Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[mrswah]

Yes it's an American folly. The polygraph is a joke. I once challenged Terry Mullins to prove his polygraph works, needless to say I'm still waiting.

And yet, Glyn Razzell , when he refused to take one on the "inside Justice" programme a couple of years back, was somewhat reviled for his decision, and it was taken as an indication that he must be guilty!

[John]

I’d hazard a guess that you’re still waiting because those you challenge, as well as most of the world outside this particular forum,  aren’t too fussed what you think.

The truth is they're scared to take me on.  The polygraph at £500 a pop must be the most stupid waste of money ever for those silly enough to pay for one and a money spinner for the so-called expert.  No wonder the justice system in the UK won't accept is as anything else but a folly.

[mrswah]

The truth is they're scared to take me on.  The polygraph at £500 a pop must be the most stupid waste of money ever for those silly enough to pay for one and a money spinner for the so-called expert.  No wonder the justice system in the UK won't accept is as anything else but a folly.

Why would anyone be "scared to take you on."?

As a matter of fact, I agree with you that polygraphs are not particularly reliable as evidence.  If they were, they would be used in court.

[Parky41]

although there is good reason the evidence remains inadmissible in criminal court trials

.

Rightly so. The Mitchell case is proof of how these tests are nowhere near to being Infallible.

CM being asked if she had lied for Luke? - NO.

Let's picks something simple - the evidence from the Tattoo parlour.

Much ado is made around this, of this evidence being ridiculous. Why? Because the ID was that of a 54? year old male? - Pretty far out? Definitely, but this was fake ID. It had been altered. Would be pretty ridiculous to use a fake ID of that of a 54yr old man would it not  - The claim therefore has been that the employee from the parlour was making this up.

Why would they make it up? - let's look at this in a little more detail. The name on the certificate was that of a family friend/relative?, the employee in the parlour had taken note of the name, and of age verification. The DOB had obviously been altered? Shoddy work by the employee letting an altered ID be used(pretty normal perhaps), the name however they could not have made up. They did not know the Mitchells, they did not know they had a family friend with this name.

Why was this relevant? why was the evidence used, It was sprung on the defence - therefore why much ado was made of this  evidence. - It was only one area used to show the character of CM? Not that she had helped her son in getting a tattoo by producing fake ID, but that she was prepared to lie on oath for him.

[faithlilly]

The truth is they're scared to take me on.  The polygraph at £500 a pop must be the most stupid waste of money ever for those silly enough to pay for one and a money spinner for the so-called expert.  No wonder the justice system in the UK won't accept is as anything else but a folly.

I’m afraid outside your own little corner of the internet no one cares about your opinion any more than they do mine.

[faithlilly]

.

Rightly so. The Mitchell case is proof of how these tests are nowhere near to being Infallible.

CM being asked if she had lied for Luke? - NO.

Let's picks something simple - the evidence from the Tattoo parlour.

Much ado is made around this, of this evidence being ridiculous. Why? Because the ID was that of a 54? year old male? - Pretty far out? Definitely, but this was fake ID. It had been altered. Would be pretty ridiculous to use a fake ID of that of a 54yr old man would it not  - The claim therefore has been that the employee from the parlour was making this up.

Why would they make it up? - let's look at this in a little more detail. The name on the certificate was that of a family friend/relative?, the employee in the parlour had taken note of the name, and of age verification. The DOB had obviously been altered? Shoddy work by the employee letting an altered ID be used(pretty normal perhaps), the name however they could not have made up. They did not know the Mitchells, they did not know they had a family friend with this name.

Why was this relevant? why was the evidence used, It was sprung on the defence - therefore why much ado was made of this  evidence. - It was only one area used to show the character of CM? Not that she had helped her son in getting a tattoo by producing fake ID, but that she was prepared to lie on oath for him.

As the documents allegedly presented weren’t copied, as they should have been by the tattoo parlour,  it’s hard to say what was presented by Corrine and Luke.

It is not and never has been illegal to get a tattoo while you are underage so it just shows how near the bottom of the barrel the prosecution had to scrape to try and secure a conviction.

That Corrine and Luke were willing to take the test and have the results published whether they passed or not speaks volumes.

