"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

Facts concerning the log burner -

There was a fire in the Mitchel garden that evening - The smell and the smoke was witnessed by the closest neighbours. - corroboration. Only two needed.
This fire, initially, was denied until evidence to the contrary was produced. - pretty standard with quite a lot of the evidence, denial until proved otherwise.
School jotters and pampas grass was burned that week.

There is nothing to show either way that the burner taking away was the only item in the garden that could have been used for burning. Burning however definitely took place.

Opportunity for disposal - The evidence of the burning was at different intervals of time.
The log burner in question was not taken away for 4 days.
There was NO police presence 24/7
There was NO media presence 24/7
The bins were emptied the following day. 

Lets be real here - If you are using something to burn evidence, you are going to make sure any traces are removed at that crucial time. Would you really leave zips and the like behind.
Fires can be cooled rapidly - when this is done you get a lot of smoke and smell.- exactly what was witnessed.
We know LM stated he had stayed in when returning home from the Abbey - until evidence came forward from a neighbour who saw him going home around 10pm approx.
This housing estate is surrounded by woodland - a haven for disposal.
.   
It has been mentioned before that, SM after returning home from going out around 5.30pm - went back out again later that evening? Why does SL not mention this? Could and possibly was very innocent, why not mention it though? - Let others make up their mind?

The weather - CM spent a lot of her time in the garden that evening, it was overcast with low temperatures.
We know this as she claimed to have eaten her dinner outside after being cooped up all day.
We know this as LM stated that "how would you know if Jodi has been, you are in the garden" This was the call when he was heading into the Abbey after 7pm
How did he know his mother was in the garden? CM " Mia would let me know if Jodi was at the door"

If only you judged the slips and misremembering of other protagonists in the saga then you perhaps would reach a more evenhanded analysis of why the Mitchell’s recollections changed with time. The recollections of Jodi’s family are all over the place with statements changing by the day.

To the fire...the neighbour said he smelled the odour of burning around ten so why did CM wait so long to burn the clothes if, at any moment, Jodi could be found dead and the police could be at her door ?

Again and again you state claims as fact yet provided no evidence or context. Care to make your posts tidier?

[Nicholas]

Facts concerning the log burner -

There was a fire in the Mitchel garden that evening - The smell and the smoke was witnessed by the closest neighbours. - corroboration. Only two needed.
This fire, initially, was denied until evidence to the contrary was produced. - pretty standard with quite a lot of the evidence, denial until proved otherwise.

Parky on what dates are you suggesting the fires were denied and by who?

Luke Mitchell told the police at some point - his mother and brother had had a fire in the back garden in the night of the murder ⬇️

Para 154 (from CoA judgement)

‘The first of these replies is that at page 17 of the transcript concerning the fire at the log burner in the back garden on 30 June 2003. The appellant agreed that his mother and brother had had a fire. Looking at the questioning to which that reply was given, no unfairness strikes us as being involved. Furthermore, evidence of the existence of such a fire had been laid before the jury from Mr and Mrs Frankland and Mr Ramage

[faithlilly]

Parky on what dates are you suggesting the fires were denied and by who?

Luke Mitchell told the police at some point - his mother and brother had had a fire in the back garden in the night of the murder ⬇️

Good question.

[Nicholas]

Lets be real here - If you are using something to burn evidence, you are going to make sure any traces are removed at that crucial time. Would you really leave zips and the like behind.
Fires can be cooled rapidly - when this is done you get a lot of smoke and smell.- exactly what was witnessed.
We know LM stated he had stayed in when returning home from the Abbey - until evidence came forward from a neighbour who saw him going home around 10pm approx.
This housing estate is surrounded by woodland - a haven for disposal.

Did Luke Mitchell change his story after his neighbour gave evidence to say he’d witnessed seeing him walking past at around 10pm?

[Nicholas]

Facts concerning the log burner -

There was a fire in the Mitchel garden that evening - The smell and the smoke was witnessed by the closest neighbours. - corroboration. Only two needed.
This fire, initially, was denied until evidence to the contrary was produced. - pretty standard with quite a lot of the evidence, denial until proved otherwise.
School jotters and pampas grass was burned that week.

