show
-
:0)
-
Worth listening to Donald Findlay’s comment to Prof David Wilson on appeals
Donald Findlay interview begins at 40:40 minutes in...
https://videa.hu/videok/film-animacio/david-wilsons-crime-files-s01e01-2019-aktak-bun-14wNMx6TZBB1ZD6m (https://videa.hu/videok/film-animacio/david-wilsons-crime-files-s01e01-2019-aktak-bun-14wNMx6TZBB1ZD6m)
-
Donald Findlay interview begins at 40:40 minutes in...
https://videa.hu/videok/film-animacio/david-wilsons-crime-files-s01e01-2019-aktak-bun-14wNMx6TZBB1ZD6m (https://videa.hu/videok/film-animacio/david-wilsons-crime-files-s01e01-2019-aktak-bun-14wNMx6TZBB1ZD6m)
Thank you for the link Myster. Very interesting interview.
-
‘by the concern in his voice’
What did Luke Mitchell say about Jodi’s grandmother ?
‘Alice Walker initially thought she had stumbled upon an animal until she realised it was the 14-year-old.’
Mrs Walker said at one point Luke Mitchell climbed over a v-shaped gap in a wall on the Roan's Dyke path, near Jodi's home, and said "there's something there". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4092213.stm
‘Mr Kelly said he climbed over the wall to join Mr Mitchell, who pointed down the inside of the wall and said: "Down there, 5ft out from the wall."
‘The witness said he thought he could "see something", believing it at first to be a log.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085983.stm
Not only did Luke Mitchell find Jodi’s body he knew it was her body whilst the others thought they saw an animal or a log - and he didn’t need to peer around a tree like SK did
‘Prosecuting advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC asked: "Did you come to realise there was a body there?"
Mr Kelly replied: "When I got a bit closer, yes."
The witness paused, before adding that he then "peered round a tree".
Mr Turnbull asked: "What did you see when you did that?"
‘A body lying there," a tearful Mr Kelly replied.[/b]
Luke Mitchell to Grace Milan
'My torch lit up the path like daytime and I was about 12 yards from Jodi when I saw her lying there,' he began. 'She was so white. Her throat had been slit and her head was to the side.
'Her eyes were staring up at me and she was naked but for a pair of socks, I think... no, she wasn't wearing anything. Her body was so white and she was just staring and staring.
'I shouted to the others but I couldn't tell them I'd found Jodi because I didn't want to upset her gran, but she said she wanted to come over the wall.
'The others held her back but she scrambled over the wall and said if her granddaugher was there she wanted to be with her.
'She sat down beside Jodi and cradled her in her arms.
I guess the family are suspicious of me because my dog Mia was the one who found Jodi and I was the one who first saw her lying there.'
-
What was it Corinne Mitchell said to James English
May 2010 - Corrine Mitchell
‘oh for heavens sake.....this is getting tiresome.
For the record....Findlay wouldn't speak to Sandra....just as he would not speak to me...he wouldn't even speak to his own client....Luke...at one point he banged his fist on the table and told Luke..."We do things MY way’
Why were "the facts" not brought up in court?.........Ask Donald Findlay!!!!
That's why we dropped him. Why did he not bring in expert witnesses? Why did he not bring in ANY witnesses for Luke? We asked him to, but as I have said earlier....he didn't speak to us. It was his way.....or no way.
@ approx 11.28 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UbHl3oCCClI
Corrine Mitchell says;
“At one point when Luke asked for a certain witness to be called his QC banged his fist on the table and said ‘it’s my way or no way laddie.”
Look how this story by Corrine Mitchell has ‘grown arms and legs’ over the years and how her own words are attributed to Donald Findlay *&^^&
2019
Here’s another
In 2007 in an interview with Mike Graham of Talk 107 radio - accompanied by Sandra Lean
‘The murder verdict in, January 2005, was ‘like being hit on the face with a sledgehammer, she said. Our worst fear was not proven..’ (https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/corinne-mitchell-fights-free-her-son-2506492)
Fast forward to 2019
She attributed the ‘sledgehammer’ comment to Luke
So many parallels with Lynne Hall (Some Sandra Lean and myself discussed in 2014 when Sandra exclaimed ‘I’ve wasted 10 years of my life’)
-
But today detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie launched a vigorous defence of their detective work.
Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the "finest I have ever seen".
He said that every care was taken to recover every single piece of evidence that was there.
And he defended claims made in court that the scene was not well managed.
Mr Dobbie admitted that the case against Luke Mitchell was purely circumstantial, but insisted Lothian and Borders Police Force had done a great job.
"We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible.
"I am open to suggestions as to where we could have made improvements in the investigation, but I can’t think of anything obvious."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
It is quite often a bit of a task to cherry pick the areas of a mixture of quotes and a journalist's paraphrasing to arrive at an unbiased conclusion.
For example Dobbie said "finest I have ever seen". But I really would have preferred to have seen the rest of that sentence which would have allowed me to make up my own mind about what was actually said.
The salient point you are making regarding 'falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’ has been addressed elsewhere in the full article which paints a different picture from the one you have chosen to portray is without a doubt - "We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible."
So the police actually did manage to make a case which stood up in court to close scrutiny. Which is very probably the reason that not one of Mitchell and his supporters attempts to overturn it have themselves stood up to scrutiny.
"The finest I have ever seen" @)(++(*. The crime scene was not cordoned off for over 7 hours whilst people trampled all over it. The body was left uncovered in the rain allowing major DNA evidence to be washed away. They also moved the body before forensics arrived. If you made errors on that scale in any other job you would be fired for gross misconduct and neglect of duties.
-
"The body was left uncovered in the rain allowing major DNA evidence to be washed away.
1. Why was there no DNA belonging to Mitchell at the scene?