[Mrs S]

As the documents allegedly presented weren’t copied, as they should have been by the tattoo parlour,  it’s hard to say what was presented by Corrine and Luke.

It is not and never has been illegal to get a tattoo while you are underage so it just shows how near the bottom of the barrel the prosecution had to scrape to try and secure a conviction.

That Corrine and Luke were willing to take the test and have the results published whether they passed or not speaks volumes.

Tattooing of minors act 1969 was the legislation brought in to prohibit tattooing of under 18s.

[Vertigo Swirl]

As the documents allegedly presented weren’t copied, as they should have been by the tattoo parlour,  it’s hard to say what was presented by Corrine and Luke.

It is not and never has been illegal to get a tattoo while you are underage so it just shows how near the bottom of the barrel the prosecution had to scrape to try and secure a conviction.

That Corrine and Luke were willing to take the test and have the results published whether they passed or not speaks volumes.

If it’s not illegal why did he have to show proof of his age?  Sometimes logical thinking escapes you doesn’t it?

[faithlilly]

Tattooing of minors act 1969 was the legislation brought in to prohibit tattooing of under 18s.

Did Whiplash Trash keep the ID presented because any tattoo artist found to have tattooed someone under 18 will be prosecuted and fined, so they should always ask for proof of age and include a copy in a consent form? Did the shop avoid prosecution if they testified?

[Mrs S]

Did Whiplash Trash keep the ID presented because any tattoo artist found to have tattooed someone under 18 will be prosecuted and fined, so they should always ask for proof of age and include a copy in a consent form? Did the shop avoid prosecution if they testified?

I have no idea! I was merely pointing out that you stating "that it isnt and never has been illegal for a minor to get a tattoo" as incorrect.

[faithlilly]

I have no idea! I was merely pointing out that you stating "that it isnt and never has been illegal for a minor to get a tattoo" as incorrect.

Let me clarify my comment.

“ https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Resident/Health-Social-Care/Adults/fit-and-well/tattoo-advice.aspx”

“ It is against the law to tattoo a person under the age of 18 even with parental consent.”

The legal obligation is on the tattooist not the minor.

[Parky41]

So, what do you recommend I look at for "actual, proper research" ?

I can find very little on the case other than what has been written by Sandra Lean, and what is in the newspapers and on forums. I'd love to read a book by someone who believes Luke is guilty, but I don't think there is one!

Forums. There is an abundance of information available that give much deeper insight into the intensive investigation that went into this case. That's were I sourced much of mine, quite a lot from Ms lean herself. Two years back, along with my personal study I chose to ask the opposite question. Rather than "Why were these others" eliminated from this investigation, I chose "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell" No stance on guilt over innocence at that point. Do I wish to declare LM guilty, that is not my place and I do not have to. He was found guilty. I have however, in this research, found nothing that could prove that he did not kill Jodi Jones. Nothing to disprove any of the evidence either.

One area that really hit a cord with me, were those timings, that is why I mention them most.

I have mentioned this before and I will do so again. - The alibi. We all know the basics which is mainly centered around that of the changing statements of SM. But why were the police suspicious of this alibi? The information given.

Let's think about the dinner that was 'claimed to have been made' There is actually nothing to prove that there even was a dinner, is there? That would be silly of course. However SM certainly had no recollection of it. The family would have eaten at some point, but it was not altogether in that intricate time frame.

The information around this:

CM claimed that she had come home from work around 5.05pm. The dinner was not ready, that she helped Luke complete this process. The heating of the beans, the cooking of the prawns serving up and Luke leaving around 5.30pm.

That is fine, nothing wrong. Fits well together. 

Move onto SM's 2nd statement after his mother reminding him of the above. That his mother had come home, that he came downstairs to see her (5.05pm approx:) Of Luke mashing tatties, how her day was, not wanting to upset Luke of the burnt pies. That he had returned back upstairs, Came down again once the dinner was ready, took it up to his room, ate it and left sometime just shortly after 5.30pm.

The police are of course going to check this out - they discover the following. One simple thing here that changed the whole of this story, that of the time.

CM had in fact not gotten home, any earlier than 5.15pm Therefore everything of the dinner story did not fit together. So what?, we can just move those times forward a little, SM and LM could simply have been mistaken about the times they left.

