Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[faithlilly]

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?

They would have been used by the defence? If the police hadn’t accessed the footage from the CCTV cameras at Scotmid at the time how were the defence supposed to use them at trial? Luke’s defence team was only brought on board after Luke was arrested, 10 months after the murder and long after the CCTV footage would have been erased. The police sought out CCTV footage of the journeys of both Allan Ovens and Corrine Mitchell so why not Andrina Bryson, if her sighting was so crucial?  It would certainly have put the sighting timing to bed....or is it that Bryson’s sighting, because of her initial timings and descriptions, wasn’t thought to be important and only latterly, and after the footage had been erased, did the police grasp at the particular straw Miss Bryson was holding out ?


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?

From the BBC news website :

“During the evidence of Detective Chief Inspector Ronald Millar, Mr Findlay read the transcript.
In it, the accused told police twice: "Come down as fast as possible."
The telephone operator told her police colleague: "The laddie's in a bit of a panic. He's saying can we come as fast as possible."



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.

I’m sure you’d like to leave aside your attempt to mislead the forum. You have absolutely no evidence that the ‘laddie’ comment by the operator was about SK and the belief it was Luke was debunked at court. I, however, have provided conclusive proof that it was about Luke.

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.

I have proven that Luke was the ‘laddie’ the 999 operator was talking about and the fact that Janine said in her first statement that she knew Luke had found something bad by his voice and Steven Kelly’s claim that ‘everyone was in hysterics’  points to Luke’s demeanour at the time.

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.

No need to prove anything, we know what the operator said.

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.

Glad to see that you’re relying on what Steven Kelly and Janine said in their first statements and not what they said in court. Both of course said in their first statement that Mia reacted at the wall.

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? 

And the dirt on various other parts of his body? You’re now simply grasping at straws.

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?
 
No idea and I’m sure neither do you. I’ll leave you with a Q. Why was there evidence in the blood taken from Jodi that she’d smoked cannabis only hours before her death?

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.

I’m not interested in other possible suspects, merely the alleged evidence that convicted Luke. What Sandra Lean or Corinne Mitchell theorise is unimportant and in fact merely deflects from the real questions

[Holly Goodhead]

I know very little about this case but based on the docu I'm struggling to understand how the prosecution secured a conviction? 

The docu referred to a few other suspects.  Were any of them required to supply a DNA sample?

The condom containing "fresh" semen is interesting! 

Is it possible that J J interrupted a drug deal and/or a couple having sex (hetro or gay) that didn't want to be found out?  But this wouldn't seem to explain the frenzied and vicious nature of the murder.

[Brietta]

I know very little about this case but based on the docu I'm struggling to understand how the prosecution secured a conviction? 

The docu referred to a few other suspects.  Were any of them required to supply a DNA sample?

The condom containing "fresh" semen is interesting! 

Is it possible that J J interrupted a drug deal and/or a couple having sex (hetro or gay) that didn't want to be found out?  But this wouldn't seem to explain the frenzied and vicious nature of the murder.

I think you may be "struggling to understand" Luke Mitchell's conviction if you are basing your opinion on the Channel5 documentary. 

Mitchell's case at trial was led by one of the foremost barristers in the land but even he could do little in the face of the sum of the prosecution evidence except to ensure that Mitchell received a fair trial and his voice was heard (well it would have been had he taken the stand).

[Bullseye]

I know very little about this case but based on the docu I'm struggling to understand how the prosecution secured a conviction? 

The docu referred to a few other suspects.  Were any of them required to supply a DNA sample?

The condom containing "fresh" semen is interesting! 

Is it possible that J J interrupted a drug deal and/or a couple having sex (hetro or gay) that didn't want to be found out?  But this wouldn't seem to explain the frenzied and vicious nature of the murder.

I’ve been struggling to understand it as well. Started looking into it over 10 years ago and I’m still no further forward. Problem is there is no hard evidence, dna, motive etc it’s all circumstantial and that can be open to interpretation.
For me it was not beyond reasonable doubt, the police handling of the scene etc was shocking and think the only way we can be sure is an independent review. It would put it to rest once and for all.