There were more than two witnesses to the fire in the Mitchell’s back garden on the night of the 30th June 2003 ⬇️


‘George Ramage, 37, a clerk of works, explains that his garden backs on to the Mitchells' garden in Dalkeith, Midlothian.

On June 30 last year Mr Ramage was doing some DIY in his kitchen and about 10pm took his tools out to the garage. He says:

'I became aware of burning because of the smoke... I could see it and smell it... coming from the Mitchell garden.
'Previously, they had barbecues. This was not a food smell. It was an unusual smell. It was not like burning wood or anything you normally burn.
'The only way I can put it is, it was an unusual smell. I made a comment to my wife along the lines of, 'It's a strange time to have a barbecue and if it's food, I certainly would not eat it.'

‘Another neighbour, Patricia Frankland, 41, tells the court that the Mitchells had a wood burner in their back garden which was used from time to time during the summer.
She says that she smelled smoke from it early in the evening of June 30, between 6.30 and 7.30pm, and again later.
Her husband, Nicholas, 41, says he also noticed a smell of smoke that evening.
He tells the court: 'It was fairly inconsequential because it happened from time to time.' 
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465

[Parky41]

Good question.

When someone has consistently attempted to refute evidence to the point of ridiculousness - is is safe to say that denial has taken place in the first instance of a fire. 
Are you letting us you know Faithlilly - that in those very first statements from the Mitchel family - they stated there was a fire that evening in the garden?
If so - why has this been continuously refuted over the years by those who campaign for innocence?

Evidence heard around this burning - around 7pm and again around 10pm.   


I have had this query given before - The risk of the police chapping the Mitchells door at any time that evening. 

The person who killed Jodi, knew there was slim to no chance of this girl being found over the course of the evening - proved to be correct - she wasn't.
The killer knew they had time on their hands for disposal of evidence.
The killer know that even IF this girl had been found by some dog walker/ person who was actually in the woods - there would more than ample time to identify who this girl was.
Substantial time - before there would be a chap at LM door - this chap would be that of enquiry - not suspicion at that point.
No search warrants just enquiries.

Let's be hypothetical - Chap by the police to enquire, information is given. The police notice there is a fire in the garden. What would that have changed?

Timescale for disposal - that is all. 

I mentioned above the facts around the log burner - are you saying this is wrong?
It was 4 days until it was taken away.
There is nothing either way to say this is all that was used for burning.
The bins were emptied the next day.
There was neither a police or media presence there 24/7

 
There may very well have been at the Jones house - In those first moments - it was their daughter/sister/grand-daughter that was murdered

[faithlilly]

When someone has consistently attempted to refute evidence to the point of ridiculousness - is is safe to say that denial has taken place in the first instance of a fire. 
Are you letting us you know Faithlilly - that in those very first statements from the Mitchel family - they stated there was a fire that evening in the garden?
If so - why has this been continuously refuted over the years by those who campaign for innocence?

Evidence heard around this burning - around 7pm and again around 10pm.   


I have had this query given before - The risk of the police chapping the Mitchells door at any time that evening. 

The person who killed Jodi, knew there was slim to no chance of this girl being found over the course of the evening - proved to be correct - she wasn't.
The killer knew they had time on their hands for disposal of evidence.
The killer know that even IF this girl had been found by some dog walker/ person who was actually in the woods - there would more than ample time to identify who this girl was.
Substantial time - before there would be a chap at LM door - this chap would be that of enquiry - not suspicion at that point.
No search warrants just enquiries.

Let's be hypothetical - Chap by the police to enquire, information is given. The police notice there is a fire in the garden. What would that have changed?

Timescale for disposal - that is all. 