Quite so -

However - LM had phoned the Jones landline at 17.32pm. He stated that this had happened whilst he was sitting on the wall at the entrance to his housing estate. So he would have had to have left his house no later than 5.30pm

Let's move onto the Jones household, these claims that they were somehow treated differently, were they? All we are really told is that their statements were all over the place, which in itself tells us something, does it not?

However, those timings. What did they use to determine the timings of this family - CTV footage, just the same as the Mitchells, where is this different treatment? Mr Ovens had to give an account it would seem, much like anybody else The stepfather, how often to we hear of misgivings around these males. What were his movements that afternoon?

That he had finished work at X time, that he had went for petrol, drove home, went to the loo and that he had heard the door close whilst in there.  We really don't know much around this, Just those basics - Not a "person of interest" then?

However - are we to accept that he was merely checked out to configure when Jodi left home, of course not - they would have been checking his movements, everyone at this point would have been a suspect. And his movements did check out, did they not? Mr Ovens had left work at the time stated, he had been to Tesco for fuel, the timing on the CTV matched his account.

That call to the Jones landline at 5.32pm - the call Luke had to make to set this alibi in motion. In turn, turned out to be one of the key areas against his alibi, did it not?

So, it's not quite as simple as debating around whether SM should perhaps jump out of the woodwork and say anything - there is so much more to it than that

These boys that left home one before the other - SM did not see LM at the entrance to the estate either, anywhere.

[faithlilly]

Forums. There is an abundance of information available that give much deeper insight into the intensive investigation that went into this case. That's were I sourced much of mine, quite a lot from Ms lean herself. Two years back, along with my personal study I chose to ask the opposite question. Rather than "Why were these others" eliminated from this investigation, I chose "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell" No stance on guilt over innocence at that point. Do I wish to declare LM guilty, that is not my place and I do not have to. He was found guilty. I have however, in this research, found nothing that could prove that he did not kill Jodi Jones. Nothing to disprove any of the evidence either.

One area that really hit a cord with me, were those timings, that is why I mention them most.

I have mentioned this before and I will do so again. - The alibi. We all know the basics which is mainly centered around that of the changing statements of SM. But why were the police suspicious of this alibi? The information given.

Let's think about the dinner that was 'claimed to have been made' There is actually nothing to prove that there even was a dinner, is there? That would be silly of course. However SM certainly had no recollection of it. The family would have eaten at some point, but it was not altogether in that intricate time frame.

The information around this:

CM claimed that she had come home from work around 5.05pm. The dinner was not ready, that she helped Luke complete this process. The heating of the beans, the cooking of the prawns serving up and Luke leaving around 5.30pm.

That is fine, nothing wrong. Fits well together. 

Move onto SM's 2nd statement after his mother reminding him of the above. That his mother had come home, that he came downstairs to see her (5.05pm approx:) Of Luke mashing tatties, how her day was, not wanting to upset Luke of the burnt pies. That he had returned back upstairs, Came down again once the dinner was ready, took it up to his room, ate it and left sometime just shortly after 5.30pm.

The police are of course going to check this out - they discover the following. One simple thing here that changed the whole of this story, that of the time.

CM had in fact not gotten home, any earlier than 5.15pm Therefore everything of the dinner story did not fit together. So what?, we can just move those times forward a little, SM and LM could simply have been mistaken about the times they left.

Quite so -

However - LM had phoned the Jones landline at 17.32pm. He stated that this had happened whilst he was sitting on the wall at the entrance to his housing estate. So he would have had to have left his house no later than 5.30pm

Let's move onto the Jones household, these claims that they were somehow treated differently, were they? All we are really told is that their statements were all over the place, which in itself tells us something, does it not?

However, those timings. What did they use to determine the timings of this family - CTV footage, just the same as the Mitchells, where is this different treatment? Mr Ovens had to give an account it would seem, much like anybody else The stepfather, how often to we hear of misgivings around these males. What were his movements that afternoon?

That he had finished work at X time, that he had went for petrol, drove home, went to the loo and that he had heard the door close whilst in there.  We really don't know much around this, Just those basics - Not a "person of interest" then?