I’ve wondered the same, if she interrupted someone behind the wall and she was killed, a lot of the injuries and removing of the clothes was after death so was the murderer trying to make it look like a sex attack or some serial killer of some sort to cover their tracks

[Holly Goodhead]

I think you may be "struggling to understand" Luke Mitchell's conviction if you are basing your opinion on the Channel5 documentary. 

Mitchell's case at trial was led by one of the foremost barristers in the land but even he could do little in the face of the sum of the prosecution evidence except to ensure that Mitchell received a fair trial and his voice was heard (well it would have been had he taken the stand).

Please enlighten me Brie on the sum of the prosecution evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

Mark Kane's name was also thrown into the ring as a possible suspect.  He died about a year ? after the murders.  Anyone know the cause of death?

[Holly Goodhead]

The condom found at soc containing "fresh" semen was matched to the police dna database some 3 ? years later.  Anyone know anything about this?

[Holly Goodhead]

The condom found at soc containing "fresh" semen was matched to the police dna database some 3 ? years later.  Anyone know anything about this?

It seems the above relates to a James Falconer and he was ruled out. 

[Holly Goodhead]

From my limited knowledge it seems the most damning evidence against LM is his missing knife.  Has he ever given any explanation as to its whereabouts?

If he disposed of how come police didn't find in the locale?

[Holly Goodhead]

What reason would LM have to kill J J?  It seems the murder was frenzied and yet LM had no history of mental illness, anti-social behaviour or criminal history?

He came over in the interview as articulate and intelligent?

[Holly Goodhead]

I’ve been struggling to understand it as well. Started looking into it over 10 years ago and I’m still no further forward. Problem is there is no hard evidence, dna, motive etc it’s all circumstantial and that can be open to interpretation.
For me it was not beyond reasonable doubt, the police handling of the scene etc was shocking and think the only way we can be sure is an independent review. It would put it to rest once and for all.

I’ve wondered the same, if she interrupted someone behind the wall and she was killed, a lot of the injuries and removing of the clothes was after death so was the murderer trying to make it look like a sex attack or some serial killer of some sort to cover their tracks

Well it seems to me the most damning evidence is the misssing knife and parka coat. 

All the reseach into eye witness testimony shows it is unreliable

Teenage boys go through phases (think Kevin) so I'm not buying the urine in pots (even if true), Goth gear, a fondness for Marilyn Manson and the black dahlia etc. 

[Holly Goodhead]

What sort of activities went on in the woods?  Given a condom was found containing "fresh" semen it seems that sex was one such activity.  Was it frequented by doggers, gays? 

What about drug dealers/users?

[Bullseye]

Well it seems to me the most damning evidence is the misssing knife and parka coat. 

All the reseach into eye witness testimony shows it is unreliable

Teenage boys go through phases (think Kevin) so I'm not buying the urine in pots (even if true), Goth gear, a fondness for Marilyn Manson and the black dahlia etc.

If it was Luke I’ve always thought he could easily have dumped both the parka and the knife in any bin on his way home, the bins were emptied the following day and bin lorries never checked.

But the question is did he own a parka before. Eyewitnesses say yes but IMO they could be mistaken. If someone had a photo or cctv or something to prove he had a parka then that would be enough to convince me and most others who are not sure, that he is guilty. Did the police check cctv from shops in the area etc to find a picture of Luke in his parka before the murder, how much went into the search for the coat? I’m just not convinced there was a parka, so reasonable doubt for me on that.

Missing knife, I will need to check the book to see what was said on that, from what I remember, I’m sure someone will be quick to correct me if I’m wrong, the knife missing from the pouch that had the writing on it, the knife would be too small to be the murder weapon. Another knife that was meant to a missing knife, was found by Luke’s mum and handed to the lawyer who gave it to the police so no longer missing.

[Bullseye]

What sort of activities went on in the woods?  Given a condom was found containing "fresh" semen it seems that sex was one such activity.  Was it frequented by doggers, gays? 

What about drug dealers/users?

On Sandras live chat on Sunday I’m sure she said behind the v in the wall was a place where one of the moped boys sold drugs to locals, anyone know if that’s right?