I mentioned above the facts around the log burner - are you saying this is wrong?
It was 4 days until it was taken away.
There is nothing either way to say this is all that was used for burning.
The bins were emptied the next day.
There was neither a police or media presence there 24/7

 
There may very well have been at the Jones house - In those first moments - it was their daughter/sister/grand-daughter that was murdered

There was a fire in the wood burner on the night of the 30th of June. It was a summer evening, nothing had happened at that point to arouse any worry so having a fire in the wood burner probably on its own isn’t noteworthy. In fact one of the neighbours said it was inconsequential because it happened from time to time.

Having a wood burner myself once the fire dies down you put more logs or whatever you are burning on it, partly pampas grass and jotters in this case ( do the Scottish schools still break up around about the 30th of June ? Could that be why the jotters were being burned? ) and the smell gets stronger again, which may explain the smell both earlier and later in the evening. Further pampas grass would smell differently to logs when burned.

As to the Mitchell’s not mentioning the fire in their first statements, why would they? Why would they think it would warrant mentioning? Their family member’s girlfriend was dead, I’m sure the fact that they were having a fire didn’t enter their heads. Shane had helped a friend with his car on the night of the murder yet didn’t mention it in his first statement. Did that mean that he was hiding the information...no he simply forgot.

Did the Mitchell’s ever categorically deny that the wood burner was used that night? Luke certainly didn’t and if he was the master criminal you paint him to be that was certainly a bad slip.

What do you think of the dog’s dinner Jodi’s family’s timeline turned out to be? Jodi’s brother’s alibi was only corroborated by two members of his own family, his mum and stepfather, much like Luke.

[Nicholas]

Did the Mitchell’s ever categorically deny that the wood burner was used that night? Luke certainly didn’t and if he was the master criminal you paint him to be that was certainly a bad slip.

He did

What did he tell the public in his Sky interview ?  ⬇️

Transcript of Interview with James Matthews - SKY News on 3rd September 2003


JAMES MATTHEWS:   This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE:   No.  The burning clothes that wasn’t us.  They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.


JAMES MATTHEWS:   Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE:   No, not that we know of.

Para 154 (from CoA judgement)

‘The first of these replies is that at page 17 of the transcript concerning the fire at the log burner in the back garden on 30 June 2003. The appellant agreed that his mother and brother had had a fire.

[faithlilly]

He did

What did he tell the public in his Sky interview ?  ⬇️

‘JAMES MATTHEWS:   This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE:   No.  The burning clothes that wasn’t us.  They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.’

Very specific...’the burning of clothes’. Not ‘did you have a fire’ to which Luke admitted that he had in his interview.

[Nicholas]

‘JAMES MATTHEWS:   This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE:   No.  The burning clothes that wasn’t us.  They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.’

Very specific...’the burning of clothes’. Not ‘did you have a fire’ to which Luke admitted that he had in his interview.

Who does Mitchell mean by ‘they’ who is ‘they’?

And why did he choose to omit to answer the question about ‘a missing knife’?

[faithlilly]

Who does Mitchell mean by ‘they’ who is ‘they’?

And why did he choose to omit to answer the question about ‘a missing knife’?

No idea.

Luke did not deny having a fire in the garden and then changed his mind as I assume your cites were supposed to prove. He simply denied burning clothes.

[Nicholas]

Does Mitchell’s answer makes sense in respect of the context in which the question was asked?

‘The burning clothes that wasn’t us.  They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.

And who’s the ‘suspect’ he’s referring to?

[faithlilly]

Does Mitchell’s answer makes sense in respect of the context in which the question was asked?

‘The burning clothes that wasn’t us.  They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.

And who’s the ‘suspect’ he’s referring to?

Does it matter who ‘they’ are? What we do know from the quote is that Luke claimed that it wasn’t his family who were burning clothes and it has never been proved that it was.

[DanniCash]

Does it matter who ‘they’ are? What we do know from the quote is that Luke claimed that it wasn’t his family who were burning clothes and it has never been proved that it was.

So someone else was burning clothes in their log burner...?

[faithlilly]

So someone else was burning clothes in their log burner...?

I don’t think that I said that but thank you for your input.