However - are we to accept that he was merely checked out to configure when Jodi left home, of course not - they would have been checking his movements, everyone at this point would have been a suspect. And his movements did check out, did they not? Mr Ovens had left work at the time stated, he had been to Tesco for fuel, the timing on the CTV matched his account.

That call to the Jones landline at 5.32pm - the call Luke had to make to set this alibi in motion. In turn, turned out to be one of the key areas against his alibi, did it not?

So, it's not quite as simple as debating around whether SM should perhaps jump out of the woodwork and say anything - there is so much more to it than that

These boys that left home one before the other - SM did not see LM at the entrance to the estate either, anywhere.

There is an abundance of information available on forums, much of it absolute nonsense. Is that where you gleaned that SK had, in court, been revealed as the ‘laddie’ the 999 responder spoke about?

Interesting you mention CCTV. AB visited a large supermarket as we know, a supermarket that would have been able to supply CCTV of that visit. Why was it not presented in court? We know that there was a time difference between the receipt for the shopping AB received and the bank statement used by the prosecution so why wasn’t CCTV used to prove the time categorically?

[mrswah]

Forums. There is an abundance of information available that give much deeper insight into the intensive investigation that went into this case. That's were I sourced much of mine, quite a lot from Ms lean herself. Two years back, along with my personal study I chose to ask the opposite question. Rather than "Why were these others" eliminated from this investigation, I chose "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell" No stance on guilt over innocence at that point. Do I wish to declare LM guilty, that is not my place and I do not have to. He was found guilty. I have however, in this research, found nothing that could prove that he did not kill Jodi Jones. Nothing to disprove any of the evidence either.

One area that really hit a cord with me, were those timings, that is why I mention them most.

I have mentioned this before and I will do so again. - The alibi. We all know the basics which is mainly centered around that of the changing statements of SM. But why were the police suspicious of this alibi? The information given.

Let's think about the dinner that was 'claimed to have been made' There is actually nothing to prove that there even was a dinner, is there? That would be silly of course. However SM certainly had no recollection of it. The family would have eaten at some point, but it was not altogether in that intricate time frame.

The information around this:

CM claimed that she had come home from work around 5.05pm. The dinner was not ready, that she helped Luke complete this process. The heating of the beans, the cooking of the prawns serving up and Luke leaving around 5.30pm.

That is fine, nothing wrong. Fits well together. 

Move onto SM's 2nd statement after his mother reminding him of the above. That his mother had come home, that he came downstairs to see her (5.05pm approx:) Of Luke mashing tatties, how her day was, not wanting to upset Luke of the burnt pies. That he had returned back upstairs, Came down again once the dinner was ready, took it up to his room, ate it and left sometime just shortly after 5.30pm.

The police are of course going to check this out - they discover the following. One simple thing here that changed the whole of this story, that of the time.

CM had in fact not gotten home, any earlier than 5.15pm Therefore everything of the dinner story did not fit together. So what?, we can just move those times forward a little, SM and LM could simply have been mistaken about the times they left.

Quite so -

However - LM had phoned the Jones landline at 17.32pm. He stated that this had happened whilst he was sitting on the wall at the entrance to his housing estate. So he would have had to have left his house no later than 5.30pm

Let's move onto the Jones household, these claims that they were somehow treated differently, were they? All we are really told is that their statements were all over the place, which in itself tells us something, does it not?

However, those timings. What did they use to determine the timings of this family - CTV footage, just the same as the Mitchells, where is this different treatment? Mr Ovens had to give an account it would seem, much like anybody else The stepfather, how often to we hear of misgivings around these males. What were his movements that afternoon?

That he had finished work at X time, that he had went for petrol, drove home, went to the loo and that he had heard the door close whilst in there.  We really don't know much around this, Just those basics - Not a "person of interest" then?

However - are we to accept that he was merely checked out to configure when Jodi left home, of course not - they would have been checking his movements, everyone at this point would have been a suspect. And his movements did check out, did they not? Mr Ovens had left work at the time stated, he had been to Tesco for fuel, the timing on the CTV matched his account.

That call to the Jones landline at 5.32pm - the call Luke had to make to set this alibi in motion. In turn, turned out to be one of the key areas against his alibi, did it not?

