The less talked about sighting on Newbattle Road by M O'Sullivan & D Hamilton...

[Brietta]

In your opinion!

I think it was also the opinion of the court which found Mitchell guilty of Jodi's particularly brutal murder.

[mrswah]

I think it was also the opinion of the court which found Mitchell guilty of Jodi's particularly brutal murder.

Of course, but juries don't always get it right, do they?

[Brietta]

Of course, but juries don't always get it right, do they?

In eighteen years there has been absolutely nothing to show that this jury didn't get it right.

[faithlilly]

Don't think there had been any incidents, but you just wouldn't want a young girl walking alone in such a remote area.

Absolutely. I can fully understand why JuJ didn’t want Jodi walking that path alone.

[faithlilly]

If Luke Mitchell was innocent he would have phoned Jodi much sooner to find out where she was. But he didn't do this because he knew she was dead. His protracted walk about on the main road was nothing more than a cynical attempt to deflect the blame and establish an alibi.

On the other hand he is being painted as clever and cunning so surely phoning again would have been exactly what he’d have done...to establish and alibi ?

[mrswah]

In eighteen years there has been absolutely nothing to show that this jury didn't get it right.

Many people disagree !

As for the jury, it was a majority verdict, so not even they all agreed.

[Brietta]

Many people disagree !

As for the jury, it was a majority verdict, so not even they all agreed.

Are you advocating a Kangaroo court in preference to a court properly constituted by the law of the land where evidence is presented and witnesses heard from both sides before decisions are made.

[mrswah]

Are you advocating a Kangaroo court in preference to a court properly constituted by the law of the land where evidence is presented and witnesses heard from both sides before decisions are made.

Not at all, just saying that juries dont always get it right, and I'm by no means confident that it did in this case.

[Brietta]

Not at all, just saying that juries dont always get it right, and I'm by no means confident that it did in this case.

Mitchell was tried in a properly constituted court.  He has had the opportunity to take all legal steps to have that verdict overturned.  He has tried.  He has failed.

Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' has already been covered in the 42 days it took to cover it all in his trial.

Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' is at variance with the evidence presented at Mitchell's trial.
If it is good enough to convince people who only know of the case through partisan presentations on the internet - why wasn't it good enough to assure his acquittal at trial.

The main plank of Mitchell's defence was alibi the other was incrimination.  Both of which were featured at his trial and both of which were found to be wanting.

What I really find the pits is the way in which Mitchell supporters have impugned Jodi's family and Jodi's mother - if that is the best they can come up with - they really don't have anything at all going for them and neither has Mitchell.

[Angelo222]

Mitchell was tried in a properly constituted court.  He has had the opportunity to take all legal steps to have that verdict overturned.  He has tried.  He has failed.

Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' has already been covered in the 42 days it took to cover it all in his trial.

Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' is at variance with the evidence presented at Mitchell's trial.
If it is good enough to convince people who only know of the case through partisan presentations on the internet - why wasn't it good enough to assure his acquittal at trial.

The main plank of Mitchell's defence was alibi the other was incrimination.  Both of which were featured at his trial and both of which were found to be wanting.

What I really find the pits is the way in which Mitchell supporters have impugned Jodi's family and Jodi's mother - if that is the best they can come up with - they really don't have anything at all going for them and neither has Mitchell.

Nicely put Brietta.  If Luke Mitchell had been home until 5.30pm with both his mother and brother then all they had to do was to say so.  There was no need for bluster or dramatics. Apparently that wasn't the case though. His mother and his brother couldn't agree so one of them is an out and out liar

[mrswah]

Mitchell was tried in a properly constituted court.  He has had the opportunity to take all legal steps to have that verdict overturned.  He has tried.  He has failed.

Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' has already been covered in the 42 days it took to cover it all in his trial.

Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' is at variance with the evidence presented at Mitchell's trial.
If it is good enough to convince people who only know of the case through partisan presentations on the internet - why wasn't it good enough to assure his acquittal at trial.

The main plank of Mitchell's defence was alibi the other was incrimination.  Both of which were featured at his trial and both of which were found to be wanting.

What I really find the pits is the way in which Mitchell supporters have impugned Jodi's family and Jodi's mother - if that is the best they can come up with - they really don't have anything at all going for them and neither has Mitchell.

I can't say I know much about "Mitchell supporters" speaking against Jodi's mother or her family. I don't take much notice of the "campaign team" (as I don't in the Bamber case either). I don't really like campaigns  or demos. Probably, I'm too old: the last time I went on a demo, was in the 1970's ("Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, out, out out) !!

However, I do like Sandra  Lean's book, and I can't believe it's full of lies. She might have made some mistakes, and  got some things wrong, but, if she was lying all the way through, she would have been called out by now. I know I get criticised for "promoting" her book (I call it "recommending"), but I happen to believe there is a lot in it that is worth considering.

i don't have a lot of faith in juries either.  Jurors are ordinary people, just like us lot on this forum. They have their agendas and prejudices.

Perhaps, i'm just a lost cause!

[Mr Apples]

There must have been an issue if Judy banned Jodi from walking Roan's Dyke alone.  Maybe something had happened in the past to another girl, anyone shed any light on this?  Had it anything to do with its proximity to Newbattle College?

As others have said, I don’t think Judith’s concerns were the result of anything bad that had happened to someone in the past on the path . . . just a mother’s natural protective instincts kicking in to a mile-long secluded path punctuated with woodland, crumbling stone walls & open fields. I certainly wouldn’t want my daughter walking any such path, and having recently watched a video on YT of the actual path itself this opinion is reinforced considerably; said video was shot in March when the trees, plants and vegetation were quite bare, so when Jodi was murdered (in the height of summer) the area would have been a lot more denser, thicker and in full bloom. Ideal conditions for a local to murder, conceal a body and get away and hide. But, it wasn’t Luke Mitchell who made the path dangerous — its location and natural terrain did.

[Mr Apples]

Just while I’m here, can someone answer these quick questions:

The carving in the woodland of LM & [Name removed]’s initials on the tree ... was it ascertained if the carving was done prior to the murder? Is it possible that LM did it after the murder, as a tribute, like he did with the knife pouch?

Was it ascertained/confirmed if LM was definitely wearing a green bomber jacket on the 30.06.03, both at school and later in the evening? What did the search trio say he was wearing that night? What did police, teachers and classmates say of this bomber jacket? Did this bomber jacket have a hood?

[Paranoid Android]

The carving in the woodland of LM & [Name removed]’s initials on the tree ... was it ascertained if the carving was done prior to the murder? Is it possible that LM did it after the murder, as a tribute, like he did with the knife pouch?

Good question - would be good to know when this was carved, and also the knife that was used to carve it.

[Parky41]

Good question - would be good to know when this was carved, and also the knife that was used to carve it.

Firstly - the area was cordoned off - the whole strip of woodland and the path for some time. Scouring for evidence. One would imagine if this carving was found some time after this murder, then it would have been used at trial to show this - Something the defence would have held onto. It was barely into any interviews with LM was it not? - that he was asked about this, and he then admitted to only being in the top of the woodland. Absolutely nothing to show that this happened after this murder. Another red herring, for what purpose - to say yet again that LM lied when he then admitted to frequenting the top of the woodland - prior to Jodi's murder?