So, it's not quite as simple as debating around whether SM should perhaps jump out of the woodwork and say anything - there is so much more to it than that

These boys that left home one before the other - SM did not see LM at the entrance to the estate either, anywhere.

Thank you for answering my question, Parky.

I do look at other forums.  I find them interesting, as I do this one, but I suspect that some people on them have an agenda of their own:  either they are "pro Luke campaigners", or they are locals who are on the side of the Jones family. One never knows.  Some might even be family members from one side or the other, with their own biased views.

It's hard to believe a 14 year old carried out such a brutal murder on his girlfriend----------.

[Parky41]

There is an abundance of information available on forums, much of it absolute nonsense. Is that where you gleaned that SK had, in court, been revealed as the ‘laddie’ the 999 responder spoke about?

Interesting you mention CCTV. AB visited a large supermarket as we know, a supermarket that would have been able to supply CCTV of that visit. Why was it not presented in court? We know that there was a time difference between the receipt for the shopping AB received and the bank statement used by the prosecution so why wasn’t CCTV used to prove the time categorically?

We know that the till receipt was only showing to be out due to the ATM receipt.
If they had CCTV? - so many factors to consider here, however;
One thing that we can be certain of, is that If there was actually anything, CCTV or otherwise that could have been used, that proved these timings to be wrong - they would have been used by the defence. Therefore, why did the defence not pull up this CCTV, if there was any?, It's a rather empty point is it not?

SK and the recordings - where are these recordings? Where are the court transcripts of the full hearing around this evidence? Did Frontline Scotland play these, did they mention all of the evidence around these - No. Why do you suppose that was?

I will say three things here, you can take your pick.
 
1) Someone does not have in their possession all they claim to have, that of "all" of the evidence, court transcripts and tapes?
2) Someone is copying that of DF, of the defence he used - cleverly missing out the evidence of the Crown? 
3) The reason why the recordings were played? Rather than that of what the operator (2) noted. Why were these recordings played and who played them - Was it the defence or the Crown?

Failing that, let's leave aside those recordings - which laddie is screaming down the phone? Where actually in those notes by the operator, does it say "not what one would expect from someone who had just found a body" Who found Jodi Jones? It was LM.

Two examples put forward to show that LM had been affected by what he had claimed to have only discovered. One was proven to be wrong. The other was counteracted by far more evidence to show that he was not affected, no trauma.

Those tapes were played in court, can I prove it, I don't have to.  Can it be proven to be wrong - No. Bias is empty, it proves nothing.

As with the evidence around the search party - The "dogs head being level with the V" proves only the size of the dog.
Evidence however, from those very first statements, of LM not walking some distance past this V - proves that the dog did not find Jodi. Coupled of course with climbing the wall at the 'Gino' break. And don't forget those times/timing.
Does LM having dirty hair prove he could not have killed Jodi - No, It backs up his 90mins approx of being out and about in the woods with his pals. -The ones he phoned back to see where they were? 
Does LM in the absence of not having a blood test taking, any test for having cannabis in his system prove he had not had a 'smoke?', of course it doesn't - Leave you with a Q? Was LM smoking with his pals in the woods?
 
You can't flippantly discard those multiple areas of DNA that matched LM's (law of averages) as proof of innocence - yet include every other male other than SM? When their DNA was most definitely not there.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of all of this outwith it being 'morally wrong' Is these constant claims for 'truth and Justice for LM' Whilst hanging every other male out to dry? On that note, Why is SM not included in this list of 'others?'

The one person - with whom it is blatantly clear, claims to have no memory of anything at all? Serious history of multiple drug abuse and no alibi for the entire evening. CM stated in her podcast a joint theory of hers and Ms Leans;

'of taking a bike, a knife and clothing, chucking it into the back of a van in a scrapyard and hey presto it is gone'
'Gordo' spoke of this theory, of the convenience of having a scrapyard to hand? I have asked this question before, what profession does SM have - mechanic?!  Is this what happened to some of the evidence in the LM case?, was it taken to a scrapyard? and disposed of. I thought it rather odd that CM and Ms Lean should come up with such a theory, perhaps it is based on truth closer to home?

Does it matter - No, as these males were eliminated from being a suspect in this case. Not at the drop of a hat which is both senseless and desperate to claim they were. That is all of them, including SM.